Ben Affleck or Christian Bale?

[OcStat]

Nope.

Every single person he killed on the way to Martha was a kill in the service of saving Martha.

If the guys outside with their machinegun had killed Batman, or even stopped him...Martha would have been dead. The thugs inside?same deal. Many of those kills were also self defense.

So Batman can just kill anyone in his way as long as he has a goal? Sounds like the Punisher to me. Read what you wrote again, "Every Single Person He Killed", as in, he did not kill just one guy wearing a flame thrower, in that scene. That's not even including the casualties in the other scenes.

 

[The Guard]

So Batman can just kill anyone in his way as long as he has a goal? Sounds like the Punisher to me. Read what you wrote again, "Every Single Person He Killed", as in, he did not kill just one guy wearing a flame thrower, in that scene. That's not even including the casualties in the other scenes.

I did not say "Anyone in his way".
I said "In self defense".

When he kills in the movie he is being blasted at with machine guns, etc.

We're not arguing whether Batman should kill as a character.

The statement I made was in the context of people excusing Nolan's Batman for killing because of these reasons, not a diatribe about whether Batman should kill for any reason.

I don't like when Batman kills either.

People, please stop parroting this goalpost moving argument over and over in response to any mention of the word "kill" or discussion of why Batman kills in this movie or other movies. It's not an original thought anymore.

 

[Bruce Malone]

This definitely was Batman by way of the Punisher.

 

[The Guard]

In regard to Batman quitting, most comics show that he would like to, but will not do so as long as crime plagues Gotham.

It is incredibly unrealistic that no crime plagued Gotham just because the Dent Act worked. So when Bruce quit at the end of THE DARK KNIGHT, that did in fact go against most classic and modern versions of the character.

That is not to say Batman would not like to quit in many versions. He simply cannot bring himself to do so.

 

[OcStat]

I did not say "Anyone in his way".
I said "In self defense".

When he kills in the movie he is being blasted at with machine guns, etc.

We're not arguing whether Batman should kill as a character.

The statement I made was in the context of people excusing Nolan's Batman for killing because of these reasons, not a diatribe about whether Batman should kill for any reason.

I don't like when Batman kills either.

People, please stop parroting this goalpost moving argument over and over in response to any mention of the word "kill" or discussion of why Batman kills in this movie or other movies. It's not an original thought anymore.

Batman gets blasted by machine guns every other day. Nolan's Batman racked up a few bodybags, but not nearly as many as this one did in one movie, with less screen time. And when he didn't have to kill, he didn't kill. The goalposts are clearly defined. It's not ok. But it does happen. When it happens it should be under extreme circumstances and not just because it looks cool.

And the topic isn't going anywhere soon, it is a big deal. It's a fundamental aspect of Batman. I don't think the goalposts have moved at all, but there seems to be a new rationale every other post for what went down in this film. The criticism is justified. If you don't want to talk about it, don't. But if you feel the need to defend it, get ready to be doing so for a long while.

 

[bbasher]

Isn't Anatoli, KGBeast? If so then he isn't dead and will have cybernetic enhancements. Scratch that off the death toll by Batfleck.

 

[The Guard]

...

I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out that there is no difference in why this Batman killed and why Nolans killed.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

This definitely was Batman by way of the Punisher.

Agreed. Punisher in Batman costume.

Batman gets blasted by machine guns every other day. Nolan's Batman racked up a few bodybags, but not nearly as many as this one did in one movie, with less screen time. And when he didn't have to kill, he didn't kill. The goalposts are clearly defined. It's not ok. But it does happen. When it happens it should be under extreme circumstances and not just because it looks cool.

And the topic isn't going anywhere soon, it is a big deal. It's a fundamental aspect of Batman. I don't think the goalposts have moved at all, but there seems to be a new rationale every other post for what went down in this film. The criticism is justified. If you don't want to talk about it, don't. But if you feel the need to defend it, get ready to be doing so for a long while.

