BvS New Positivity Thread (READ THE FIRST POST!) - Part 1

[LamboMan]

True. It comes down to being not my Superman or not my Batman and with that way of thinking fans can't get past someone else coming along and saying something different and maybe more controversial about these characters which maybe conflicts with their own ideas of the characters which starts claims and complaints that Zac or the writers don't know these characters or doesn't like them. Alot of the themes and arcs flew over people's heads which were clearly stated in the film. The movie is its own beast. Just like any cartoon or comic/graphic novel. Snyder knows exactly what he is doing but because everything isn't given to you at once and makes you connect the dots yourself kills it for an audience that needs it all spelled out. Batman kills in this which some have cried that he shouldn't and the comic Batman wouldn't do that but this isn't the comic Batman so what this Batman has gone through and seen yes this one would and has killed and is more brutal and is justifiable in doing so.
Superman not smiling which has got to be the most misunderstood criticism for bvs. Superman smiling is what a he might do in other mediums but that isn't a trait that makes him Superman.

This IS comic Batman. He kills in the very first issue and also in The Dark Knight Returns.

That isn't the majority of the comic book Batman, yes, I agree. Then again, he doesn't really kill directly, he kills more like a soldier on a warpath and collateral casualties are acceptable to him. Batman in the comics and even in TAS is the same, he creates explosions and stuff but in the comics and animated media people get injured or flung about but don't die, while in a more realistic world of the movie people die.

I totally agree with your points btw, just elaborating.

 

[sf2]

i'm back!!! suppose i will get some welcome here.

gotta be extra careful in posting in this thread...

are we growing here?

 

[sf2]

I'd need to see the movie again but I'm positive the story being told is that Bruce only becomes aware of kryptonite's existence once he extracts the information from the party because then he has the conversation with Alfred about it where Alfred asks him if he's going to steal and Bruce goes on his 1% tirade.

It is clear that Lex knows about it well in advance as he has informants within STAR Labs and pretty much everywhere else and of course reveals it in the conversation with Senator Finch in the movie's best conversational piece.

no.. no... to me, bruce knew about the experience of that tiny bit kryptonite too.

 

[LamboMan]

i'm back!!! suppose i will get some welcome here.

gotta be extra careful in posting in this thread...

are we growing here?

Welcome back mate!

 

[Sleiek]

I love this video. She acknowledges the flaws but she also acknowledges and gives credit to the good things. She made peace with the fact this movie tried to be different.

[YT]hNR5GoaHka0[/YT]

 

[batfreakforever]

This IS comic Batman. He kills in the very first issue and also in The Dark Knight Returns.

That isn't the majority of the comic book Batman, yes, I agree. Then again, he doesn't really kill directly, he kills more like a soldier on a warpath and collateral casualties are acceptable to him. Batman in the comics and even in TAS is the same, he creates explosions and stuff but in the comics and animated media people get injured or flung about but don't die, while in a more realistic world of the movie people die.

I totally agree with your points btw, just elaborating.

Thanks I'm not out to annoy anybody just trying to state how I can get something positive out of a different interpretation. That's all.

 

[King23DC]

I love this video. She acknowledges the flaws but she also acknowledges and gives credit to the good things. She made peace with the fact this movie tried to be different.

[YT]hNR5GoaHka0[/YT]

She just treated TF out of everyone. MCU and it's fans in particular.

 

[Jaxon]

This IS comic Batman. He kills in the very first issue and also in The Dark Knight Returns.

That isn't the majority of the comic book Batman, yes, I agree. Then again, he doesn't really kill directly, he kills more like a soldier on a warpath and collateral casualties are acceptable to him. Batman in the comics and even in TAS is the same, he creates explosions and stuff but in the comics and animated media people get injured or flung about but don't die, while in a more realistic world of the movie people die.

I totally agree with your points btw, just elaborating.

I don't see anything that explains why Batman wouldn't kill. It's just a comic book device to ensure villains hang around for more issues.

 

[Sleiek]

She just treated TF out of everyone. MCU and it's fans in particular.

Spoiler

I don't think she was bashing MCU, there as a couple of things I didn't agree with, for example what she said about characterizations in MCU. But she did say she enjoys Marvel movies. And that BvS did something very different than Marvel movies.

 

[Jekecy]

I don't see anything that explains why Batman wouldn't kill. It's just a comic book device to ensure villains hang around for more issues.

 

[Sleiek]

Yeah, he has the code so that there is a distinction between him and the criminals.

