BvS Lex Luthor Casting Thread - Part 2

[regwec]

Batman not only believes in the Law, but also hides behind it, and morals and ethics, because he doesn't want to become the evil he fights against. He wants to separate himself from evil, draw a line...That's his real fear. He doesn't want a padded cell in Arkham. He doesn't want to let his parents down...

He's not the Punisher.

If you don't understand that then...

Batman's approach to the law is idiosyncratic, anyway. He is a vigilante who constantly commits trespass, meddles with crime scenes, falsely imprisons whoever he likes, and pummels people he suspects of crimes.

 

[Rodrigo90]

It's never something that would turn him into a monster though.

 

[regwec]

He won't kill, and he is basically selfless, so crimes like rape or theft seem unthinkable. Other than that, he seems prepared to pursue the lesser of evils. He appears to be a defender of natural law, rather than a strict legalist. Contrast him with Judge Dredd.

 

[MANOFSTEELtrilogy]

Batman not only believes in the Law, but also hides behind it, and morals and ethics, because he doesn't want to become the evil he fights against. He wants to separate himself from evil, draw a line...That's his real fear. He doesn't want a padded cell in Arkham. He doesn't want to let his parents down...

He's not the Punisher.

If you don't understand that then...

Oh I understand, I just don't agree with it. Superman believes in justice. Whereas Batman believes in the law. Do you really agree with Batman?

He knows never to trust anyone with power til he fully investigates and understands that the person is no threat to anyone.

It's just common sense, instead of being a foolish sheep who sees the nice man being nice.

Appearances can often be deceiving and Batman should know that well into his career.

And if the two do indeed fight, which is pretty much guaranteed, then they aren't going to be trusting buddies til the end.

Oh so now you don't mean "never"?

See I was replying to "But in Batman's mind, he knows never to trust anyone. No matter how heroic they appear to be." My reaction was- You really mean that? NEVER? For example, Batman will know Superman for 20 years and Batman will NEVER trust Superman during those 20 years? How does JLA work if Batman will never trust Superman? And if that be the case, then Superman will not be able to trust Batman either. JLA won't be effective, all because Batman has the arrogance to NEVER trust Earth's savior. The public won't ever support Batman on that one.

But now you've amended that to "He knows never to trust anyone with power til he fully investigates and understands that the person is no threat to anyone." Of course, most sane people investigate before they trust. That's more like it. I agree with your amended statement which includes "til".

 

[MANOFSTEELtrilogy]

Batman's approach to the law is idiosyncratic, anyway. He is a vigilante who constantly commits trespass, meddles with crime scenes, falsely imprisons whoever he likes, and pummels people he suspects of crimes.

But would Batman kill to save the world? Superman kills to save the world, as we just witnessed. Its the only just/intelligent thing to do. You'd be a failure if you stood back and watched Zod destroy/own the world.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Though not a popular story I liked Chaykin's SON OF SUPERMAN story because it has 2 totally perfect moments for both Bat's and Supes.

The one for Bat's sums his mission up, and therefore the approach he takes very tidily.

In the story, after years of working with a JLA that's been sort of corrupted, and using a different costume, by the end Bats is back in his classic outfit, and when asked, "What are you going to do now?" he resoponds "I'm going to go back and do what I do best. PUNISH THE WICKED, WITHOUT ANYONE'S CONSENT." I'd say that's pretty accurate.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Sociopath. You know nothing about justice or intelligence, as evidenced by your posts. If you did, then you'd understand that the very fact that there was no other way to stop Zod proves Clark's failure. A true heroic Superman would've used his brain and made sure that Zod got sucked into the PZ with the other kryptonians. His taking of Zod's life was a failure, a statement of the fact that he is NOT a true hero yet and he is NOT a true Superman yet. Go mammoth hunting.

I hope to Zod you just forgot the sarcasm smiley. I think it might be best if you did not throw out the word "sociopath" just because somebody like something in a movie you did not.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

The very fact that there was no other way to stop Zod proves Clark's failure. A true heroic Superman would've used his brain and made sure that Zod got sucked into the PZ with the other kryptonians. His taking of Zod's life was a failure, a statement of the fact that he is NOT a true hero yet and he is NOT a true Superman yet.