Agreed. Batman face guys with gun and grenades and bazookas and lots of dangerous weapons every day. It normal for him and he not need to kill them to beat them. He not be a true Batman if he need to that. Affleck kill because he want to. Not because he need to. He just a thug.

 

[DKDetective]

I'll always love DKR as a satire, but I am definitely "over" that version of Batman.

I enjoy that version of the character in the context of the story and as an extreme Batman in an extreme world. (The problem with TDKR Batman, which I think you are getting at, is that he is not a definitive Batman nor is he supposed to be.) Ideally, that is what Affleck's Batman should have been as a Batman pushed to his limits. The problem is they went so far beyond that. TDKR Batman was still fundamentally Batman, grizzled and a bit extreme, but still Batman. This one is more Punisher than Batman. He didn't kill or brand people for death, even when the US government sent Superman to take him out. He instead faked his death, and gave up much of his life in order to go underground and continue his mission.

Also, might I say that the TDKR characterization references in this film mainly seem to miss the point. Bruce drinks in TDKR as a way to quiet his demons and numb himself out, so he can stay retired. The drunken, womanizing Bruce in this film has no basis in the comics whatsoever for an active Batman. It's a decent characterization of James Bond though (certainly wears better tailored clothing than our current Bond), especially considering there were more espionage scenes in this film than most recent Bond films.

 

[OcStat]

...

I'm not defending it. I'm pointing out that there is no difference in why this Batman killed and why Nolans killed.

Ok, if you say so. Plenty of people have shown there is a difference, in why and how.

I enjoy that version of the character in the context of the story and as an extreme Batman in an extreme world. (The problem with TDKR Batman, which I think you are getting at, is that he is not a definitive Batman nor is he supposed to be.) Ideally, that is what Affleck's Batman should have been as a Batman pushed to his limits. The problem is they went so far beyond that. TDKR Batman was still fundamentally Batman, grizzled and a bit extreme, but still Batman. This one is more Punisher than Batman. He didn't kill or brand people for death, even when the US government sent Superman to take him out. He instead faked his death, and gave up much of his life in order to go underground and continue his mission.

Also, might I say that the TDKR characterization references in this film mainly seem to miss the point. Bruce drinks in TDKR as a way to quiet his demons and numb himself out, so he can stay retired. The drunken, womanizing Bruce in this film has no basis in the comics whatsoever for an active Batman. It's a decent characterization of James Bond though (certainly wears better tailored clothing than our current Bond), especially considering there were more espionage scenes in this film than most recent Bond films.

I had a gut feeling when the details first started rolling out that an adaptation of the TDKR Batman as a first appearance for a franchise was a mistake and feel like I was right in that assumption.

 

[DKDetective]

Ok, if you say so. Plenty of people have shown there is a difference, in why and how.

I had a gut feeling when the details first started rolling out that an adaptation of the TDKR Batman as a first appearance for a franchise was a mistake and feel like I was right in that assumption.

While I agree with that thought, that is not what we got here so we can't say that is why it is a problem. This is Flashpoint Thomas Wayne Batman, not TDKR Batman. Bale's Batman in Rises had just as much TDKR Batman in him as this one (other than appearance).

 

[Light]

This is an easy decision, Affleck easily this isn't much of a competition. Affleck looked like Bruce Wayne and was freaking Batman. Bales best Bruce and Batman performance was in Batman Begins after that it was all downhill.

 

[gdw]

Regarding the machine gun sweep, that seemed like he was directing the thugs fire, and using it as suppressive fire.
I don't think anyone was hit, but everyone else hit the deck, and stopped shooting at him.

That doesn't change the fact that he gunned down all the guys outside.

As for KGBeast, yeah, he's dead, at least til they retcon it to bring him back.
The easily could have/hshould have done the same thing they did with Crossbones at the end of TWS.
But no, Snyder wanted Batman to kill because "he did it other movies."

The Knightmare sequence killing doesn't bother me, nor the gun use, at least if you remove the rest of the killing.
If Batman actually abided by his no kill rule, and they made his inner turmoil about crossing that line to stop the potential future threat of Superman, then the Knightmare sequence has more gravitas, and is about both the fear of an unchecked Superman, AND the dangers of Batman letting himself cross that line.