 

[Jaxon]

Yeah, he has the code so that there is a distinction between him and the criminals.

That's writers "excuse" for ensuring they can keep his rogue's gallery going issue after issue, and they never present a case where it makes sense other than "implanting" a code in him. It's weak writing.

 

[matt47]

That's writers "excuse" for ensuring they can keep his rogue's gallery going issue after issue, and they never present a case where it makes sense other than "implanting" a code in him. It's weak writing.

We'll then there is no pleasing you.

 

[LamboMan]

That's writers "excuse" for ensuring they can keep his rogue's gallery going issue after issue, and they never present a case where it makes sense other than "implanting" a code in him. It's weak writing.

Its a different context, like BvS was set in a different world and context. I'm fine with Batman killing if that adds to his character arc of rising from the depths to become his former self. Also, he didn't kill those men on purpose for vengeance or out of spite, he killed them in self defense and since they were in the way of protecting of his mission and protecting an innocent.

Batman killing the Joker or another major villain on purpose and out of spite would be out of character. I get it, in the real world that's just a plot device, but in the comic world that is the character of Batman, right?

BvS has a realistic Batman and so they merged those two aspects together, by having him kill and fall and then rise again so it was a perfectly valid plot device in that context too.

 

[morningmimosa]

That's writers "excuse" for ensuring they can keep his rogue's gallery going issue after issue, and they never present a case where it makes sense other than "implanting" a code in him. It's weak writing.

I had no problems at all with Batfleck killing in BvS since it was part of his arc as others have mentioned before, but calling his no-kill code weak writing is just plain wrong. And if he kills again from this point on, I would be very disappointed.

 

[FunkMiller]

This IS comic Batman. He kills in the very first issue and also in The Dark Knight Returns.

Just popped in to correct this. Call it a public service

Batman doesn't kill in The Dark Knight Returns.

As you were.

 

[Jaxon]

I had no problems at all with Batfleck killing in BvS since it was part of his arc as others have mentioned before, but calling his no-kill code weak writing is just plain wrong. And if he kills again from this point on, I would be very disappointed.

I wouldn't if its justified. Sometimes you get put in a no win position.

in TDKR for example, the only way he gets out of the Bane fight in the sewer is by killing him. The way he gets out of that fight on the rooftop with Catwoman "no killing" was laughable.

I'm so glad in the DCEU Batman kills criminals if it's a means to an ends.

 

[LamboMan]

Just popped in to correct this. Call it a public service

Batman doesn't kill in The Dark Knight Returns.

As you were.

Not this again.

 

[batfreakforever]

Not this again.

Was bvs the way you wanted LamboMan?

 

[FunkMiller]

Not this again.

You state something incorrect in a post, I feel duty bound to let you know about your mistake. I figure someone who takes as much time and trouble as you do with your threads and your discussion points, would want to have his occasional errors pointed out, to ensure a better conversation.

 

[sf2]

Was bvs the way you wanted LamboMan?

sorry being busy body.

read his post in the de&re con thread

"Before the movie came out I was completely expecting the battle between Batman and Superman to be a battle of ideals. Their ideals are the things that guide their methods and classically, in the comics and animated media, they have always disagreed on their methods and that is what has divided them in the past.

This was definitely touched upon in the movie as a motivation for Superman to investigate Batman and want to stop him (also, there is a deleted scene showing Clark investigating Batman while in Gotham and we will see this in the Ultimate Cut).

But in the end the resolution wasn't one of their ideals or methods, it was a resolution of the very character motivations and life events that lead them to become what they are.

It wasn't a resolution of the 'effects' but of the 'cause' itself and that is something I have never seen happen in any Batman and Superman story. It went to the core of the characters and changed them and made them better, instead of just resolving surface conflicts or disagreements and leaving the characters intact."

 

[LamboMan]

Was bvs the way you wanted LamboMan?

No, but what I wanted comes from the animated series and the comics and things which already existed, like everyone else wanted. I had expectations going in and they weren't met in some ways but they were met in others. But that doesn't mean what I got was bad, it was just different than what I have seen in the past media. It wasn't until I saw the movie that I realised that what it gave us was much better than what I possibly COULD have expected since the past media followed a strict code and approach to these characters and Zack broke that code and gave us something better. He took these characters, tore them down and them rebuilt them to a higher standard, at least in the context of a more realistic world.

