BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread - Part 4

[AnneFan]

This batman is essentially universally praised.

These statements don't come into the equation for me. My enjoyment of something doesn't depend on the approval of others.

 

[The Joker]

nice ********** in your little corner.

Is that jealousy I'm sensing because nobody ever pats you on the back for your salty posts?

This batman is essentially universally praised.

Yeah, only if you ignore the myriad of criticisms about his stupid illogical feud with Superman, his brainless killing, the Martha moment etc.

So let me go against the norm and disagree with that to show off my extensive comic book knowledge guys. Look how inaccurate he is! You're wrong for thinking this is the definitive batman!

what all of your posts look like

'People don't understand the brilliance of this movie. It's boggling how stupid people are about criticizing this movie. This forum is so annoying. Zack Snyder is a genius.'

That's what all your posts look like.

 

[Kanye West]

Is that jealousy I'm sensing because nobody ever pats you on the back for your salty posts?





Yeah, only if you ignore the myriad of criticisms about his stupid illogical feud with Superman, his brainless killing, the Martha moment etc.



'People don't understand the brilliance of this movie. It's boggling how stupid people are about criticizing this movie. This forum is so annoying. Zack Snyder is a genius.'

That's what all your posts look like.

mot of that complaining is limited to die hard comic book forums, especially this one. Even here you're a minority.

Whether it's critic reviews, youtube reviews, etc. Affleck's batman is basically the one thing almost everyone liked/loved.

Don't try to tell with a straight face that you're not in a very, very, small minority on this topic and aren't just trying to be a contrarian.

If any of your party's arguments were actually valid it would be a different story. Shown by the misinterpretation of the 1% line which IS batman exemplified but to a somewhat extreme extent. which is good.

 

[ApophènX]

Not being able to understand that 1% line is mind boggling.

Is it that hard to understand why a paranoid person, would see an alien being (who's been involved in cit destroying incidents before) would think to bring him down?.

Wich is interesting is that Batlan because of too much emotion close up himself to understanding and acting in the middle. And people who don't understand that are because they think too too rationnal. Close up their view and don't understand. Opposite way of perception, same reaction.

 

[The Joker]

mot of that complaining is limited to die hard comic book forums, especially this one. Even here you're a minority.

Whether it's critic reviews, youtube reviews, etc. Affleck's batman is basically the one thing almost everyone liked/loved.

Don't try to tell with a straight face that you're not in a very, very, small minority on this topic and aren't just trying to be a contrarian.

If any of your party's arguments were actually valid it would be a different story. Shown by the misinterpretation of the 1% line which IS batman exemplified but to a somewhat extreme extent. which is good.

Almost everyone liked him? That's a change of tune from saying he was universally praised.

Batfleck gets plenty of criticisms. And not just from fanboys. Here's one of many examples from a non CBM forum review;

'In Gone Girl, Ben Affleck played a dull, clueless, amoral, idiotic thug who spends the entire film being manipulated. In Batman v Superman, Ben Affleck plays a dull, clueless, amoral, idiotic thug who spends the entire film being manipulated... while wearing a Batman suit.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/galanty-miller/batman-v-superman-spoiler_b_9557852.html

He's not even the fan favorite movie version Batman like everyone thought he would be.

Thinking that the 1% line exemplifies Batman shows that you, like Zack Snyder, do not understand the character at all. If you think I'm wrong post some comic book proof that backs up this 1% mentality. Go ahead.

 

[kguillou]

But that is Batman. Even in the comics, Batman has always been paranoid, untrusting and on the defensive. That's the whole premise behind the Tower of Babel story. Sure, the JL are his colleagues and he trusts them but...what IF. What IF one of them turns rogue? Then what? Batman has to be pragmatic in that 1% chance that the Flash goes crazy, he's got to be able to take him down.

I will grant you, Batfleck's paranoia is amplified, but that's intentional because he's war torn and psychologically beaten down. He's had enough and he's not thinking clearly. He's thinking "Because of this guy, this girl I'm holding in my arms is an orphan, just like I was. No one else is going to do something about this, so I will. "

 

[The Joker]

But that is Batman. Even in the comics, Batman has always been paranoid, untrusting and on the defensive. That's the whole premise behind the Tower of Babel story. Sure, the JL are his colleagues and he trusts them but...what IF. What IF one of them turns rogue? Then what? Batman has to be pragmatic in that 1% chance that the Flash goes crazy, he's got to be able to take him down.

