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

Batman in this movie is not a bad dude. He is just not a sissy afraid to pull the trigger. Terrorists put themselves in situations where they might get killed. Batman didn't force them to be heavy armed criminals. He simply stopped them. And by stopping them, he is actually helping society, on a practical level.

It's hypocrital to think that any version of Batman can exist and fight crime at this level without killing anyone. The only difference between this version and any other more "ethic" version is that here the writer and the director don't go through all the gymnastic necessary to convince people that everyone survives Batman's crazy stunts. What a wonderful world that must be. He flips 2 or 3 police cars, no one dies. He flips a giant truck, no one dies. He explodes cars in a parking lot, there's no one near that could die. He blows up a monastery, maybe nobody died.

See the hypocrisy here? Pretty much everything he does in the TDK trilogy, among so many comic books, could very easily kill people. The problem is that nobody touches the subject, or makes it evident for the viewer. Some of them even go out of their way to tell the audience that nobody died. Snyder could have easily done the same. Yeah, because, you know, people can survive gun shots and explosions.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the way Snyder portrayed Batman. In the 30's Batman used to be much more brutal towards criminals. Snyder didn't invent Batman killing. Comics did. Do you know why they created the no killing rule? To make more profit. Make the comics more kid friendly and be able to make Joker stories(among others) over and over and over. It wouldn't be profitable for them to simply kill off popular characters. It's better to keep them alive so they could easily return.

Now, if you prefer the Batman who doesn't kill, that's your problem. Everyone has their own preferences. But the idea that Snyder doesn't get Batman because he makes him kill is absurd.

How ******ed is it for a character to be so concerned with human life but then put the lives of so many people in danger? The guy has had i don't know how many teenagers fighting for him, for god's sake. A couple of them died. But you think he should be too concerned about the life of a rapist or a serial killer? Why? That's absolutely nonsensical. That's great for kids who still believe in santa claus.

 

It is absolutely useless to assert and keep on asserting that, for example, Bale's Batman killed cops, especially when everyone who has actually paid attention to those films knows there is no factual evidence of Bale doing so. But there is a desire to show that past Batmen are similar to Affleck.

 

So he's a sissy if he doesn't use a gun?

You mean the ability & talent to write a decent story that makes a virtue out of his no killing policy?

You pro-kill lot love to trot out TDK and very early Batman comics to back up your argument, don't you? Never mind that pesky 70+ years of character history.

Except that he makes him a stupid thug intent on killing Superman for no good reason.

There are plenty of reasons why Snyder doesn't get Batman. His cheerfully indiscriminate attitude towards killing is just one of them.

You miss the point of the no kill policy by such a wide mark it's quite hilarious.

Batman doesn't stop himself from killing because he cares about rapists and serial killers. He does it because he knows how easy it would be for him.

He knows that he is capable of far more horror, pain and death than any of his rogues gallery. There's a darkness and a brutality inside him that if he lets it out it will consume him and turn him into the worst monster imaginable.

Batman doesn't kill because he's afraid of what would happen to him if he does. The only person Batman is truly scared of is himself.

THAT'S why the no kill rule is vital. It informs the character, and elevates him above other costumed vigilantes like the Punisher.



....But given the fact you think it's cooler for him to be a one dimensional murderer, and obviously don't pay a lick of attention to the character developed over decades of comic books, we'll just leave this conversation right here.

 

The difference to me is Bale's Batman was more a soldier. He was fighting a war, he was using violence and there was some collateral damage. But he vowed never to become an executioner. Ben's Batman was very much an executioner. His character motivation from the onset of the film is murder.

What makes it silly to argue that what Snyder presented in BvS was any sort of definitive take on the character is that even the film itself is at least trying to portray a redemption arc for a Batman that had gone too far, and future DC films are going to walk this back and present a more noble, less extreme Batman. We've already seen hints of this in SS.

So the only real argument for the way Batman operates in BvS is if you point out the redemption arc. I can still say that I don't care to ever see Batman portrayed that way, redemption arc or not, but that's at least true and something I can't argue with (I'll even overlook how murder-y he is after the MARTHA scene). Trying to tear down the previous incarnations of the character just to prop up Batfleck is where the argument loses all credibility.

 

He is a sissy if he is afraid to kill scum.

There's no talent or virtue in writting scenes that include Batman blowing up houses and causing traffic accidents and then claiming nobody died, just so they don't piss off the audience. That's not talent, that's damage control.

That 70 years of character story shows that there is no definitive Batman and the character is always changing depending on the writer. You can like whatever you wanna like. Just don't act like only your personal preferences are valid.

No. He makes him a tired, frustrated and obsessed man who can't deal with the idea of being powerless against someone who one day might lead to the death of millions. He makes him a real human, with flaws, psychologically scarred from a lifetime of pain and losses. A lifetime of being obsessed with other people's safety without fully being able to protect them. Snyder made Batman a person, not a flawless cartoon. Real people fall. Real people fail. Real people have bad judgement. It doesn't matter if you agree with his reasons or not. You're not the character. He has his reasons and they're fully explained in the movie.

