Ben Affleck or Christian Bale?

[Robin91939]

Me. It's the movie's job to try and sell me on Batman's actions, and it's my job to be the arbiter of what does or doesn't work, or what is or is not acceptable in my own experience.

More simply, if you radicalize an element of a character, it's not unreasonable for someone to say "Crap, you went too far."

I'm okay with Captain America shooting a an enemy combatant. I'm not okay with him, say, torturing a subdued enemy. I'm okay with Batman shooting the God of Evil in the shoulder. I'm not okay with him using lethal force on a security guard trying to stop him from burglarizing his place of work, or plotting to murder Superman, or intentionally throwing an already-incapacitated enemy into a live grenade.

I'm really, really not okay with it. I get that it doesn't violate the internal logic of the film, and I'm still really, really not okay with it. If you make me hate Batman, well, that's going to affect my filmgoing experience.

I understand most of this -- but the gripe about the grenade is really starting to bother me.

What did you want him to do?

The pin on the grenade was already pulled. It was either going to be thrown and blow Batman up, or it was going to be knocked out of the guy's hand and blow him up.

Batman didn't pull the pin on the grenade. He didn't BRING the grenade to the fight. The thug did. It is a self-inflicted wound and he dies because of his own action.

If he doesn't pull the pin on the grenade, he's still alive.

-R

 

[Saint]

What did you want him to do?

I wanted him to not throw a second, already incapacitated enemy into the guy holding the grenade, thus ensuring this second man would also die. I get that this is a pretty technical distinction, but I can't help what matters to me.

Sort of like when he dragged that enemy car behind him during the chase. "Okay, I already took these guys out of the fight, but I'm gonna drag them behind me and throw them at another car just to make really sure that they're dead."

Batman killed people in the TDK trilogy, and it was stupid because he never acknowledged that he was breaking his frequently stated rule. When Batman kills people in this film, though, it's stupid because he's a cruel, hate-filled psychopath who rejects virtually all the values I associate with the character.

 

[Robin91939]

I wanted him to not throw a second, already incapacitated enemy into the guy holding the grenade, thus ensuring this second man would also die. I get that this is a pretty technical distinction, but I can't help what matters to me.

Sort of like when he dragged that enemy car behind him during the chase. "Okay, I already took these guys out of the fight, but I'm gonna drag them behind me and throw them at another car just to make really sure that they're dead."

Batman killed people in the TDK trilogy, and it was stupid because he never acknowledged that he was breaking his frequently stated rule. When Batman kills people in this film, though, it's stupid because he's a cruel, hate-filled psychopath who rejects virtually all the values I associate with the character.

I see it as a relatively recent development for this Batman though. I don't think he was always killing criminals and being the "executioner".

He's definitely escalated his methods and Alfred's "turns good men cruel" speech is a bit of a hint at that.

Now that he's been inspired by Superman, I think we'll see him return to the more honorable hero that you know and that we all know.

And hopefully a solo film will show that it was Jason's death that pushed him over the edge and him coming to terms with the lives he took and how brutal he was.


If anything, I think the branding of criminals is symbolic of that in the film. And now, after being inspired by Superman, he doesn't brand or kill Lex. he is back to his tactics of fear and intimidation. Not killing.


-R

 

[DACrowe]

1. I think perception is stronger than fact in some situations. For example, The perception that Bale wanted to quit is stronger than the fact that he was actually pretty addicted to being Batman, even during the 8 year break.

2. I think for fans, faithfulness to surface details outweigh what I consider meaningful and likable characterization. I don't think Batfleck is a likable version of the character, nor did I find his storyarc meaningful. I learned my lesson from Andrew Garfield as Spidey. I used to think Garfield was a good as Maguire because Garfield's Spidey persona felt closer to the comics. Truth is, as many have noted, Garfield's Peter/Spidey is a pretty unlikable guy with bad characterization, which ultimately, IMO, wasn't like Peter when you get down to it. At times, Maguire may have been near mute in the suit, but he wouldn't break a dead man's promise to get into Gwen Stacy's pants.

