Ben Affleck To Team With DC’s Geoff Johns On Standalone ‘Batman’ Film - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
So they chose a bad line of work, and that means they don't have families at home?

He goes back to the weapon and lures Doomsday on his journey so he doesn't have to bring it to Doomsday. Batman lures Doomsday back to the abandoned port where he can retrieve the kryptonite and use it as soon as possible against Doomsday. Why is this difficult to understand? He can get the spear and take it back to the uninhabited Stryker's Island, or he can get the spear and take Doomsday along with him to the abandoned port. Both locations are abandoned, but one has the kryptonite spear, so Batman lures Doomsday to the port to save him a return trip.
He brings the monster back to his hometown, abandoned or not, this disaster could spread if they don't contain Doomsday. Killing more people in Gotham. And in the end, Batman wasn't even the one to get the spear. Lois did, and then Superman was the one to use it. Batman was useless in that fight, just like his useless plan to lure Doomsday instead of doing the easier thing. Which would be, to go get the spear (which saves Lois the trouble of almost dying trying to get it, and saves Supes the trouble of almost dying under water like the moron that he is). Once Bats has the spear, he takes it to Doomsday. Easy enough no?

Do you want to know why it was written that way? They needed a reason to use Lois Lane because at that point she was useless as a character (that word really suits this movie). It gave her something to do (although it made her look really stupid the way she throws the spear away, almost drowns trying to get it, then has to save her boyfriend). That last part is highlighted because that was the main reason for this scene and Batfleck logic. Another scene where Supes saves Lois. Like we needed another one of those.

Poor script writing.

His involvement in what in MoS? Batman knows how Superman was involved.
Does he though? He obviously has no idea that Superman helped a lot of people, worked with the government, and ended up saving earth. All of that outweighs the death he caused. Hey, i don't agree with all the nonsense destruction that Superman and Zod caused either. It was irresponsible. But the good outweighed the bad because the entire planet, billions of lives were on the line. Bruce couldn't figure this out? He could only see the bad he MAY cause? OK, i agree that he may cause further damage. So speak to him Bruce, investigate, talk to people who were around him that day BEFORE you plan to murder him without any knowledge of anything. Not only that, he decides to not spear his face because Superman cares about his mother. Well yeah and so do a lot of bad men who do evil things, so why shouldn't he die in that moment? Bruce has lost it right? So why wouldn't he kill him? Because he's acting like an idiot no matter how you spin it. Loving his mother or not, according to Bruce, he should still be a threat to mankind. Forget that though right? The script needs a major shift where they become friends and save the day!!

This is not a Batman who should lead or be involved with putting together a Justice League to save the planet. If he loses it over that, murders etc, what is stopping him from doing it again? He'll probably snap again as soon as another alien invasion happens, or as soon as another Robin dies, or hypothetically as soon as a Justice League members decides to betray humanity by going on a killing spree. Bruce is just going to snap for two years again right? He has no control. No discipline. They wrote the WRONG version of Batman for a shared universe like this.

It's not useless. Its use is to show what happens when someone lets fearmongering and mental illness consume him. Its use is to show how someone so lost in the dark can be pulled back to the light. Showing how hope can break through the darkest and bleakest of storms is useless?
More like an excuse to sell the film and have a big fight sequence between two characters because it just looks cool to Zack. Like Kevin Smith said, it's like he read The Dark Knight Returns once and only loved the last part when Bats and Supes fight...without understanding WHY that fight was so good in the first place. There is no logic in the Snyder version of that fight. It's just one big misunderstanding. A misunderstanding because one character, BATMAN, failed to do a simple investigation, failed to listen to Superman when he arrives. Just an excuse to throw some cool visuals at the screen.

He's not still an a-hole if he doesn't do the exact same thing that singled him out as broken in the first place. I don't follow your logic at all.
After he apparently sees the light (does the whole MEN ARE STILL good speech, feels inspired by Supermans humanity) he still shows up to prison with the intention of branding Luthor. That built up punch, towards his head, could have killed him or burnt his face really bad. What if he branded Lex and prisoners take it upon themselves to kill Luthor in prison? My other problem is the placement of the scene. It should have been before the funeral. I'm sure it's after the funeral in the film, i always forget if it is or not. So feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
Which part do you think is a joke? The fact that people who do bad things can have innocent families, or the fact that he killed those thugs and went overboard while doing so..

The part about "What if the thugs had families?" As if them having families makes a difference between whether something is murder or manslaughter. As if I was being heartless and disregarding that people might mourn those men's loss.