No, it is definitely not Batman. Saying Batman is paranoid and lacking trust doesn't mean he would kill Superman or anyone because he thought there was a remote chance they could be a threat to the whole world. If he thought that way then the likes of Ra's Al Ghul would be six feet under long ago. Batman's non trusting nature and paranoia has limits. It doesn't make him an irrational idiot. Even when he's fearful of something.

I will grant you, Batfleck's paranoia is amplified, but that's intentional because he's war torn and psychologically beaten down. He's had enough and he's not thinking clearly. He's thinking "Because of this guy, this girl I'm holding in my arms is an orphan, just like I was. No one else is going to do something about this, so I will. "

Why do some people think explaining why Batfleck is being an irrational moron somehow validates it? We know his reasons why he does it. That's why they get criticized. Because they are stupid, illogical, and fly in the face of who Batman really is.

Batman's been psychologically torn down, he lost loved ones (including Robin), he's seen good men turn bad etc. All the stuff they threw at us with Batfleck. Didn't turn him into Batfleck's murder plotting thug.

So still waiting to see how this is an exemplification of Batman.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

For example, the chances of Earth getting a major asteroid impact is very small but we spend a lot of money on detection because if it does happen, then it's game over.

Not true. The chances of Earth getting hit by a major asteroid in our lifetimes is very small. The chances of Earth getting hit by a major asteroid overall is practically 100%.

 

[ApophènX]

No, it is definitely not Batman. Saying Batman is paranoid and lacking trust doesn't mean he would kill Superman or anyone because he thought there was a remote chance they could be a threat to the whole world.

Because they are stupid, illogical, and fly in the face of who Batman really is.

Batman's been psychologically torn down, he lost loved ones (including Robin), he's seen good men turn bad etc. All the stuff they threw at us with Batfleck. Didn't turn him into Batfleck's murder plotting thug.

Actually it did, just like shown in the movie. One version of Batman, one other possibilty of what he his or can be.

So you don't like irrational stuff and thhink it's stupid, so what is not rational is stupid and you'r camping your position because you think it's rational and you don't want to be stupid?

They took a different tak on the character you can argue all you want it's not going to change it, you should get over it and enjoy it. It's not because one take on the character is different ihe is gonna be different for all eternity.

Batman being emotional make him go radical and killing, changed his nature (like fear usually does) not making balance and having middle view, he didn't get over it.

You take a rational point of view and go radical in your view of the character, not making balance and having middle view, you don't get over it.

"Who batman really his"

 

[The Joker]

They took a different tak on the character you can argue all you want it's not going to change it, you should get over it and enjoy it. It's not because one take on the character is different ihe is gonna be different for all eternity.

Ignoring the other incoherent stuff you said, this here is the crux of your post. I'm not trying to change this take on the character. What the heck makes you think that. That's an impossibility. It is what it is, and nothing will change it. I don't know what makes you think criticizing something is an attempt to change it.

Why should anyone "get over it" and enjoy something they think is truly terrible? People don't force themselves to like something that they really don't care for, and why should they even bother to.

 

[Doctor Octopus]

I get what the movie is trying to push on me about this Batman and why he is the way he is, however, if I as a Batman fan I don't accept the reasons explained in this film then it further damages the character for future films.( for me) They are building a universe and now in future Batman stories I will always be asking "When does this story take place? Is it broken Batman or is it before Metropolis? If it's redeemed Batman, why did that not make him snap again or if it's Broken Batman then why didn't he just kill that guy?" IMO there will be a lot contradictions in future stories that we as the audience will question and either have to accept or ignore. I could be absolutely wrong of course but as someone who doesn't accept the motivations in BVS, this Batman might get very muddied for me.

Agreed. Snyder not get Batman. He make the character all wrong, and Batman motive to hate Superman make no sense and so silly.