Pretty much. I also think it shows most fans are easy to rationalize as long as it fits with their hype or preconceived enjoyment of something. For example, the expectation was Ben Affleck's Batman would be closer to the comics than Bale's. It was supposed to be definitive. Oh wait, he's a selfish killer with xenophobic tendencies? Well, he should be! The world is too dark for him not to kill often and happily!

Such is the mindset of fans. But when the newness wears off, objectivity will return, as seen with the distancing of the Garfield movies in the fan community these days.

 

[Saint]

I see it as a relatively recent development for this Batman though. I don't think he was always killing criminals and being the "executioner".

Yes, I understand his arc in the film. It doesn't make a huge difference for me. I'm not interested in a Batman who, through the unfortunate events of his life as suggested in this film, becomes cruel, hate-filled psychopath who rejects virtually all the values I associate with the character. For me, that's the kind of character Batman stops.

The Batman of this film is in line with Jean Paul Valley's Batman. Who, of course, Bruce Wayne stopped.

 

[DACrowe]

​

If they are going to be hard-headed and say that others who paid attention are wrong and condescendingly say that they should, "watch it again" then no. No, that person should see that they're wrong and their complaints are invalid.

And you know that a lot of th complaints this film has gotten or "questions" it all raises are almost all explicitly explained within the film. Either on screen or in dialogue.

Looks like a lot of the lack of understanding is a product of the ADD generation.


-R

Eh, I actually did admit I was wrong after someone who had seen the movie 4 times clearly corrected my perception from one viewing.

That does not change the fact that he intentionally moved a grenade into a room filled with people. Or that he opened up hellfire bullets on folks in the Batwing. Or that he shot the flamethrower's gas tank with the plan of killing a man.

The fact that you are so defensive and parsing exact words with "he didn't throw the grenade, he knocked it into the room" shows me that you on some level are aware that it is a characterization flaw, so you attack the detail while ignoring the larger argument.

 

[DACrowe]

Neither characterization is totally perfect.

Bale's Batman's actions led to deaths. And some of his actions (Talia and Harvey) he actively killed them.

Bale's Batman retired. He gave up being Batman. This is almost as against the characterization of Batman as killing is -- if not more.

Bale's Batman won. He didn't quit. He was desperately itching to be Batman again, but Gotham did not need him. The second it did he was back in the suit. Yes, he did retire at the end, but again he won, because he actually approached fighting crime as more than just beating up small time crooks. While that is the comic book version, it makes his Batman in some ways far more aware of how the world works, but most of all it made him compassionate.

He wanted to save people and his city. And he did. The Affleck Batman just wants to kill random people because he is bored with life.

 

[Robin91939]

Eh, I actually did admit I was wrong after someone who had seen the movie 4 times clearly corrected my perception from one viewing.

That does not change the fact that he intentionally moved a grenade into a room filled with people. Or that he opened up hellfire bullets on folks in the Batwing. Or that he shot the flamethrower's gas tank with the plan of killing a man.

The fact that you are so defensive and parsing exact words with "he didn't throw the grenade, he knocked it into the room" shows me that you on some level are aware that it is a characterization flaw, so you attack the detail while ignoring the larger argument.

Again, he didn't move a grenade into a room full of people. He STOPPED the grenade from being thrown at him in the larger room. Batman actually saved himself -- and the others in the larger room (of which there were more) by doing this. And again, Batman didn't pull the pin on the grenade. The thug did.

And no -- I'm not ignoring that this Batman does, in fact, kill. He does. But as I've stated numerous times, it's part of the characters arc and where he is in his career. And by the film's end, he is inspired to be the better hero he once was.

A Batman with a willingness to kill is not something new in the comics. Especially when the scene with the flamethrower is lifted almost directly out of The Dark Knight Returns in which Batman shoots and kills a mutant thug (You can see the mutant thug on the ground, dead, with his blood stained on the wall behind him).

I know the cool thing now is to hate on this graphic novel because Frank Miller has gone off the rails in recent years, but this is a seminal work and you cannot fault Zack Snyder for using this as inspiration.