Watching the scene, it's hard to tell where self-defense and collateral damage from Batman just not being able to see or be in total control of his vehicle ends and where deliberate attempts to kill begin. Still, my original point in trying to make a distinction between the car chase and the attempt on Superman's life was to show that they are different in important ways. The attempt on Superman's life is far more premeditated, and it's based on the belief of neutralizing a threat before it is even a threat. It is the culmination of Batman's gradual descent of which the carelessness of the car chase was just a step along the way.

It is poignant and significant, then, that not only was it Superman who stopped Batman right after the car chase to tell him that his actions were enough to sentence "The Batman" as a hero to death (the Bat is dead, bury it), but that the plot to kill Superman is the culmination of Batman's descent into a far more cold-blooded act -- showing how Batman had been gradually corrupted into something that became worse and worse -- as well as what ultimately brings Batman back to himself. He learns that a son's mother, a woman named Martha no less, needs saving and sees a loving couple in distress just like his own parents, the Waynes, had been all those years ago. Except this time Batman was the murderer, and this time he did have it in his power to save a son's mother (Martha Kent) and a woman's beloved (Superman whom Lois loved). When it is Superman who dies, instead of the Batman, as Superman had earlier declared, it is the final saving grace for Bruce. He can recommit himself to his mission and to better tactics because he no longer sees the light or hope as a lie.

The movie tells the story about how no one is incorruptible, but that likewise no one is irredeemable. And that recognizing that truth is where true hope lies.
 
Last edited:
By that logic all it would take is one skilled pro to aim a gun at any criminal's head and it's game over.

The point of my post wasn't of the intent as to how to go about it as it was pointing out that Bane's weakness could easily be identified and figured out but it doesn't matter.
 
He brings the monster back to his hometown, abandoned or not, this disaster could spread if they don't contain Doomsday. Killing more people in Gotham. And in the end, Batman wasn't even the one to get the spear. Lois did, and then Superman was the one to use it. Batman was useless in that fight, just like his useless plan to lure Doomsday instead of doing the easier thing. Which would be, to go get the spear (which saves Lois the trouble of almost dying trying to get it, and saves Supes the trouble of almost dying under water like the moron that he is). Once Bats has the spear, he takes it to Doomsday. Easy enough no?

Do you want to know why it was written that way? They needed a reason to use Lois Lane because at that point she was useless as a character (that word really suits this movie). It gave her something to do (although it made her look really stupid the way she throws the spear away, almost drowns trying to get it, then has to save her boyfriend). That last part is highlighted because that was the main reason for this scene and Batfleck logic. Another scene where Supes saves Lois. Like we needed another one of those.

Poor script writing.

It's not poor at all. Batman made his decision to lure Doomsday to the abandoned port before he knew that anyone else, including Lois, Diana, or Superman would be able to help him. His decision in that moment was based on the assumption that he would have to handle Doomsday all by himself. And, frankly, that is the best decision to make in that scenario. The fact that you are judging Batman and what happens next on information he didn't have at the time is ludicrous. It's not easy to take the spear to Doomsday because that plan depends on Doomsday staying in the same place and doing nothing while Batman tries to get the spear.

Lois got the spear because, like Batman, she reasoned out what needed to happen. She was trying to help based on what information she had in the moment. Superman saved Lois because he was the best equipped to get to her in time. Lois clearly wasn't useless as a character in the film or at that point in the film because her investigation put Lex in jail, her decision to attempt to intervene in the Batman/Superman fight was the catalyst for Batman's deescalation, and she was able to help Superman out of the water as he tried to finish the job of getting the spear.

The entire scenario shows the reality of decision making that happens when variables are changing every second and when communication is difficult. It shows how heroes take big risks and make the best of a bad situation when they have no idea what will happen next. To judge these characters and their actions from our omniscient vantage point is to judge them unfairly.

Does he though? He obviously has no idea that Superman helped a lot of people, worked with the government, and ended up saving earth. All of that outweighs the death he caused. Hey, i don't agree with all the nonsense destruction that Superman and Zod caused either. It was irresponsible. But the good outweighed the bad because the entire planet, billions of lives were on the line. Bruce couldn't figure this out? He could only see the bad he MAY cause? OK, i agree that he may cause further damage. So speak to him Bruce, investigate, talk to people who were around him that day BEFORE you plan to murder him without any knowledge of anything. Not only that, he decides to not spear his face because Superman cares about his mother. Well yeah and so do a lot of bad men who do evil things, so why shouldn't he die in that moment? Bruce has lost it right? So why wouldn't he kill him? Because he's acting like an idiot no matter how you spin it. Loving his mother or not, according to Bruce, he should still be a threat to mankind. Forget that though right? The script needs a major shift where they become friends and save the day!!

