BvS Ben Affleck IS Batman - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 39

Now let's not let facts get in the way of this debate.

 

Oh, I though we were having an actual discussion about this. My mistake. If you'd rather have some time alone with your strawman, I can give you some privacy.

 

Doesn't hurt that the Nolan/Bale movies were great all around. If BvS weren't pure dreck, more people would be willing to look past the gratuitous killing.

 

The Nolan films had a flawed (and largely confusing) relationship with Batman's ethics. Batman V Superman has an aggressively stupid relationship with Batman's ethics. One has nothing to do with the other though; I'm not sure why "Here is a list of times Batman has killed people" has become the standard response to discussion of Batman's ethics in BVS.

I don't feel like it should be necessary to preface such discussion with a detailed position on each and every bat-kill, but if a sourced list could be provided, I could probably make that happen. I'll grade them on an "Acceptibility" scale of 1-10 if that would allow the discussion to continue.

 

Batman kills, he is a beast, he is a bad mofo, he doesn't like criminals, deal with it. This is a movie about a criminal. He is a criminal. Make no mistake about it. The only difference between him and the rest is that he doesn't hurt inoccent people. He punishes those who do. That's Batman right there for ya.

 

Other than that one guy he spent 18 months plotting to kill for no good reason.

 

That's your opinion. I think his reasons were very understandable.

 

If your position is that the only difference between Batman and those he fights is that he refrains from killing innocents, you're in luck, because the filmmakers agree with you. I'm sincere when I say that I'm glad you enjoyed the film; I wish I had enjoyed it, also.

However, despite your persuasive argumentation, my position on Batman is rather different.

 

Batman wants to fight crime and protect the innocents. That's what he tries to do and that's what he does in pretty much every movie. Killing doesn't make him equal to those he fights. You need more than one thing in common in order to be equal to somebody. Batman does what he is supposed to do. Maybe the version of Batman they portray in the film is not your favourite, but it's still a valid one, like it or not.

 

I think that's where the whole film falls apart, really. Once they decided that Batman was going to try and kill Superman in response to the events of MOS, the script then required Batman to be a buffoon in order for it to function. Batman, who appears to actually be a detective in this film, spent 18 months fixated completely on Superman... but in that time managed to avoid learning anything meaningful about him.

 

You don't seem to be responding to anything I actually wrote.

 

It's the definition of contrived. The entire premise of the movie doesn't hold up under any scrutiny unless we accept that this version of Batman is an idiot.

 

What do you want me to respond to?

What are you expecting? A list of differences between Batman and the criminals he fights?

You honestly believe that the filmmakers think that Batman is equal to the criminals he fights minus the inoccent killing? What movie did you watch?Because in the movie i watched, Batman saves people and cares about the future of the world. He wants to protect the world against future threats that have the potential to destroy the entire planet and kill everyone. In what way is that equal, or even similar, to the agenda of the villains of this film?

 

You wrote:

..and I responded accordingly.

 

I didn't express myself correctly. But you still claimed that the filmmakers share that opinion. I wonder why. Maybe you didn't watch the movie? Maybe someone told you...

 

lol t:

Agreed.

You mean you not buy 1% chance Superman might go bad so kill him quickly lol.

 

The spirit of what I wrote is that the filmmakers agree with your interpretation of Batman, and that I don't. Why you find this so disagreeable is beyond me; it's a situation that will be very much to your advantage over the next few sequels.

I didn't realize I was required to flash my credentials. I saw the film twice in theatres and own the extended cut. If you require an exhaustive list of my Bat-credentials and a dissertation on Batman's ethics as they relate to this film, I'll have to start charging you my hourly rate. Failing that, I suggest you read my post history. I feel I've been fairly clear so far.

 

Yeah...

It's totally not understandable why a man obsessed with protecting people, that have lost so many people in his life, would wanna defeat an alien that already cost the lives of thousands of people, and one day might cost the lives of millions, without anyone being able to do ***** to stop him.

 

You wrote it. I was simply expecting that you tried to make any sense of it. But you obviously can't, since what you said is nothing more than a fallacy.

You own an extended cut? Damn! It cracks me up to see that people who don't like these movies are actually the ones enabling the studios to produce more of them. They don't like it, but they pay for it in the theaters, sometimes more than once, then they pay for the blu ray. Well, then you can't really complain. Thanks for your money.

 

The fact is that he could have, but the filmmaker made sure to tell us that everyone survived(miracly).

It's really not much different if Snyder had bothered to give us a news scene, where the reporter informed us that everyone Batman shot somehow survived. They're badly hurt, but they're alive. I bet now we could all say "well, Batman didn't kill anyone".

That's what Nolan did and that's even what Miller did in DKR. He makes Batman do stuff that could have easily killed any human, but then informs us that they all survived. It seems Snyder is just more honest and accepts the consequences.

 

I previously explained my statement. If you weren't satisfied with that explanation, that's not really my problem.

I see: so at first I was criticized for "not seeing the movie", and now I am criticized for seeing it "too much". Perhaps you should tell me how much I should watch it? You seem to be the arbiter of these things.

I am a lifelong DC Comics fan and supporter. I show up to the game even when I expect my team to lose. I saw the film twice because it's rather meaty and ambitious, and I wanted to give it a fair shake. I bought the extended cut because it was the only (legal) way to see the uncut version, and I wanted to assess for myself whether it improved the film, and to be able to discuss the film in a complete and reasoned manner.

A novel concept, perhaps.

 

Well, it's nice to see that you're supporting future Snyderverse movies. If there weren't people like you, we wouldn't have more of these horrible movies that portray Batman as a killer.

 

I don't think the movies are horrible. As I said before, Batman has killed in previous films before, it just wasn't made so obvious.

And I prefer that we have the current DCEU than having none.

 

Yeah! That's right! We don't want none of your old timer Batman who doesn't kill and isn't a bad mofo! We want a vicious killer Batman, who's a criminal and bad dude - coz that makes him cooler! He's soooooo tough and cool, and don't take no **** from anyone! He punishes people, dude! He's Batman!




....Jesus wept, I think I'm too old for this ****.

 

Sure he did - probably dozens of them during car chases, quite recklessly. That's an important contrast between Batfleck and Baleman: the former killed criminals with a degree of intent, the latter killed anyone except insane clowns and fat Tibetan farmers with complete indifference.