Bale's Batman won. He didn't quit. He was desperately itching to be Batman again, but Gotham did not need him. The second it did he was back in the suit. Yes, he did retire at the end, but again he won, because he actually approached fighting crime as more than just beating up small time crooks. While that is the comic book version, it makes his Batman in some ways far more aware of how the world works, but most of all it made him compassionate.

He wanted to save people and his city. And he did. The Affleck Batman just wants to kill random people because he is bored with life.

I have no problem with the fact that the Nolan Batman only operated for little over a year. Or that he retires for good at the end of the series. Or that he went into retirement for 8 years during his tenure. I have no problem with it, because it made sense in his story arc and served the series of films. And they are my three favorite films of all time.

This is why I am willing to see where they take Affleck's Batman and his more brutal ways. It served his arc in this movie, and I'm sure it will continue to evolve as the films continue. He doesn't want to "kill random people because he is bored with life."

The hyperbole, man. The hyperbole.

He is a broken man who has lost his partner. He has a lone ally in Alfred. He is threatened by the existence of the Superman.

He is doubting that his whole 20 year crusade has meant anything. He is haunted by his past. He is paranoid.

Batman being paranoid has been a large part of his characterization for a long time and some of his best stories (Tower of Babel) are born out of his paranoia.

He has been pushed over the edge, and recently. He is now branding criminals and playing fast and loose with their lives. But by the film's end, he has given this up and is back to being the hero that he knows he should be. Superman inspires him to be a better man.

-R

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Me. It's the movie's job to try and sell me on Batman's actions, and it's my job to be the arbiter of what does or doesn't work, or what is or is not acceptable in my own experience.

More simply, if you radicalize an element of a character, it's not unreasonable for someone to say "Crap, you went too far."

I'm okay with Captain America shooting a an enemy combatant. I'm not okay with him, say, torturing a subdued enemy. I'm okay with Batman shooting the God of Evil in the shoulder. I'm not okay with him using lethal force on a security guard trying to stop him from burglarizing his place of work, or plotting to murder Superman, or intentionally throwing an already-incapacitated enemy into a live grenade.

I'm really, really not okay with it. I get that it doesn't violate the internal logic of the film, and I'm still really, really not okay with it. If you make me hate Batman, well, that's going to affect my filmgoing experience.

Agreed.

He is a broken man who has lost his partner. He has a lone ally in Alfred. He is threatened by the existence of the Superman.

He is doubting that his whole 20 year crusade has meant anything. He is haunted by his past. He is paranoid.

Batman being paranoid has been a large part of his characterization for a long time and some of his best stories (Tower of Babel) are born out of his paranoia.

He has been pushed over the edge, and recently. He is now branding criminals and playing fast and loose with their lives. But by the film's end, he has given this up and is back to being the hero that he knows he should be. Superman inspires him to be a better man.

-R

Those stupid reasons for that. Batman in comics lost Robin too and he not start going killing criminals after it happen. Batman never kill criminals because he feel a big world threat from someone. Ra's Al Ghul can destroy the world but Batman never go and kill all his men when he fight him.

Snyder doesn't understand Batman. He not understand Superman either.

 

[Robin91939]

Those stupid reasons for that. Batman in comics lost Robin too and he not start going killing criminals after it happen. Batman never kill criminals because he feel a big world threat from someone. Ra's Al Ghul can destroy the world but Batman never go and kill all his men when he fight him.

Snyder doesn't understand Batman. He not understand Superman either.

This is not the comics.

In the comics, Batman had someone after he lost Jason.

Tim came along and saved Bruce from himself.

In the late 80s/early 90s, when Tim came along, the reason he became Robin was because Bruce was getting sloppy and reckless. He was caring less about the danger he put himself in and was becoming increasingly more violent toward criminals.

Tim came along and gave Bruce hope and a reason to stop, think and be more cautious. Because it wasn't just his life he was risking, but Tim's as well.

Snyder's Batman has no Tim. Yet.
He has no one to help pull him out of the darkness. He has no one to inspire that hope.

Until he realizes the true heroism of Superman and witnesses his sacrifice.


Also, Bruce has no problem killing Superman because he doesn't view Superman as a human. He doesn't see his life as being worth anything. He's an alien. He's a threat. A threat that can't be stopped in anyway but through deadly force.