It's almost like superheroes are inherently romantic characters and trying to divorce them too much from that context misses the point of the genre.

But nah, Superman is a flying firefighter and Batman is a crazed vigilante.

lol that funny and true.

 

[ApophènX]

Ignoring the other incoherent stuff you said, this here is the crux of your post. I'm not trying to change this take on the character. What the hell makes you think that. That's an impossibility. It is what it is, and nothing will change it. I don't know what makes you think criticizing something is an attempt to change it.

Why should anyone "get over it" and enjoy something they think is truly terrible? People don't force themselves to like something that they really don't care for, and why should they even bother to.

I'm trying to tell you how you see it is perception and yes you can change it, it's call learning to care for new things. There are lots of things i think are truly terrible in this world and i'm not gonna force myself to like them but i can change how i approach them sometime. If you didn't really care for it why bother speaking about it?

The rest of my post was me trying to explain why i think you're carring about it. But it's surrely over analyzed stuff so don't mind.

 

[The Joker]

I'm trying to tell you how you see it is perception and yes you can change it, it's call learning to care for new things. There are lots of things i think are truly terrible in this world and i'm not gonna force myself to like them but i can change how i approach them sometime.

Well good for you, but that's you. Not everyone thinks that way. Some things people just don't like, and no different approach to them changes that. They still are what they are.

If you didn't really care for it why bother speaking about it?

Because it's Batman. As a Batman fan I love to discuss all things Batman related, including the bad stuff. Some of the best discussions can be critical ones.

 

[ApophènX]

Ok so critical discussion open you to new giew on the subject through confrontation of idea, that's caring so. I think we should learn from each other views and somtime i found people to he too campy about their position and it felt like we don't alwzys learn and it gets to repeat the same things too much, wich can open great discussion sometime but sometime it felt it could go much further. I guess it takes time

 

[Kanye West]

Almost everyone liked him? That's a change of tune from saying he was universally praised.

Batfleck gets plenty of criticisms. And not just from fanboys. Here's one of many examples from a non fanboy review;

'In Gone Girl, Ben Affleck played a dull, clueless, amoral, idiotic thug who spends the entire film being manipulated. In Batman v Superman, Ben Affleck plays a dull, clueless, amoral, idiotic thug who spends the entire film being manipulated... while wearing a Batman suit.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/galanty-miller/batman-v-superman-spoiler_b_9557852.html

He's not even the fan favorite movie version Batman like everyone thought he would be.

Thinking that the 1% line exemplifies Batman shows that you, like Zack Snyder, do not understand the character at all. If you think I'm wrong post some comic book proof that backs up this 1% mentality. Go ahead.

you know universal praise doesn't mean EVERYONE right?
in that case nothing is universally praised. Dark Knight is considered to be a universally praised film, but that really means "almost everyone"

the general consensus is that Batfleck was great.

You don't need specific panels to justifiy that line (not that you have to be comic accurate to be good at all. comics are irrelevant to film).

But batman is a broken, paranoid, distrustful, somewhat unhinged character. He's not ALL right up there. Batman thinking that a guy, who he's seen with his own eyes destroy a city, should be put down because that is too much power for one being to have/ handle responsibly. Add to that the context the movie provides that this batman has been tested way more than the other incarnations. He's literally seen people he thought were good, turn bad in front of very eyes. Him thinking that way about superman is the most logical thing to do given the context and character history.

Maybe you should start looking at the character and his implied history as a whole instead of looking at one line and saying he's mis-characterized (which is untrue and unimportant). Then you when the movie makes it clear that this isn't SUPPOSE to be the same batman. His arc is that of redemption and coming back to the light.

But no. muh batman would never say that!

 

[The Joker]

you know universal praise doesn't mean EVERYONE right?
in that case nothing is universally praised. Dark Knight is considered to be a universally praised film, but that really means "almost everyone"

I know it means not everyone, but do you, because you were claiming the non fanboy reviews, YouTube vids etc were saying he was great. You were being literal claiming only fanboys had complaints about him.

the general consensus is that Batfleck was great.