All of this a completely agree with, which is why I say that moment right after the killing is such a moment of defeat, and so deflating. Especially in a genre where a triumph is the expectation.

And I know people will praise the subversion of expectation, but really? Do we need to surprise people with misery just to be a bit different?

The rest of your post is unbelievably offensive...

 

[Dagenspear]

Oh I understand, I just don't agree with it. Superman believes in justice. Whereas Batman believes in the law. Do you really agree with Batman?



Oh so now you don't mean "never"?

See I was replying to "But in Batman's mind, he knows never to trust anyone. No matter how heroic they appear to be." My reaction was- You really mean that? NEVER? For example, Batman will know Superman for 20 years and Batman will NEVER trust Superman during those 20 years? How does JLA work if Batman will never trust Superman? And if that be the case, then Superman will not be able to trust Batman either. JLA won't be effective, all because Batman has the arrogance to NEVER trust Earth's savior. The public won't ever support Batman on that one.

But now you've amended that to "He knows never to trust anyone with power til he fully investigates and understands that the person is no threat to anyone." Of course, most sane people investigate before they trust. That's more like it. I agree with your amended statement which includes "til".

Savior? Who the heck cares? That doesn't matter. Anyone with power can go bad. Always. Batman knows this to be factual. It's why he creates contingencies for every JL member, to stop them, just in case. That's the test of a true hero. The undestanding of the benefits of preparation and caution. It's something every soldier gets. Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. And what the people feel does not and has never mattered. Batman is not and has never been out for popularity. He follows no ones laws but his own, which is dictated by his own morality. To quote Batman himself as he wages basic war against the government and Superman: "You say you answer to a higher authority. They only want me gone because I'm an embarassment. Because I do what they can't. What kind of authority is that?" I know there's fans who don't like what I'm quoting, but to me, this is like the freaking mission statement of everything Batman is. He will tear through anything, cops, politicians, the government, other superheroes, anything and everything, no matter what, law be damned, to do what's right.

 

[Dagenspear]

I hope to Zod you just forgot the sarcasm smiley. I think it might be best if you did not throw out the word "sociopath" just because somebody like something in a movie you did not.

That was not what this was about at all. I didn't even know he liked it. Did he? This is the only discussion I've had with him that I know of. And I liked MOS just fine. But I agree. The term I used was excessive. Sorry.

 

[Dagenspear]

All of this a completely agree with, which is why I say that moment right after the killing is such a moment of defeat, and so deflating. Especially in a genre where a triumph is the expectation.

And I know people will praise the subversion of expectation, but really? Do we need to surprise people with misery just to be a bit different?

The rest of your post is unbelievably offensive...

Okay.

 

[regwec]

Best to cut down on the flaming.

Of course Batman would kill to save the world- he shot Darkseid in the expectation that it would kill him, in this very scenario. He has also been prevented at the last moment from breaking his oath by allies such as Jim Gordon and Robin. Batman's aversion to killing is constantly demonstrated to be emotional rather than intellectual, and we have seen many situations where a competing emotion overrides the "oath".

Superman and Batman have more in common than is often supposed, but I would say that Superman is much more the legalist pedant than Batman, probably because Superman is so omnipotent that he can pursue his objectives while looking after every detail and without having to compromise himself.

For that reason, I am a big fan of MoS's ending: of course Clark failed- that was the point.

 

[Rodrigo90]

Batman won't kill as a rule, he'd find a way to avoid that scenario. But when faced with no other choice, like Supes had in MOS, he'd have to do it.

His attempted killing of Darkseid was pretty justified.

But he won't kill in Punisher style. Just to erase criminals from existence because the Law is inadequate.

Bruce, unlike Frank Castle, believes in the Law. This is really because of the good upbringing from his parents. They believed in helping and doing the right thing. Bruce, almost gave up on all that with his trauma.
However, he reinforces all that...Because he doesn't want his monster, himself, to become an evil force. The ultimate evil to Bruce Wayne is, the act of killing.
And he made an oath to his parents that he'd do the right thing always...but when faced with such a thing as an Alien God threatening to destroy the World, I think in that moment, it becomes less severe.
But he would have to live with a tainted soul forever, and that to, Bruce, is a price.