Again, this is very much a part of Bruce's character: his paranoia.

I don't see how Zack Snyder doesn't understand these heroes.

-R

 

[Doctor Octopus]

This is not the comics.

In the comics, Batman had someone after he lost Jason.

Tim came along and saved Bruce from himself.

In the late 80s/early 90s, when Tim came along, the reason he became Robin was because Bruce was getting sloppy and reckless. He was caring less about the danger he put himself in and was becoming increasingly more violent toward criminals.

Tim came along and gave Bruce hope and a reason to stop, think and be more cautious. Because it wasn't just his life he was risking, but Tim's as well.

Snyder's Batman has no Tim. Yet.
He has no one to help pull him out of the darkness. He has no one to inspire that hope.

Until he realizes the true heroism of Superman and witnesses his sacrifice.

I don't see how Zack Snyder doesn't understand these heroes.

-R

I know it not comics but it supposed to be based on characters from comics and this movie get them all wrong. For a period of time he not have a Robin after Jason die and not start killing criminals in that time. Batman not need a Robin to be human. He has father figure Alfred. He also supposed to have Commissioner Gordon as friend but Affleck Batman probably not friends with him because he a thug killer. Batman never need to see heroism to make him behave like true hero. Batman never lose his path like that. That why Snyder not get the characters. This is guy who think stupid things like it good idea to kill Jimmy Olsen after he only have one minute screen time lol.

 

[Robin91939]

I know it not comics but it supposed to be based on characters from comics and this movie get them all wrong. For a period of time he not have a Robin after Jason die and not start killing criminals in that time. Batman not need a Robin to be human. He has father figure Alfred. He also supposed to have Commissioner Gordon as friend but Affleck Batman probably not friends with him because he a thug killer. Batman never need to see heroism to make him behave like true hero. Batman never lose his path like that. That why Snyder not get the characters. This is guy who think stupid things like it good idea to kill Jimmy Olsen after he only have one minute screen time lol.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I didn't see Bruce as a thug at all.

Running headlong into a dust cloud as a building collapses in an attempt to save anyone he could -- that screams "hero."

He cared about each and every person who was being affected by the Black Zero event. You can tell he is broken, but there is a hero there.

"Men are still good."

And so is this Batman.

-R

 

[Wildcard]

Bale's Batman won. He didn't quit. He was desperately itching to be Batman again, but Gotham did not need him. The second it did he was back in the suit. Yes, he did retire at the end, but again he won, because he actually approached fighting crime as more than just beating up small time crooks. While that is the comic book version, it makes his Batman in some ways far more aware of how the world works, but most of all it made him compassionate.

He wanted to save people and his city. And he did. The Affleck Batman just wants to kill random people because he is bored with life.

Not true at all considering Affleck's Batman was concerned with the state of the entire world & was taking actions in securing ways to keep Earth safe, even if he was paranoid in his way of doing it.

To be honest, both versions can be seen as noble for varying reasons. As brilliantly stated above, Bale's Batman was always concerned with Gotham, wanting to improve it beyond just locking up small time hoods. And Affleck's Batman wants to make sure the world over is safe considering an all powerful alien is now living within it.

 

[Verick808]

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I didn't see Bruce as a thug at all.

Running headlong into a dust cloud as a building collapses in an attempt to save anyone he could -- that screams "hero."

He cared about each and every person who was being affected by the Black Zero event. You can tell he is broken, but there is a hero there.

"Men are still good."

And so is this Batman.

-R

He was even taking care of employees affected by the event. Handing out checks to them and their families. This guy may not like criminals but he cares about people in general.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

Not true at all considering Affleck's Batman was concerned with the state of the entire world & was taking actions in securing ways to keep Earth safe, even if he was paranoid in his way of doing it.

lol and Ra's al ghul say he concerned about well being of the world so he need to kill millions of people to save it. Killers make up noble excuses so to justify killing. Ben Batman liked killing criminals.

 

[Wildcard]

He was even taking care of employees affected by the event. Handing out checks to them and their families. This guy may not like criminals but he cares about people in general.

Let's not forget him going all the way to Metropolis in the first place. He didn't have to put himself in danger, but he did. And he did it without any hesitation. Not even a second thought about it.

 

[schereZada]

Bale's Batman retired. He gave up being Batman. This is almost as against the characterization of Batman as killing is -- if not more.

It's not just that he retired, it's that that was the only thing he wanted. At the end of Batman Begins he told Rachel so and that kept going during TDK (and achieved it in TDKR). He just wanted to retire so he could be with Rachel.

 

[Wildcard]

lol and Ra's al ghul say he concerned about well being of the world so he need to kill millions of people to save it. Killers make up noble excuses so to justify killing. Ben Batman liked killing criminals.

That's a terrible comparison considering one killed criminals (killers, rapists, etc.) & the other is completely okay with sacrificing even the most innocent of people (even children) to further his goal.

Your comparison is not valid.

 

[The Joker]

Batman also retires in DKR because the government outlaws superheroes. Only Superman remains because he allies himself with the government. It's a very similar reason to the Dent Act in Rises. They're both political measures that effectively remove Batman's reason for being.

Except Batman being an outlaw has never stopped him doing his job before. While having no crime to fight effectively renders Batman useless. So in that regard Bale's is more valid.

Me. It's the movie's job to try and sell me on Batman's actions, and it's my job to be the arbiter of what does or doesn't work, or what is or is not acceptable in my own experience.

More simply, if you radicalize an element of a character, it's not unreasonable for someone to say "Crap, you went too far."

I'm okay with Captain America shooting a an enemy combatant. I'm not okay with him, say, torturing a subdued enemy. I'm okay with Batman shooting the God of Evil in the shoulder. I'm not okay with him using lethal force on a security guard trying to stop him from burglarizing his place of work, or plotting to murder Superman, or intentionally throwing an already-incapacitated enemy into a live grenade.

I'm really, really not okay with it. I get that it doesn't violate the internal logic of the film, and I'm still really, really not okay with it. If you make me hate Batman, well, that's going to affect my filmgoing experience.

It's not just that he retired, it's that that was the only thing he wanted. At the end of Batman Begins he told Rachel so and that kept going during TDK (and achieved it in TDKR). He just wanted to retire so he could be with Rachel.

It was not the only thing he wanted. He wanted to save Gotham. That was his primary goal. Then he was going to retire. Just like comic book Batman. Want to see the scan again?

What did he say to Rachel at the end of Begins? Quote the lines please. Word for word.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

That's a terrible comparison considering one killed criminals (killers, rapists, etc.) & the other is completely okay with sacrificing even the most innocent of people (even children) to further his goal.

Your comparison is not valid.

It same principle and is valid. Killers make up excuse to kill for what they think is greater good. Batman not need to kill all those criminals to get job done. If he did then he no good as Batman. He do it because he want to.

 

[DeadPresident]

Lol so the dichotomy here is Batman either doesn't kill because it's his rule, or he kills because he wants to? Come on people, surely you have an IQ over 100 and can try and entertain some options in the middle. I'm not a fan of them writing him so he breaks his rule, but at the same time a lot of you are stretching and reaching to make it seem as horrifying as possible.

In my eyes this Batman took the "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" mantra to the extreme. If he encounters criminals that bring grenades to fights he's going to make sure he survives and completes his objective, whatever else happens, happens. If the thugs get in his way and try and use lethal force against him and they die in the process it's not the same as him murdering some pickpocket. Some of you make it sound like he looks for a way to kill each and every criminal he encounters.

 

[Wildcard]

Lol so the dichotomy here is Batman either doesn't kill because it's his rule, or he kills because he wants to? Come on people, surely you have an IQ over 100 and can try and entertain some options in the middle. I'm not a fan of them writing him so he breaks his rule, but at the same time a lot of you are stretching and reaching to make it seem as horrifying as possible.

In my eyes this Batman took the "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" mantra to the extreme. If he encounters criminals that bring grenades to fights he's going to make sure he survives and completes his objective, whatever else happens, happens. If the thugs get in his way and try and use lethal force against him and they die in the process it's not the same as him murdering some pickpocket. Some of you make it sound like he looks for a way to kill each and every criminal he encounters.