This coming from someone who goes around saying Zack Snyder is a genius and a visionary, when the consensus for his movies says the total opposite, but you go around crowing about the consensus of Batfleck. That is a funny irony. You can find plenty of criticism against Batfleck, and not just from fans.

You don't need specific panels to justifiy that line (not that you have to be comic accurate to be good at all. comics are irrelevant to film).

Yes, you do need it if you're trying to say this mentality is representative of Batman. You're also wrong, comics are relevant since that's what these movies are based on. Snyder claims to have even read the source material, then makes factually wrong claims about the content he supposedly read.

But batman is a broken, paranoid, distrustful, somewhat unhinged character. He's not ALL right up there. Batman thinking that a guy, who he's seen with his own eyes destroy a city, should be put down because that is too much power for one being to have/ handle responsibly. Add to that the context the movie provides that this batman has been tested way more than the other incarnations. He's literally seen people he thought were good, turn bad in front of very eyes. Him thinking that way about superman is the most logical thing to do given the context and character history.

What has this Batman been tested on way more that the comic book Batman has not? This claim fascinates and confuses me no end. Tell me exactly what has he endured that the comic book Batman has not? Seeing men he thought were good turn bad? Comics did that. Robin murdered? Comics did that. Been broken in spirit? Comics did that. Faced enemies who had the power to kill all of humanity? Comics did that.

But he never went and hatched a murder plot of someone based on the remotest chance of them being a danger. Why? Because Batman is not that stupid or illogical or paranoid.

Maybe you should start looking at the character and his implied history as a whole instead of looking at one line and saying he's mis-characterized (which is untrue and unimportant). Then you when the movie makes it clear that this isn't SUPPOSE to be the same batman. His arc is that of redemption and coming back to the light.

What do you think I just did above? I have gone through his history and noted he has suffered the same things Batfleck supposedly did. Yet he didn't turn into what Batfleck did.

So I ask you again, with little to no hope of getting a valid answer yet again, how does this exemplify who Batman is?

I'm objectively wrong in this scenario

Fixed.

 

[Kanye West]

I know it means not everyone, but do you, because you were claiming the non fanboy reviews, YouTube vids etc were saying he was great. You were being literal claiming only fanboys had complaints about him.



This coming from someone who goes around saying Zack Snyder is a genius and a visionary, when the consensus for his movies says the total opposite, but you go around crowing about the consensus of Batfleck. That is a funny irony. You can find plenty of criticism against Batfleck, and not just from fans.



Yes, you do need it if you're trying to say this mentality is representative of Batman. You're also wrong, comics are relevant since that's what these movies are based on. Snyder claims to have even read the source material, then makes factually wrong claims about the content he supposedly read.



What has this Batman been tested on way more that the comic book Batman has not? This claim fascinates and confuses me no end. Tell me exactly what has he endured that the comic book Batman has not? Seeing men he thought were good turn bad? Comics did that. Robin murdered? Comics did that. Been broken in spirit? Comics did that. Faced enemies who had the power to kill all of humanity? Comics did that.

But he never went and hatched a murder plot of someone based on the remotest chance of them being a danger. Why? Because Batman is not that stupid or illogical or paranoid.



What do you think I just did above? I have gone through his history and noted he has suffered the same things Batfleck supposedly did. Yet he didn't turn into what Batfleck did.

So I ask you again, with little to no hope of getting a valid answer yet again, how does this exemplify who Batman is?



Fixed.

I know the general critic consensus on snyder is mostly mixed or negative. GA is mostly impartial.
And the general consensus on batfleck IS that he's good. That's the difference. You seem to not acknowledge that. It's fine to argue against that like I do with snyder's quality, but I realize that the majority doesn't agree or care. You can'T seem to grasp that concept with Batfleck. You ARE in the small minority.

By other incarnations I was referring to film incarnations.
All the things I listed about batman are true, agree? ( broken, paranoid, distrustful, somewhat unhinged character. He's not ALL right up there)
Take that and his decision to take down superman and tell me what is a better alternative to it? A person with that mentality should not be waiting around to see when superman actually goes bad and then do something.

Comparing it to other threats is invalid because there is NO other possible threat to humanity than the superman. No nukes, no robbers, no jokers. "Why doesn't he apply the same logic to an potential bank robber?" really? do you not see the huge difference in these two situations?

Keeping in mind what kind of person bruce is, it's downright STUPID to say here's this guy that I know can destroying buildings with his hands, and seems to cause as much trouble as benefits, let's just sit around until he finally breaks. This guy is directly responsible for people close to me dying, what reason do i have to be angry? or to be suspicious?

All this to justify why he's comic accurate when that is literally the last thing the filmmakers should be thinking about. Comic accuracy should be a bonus at the end if everything else works fine. Bottom of the bucket list. The first priority is to have it make sense in context, which it undoubtedly does and you can't explain to me why it doesn't.

 

[batfreakforever]

I know the general critic consensus on snyder is mostly mixed or negative. GA is mostly impartial.
And the general consensus on batfleck IS that he's good. That's the difference. You seem to not acknowledge that. It's fine to argue against that like I do with snyder's quality, but I realize that the majority doesn't agree or care. You can'T seem to grasp that concept with Batfleck. You ARE in the small minority.

By other incarnations I was referring to film incarnations.
All the things I listed about batman are true, agree? ( broken, paranoid, distrustful, somewhat unhinged character. He's not ALL right up there)
Take that and his decision to take down superman and tell me what is a better alternative to it? A person with that mentality should not be waiting around to see when superman actually goes bad and then do something.

Comparing it to other threats is invalid because there is NO other possible threat to humanity than the superman. No nukes, no robbers, no jokers. "Why doesn't he apply the same logic to an potential bank robber?" really? do you not see the huge difference in these two situations?

Keeping in mind what kind of person bruce is, it's downright STUPID to say here's this guy that I know can destroying buildings with his hands, and seems to cause as much trouble as benefits, let's just sit around until he finally breaks. This guy is directly responsible for people close to me dying, what reason do i have to be angry? or to be suspicious?

All this to justify why he's comic accurate when that is literally the last thing the filmmakers should be thinking about. Comic accuracy should be a bonus at the end if everything else works fine. Bottom of the bucket list. The first priority is to have it make sense in context, which it undoubtedly does and you can't explain to me why it doesn't.

You can explain to him all you want Kanye but your just wasting time on posters like the Joker. He really doesn't understand the film. He's being irrational and irritated by the how Batman is presented in BvS. It's explained in BvS and obviously WB and Affleck loved this version to want it be presented in BvS. I love it because I understand it. The 1% speach and the Martha scene are clear examples of people not understanding the movie or the source material for that matter because this uses the source material as a jumping off point and goes beyond it. I understand that some don't like it but they say they don't like it because scenes like these don't make sense to them is clearly a big sign of people not understanding the context of the scenes in the movie.
The comics continuity can't take Batman like how he is presented in BvS because you can only go so far in the comics continuity.
The argument that the comics Batman wouldn't be like the way he is in BvS are completely invalid because the filmmakers used the comics Batman staus quo as a STARTING POINT and went to a place beyond that for their Batman and if people can't understand why or accept it then that's their problem.
This is SNYDER and WB and AFFLECK'S BATMAN and NOT THE COMICS CONTINUITY BATMAN. Its as simple as that.
The movies have their own rules and the movie is the filmakers own playground using the comics, games, cartoons , graphic novels and other movies or whatever as a stepping stone or inspiration for THEIR VERSION.
Batman is known for being one of the most interpreted characters and is still Batman no matter what. Even the Clooney version is Batman.
So why isn't this??????

 

[The Joker]

I know the general critic consensus on snyder is mostly mixed or negative. GA is mostly impartial.

Yet it doesn't stop you going around saying he's a genius and a visionary. So why are trying to use a consensus for Batfleck to attempt to validate his awful characterization? Is it supposed to magically change something about your argument?

And the general consensus on batfleck IS that he's good. That's the difference. You seem to not acknowledge that. It's fine to argue against that like I do with snyder's quality, but I realize that the majority doesn't agree or care. You can'T seem to grasp that concept with Batfleck. You ARE in the small minority.

Keep telling yourself. You might end up believing it eventually.