No person can know everything in the world and so our expectations are limited by our knowledge before the fact. Now if something new and interesting comes along that does not fit with my notions and my way of thinking, instead of rejecting it I try my best to learn something new from it and understand this new point of view or new information or school of thought, which is what I did with BvS and which is what I do with all Zack Snyder movies so I enjoy the heck out of them since I see them as an opportunity to expand my mind and open it to new ideas which makes me a more informed person which is beneficial to me in the long run.

You state something incorrect in a post, I feel duty bound to let you know about your mistake. I figure someone who takes as much time and trouble as you do with your threads and your discussion points, would want to have his occasional errors pointed out, to ensure a better conversation.

You as well as everyone on these boards knows that the scene has a blood spatter on the wall and the mutant looks dead. Nowhere is it confirmed that Batman did NOT kill the mutant to save the child. It has been debated in another thread and over the internet ad nauseam and the best conclusion we can come to is that everyone is free to take it as they wish since it is inconclusive. For some he killed, for others he didn't. The end. Neither I am right nor you. It is up to each one of us to decide what we saw in that scene.

And thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.

sorry being busy body.

read his post in the de&re con thread

"Before the movie came out I was completely expecting the battle between Batman and Superman to be a battle of ideals. Their ideals are the things that guide their methods and classically, in the comics and animated media, they have always disagreed on their methods and that is what has divided them in the past.

This was definitely touched upon in the movie as a motivation for Superman to investigate Batman and want to stop him (also, there is a deleted scene showing Clark investigating Batman while in Gotham and we will see this in the Ultimate Cut).

But in the end the resolution wasn't one of their ideals or methods, it was a resolution of the very character motivations and life events that lead them to become what they are.

It wasn't a resolution of the 'effects' but of the 'cause' itself and that is something I have never seen happen in any Batman and Superman story. It went to the core of the characters and changed them and made them better, instead of just resolving surface conflicts or disagreements and leaving the characters intact."

This ^. Thanks sf2.

 

[FunkMiller]

You as well as everyone on these boards knows that the scene has a blood spatter on the wall and the mutant looks dead. Nowhere is it confirmed that Batman did NOT kill the mutant to save the child. It has been debated in another thread and over the internet ad nauseam and the best conclusion we can come to is that everyone is free to take it as they wish since it is inconclusive. For some he killed, for others he didn't. The end. Neither I am right nor you. It is up to each one of us to decide what we saw in that scene.

And thanks, I'll take that as a compliment.

Nope. I'm right

Don't believe me? Well, that's perfectly acceptable. Why the hell would you believe me?

But you don't have to take my word for it. Is there anyone who could convince you that you're wrong on this particular subject?

How about Batman? Would Batman do?

Here are the panels from the book as Batman is on his way to fight the mutant leader, which occurs after the mutant with the baby scene:

Pretty conclusive wouldn't you say? Batman clearly states that he's never crossed that line in 30 years.

 

[FunkMiller]

That's writers "excuse" for ensuring they can keep his rogue's gallery going issue after issue, and they never present a case where it makes sense other than "implanting" a code in him. It's weak writing.

Utter rubbish.

If that were true, every comic book character would need a no kill code to keep their rogues gallery alive. That clearly isn't the case.

It's a character choice. A very interesting one that gives Batman more layers than other superheroes.

 

[LamboMan]

Nope. I'm right

Don't believe me? Well, that's perfectly acceptable. Why the hell would you believe me?

But you don't have to take my word for it. Is there anyone who could convince you that you're wrong on this particular subject?

How about Batman? Would Batman do?

Here are the panels from the book as Batman is on his way to fight the mutant leader, which occurs after the mutant with the baby scene:

Pretty conclusive wouldn't you say? Batman clearly states that he's never crossed that line in 30 years.

Good point and I do know about that panel. I don't deny that you might be right, once again as I said, it is left to or own interpretation.

It could also be interpreted as Batman not having crossed the line for his own safety or well being, but having done so for the safety of the child and him not counting that as having crossed the line, since he didn't murder anyone outright, he did what he had to do in the defense of an innocent life. Maybe when a child is in danger, he did what he had to do and he felt that his own life wasn't worth breaking the code for, but it was for an innocent child?

EDIT: The difference between the above two panels that we're talking about is that in case 1 Batman doesn't have a choice since the life of a child is at stake and there a very short span of time for him to act. But in the case 2 he has a choice, either to take out that mutant leader with guns or his bare hands. No one's life was at stake in the second case, other than his own. Batman didn't have a choice in the first. It's the same as when the choice of whether to kill Zod or not was taken away from Superman in the end of MoS.

That scene has been left purposely ambiguous and that I why I said it is left up to interpretation.