Love this post. Couldn't have said it better myself.

While Batman did take it to the extreme in BvS, it's not like he went all Punisher-style with the criminals. Had he done so, things would've been even more visceral.

 

[schereZada]

It was not the only thing he wanted. He wanted to save Gotham. That was his primary goal. Then he was going to retire. Just like comic book Batman. Want to see the scan again?

What did he say to Rachel at the end of Begins? Quote the lines please. Word for word.

My mistake here. It was the script that included the lines where he tells Rachel Batman is something he just can give up:

Spoiler

Nolan stretched that a bit. Rachel tells Bruce when Batman is no longer needed then she can see the man she loves. Next time they meet, Bruce is already working on his quitting.

Now of course Batman's mission is to save the city, otherwise he wouldn't have become Batman to start with. Save it from what, though? Scarecrow and Falcone? Done. Ah, but then Ra's comes from the grave. Ok, done again. Oh, then there's Joker. Done. Then two dozens of gangsters. Then there's Two Face. Ok, Gotham is finally saved. No, wait, then there's Bane... Bruce Wayne knows that Batman will always be needed because crime is not something you just defeat forever. That's why he wants a replacement, namely Harvey Dent. He needs a replacement because he wants to quit before Rachel gets bored of his game. If Rachel weren't his priority, then he just wouldn't ever consider to quit and would have told Rachel, "Sorry, hun, this is my mission in life."

 

[The Joker]

My mistake here. It was the script that included the lines where he tells Rachel Batman is something he just can give up.

Nolan stretched that a bit. Rachel tells Bruce when Batman is no longer needed then she can see the man she loves. Next time they meet, Bruce is already working on his quitting.

Nolan didn't stretch it. He changed it. There's a big difference between Rachel and Bruce saying those words. Rachel says maybe one day when Gotham no longer needs Batman, they'll be together. Bruce doesn't say anything about giving up.

Now of course Batman's mission is to save the city, otherwise he wouldn't have become Batman to start with. Save it from what, though? Scarecrow and Falcone? Done. Ah, but then Ra's comes from the grave. Ok, done again. Oh, then there's Joker. Done. Then two dozens of gangsters. Then there's Two Face. Ok, Gotham is finally saved. No, wait, then there's Bane... Bruce Wayne knows that Batman will always be needed because crime is not something you just defeat forever. That's why he wants a replacement, namely Harvey Dent. He needs a replacement because he wants to quit before Rachel gets bored of his game. If Rachel weren't his priority, then he just wouldn't ever consider to quit and would have told Rachel, "Sorry, hun, this is my mission in life."

Save it from organized crime, of course. That's what was crippling the city. Which he starts with by bringing down Falcone. Then the larger threat of Ra's appears. He stops that.

Jump ahead to the sequel. He's still fighting to bring down the rest of the mob. Only his presence in the city has had a negative impact. He's inspired murderous copycat vigilantes. And escalation with the Joker. That's why he looks to Harvey Dent, because he believes Dent is a better hero for Gotham than Batman can be. A hero with a face, without a mask. But he doesn't just hand the reins over to Harvey. He first makes Harvey prove himself by getting him Lau and seeing can he deliver the goods. Which he does. Harvey locks up half of the city's criminals.

It was all for the benefit of Gotham. Rachel never came into the equation in any of this. She's dead by the time TDKR rolls around. He comes back again as Batman when he's needed because of the threat of Bane. He is always Batman when he needs to be. His Batman crusade is not predicated on anything to do with Rachel. There's no evidence in the movies, verbal or otherwise, to support that it was.

 

[The Batman]

I said earlier in the thread that Bale was the better Bruce Wayne, but Affleck the better Batman. Do you think that's fair to say? I've said before that I think Batfleck's costume (not the armored one) is the best superhero suit we've ever seen on film, and as superficial as that may sound, it goes a long way in making me love every second he's suited up on screen.

It's your opinion, so it's more than fair to say. What isn't fair to say, IMO, is something stupid like "Bale Batman quit for 8 years because of Rachel".

I would have to disagree that Affleck was a better Batman, even if he has a more comic accurate suit.