By other incarnations I was referring to film incarnations.
All the things I listed about batman are true, agree? ( broken, paranoid, distrustful, somewhat unhinged character. He's not ALL right up there)
Take that and his decision to take down superman and tell me what is a better alternative to it? A person with that mentality should not be waiting around to see when superman actually goes bad and then do something.

What does other movie incarnations have to do with it? Is George Clooney's Batman relevant to what Batfleck did? They have no bearing on this movie. They were not used as a basis or inspiration, but the comics were. Unless I missed some interview where they said the other movie Batmen were used as inspiration for this?

This is what you've been talking about when you said he exemplifies Batman, you were comparing him to other movie Batmen? Even that's not accurate. None of them hatched murder plans, or anything close to that paranoid against someone who was blatantly a good guy, and the most rudimentary bit of investigation would have revealed he had a mother named Martha.

Comparing it to other threats is invalid because there is NO other possible threat to humanity than the superman. No nukes, no robbers, no jokers. "Why doesn't he apply the same logic to an potential bank robber?" really? do you not see the huge difference in these two situations?

Of course there's other threats to humanity besides Superman. Anyone with the potential to build a nuke, or any kind of mass destructive device is a potential threat. They have every much a chance of turning bad as Superman does, too.

Keeping in mind what kind of person bruce is, it's downright STUPID to say here's this guy that I know can destroying buildings with his hands, and seems to cause as much trouble as benefits, let's just sit around until he finally breaks. This guy is directly responsible for people close to me dying, what reason do i have to be angry? or to be suspicious?

No, it's downright stupid to think that kind of illogical stupidity is the way that Batman thinks. Batman doesn't think in that kind of paranoid way. If Batman believed that someone could one day be a potential threat to the world, and that's a big maybe, he would have some plan in place to deal with that threat when it happens. He wouldn't kill someone on the basis of the remote chance it may happen.

That not only does not equate with Batman, but it doesn't equate to sane rational thinking.

All this to justify why he's comic accurate when that is literally the last thing the filmmakers should be thinking about.

Yes, lets make the character as little like the material as he's based on as possible. Might as well call him Batman in name only with that mentality.

It's certainly the last thing Snyder was thinking about.

Comic accuracy should be a bonus at the end if everything else works fine.

Even this didn't, because when you view it as simply a story not based on any character, Batfleck still looks like an idiot, and his whole feud could have so easily been resolved with the simplest of investigation.

Bottom of the bucket list. The first priority is to have it make sense in context, which it undoubtedly does and you can't explain to me why it doesn't.

I've explained it to you several times. Your argument is that it makes sense for someone to hatch a murder scheme on a very small possibility of something happening. If that kind of flimsy writing is good for you, then it's no wonder you see Snyder as a genius. His movies are loaded with that kind of tripe.

 

[Kanye West]

Yet it doesn't stop you going around saying he's a genius and a visionary. So why are trying to use a consensus for Batfleck to attempt to validate his awful characterization? Is it supposed to magically change something about your argument?



Keep telling yourself. You might end up believing it eventually.



What does other movie incarnations have to do with it? Is George Clooney's Batman relevant to what Batfleck did? They have no bearing on this movie. They were not used as a basis or inspiration, but the comics were. Unless I missed some interview where they said the other movie Batmen were used as inspiration for this?

This is what you've been talking about when you said he exemplifies Batman, you were comparing him to other movie Batmen? Even that's not accurate. None of them hatched murder plans, or anything close to that paranoid against someone who was blatantly a good guy, and the most rudimentary bit of investigation would have revealed he had a mother named Martha.



Of course there's other threats to humanity besides Superman. Anyone with the potential to build a nuke, or any kind of mass destructive device is a potential threat. They have every much a chance of turning bad as Superman does, too.



No, it's downright stupid to think that kind of illogical stupidity is the way that Batman thinks. Batman doesn't think in that kind of paranoid way. If Batman believed that someone could one day be a potential threat to the world, and that's a big maybe, he would have some plan in place to deal with that threat when it happens. He wouldn't kill someone on the basis of the remote chance it may happen.

That not only does not equate with Batman, but it doesn't equate to sane rational thinking.



The first correct thing you've said. Maybe now you'll stop saying this terrible characterization exemplifies Batman.



Even this didn't, because when you view it as simply a story not based on any character, Batfleck still looks like an idiot, and his whole feud could have so easily been resolved with the simplest of investigation.



I've explained it to you several times. Your argument is that it makes sense for someone to hatch a murder scheme on a very small possibility of something happening. If that kind of flimsy writing is good for you, then it's no wonder you see Snyder as a genius. His movies are loaded with that kind of tripe.

I'm not saying you should stop arguing your point. Im saying you're wrong for thinking you're not in the small minority in this because this batman IS mostly praised than not. There is FAR more praise and positivity regarding this batman than negativity or criticism. For everyone negative review of batfleck you can conjure up, there are 20 positive ones. You're alone in this (with some friends), I need you to except that.

How does it not make sense in context? You're absolutely ignoring the type of character he's set up to be. I don't wanna use the same adjectives in every response (broken, paranoid, distrustful, somewhat unhinged character, mentally unstable)
There is absolutely no threat bigger than superman. Someone
kid going rogue and building a nuke isn't comparable because A) a nuke isn't nearly as dangerous as superman is. If I have to pick between a nuke dropping somewhere in the world, and living in a world with a evil superman. It's not a hard choice. Just think of the extent of how dangerous a superman is.
Add on batman's already mentally unstable personality and history of betrayal. Add on lex's manipulation (despite how well you think that comes across, the point is that it IS there), add the fact that he's not blatantly a benevolent figure, add the fact that bruce has seen first hand what he can do, the fact that he's involved with killing his close friends, and you can't for one moment think of a logic where he believes that guy should be taken down? Especially when we accept illogical arguments in many other comic book movies.

It takes the comicbook batman, keeps the same principle of his personality and adds on that. I DON'T trust a guy who goes through all that and decides this guy should be free to run around (same way I wouldn't trust a superman who isn't willing to put the life of a family over the life of murdering psychopath) . I should wait till he destroys a whole country this time to do something. Keep applying the 1% logic to things that it doesn't actually apply to.

And how is a background check suppose to prevent the conflict? Is that going to un-do all people that people that died in those buildings?



Awaiting the "UH, he would find superman's mom's name is martha! i'ma genius!" response

 

[Flint Marko]

That not only does not equate with Batman, but it doesn't equate to sane rational thinking.

And therein lies why Batfleck is a lot more than just "not your comic book Batman". Who wants to see one of the most beloved superheroes of all time portrayed as an idiot?

 

[The Joker]

I'm not saying you should stop arguing your point. Im saying you're wrong for thinking you're not in the small minority in this because this batman IS mostly praised than not. There is FAR more praise and positivity regarding this batman than negativity or criticism. For everyone negative review of batfleck you can conjure up, there are 20 positive ones. You're alone in this (with some friends), I need you to except that.

I think you're confusing praise for Affleck's acting, with praise for the characterization. I know I'm in no small minority, because there is heaps of criticism, and not just from fanboys, about Batman in this movie.

If you need me to accept otherwise, then you're in for a long wait.

How does it not make sense in context? You're absolutely ignoring the type of character he's set up to be. I don't wanna use the same adjectives in every response (broken, paranoid, distrustful, somewhat unhinged character, mentally unstable)

I know what type of character he's meant to be, that's why it doesn't work. This Batman is basing his whole murder plot on a tiny remote probability. Saying he's paranoid and distrustful doesn't make this character look any less stupid.

Not to mention the fact that Alfred is supporting an unstable murderous idiot also makes him look just as stupid.

There is absolutely no threat bigger than superman. Someone
kid going rogue and building a nuke isn't comparable because A) a nuke isn't nearly as dangerous as superman is. If I have to pick between a nuke dropping somewhere in the world, and living in a world with a evil superman. It's not a hard choice. Just think of the extent of how dangerous a superman is.

That's hair splitting. It amounts to the same type of threat in the end. A bomb has only one purpose; to blow up. Whereas Superman has a long history of saving countless lives. Batman's perceiving a threat based on a tiny remote chance of something. That's the basis for his feud. So if you take this moronic logic and apply it to other threats to millions of lives, Batman should be killing anyone with the potential to make weapons and devices of mass destruction since they have as much chance as Superman of endangering countless lives.