You're wrong. Batman kills mostly in situations of imminent danger, like when he has someone shooting at him or ready to blow him up. There were people in the movie he didn't kill, so he doesn't simply kill anyone he fights.

No, i don't. That's the explanation comics give you, and you just ate it up.

So, Batman doesn't kill because it would be too easy. So, he prefers to let them live to keep killing more people just because he wants a challenge? He want it not to be too easy? That's nonsensical and goes highly against his main goal, which is simply to protect people and stop crime.

He doesn't wanna kill. He doesn't wanna go down that path. What path? The path of killing nasty criminals? Because what? That would make him like them? Because that's the only difference between them and Batman, right? I thought there were a lot more things that separated both.

You see, that doesn't make any sense. Not only that doesn't make any sense, but he doesn't even really follow that rule anywhere. They just choose not to talk about all the people who die from Batman's crazy stunts, or they pretend nobody died. If you paid close attention to what Batman does in movies, comics and cartoons, you would know that he is most likely killing human beings. But they just pretend he isn't, so the farce can continue.

I think it's cooler for the writters not to hide what he really is, which is a human with limited abilities and many flaws who fights highly dangerous criminals who he would never be able to beat without using lethal force. It«s as simple as that. That's not being one dimensional. That's actually the contrary of that and a lot more interesting than a character who can basically do anything he wants and because of that never has his hands dirty. That's way too much perfection for my tastes. but i will admit that it is good for kids.

 

i agree.
i hated how they kept repeating 'abandoned area' during Doomsday fight or pretended Superman didn't kill Warlord even though he obviously did.

 

Exactly. Hate that *****.

 

Rumour: Lucasfilm casting "Han Solo's wife" for the new Anthology film?

http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/2016/08/16/report-star-wars-film-franchise-may-be-casting-han-solos-wife/

 

Wrong thread

 

Or is it?

 

Only if she's called Martha.

 

Hahaha, and I'm out.

 

Ah ****, that's what I get for having a jillion tabs open, I guess.

 

Sickening.

 

Agreed.

lol he just talking silly.

 

There's a difference between having to kill someone in a desperate situation, people getting killed unintentionally because of your actions and murder. TDKT did the 1st 2. BvS did the last. Murder does make him a bad guy. You want a sissified murdering character. You don't want the actual defined Batman character. If you want a movie where a bad guy is the main character, watch a horror movie. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

 

Wait, so if Batman kills, he is the bad guy? He killed because of the necessity, you think if he didn't kill those guys at the warehouse they would've spared him? It's difficult most of the time to hurt someone without killing him. It's only that he has the rule that make people go crazy about him killing.

Did you think Hulk is the bad guy and you were watching a horror movie with TIH? What about the Matrix and Neo? Indiana Jones killing Nazis? Iron Man (he surely intentionally killed those terrorists in Gulmira)?

Jeez... get over with this.

 

They didn't need to have spared him. He wasn't in danger. He was also the instigator. The Hulk is a thoughtless monster often acting in defense. The others, if they actively seek out and murder people when they're no immediate threat to them or others, yes, they're bad guys. Maybe not as bad as those they're murdering, but still bad.

 

If we go by that logic he should kill every crook he meets because none of them would spare him if given the chance.

Superheroes with powers strong enough to lift cars or level buildings can hurt criminals all the time without killing them - Spider-Man, Superman etc. The day Batman can't take on a bunch of gun toting thugs without stacking up a body count is the day he needs to hang up his cowl.

 

i'm ok with warehouse scene, it's the Batmobile chase that i have problem with.

 

Desperate situation? Dude, you're really analysing this from your couch. Any situation where you have people shooting at you is a desperate situation. Batman doesn't have to kill anyone but he chooses to put himself in a situation where he might have to. Everyone Batman killed in BvS was in self defense. If that makes him "bad", then soldiers are bad too, cops are bad too. They also kill.

 

Agreed.

Batplane scene bad too.

 

again, if a cop kills some criminals to steal from them, that is not self defense, that's straight up murder.
that's exactly what Batman did during the Batmobile chase scene.

 

At least he wasn't flipping police cars like he did in TDK trilogy. Everyone he killed was a bad dude. There were no innocents being tossed around.

What's your point? Batman is a criminal? He is. He operates outside the law. But if killing a rapist, a serial killer or a terrorist with the intent of stopping them from doing whatever bad they're doing makes him a bad guy, then cops and soldiers are bad guys too, since that's exactly what they do. They stop bad guys, and if the bad guy shows much resistence, they might kill him too. The difference is what they do is considered "legal". Doesn't make it right. Only makes it legal. Soldiers steal, soldiers kill, soldiers invade. That's all legal. Batman's job isn't that much different. He simply isn't recognized or authorized by the government, but at the end of the day, the purpose is the same.

 

Agreed. No excuse for murders he did there. It not surprise Kevin Conroy not like this movie for that.