What I think is interesting is, the difference between Clark's actions in MOS and Batman's in TDKReturns.
Clark snapped Zod's neck to prevent him from killing. ..Batman paralysed Joker by twisting his neck to finally stop him. I wonder if something like that will happen in this movie, showing the difference between the two?

 

[Dagenspear]

Batman won't kill as a rule, he'd find a way to avoid that scenario. But when faced with no other choice, like Supes had in MOS, he'd have to do it.

His attempted killing of Darkseid was pretty justified.

But he won't kill in Punisher style. Just to erase criminals from existence because the Law is inadequate.

Bruce, unlike Frank Castle, believes in the Law. This is really because of the good upbringing from his parents. They believed in helping and doing the right thing. Bruce, almost gave up on all that with his trauma.
However, he reinforces all that...Because he doesn't want his monster, himself, to become an evil force. The ultimate evil to Bruce Wayne is, the act of killing.
And he made an oath to his parents that he'd do the right thing always...but when faced with such a thing as an Alien God threatening to destroy the World, I think in that moment, it becomes less severe.
But he would have to live with a tainted soul forever, and that to, Bruce, is a price.

What I think is interesting is, the difference between Clark's actions in MOS and Batman's in TDKReturns.
Clark snapped Zod's neck to prevent him from killing. ..Batman paralysed Joker by twisting his neck to finally stop him. I wonder if something like that will happen in this movie, showing the difference between the two?

That's an interesting point, and one I hadn't considered. Was killing Zod really Clark's only option? Could he have paralyzed him? Theoretically if you can break a kryptonians neck and kill them, you could paralyze them. Would one heal rapidly? It doesn't appear kryptonians operate that way in this movie, as if they did Zod would've healed from the break, right? Did Clark even consider paralyzing Zod? Did he even consider trying?

 

[Rodrigo90]

That's an interesting point, and one I hadn't considered. Was killing Zod really Clark's only option? Could he have paralyzed him? Theoretically if you can break a kryptonians neck and kill them, you could paralyze them. Would one heal rapidly? It doesn't appear kryptonians operate that way in this movie, as if they did Zod would've healed from the break, right? Did Clark even consider paralyzing Zod? Did he even consider trying?

Now that's interesting lol

I think, in the moment of grabbing Zod, and those few seconds that would've resulted in those people's death, Clark panicked. He had to make a quick decision, and this was based on impulse. He had to end Zod's life, because he saw no other way of this situation ending. They would've fought and fought and Zod would've killed and killed. Clark knew Kryptonaian's can heal, so it probably would've crossed his mind that Zod would recover from such an injury.

What's worse though, is if he didn't know that. Zod could've had an injury where he couldn't recover. If his spine and brain were both damaged, could he have?

But it was a quick decision Clark made. Either Zod died or innocent people died.
Clark didn't want to do it, but he had no other choice. It was a choice based on impulse really.

 

[Dagenspear]

Now that's interesting lol

I think, in the moment of grabbing Zod, and those few seconds that would've resulted in those people's death, Clark panicked. He had to make a quick decision, and this was based on impulse. He had to end Zod's life, because he saw no other way of this situation ending. They would've fought and fought and Zod would've killed and killed. Clark knew Kryptonaian's can heal, so it probably would've crossed his mind that Zod would recover from such an injury.

What's worse though, is if he didn't know that. Zod could've had an injury where he couldn't recover. If his spine and brain were both damaged, could he have?

But it was a quick decision Clark made. Either Zod died or innocent people died.
Clark didn't want to do it, but he had no other choice. It was a choice based on impulse really.

Obviously. But the question remains: Was there another way? If you think breaking an alien being's neck will kill it, wouldn't that mean you'd think their physiology was similar to humans in some way, and humans can be paralyzed, so can't kryptonians? I don't remember them healing. Hm...

 

[Rodrigo90]

I think he could've applied enough pressure to Zod's neck to cause serious damage.

But Superman wasn't thinking, he was panicking.