Add on batman's already mentally unstable personality and history of betrayal. Add on lex's manipulation (despite how well you think that comes across, the point is that it IS there), add the fact that he's not blatantly a benevolent figure, add the fact that bruce has seen first hand what he can do, the fact that he's involved with killing his close friends, and you can't for one moment think of a logic where he believes that guy should be taken down? Especially when we accept illogical arguments in many other comic book movies.

Lex's "manipulation" just further compounds how stupid Batfleck was, considering he'd been investigating the guy and knew he was bad, but still fell for his obvious manipulations anyway.

Stop trying to use other comic book movies as a crutch to defend this movie's flaws. If you can't defend this movie on it's own "merits" then it's not a good movie in the first place, because a good movie can stand on it's own two feet and not need to be compared to other movies to back it up.

It takes the comicbook batman, keeps the same principle of his personality and adds on that. I DON'T trust a guy who goes through all that and decides this guy should be free to run around (same way I wouldn't trust a superman who isn't willing to put the life of a family over the life of murdering psychopath) . I should wait till he destroys a whole country this time to do something. Keep applying the 1% logic to things that it doesn't actually apply to.

This could not be further from comic book Batman's principles and personality. Not on his worst day, not on his most hopeless moments, has Batman ever come even close to anything as illogical or idiotic as what Batfleck was doing in this movie. You keep repeating he's been betrayed, seen good men go bad, he's broken, he's lost people etc. So has comic book Batman. So how is this in keeping with the principle of his personality when it flies in the face of what Batman would really do?

And how is a background check suppose to prevent the conflict? Is that going to un-do all people that people that died in those buildings?

Well since finding out Superman had a mother magically solved their whole "feud" of course. I mean that's all it took to forget about all those people that died in those buildings.

Awaiting the "UH, he would find superman's mom's name is martha! i'ma genius!" response

"UH, he would find superman's mom's name is martha! i'ma genius!"

And therein lies why Batfleck is a lot more than just "not your comic book Batman". Who wants to see one of the most beloved superheroes of all time portrayed as an idiot?

We just just don't get it. "He was unstable, he lost Robin, Lex was manipulating him" #darkedgy Batman!

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I know what type of character he's meant to be, that's why it doesn't work. This Batman is basing his whole murder plot on a tiny remote probability. Saying he's paranoid and distrustful doesn't make this character look any less stupid.

You can make a good paranoid, distrustful character. Snyder just does an exceptionally poor job of it. It is very similar to Magneto's motivation in that he fears what humans can do to his race.

But there are a couple of HUGE differences that makes it work for Magneto, and not in this film, even aside from it being out of character for Batman.

1. Being a Holocaust survivor, Magneto has already lived through something similar in his past that has traumatized him.
2. Magneto doesn't just think that there is a 1% chance that humans might turn on mutants, he thinks it is an inevitability that they will. And there are many humans that do vile, racist things towards mutants that support his outlook.

That's why Magneto is a believable character and Batman is just a stupid idiot.

 

[Xrated48]

I liked Ben Affleck performance as batman but I did not like the Portrayal of batman as a character. As Zack Snyder vision of batman did not match up with how he is portrayed in the comics. Plain and simple as that for those who don't understand why people don't like this interpretation of batman.

 

[sf2]

You can make a good paranoid, distrustful character. Snyder just does an exceptionally poor job of it. It is very similar to Magneto's motivation in that he fears what humans can do to his race.

But there are a couple of HUGE differences that makes it work for Magneto, and not in this film, even aside from it being out of character for Batman.

1. Being a Holocaust survivor, Magneto has already lived through something similar in his past that has traumatized him.
2. Magneto doesn't just think that there is a 1% chance that humans might turn on mutants, he thinks it is an inevitability that they will. And there are many humans that do vile, racist things towards mutants that support his outlook.

That's why Magneto is a believable character and Batman is just a stupid idiot.

???
in the injustice knightmare, he saw superman killed relentlessly and killing him too.