Instead we get a Batman would is insanely careless, killing everyone in his way during the chase scene, and gunning down the people outside the warehouse.

The worst part about the killing is that you could have cut ALL of the killing, and it would not have changed a god damn thing. That means it was literally pointless.
The definition of gratuitous.

That said, everything else about this Batman was so damned perfect. Which makes the killing that much more egregious, and insulting.

 

[OcStat]

While I agree with that thought, that is not what we got here so we can't say that is why it is a problem. This is Flashpoint Thomas Wayne Batman, not TDKR Batman. Bale's Batman in Rises had just as much TDKR Batman in him as this one (other than appearance).

True it was more of an "inspired by" than straight adaptation. Though the fact that they took some bits and pieces from that story for the last Batman movie also gave me reservations when they decided they wanted to go that route again. The end product is remarkably different when you compare the two films, but I just don't think it was a smart move to start a new franchise with the older, grizzled Batman coming right off of a movie about an older Batman.

 

[Gold Samurai]

He's this generation's Superman.

I can't wait for the next generation Captain America who doesn't want to serve the armed forced and breaks peoples backs.

 

[The Guard]

Regarding the machine gun sweep, that seemed like he was directing the thugs fire, and using it as suppressive fire.
I don't think anyone was hit, but everyone else hit the deck, and stopped shooting at him.

That doesn't change the fact that he gunned down all the guys outside.

As for KGBeast, yeah, he's dead, at least til they retcon it to bring him back.
The easily could have/hshould have done the same thing they did with Crossbones at the end of TWS.
But no, Snyder wanted Batman to kill because "he did it other movies."

The Knightmare sequence killing doesn't bother me, nor the gun use, at least if you remove the rest of the killing.
If Batman actually abided by his no kill rule, and they made his inner turmoil about crossing that line to stop the potential future threat of Superman, then the Knightmare sequence has more gravitas, and is about both the fear of an unchecked Superman, AND the dangers of Batman letting himself cross that line.

Instead we get a Batman would is insanely careless, killing everyone in his way during the chase scene, and gunning down the people outside the warehouse.

The worst part about the killing is that you could have cut ALL of the killing, and it would not have changed a god damn thing. That means it was literally pointless.
The definition of gratuitous.

That said, everything else about this Batman was so damned perfect. Which makes the killing that much more egregious, and insulting.

He's clearly firing over their heads in the warehouse, forcing them down.

He most certainly does not kill everyone in his way during the car chase.

And Nope. You couldn't say nothing would have changed. His violent, reckless nature would have changed. You can't call a modern version of Batman broken and lost just because he's branding people. It wouldn't have been enough. He has to have taken things too far.

Even in relation to other versions of the character.

 

[The Guard]

Isn't Anatoli, KGBeast? If so then he isn't dead and will have cybernetic enhancements. Scratch that off the death toll by Batfleck.

Heh.

 

[hafizbat]

While I agree with that thought, that is not what we got here so we can't say that is why it is a problem. This is Flashpoint Thomas Wayne Batman, not TDKR Batman. Bale's Batman in Rises had just as much TDKR Batman in him as this one (other than appearance).

Spot on.

 

[DACrowe]

In regard to Batman quitting, most comics show that he would like to, but will not do so as long as crime plagues Gotham.

It is incredibly unrealistic that no crime plagued Gotham just because the Dent Act worked. So when Bruce quit at the end of THE DARK KNIGHT, that did in fact go against most classic and modern versions of the character.

That is not to say Batman would not like to quit in many versions. He simply cannot bring himself to do so.

Actually, it is very realistic. Ever heard the phrase "Giuliani Time?" The mayor that "revitalized NYC" did it with methods that still seem fairly unconstitutional or at least questionable. And the Dent Act was that on steroids by way of the PATRIOT Act.

In actuality, Nolan created a scenario comic book fans had never seen before, because he had the freedom to end his story whereas comics must remain infinitely open-ended. But that is what also makes his story more unique and satisfying, at least in my opinion.