Of course Batman knows Superman helped a lot of people. He watches the news. He knows what happened. Unfortunately, Bruce does not view the good as outweighing the bad because he sees the paradigm shift that Superman represents as a flash point for more and more extraordinary threats. More than anything, like Lex, Bruce does not believe that someone all powerful can be all good. He fears what will happen when Superman's efforts to do good do not fundamentally affect the status quo or prevent further evil and loss. The fear of unchecked power -- whether it is good or bad -- is hardly a point of view that would have been altered by conversing with Superman about the finer details of what happened the day Zod attacked Earth.

Batman decides not to kill Superman because Bruce cares about his mother. Bruce cares about what it says about him if he no longer cares about saving mothers from criminals. Bruce stops in that moment because "Save Martha" humanizes him as much as it humanizes Superman. That moment isn't only about Batman changing his mind about Superman, it's about Batman changing his mind about the kind of man he wants to be.

This is not a Batman who should lead or be involved with putting together a Justice League to save the planet. If he loses it over that, murders etc, what is stopping him from doing it again? He'll probably snap again as soon as another alien invasion happens, or as soon as another Robin dies, or hypothetically as soon as a Justice League members decides to betray humanity by going on a killing spree. Bruce is just going to snap for two years again right? He has no control. No discipline. They wrote the WRONG version of Batman for a shared universe like this.

What will stop Batman from doing it again? You already answered your question: the Justice League. Batman is not alone. In a changing world, Batman felt alone and powerless to make a difference, but as part of a team, he can build something that can help. What will stop Batman is the knowlege that the most powerful man on Earth could give up his life to save a world that hated him and reject him. What will stop him is the knowledge that had he killed Superman, then he would have been responsible for the death of Martha Kent.

After he apparently sees the light (does the whole MEN ARE STILL good speech, feels inspired by Supermans humanity) he still shows up to prison with the intention of branding Luthor. That built up punch, towards his head, could have killed him or burnt his face really bad. What if he branded Lex and prisoners take it upon themselves to kill Luthor in prison? My other problem is the placement of the scene. It should have been before the funeral. I'm sure it's after the funeral in the film, i always forget if it is or not. So feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

The scene is after the funeral, and it works best there because it demonstrates how Bruce has changed, and since it introduces us to the idea that the bell has been wrung out in the stars, it dovetails nicely with Bruce hinting at the formation of a team of heroes. I don't understand why you are citing a scene in which Bruce shows he has changed as evidence that he hasn't seen the light.
 
Last edited:
Is Deathstroke still the villain? He would be a nice fit if this takes place after BvS since his methods mimic Bruce's in BvS. Or if this takes place before BvS, maybe Batman defeats Deathstroke but adapts the mercenary's methods because he sees that they work.
 
misslane38 - it's evident that no matter what anyone else says, you will defend Snyder's vision of Batman as a flat out murderer - and that's fine! If you don't find it a character breaking move, then good for you. You're putting up a lot of decent and coherent arguments for your viewpoint. But for people like myself, you can write reams and reams of text justifying it, but it'll never do so. Batman simply should not kill. It's a line that when as deliberately and obtusely crossed as happens with Snyder's iteration, it weakens the character, and lessens him - putting him in the same category as flat, two dimensional vigilantes like Frank Castle. Some of Batman's 'poetry' is lost, to put it in pretentious terms.
 
But for people like myself, you can write reams and reams of text justifying it, but it'll never do so. Batman simply should not kill.

And some of us are just a bit more open minded, and accept different interpretations and stories. As long as its recognizably that character, I dont mind if the story calls for it. But thats just me, and we should simply agree to disagree without arguing ad nauseum about BvS in the Batman thread,
 
misslane38

He's good? Who said anything about Batman being good? He's not good. He's sick. As Alfred says earlier in the film, Bruce is consumed by a fever. That fever is not as extreme as murdering everyone Batman doesn't like, since it's clear Batman only uses lethal force in the pursuit of a goal he believes will benefit humanity. He doesn't kill the sex trafficker at the start of the film, for example. Batman, in BvS, is a lunatic. Bruce even admits that he's a criminal who has lost any claim to being a good man because good men make promises they can't keep and no good man stays that way. This Batman is clearly suffering from PTSD, anxiety, and depression.