 

[jimbob]

I just hope that if my family is about to be incinerated by an alien, the guy that has an opportunity to stop him doesn't take a few moments to think that maybe he could somehow theoretically just try to disable him, go see if he can discover kryptonite, try to fly him away while somehow maintaining a chokehold(this is perhaps the dumbest hypothesis out there and anybody who's ever been in a real fight would laugh at), offer Zod a cheeseburger if he stops, or whatever equally ridiculous ideas are out there. Zod has killed a LOT of people already. He has said he will kill everyone on the planet and he's off to a great start, despite your best efforts. You finally gain an advantage and chance to stop him before he kills you and everyone else. You do it, personal consequences be damned. That's a hero; someone who values human life over their image, over their moral code, over their ability to sleep peacefully after their actions. Sure, maybe if he had time to think about it he might have came up with a better idea, even though thousands of whining fanboys have failed to after a three month gripe-fest, but he didn't. He had a split second, and chose what was necessary and right, over what would happen in some imaginary perfect world. Soldiers and police face these decisions every day and have to live with what it's like to kill someone and second guess yourself afterwards. They're still heroes, and so is Superman.

 

[Masone]

I think he could've applied enough pressure to Zod's neck to cause serious damage.

But Superman wasn't thinking, he was panicking.

To which he would have just healed from. Clark knows better than anyone about what Kryptonians can do on the planet, any kind of physical damage done to Zod that didn't result in death, he would have just healed from, probably instantly.

 

[Dagenspear]

I just hope that if my family is about to be incinerated by an alien, the guy that has an opportunity to stop him doesn't take a few moments to think that maybe he could somehow theoretically just try to disable him, go see if he can discover kryptonite, try to fly him away while somehow maintaining a chokehold(this is perhaps the dumbest hypothesis out there and anybody who's ever been in a real fight would laugh at), offer Zod a cheeseburger if he stops, or whatever equally ridiculous ideas are out there. Zod has killed a LOT of people already. He has said he will kill everyone on the planet and he's off to a great start, despite your best efforts. You finally gain an advantage and chance to stop him before he kills you and everyone else. You do it, personal consequences be damned. That's a hero; someone who values human life over their image, over their moral code, over their ability to sleep peacefully after their actions. Sure, maybe if he had time to think about it he might have came up with a better idea, even though thousands of whining fanboys have failed to after a three month gripe-fest, but he didn't. He had a split second, and chose what was necessary and right, over what would happen in some imaginary perfect world. Soldiers and police face these decisions every day and have to live with what it's like to kill someone and second guess yourself afterwards. They're still heroes, and so is Superman.

My God. It's fiction. This is reality. I'd hope that you and your family would have the sense to try to escape, because let me tell ya, YOU are the only one you can count on to save you. A true hero wouldn't compromise their morals just because it's easy or because they'll be hated if they don't or because they want to sleep peacefully. A true hero does the right thing. And the right thing is to not compromise your morals, because once you do, that only makes it easier to do it again.

And why did you even bring this up? No one was questioning the legitimacy of the act.

 

[Dagenspear]

To which he would have just healed from. Clark knows better than anyone about what Kryptonians can do on the planet, any kind of physical damage done to Zod that didn't result in death, he would have just healed from, probably instantly.

I don't recall them healing.

 

[Rodrigo90]

To which he would have just healed from. Clark knows better than anyone about what Kryptonians can do on the planet, any kind of physical damage done to Zod that didn't result in death, he would have just healed from, probably instantly.

Damage done to the spinal cord would have consequences for the brain. Zod would've unlikely healed from that.

 

[Masone]

Damage done to the spinal cord would have consequences for the brain. Zod would've unlikely healed from that.

Superman's brain has been damaged before and he's just healed. Kryptonians get their power from the sun, as long as they are alive, I don't see how they wouldn't just heal from any non-fatal damage.

 

[Rodrigo90]

That, I did not know

 

[Dagenspear]

Superman's brain has been damaged before and he's just healed. Kryptonians get their power from the sun, as long as they are alive, I don't see how they wouldn't just heal from any non-fatal damage.

Superman's healed from death before too. Does that mean Zod will?