Thread Manager
Moderator
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2011
- Messages
- 0
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 1
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]521807[/split]
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?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.
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!!His involvement in what in MoS? Batman knows how Superman was involved.
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.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?
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.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.
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Excuses the Nolan films and fans of those films use to avoid confronting consequences.
How does the questionable rationale "extraordinary situation demanded extraordinary methods" not apply equally to these two situations?
Crossing "certain lines" is a bogus standard because Batman is the only one drawing those lines for himself.
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?
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.
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."
2) Batman doesn't listen to Superman because he is consumed by rage.
3) Talk to him about what?
4) Already been covered, but to reiterate: Bruce made kryptonite gas and created the spear so he could kill Superman with his own hands.
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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...
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"
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.
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.
And that is the point of fundamental disagreement. Many people, including myself, would say that what Snyder did was *not* 'recognizable as the character'.