I was talking about Superman being good. Batman intended to murder him while he did nothing wrong. As for Batman using lethal force, there was no need to use lethal force against anyone in the film. Maybe except for KGBeast, which is an attempt to homage an iconic scene from DKR graphic novel without proper understanding.

The script doesn't allow Batman to cope with the existential threat of Superman in a healthy way because the script intends to show a man who has lost his way. It is a film about how powerlessness and fear corrupts, but also how those things can be overcome. It's a film that, at its heart, is about a how a dark and cynical world and one broken man finds redemption. Your need for Batman to adhere to a rigid characterization that does not allow for his humanity (flaws, mental illness, etc.) to be exposed and interrogated is highly problematic, in my view, because it is sterile and limiting.

Batman is a wrong character to experiment on in such manner. Batman has an established mythos, essential traits, that make him who he is. And being incorruptible is one of them.

This is a story that posits that if Bruce intends to be a vigilante -- a hero -- who commits to his crusade because he believes that a sick, broken, and morally bankrupt city like Gotham can be saved, then he must first be able to see that a sick, broken, and morally bankrupt man can be saved. The film offers Batman a chance to bury the Batman that forced the world to make sense by telling himself beautiful lies and by adhering to moral codes only out of fear of losing his fragile psyche to his demons. Rebirth comes from that death because a Bruce who has been to hell and back can genuinely say:

Men are still good. We fight. We kill. We betray one another. But we can rebuild. We can do better. We will. We have to.

Batman should never be this guy. Just like Superman should never say "no one stays good in this world". No matter how hard it is, he should be able to endure.

Excuses the Nolan films and fans of those films use to avoid confronting consequences.

No, they aren't excuses.

How does the questionable rationale "extraordinary situation demanded extraordinary methods" not apply equally to these two situations?

You mean attempt to murder an innocent and executing criminals vs. using an unethical method as a last resort to stop a maniac killer and to save lives? Both cases are totally in Batman's character and thus "questionable rationale" is equally applied to both. Yeah. :loco:

Crossing "certain lines" is a bogus standard because Batman is the only one drawing those lines for himself.

What lines does the murderous loon draw? Don't answer - there's none.

How do you account for the even more extraordinary problem that Superman presents, particularly in light of Bruce's ambiguous vision of the future and the warning he received about the future?

I don't want to discuss this "extraordinary problem" (especially in light of a flimsy evidence such as future vision, that's impossible to understand), because what Batman does in BvS is anti-Batman. Unlike what he does in TDK.

Both courses of action cross a line. Both courses of action are entered into with the belief that a line must be crossed in order to protect the greatest number of people. Is there proof that Superman will someday become evil? No, there isn't. But Bruce believes that if he waits until there is evidence, then it's too late. It's enough that he's been warned about the future and has seen the damage Superman causes by merely existing. What Bruce sees isn't a hero whose good acts counterbalance the evil done in his name. He acts like a firefighter who sees the embers of fire that is just starting to burn out of control and decides to execute a controlled burn to stop the fire from spreading. He's a surgeon who removes an organ or amputates a limb before disease or infection becomes a mortal threat. There is some method to his madness.

There's a massive difference between two cases. Batman has only one rule. And it's not "I won't use any shady unethical technologies".

1) I'm not sure to what you are referring. This is what I remember from the film: "Why did you bring him back to the city? The port is abandoned. And there's a weapon here that can kill it."

"Bruce, fly back to Gotham, get out of the plane, get the spear and return to Doomsday. Assuming you have a plan how to plant it into his chest. He's on an isolated uninhabited island. Don't attract his attention, he will chase you and it will be infinitely harder for you to reach Gotham and especially find the spear." It's worth mentioning, that at that point Batman had no allies and his decision to lure him is just plain suicide. Of all possible decisions he makes the worst.

2) Batman doesn't listen to Superman because he is consumed by rage.
3) Talk to him about what?

Sorry, I thought about Superman but wrote about Batman. :doh: Have this instead:

"I thought she's with you." Unless another mental illness, amnesia, hit the guy, there's no reason for him to think so.

4) Already been covered, but to reiterate: Bruce made kryptonite gas and created the spear so he could kill Superman with his own hands.

I get the idea, I don't see any logic behind it at all. Spear is there for dramatic intents of filmmakers, not because it's dictated by reason (even by standards of a guy dressed as a bat). Not to mention, there was like 0,001% chance they end up fighting in it's proximity. Have something portable or something...

The justification for much of Bruce's behavior is psychological, which is typically the case for most humans. Your refusal to accept that as a justification in favor of the mistaken belief that intelligence is an adequate antidote to mental illness shows an incredible misunderstanding of human behavior and psychology. It means that you hold Batman to standards that are godlike and set him apart from practically every character in fiction since storytelling began.

I understand human behavior. But flipping Batman's mythos on it's head, turning Batman into Rorschach or Punisher is not a good idea. What did they achieve by that? Made Batman a moron and a killer because he experienced a traumatic event. But he experienced many traumatic events in his career and remained a hero. And should remain a hero. They missed two major opportunities with these characters - proper battle of ideologies and character studies, and Superman's death, of course. Instead we got some kind of homage to Watchmen (good film by Snyder, by the way, his second best) with Batman and Superman action figures, not even characters.
 
Last edited:
To me, the biggest issue with them having Batman get lethal and become the de-facto secondary antagonist of the film was that they only skimmed over all the traumas that should have turned him dark. There were plenty of moments that could have been used to justify Batman going bad, but they weren't focused on, and his change of heart is still just a bit too quick, with not quite enough condemnation from Alfred.

For instance, when i saw the Robin suit and didn't see or hear anything about another Robin or Batgirl, my immediate though is: "Okay, so this is a Bruce Wayne who's lost two sons; Jason was killed and Dick is estranged enough they won't even talk about him. And Barbara may be injured. Maybe." To me, that's the kind of stuff that should have been explicitly stated to the audience by Clark's investigation; have a running total of the damage Bruce has received that's only capped off by the Battle of Metropolis, and then have Clark discover how much more altruistic and merciful Batman was originally, possibly having that serve to make the "No one stays good in this world" line from Superman more of a chilling acknowledgement that he now knows that desperation and helplessness that twisted Bruce, and fears he'll fall too.

Have Alfred be just a bit more confrontational and negative, then have the film end with Bruce reluctantly trying to contact Dick, who doesn't speak to him because he started using lethal tactics.You don't even have to have Grayson answer; it may be even more poetic to have Bruce's call be denied and make it clear that Bruce is going to suffer for his mistakes just a bit longer.
 
To me, the biggest issue with them having Batman get lethal and become the de-facto secondary antagonist of the film was that they only skimmed over all the traumas that should have turned him dark. There were plenty of moments that could have been used to justify Batman going bad, but they weren't focused on, and his change of heart is still just a bit too quick, with not quite enough condemnation from Alfred.

For instance, when i saw the Robin suit and didn't see or hear anything about another Robin or Batgirl, my immediate though is: "Okay, so this is a Bruce Wayne who's lost two sons; Jason was killed and Dick is estranged enough they won't even talk about him. And Barbara may be injured. Maybe." To me, that's the kind of stuff that should have been explicitly stated to the audience by Clark's investigation; have a running total of the damage Bruce has received that's only capped off by the Battle of Metropolis, and then have Clark discover how much more altruistic and merciful Batman was originally, possibly having that serve to make the "No one stays good in this world" line from Superman more of a chilling acknowledgement that he now knows that desperation and helplessness that twisted Bruce, and fears he'll fall too.

Have Alfred be just a bit more confrontational and negative, then have the film end with Bruce reluctantly trying to contact Dick, who doesn't speak to him because he started using lethal tactics.You don't even have to have Grayson answer; it may be even more poetic to have Bruce's call be denied and make it clear that Bruce is going to suffer for his mistakes just a bit longer.

Yeah, I think that's a fair point. The movie was really just biting off too much with trying to simultaneously introduce us to a new Batman with all this backstory that we don't get to know much about (not to mention everything else the movie was trying to do). Even with everything being setup as part of a redemption arc for him, it was hard for me to get invested in it, and as you said it feels pretty rushed when it does happen. That's a great idea too with how Clark's investigation could've served as some more exposition for how Batman's ways had changed over the years. That whole element of the film just felt very undercooked, even in the Ultimate Cut.

Sure you can just project your knowledge of the comics onto the movie, but I don't think this type of movie should have to lean so much on that to support its story. Batman is iconic and everybody knows the broad strokes yes, but it's unfair to have him briefly look at a suit that barely even resembles a Robin suit and expect the entire audience to infer that this means Robin is dead. If they wanted that to be a major reason for him going bad, maybe they should've included Robin's death as part of the opening credits montage rather than seeing the Waynes gunned down for the 1000th time. But no, we needed to set up that Martha moment...:dry:
 
Last edited:
I hope Ben Affleck gets to have at least a month worth of vacation time, it seems that he is overworked and that can hamper his enthusiasm for the batman project.
 
I think that's what it boils down to. The guy just needs a break.
 
This brilliant new well thought out video about the myriad of flaws with the DCEU's characters has been circulating around. It should be posted here, too, since this new movie needs to sort out Batman's character;

[YT]FXpiRzumrVY[/YT]
 
Last edited:
misslane38 - it's evident that no matter what anyone else says, you will defend Snyder's vision of Batman as a flat out murderer - and that's fine! If you don't find it a character breaking move, then good for you. You're putting up a lot of decent and coherent arguments for your viewpoint. But for people like myself, you can write reams and reams of text justifying it, but it'll never do so. Batman simply should not kill. It's a line that when as deliberately and obtusely crossed as happens with Snyder's iteration, it weakens the character, and lessens him - putting him in the same category as flat, two dimensional vigilantes like Frank Castle. Some of Batman's 'poetry' is lost, to put it in pretentious terms.

Hey, be fair. Jon Bernthal was far more than flat and two dimensional ( and arguably bad a better sense of ethics than the Snyder Batman ). ;)
 
And some of us are just a bit more open minded, and accept different interpretations and stories. As long as its recognizably that character,

And that is the point of fundamental disagreement. Many people, including myself, would say that what Snyder did was *not* 'recognizable as the character'.
 
And that is the point of fundamental disagreement. Many people, including myself, would say that what Snyder did was *not* 'recognizable as the character'.

Fair enough. We all have different tastes.
 
It's not poor at all. Batman made his decision to lure Doomsday to the abandoned port before he knew that anyone else, including Lois, Diana, or Superman would be able to help him. His decision in that moment was based on the assumption that he would have to handle Doomsday all by himself. And, frankly, that is the best decision to make in that scenario. The fact that you are judging Batman and what happens next on information he didn't have at the time is ludicrous. It's not easy to take the spear to Doomsday because that plan depends on Doomsday staying in the same place and doing nothing while Batman tries to get the spear.

Lois got the spear because, like Batman, she reasoned out what needed to happen. She was trying to help based on what information she had in the moment. Superman saved Lois because he was the best equipped to get to her in time. Lois clearly wasn't useless as a character in the film or at that point in the film because her investigation put Lex in jail, her decision to attempt to intervene in the Batman/Superman fight was the catalyst for Batman's deescalation, and she was able to help Superman out of the water as he tried to finish the job of getting the spear.

The entire scenario shows the reality of decision making that happens when variables are changing every second and when communication is difficult. It shows how heroes take big risks and make the best of a bad situation when they have no idea what will happen next. To judge these characters and their actions from our omniscient vantage point is to judge them unfairly.



Of course Batman knows Superman helped a lot of people. He watches the news. He knows what happened. Unfortunately, Bruce does not view the good as outweighing the bad because he sees the paradigm shift that Superman represents as a flash point for more and more extraordinary threats. More than anything, like Lex, Bruce does not believe that someone all powerful can be all good. He fears what will happen when Superman's efforts to do good do not fundamentally affect the status quo or prevent further evil and loss. The fear of unchecked power -- whether it is good or bad -- is hardly a point of view that would have been altered by conversing with Superman about the finer details of what happened the day Zod attacked Earth.

Batman decides not to kill Superman because Bruce cares about his mother. Bruce cares about what it says about him if he no longer cares about saving mothers from criminals. Bruce stops in that moment because "Save Martha" humanizes him as much as it humanizes Superman. That moment isn't only about Batman changing his mind about Superman, it's about Batman changing his mind about the kind of man he wants to be.



What will stop Batman from doing it again? You already answered your question: the Justice League. Batman is not alone. In a changing world, Batman felt alone and powerless to make a difference, but as part of a team, he can build something that can help. What will stop Batman is the knowlege that the most powerful man on Earth could give up his life to save a world that hated him and reject him. What will stop him is the knowledge that had he killed Superman, then he would have been responsible for the death of Martha Kent.



The scene is after the funeral, and it works best there because it demonstrates how Bruce has changed, and since it introduces us to the idea that the bell has been wrung out in the stars, it dovetails nicely with Bruce hinting at the formation of a team of heroes. I don't understand why you are citing a scene in which Bruce shows he has changed as evidence that he hasn't seen the light.

Was going to respond to shauner111 with almost the exact same post, lol, except for your last comment. Bruce clearly went there with the INTENTION of branding Luthor. That is what shauner111 is pointing out. It's a last minute decision for him not to brand him. This is meant to illustrate his change, obviously, but I believe shauner111's issue is that it is supposed to happen AFTER Bruce has already, supposedly, made the change in himself.

That said, while the funeral scene/"Men are still good" speech was meant to show Bruce now has a sense of hope, as opposed to the futility he felt the rest of the film. Whereas the scene in the prison with Luthor is meant to show how that hope is BEGINNING to change his behaviour.

As much as we like to peg decisions and actions to a moment, the truth is that they are much more gradual, and happen over time. People don't completely change in an instant.
 
After he apparently sees the light (does the whole MEN ARE STILL good speech, feels inspired by Supermans humanity) he still shows up to prison with the intention of branding Luthor. That built up punch, towards his head, could have killed him or burnt his face really bad. What if he branded Lex and prisoners take it upon themselves to kill Luthor in prison? My other problem is the placement of the scene. It should have been before the funeral. I'm sure it's after the funeral in the film, i always forget if it is or not. So feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.

I thought it was? Hence the reason Bruce told WW they need to find the others liker her (metahumans) and she asked him why and he said just a feeling. In response to Lex telling him in the prison that "He's coming"
 
Last edited:
To me, the biggest issue with them having Batman get lethal and become the de-facto secondary antagonist of the film was that they only skimmed over all the traumas that should have turned him dark. There were plenty of moments that could have been used to justify Batman going bad, but they weren't focused on, and his change of heart is still just a bit too quick, with not quite enough condemnation from Alfred.

For instance, when i saw the Robin suit and didn't see or hear anything about another Robin or Batgirl, my immediate though is: "Okay, so this is a Bruce Wayne who's lost two sons; Jason was killed and Dick is estranged enough they won't even talk about him. And Barbara may be injured. Maybe." To me, that's the kind of stuff that should have been explicitly stated to the audience by Clark's investigation; have a running total of the damage Bruce has received that's only capped off by the Battle of Metropolis, and then have Clark discover how much more altruistic and merciful Batman was originally, possibly having that serve to make the "No one stays good in this world" line from Superman more of a chilling acknowledgement that he now knows that desperation and helplessness that twisted Bruce, and fears he'll fall too.

Have Alfred be just a bit more confrontational and negative, then have the film end with Bruce reluctantly trying to contact Dick, who doesn't speak to him because he started using lethal tactics.You don't even have to have Grayson answer; it may be even more poetic to have Bruce's call be denied and make it clear that Bruce is going to suffer for his mistakes just a bit longer.

Yeah, I think that's a fair point. The movie was really just biting off too much with trying to simultaneously introduce us to a new Batman with all this backstory that we don't get to know much about (not to mention everything else the movie was trying to do). Even with everything being setup as part of a redemption arc for him, it was hard for me to get invested in it, and as you said it feels pretty rushed when it does happen. That's a great idea too with how Clark's investigation could've served as some more exposition for how Batman's ways had changed over the years. That whole element of the film just felt very undercooked, even in the Ultimate Cut.

Sure you can just project your knowledge of the comics onto the movie, but I don't think this type of movie should have to lean so much on that to support its story. Batman is iconic and everybody knows the broad strokes yes, but it's unfair to have him briefly look at a suit that barely even resembles a Robin suit and expect the entire audience to infer that this means Robin is dead. If they wanted that to be a major reason for him going bad, maybe they should've included Robin's death as part of the opening credits montage rather than seeing the Waynes gunned down for the 1000th time. But no, we needed to set up that Martha moment...:dry:

That's strange. Why should the film focus on traumas that supposedly turned him dark, if they aren't traumas he experienced? We don't know this Batman's experience with Dick or Barbara. We don't know if they are even a part of his backstory or if they are relevant. Assuming that something happened to them and that it's contributing to his mental state, then getting frustrated with the movie for not covering it, doesn't make sense if there is no way of knowing that anything did happen. The movie tells you what is bothering Batman. The death of his parents haunts him. It haunts him even more now after the Black Zero event which brought alien powers to Earth and not only killed many people, but specifically killed people who worked at Wayne Enterprises in Metropolis, including a young girl who lost her mother. It activated PTSD in Bruce, because all this time since his parents' murder the Batman persona had allowed him to not feel powerless, but now he felt powerless again. Adding to his sense of powerlessness were the death of Jason Todd -- the unused suit, the Joker's taunt, and Bruce's sad contemplation of it all conveying both loss and shame -- and the realization that his decades of crimefighting have been fruitless. Other contributing factors which escalated Bruce's state of mind included the Capitol bombing and the ominous nightmare and warning he experienced of a dire future. Wallace Keefe's message that Bruce had let his family die and Barry's message that Bruce is right about a "him" both shame him for his inaction.

Bruce's narrative is very much in the mold of a Shakespearean tragedy like Hamlet: with the death of his parents and Black Zero operating like the ghost of Hamlet's father, Wallace Keefe operating as Fortinbras whose action contrasts with Hamlet's inaction, and Alfred operating as Horatio watching over his friend to challenge him and support him. Both Alfred and Clark illuminate us through their scolding and investigations that Batman's tactics have become more brutal. The Ultimate Cut goes into even more detail with the man in the apartment building saying there was a new kind of mean in Batman. Indeed, the brand was set up as a very clear way to track Batman's methodology. He opens the film using it, drawing the condemnation of Alfred and Clark, but ends the film refraining from using it on Lex.

All of the relevant catalysts are shown and discussed explicitly and extensively.
 
I thought it was? Hence the reason Bruce told WW they need to find the others liker her (metahumans) and she asked him why and he said just a feeling. In response to Lex telling him in the prison that "He's coming"

I have the Ultimate Cut of the film and in it the Lex confrontation is interspersed with the funeral in Smallville. It cuts from the prison, to Lex's mansion being combed over by investigators, to the cemetery where Bruce leaves and Lois drops the dirt on Clark's grave. Since the dirt rising over Clark's coffin is, I believe, the end of both cuts of the film, I think it's fair to assume that Batman goes to see Lex in prison before the funeral.
 
misslane38 - it's evident that no matter what anyone else says, you will defend Snyder's vision of Batman as a flat out murderer - and that's fine! If you don't find it a character breaking move, then good for you. You're putting up a lot of decent and coherent arguments for your viewpoint. But for people like myself, you can write reams and reams of text justifying it, but it'll never do so. Batman simply should not kill. It's a line that when as deliberately and obtusely crossed as happens with Snyder's iteration, it weakens the character, and lessens him - putting him in the same category as flat, two dimensional vigilantes like Frank Castle. Some of Batman's 'poetry' is lost, to put it in pretentious terms.

If Batman not killing is your ultimate requirement, then you should reject Nolan's Batman, Burton's Batman, and comic Batman as much as you do Snyder's, since they have all killed. Killing alone doesn't make a character's dimensions go away, especially when it's used as a character arc focused on change and transformation. What you're describing doesn't conform to any scholarly or literary definition I've ever learned or seen for what makes a character flat or two dimensional. I also disagree somewhat with your point about character breaking. I belive that Snyder's Batman was broken by design. It was done to deconstruct him -- his flaws and contradictions -- in order to rebuild him into something stronger: a character whose code is built on the rock of experience instead of the sand of fear.

Batman's poetry isn't well done in other takes on the character. As a character who is supposed to represent the mastery of fear, if the reason he doesn't kill isn't a moral reason, but rather based on a fear of letting his own demons loose, then he is a character who is fundamentally flawed and who doesn't believe in redemption from the start. Yet, he is positioned as a character who works to redeem Gotham and criminals as well as corrupt officials who have crossed their own lines and lost themselves to their own demons. Cops have to kill in the line of duty of protecting people from harm. When they do, they often get counseling to work through their feelings. Since a Batman who doesn't kill out of fear of himself would logically never have killed, then he is operating based on an irrational fear of himself and with the pessimistic belief that he can't recover or be redeemed. What Batman v Superman does is challenge these contradictions and root Bruce's code going forward on what is real and what is true. If Batman can see from the wisdom of his own experience what it's like to cross a line, but to know what it takes to reform, and that one can reform, then he can approach himself and his mission with more self-control, self-knowledge, and optimism. Is your poetic Batman one who is ruled by fear and who believes, as Bruce did at the start of the film, that what falls is fallen?
 
misslane38 - it's evident that no matter what anyone else says, you will defend Snyder's vision of Batman as a flat out murderer - and that's fine! If you don't find it a character breaking move, then good for you. You're putting up a lot of decent and coherent arguments for your viewpoint. But for people like myself, you can write reams and reams of text justifying it, but it'll never do so. Batman simply should not kill. It's a line that when as deliberately and obtusely crossed as happens with Snyder's iteration, it weakens the character, and lessens him - putting him in the same category as flat, two dimensional vigilantes like Frank Castle. Some of Batman's 'poetry' is lost, to put it in pretentious terms.

Yep :up:

Even the great Kevin Conroy rightly called out BvS over it;

http://www.screengeek.net/2016/08/14/kevin-conroy-doesnt-approve-of-ben-afflecks-batman/

And that is the point of fundamental disagreement. Many people, including myself, would say that what Snyder did was *not* 'recognizable as the character'.

Exactly. It's practically Batman in name only.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"