At the very least, it makes his Batman seem a bit smarter since he is clearly tackling problems on a multi-pronged approach by going after the mob, corruption in political offices as well as the police, and using his wealth to spend massively on public works. He even was apparently trying to solve the climate change crisis between TDK and TDKR with his failed clean energy reactor.

The point is he saw the problem as more than just one he could solve by punching it, and he proved quite successful at it. Now the ethics of lying via political conspiracy and cover-up to allow a law that is highly hostile to civil rights? Well that is another interesting question the third movie raises but admittedly never answers.

 

[DACrowe]

In terms of media, BTAS Batman is definitely my overall favorite. Bale, Keaton, and West are up there in terms of live action. Batfleck has highlighted just how important being a likable Batman is for me, and West/Keaton/Bale all played likable Bruce Wayne's.

What's you favorite comic book Batman?

Agreed with this, though I might rank Affleck above West. But his lack of heroism or nobility made the others look much better.

As for comics, I am quite partial to the Jeph Loeb Batman that feels like a natural progression of Year One (**** All-Star Batman and Miller losing his mind). I also of course love the Denny O'Neil Batman. I like Grant Morrison's well enough, but I do not think I have shined to him as much as many other fans have over the years.

 

[BatLobster]

Actually, it is very realistic. Ever heard the phrase "Giuliani Time?" The mayor that "revitalized NYC" did it with methods that still seem fairly unconstitutional or at least questionable. And the Dent Act was that on steroids by way of the PATRIOT Act.

I always saw The Dent Act as an exaggerated version of Giuiliani's anti-mob policies mixed with the Patriot Act too.

 

[The Batman]

Agreed with this, though I might rank Affleck above West. But his lack of heroism or nobility made the others look much better.

As for comics, I am quite partial to the Jeph Loeb Batman that feels like a natural progression of Year One (**** All-Star Batman and Miller losing his mind). I also of course love the Denny O'Neil Batman. I like Grant Morrison's well enough, but I do not think I have shined to him as much as many other fans have over the years.

When it comes to comics, O' Neil/Adams and Grant Morrison Batman are tops for me.

 

[terry78]

I'm partial to Dini, as he knows his Bat lore probably the most out of anyone. Morrison does his own take, which is somewhat experimental but well done.

 

[The Guard]

Actually, it is very realistic. Ever heard the phrase "Giuliani Time?" The mayor that "revitalized NYC" did it with methods that still seem fairly unconstitutional or at least questionable. And the Dent Act was that on steroids by way of the PATRIOT Act.

I didn't say his methods were unrealistic. I said the idea that all crime could be eradicated was.

In actuality, Nolan created a scenario comic book fans had never seen before, because he had the freedom to end his story whereas comics must remain infinitely open-ended. But that is what also makes his story more unique and satisfying, at least in my opinion.

At the very least, it makes his Batman seem a bit smarter since he is clearly tackling problems on a multi-pronged approach by going after the mob, corruption in political offices as well as the police, and using his wealth to spend massively on public works. He even was apparently trying to solve the climate change crisis between TDK and TDKR with his failed clean energy reactor.

The point is he saw the problem as more than just one he could solve by punching it, and he proved quite successful at it. Now the ethics of lying via political conspiracy and cover-up to allow a law that is highly hostile to civil rights? Well that is another interesting question the third movie raises but admittedly never answers.

Batman doesn't fight "most crime".

Yes Nolans Batman goes about it intelligently, as does the comics Batman. Comics fans have seen that scenario for decades now.

My point was thay the comics Batman has been depicted as not stopping until crime is not an issue. His war is unwinnable, but he keeps fighting. It's key to his character there.

 

[Mikelus]

I prefer Affleck's Batman, more faithful to the comics as a detective, great fighter, creating his own gadgets, better designed suit, Batmobile and Batwing, the voice was less annoying than Bale's, etc. It was the Batman we needed and deserved. And it seems most people love Ben's Batman, haters were wrong again. t: