BvS The Official Zack Snyder Directs Everything Thread - Part 4

[Timebomb]

BvS Batman was simply not in that mindset. The film makes a point of it. The UC emphasises it further. "He's angry and he's hunting." New rules.

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.

 

[The Joker]

Batman's angry and he's hunting. That's a brilliant reason to turn him into a killer. He's never been angry before in the comics. No this is a whole new first for him. These guys really have a good handle on Batman's character.

/sarcasm.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Batman's angry and he's hunting. That's a brilliant reason to turn him into a killer. He's never been angry before in the comics. No this is a whole new first for him. These guys really have a good handle on Batman's character.

/sarcasm.

so you're saying you don't murder people when you're angry?

weirdo.

 

[The Joker]

so you're saying you don't murder people when you're angry?

weirdo.

 

[Timebomb]

Batman's angry and he's hunting. That's a brilliant reason to turn him into a killer. He's never been angry before in the comics. No this is a whole new first for him. These guys really have a good handle on Batman's character.

/sarcasm.

According to Snyder, Batman kills all the time in Miller's great book. Shows how much he understands the source material.

 

[The Joker]

According to Snyder, Batman kills all the time in Miller's great book. Shows how much he understands the source material.

I doubt he even read the source material. I wouldn't be surprised if he skimmed through the pages, saw some pics of Batman in an armored suit fighting Superman and thought "Ooooh that looks nice. I'll put that in my movie".

 

[The Batman]

But this is movies, not comics, people would not believe that Batman has been fighting crime (in fact worst Criminals that exist are in Gotham City) and has killed NO ONE as Batman in last 20 years, I mean, is it even believable ?

So....it's not believable that Batman could go 20 years without killing someone, but I guess it's believable that Superman could drive someone through a concrete wall at superspeed, and that guy'll still be alive?

 

[Lencho01]

Snyder should've just done the story of when Supes and Bats met on a cruise ship. Hilarity ensues.

 

[StormC]

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.

 

[Sleiek]

Can't believe the Joker has managed to live this long.

Don't you know? It is COMIC sense to let the villains live and their goons die.

 

[Sleiek]

Look, every time we have this discussion about why it's okay that Batman kills in this movie is a moot point. Why? Because Snyder didn't mean for it to be this character arc! Listen to him talk about it -1:35 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ZD6Wmu2L8

That's ultimately why these "killings" didn't bother me. I saw that video before the movie released. Seeing as how this is comic book movie, I kinda got into the mindset that all those things were kinda like collateral damage.

 

[kguillou]

But here's the thing, Batman is not "Punisher" killing. He's not going out on the streets and just taking the lives of every thug he sees deliberately. He's killing in the same way Burton's Batman killed. I see it as Batman still very much has his moral code but...if some thugs happen to bite it while he's taking out an armored vehicle or something, so be it. I see it more as this Batman is just more BRUTAL in his vigilante methods but he's not The Punisher

He's willing to do Superman in, because he doesn't see him as a human being, he sees him as a dangerous extraterrestrial that could potentially bring the world down. This is why he's willing to go that far with Superman.

Just my personal take on it. I feel like the UE will further expand on that, too.

 

[Micromind]

So....it's not believable that Batman could go 20 years without killing someone, but I guess it's believable that Superman could drive someone through a concrete wall at superspeed, and that guy'll still be alive?

First one isn't believable (to me) the second scene involves someone who is a superhero who could punch a concrete wall while carrying the warlord in his other hand while flying.

We don't see that but when Superman himself is saying that he did not kill those men, I have to believe him or you want to say that Supes is lying to Lois ?

And what do you mean by Superspeed ?

 

[Xrated48]

I doubt he even read the source material. I wouldn't be surprised if he skimmed through the pages, saw some pics of Batman in an armored suit fighting Superman and thought "Ooooh that looks nice. I'll put that in my movie".

100% true

 

[TheBat812]

But here's the thing, Batman is not "Punisher" killing. He's not going out on the streets and just taking the lives of every thug he sees deliberately. He's killing in the same way Burton's Batman killed. I see it as Batman still very much has his moral code but...if some thugs happen to bite it while he's taking out an armored vehicle or something, so be it. I see it more as this Batman is just more BRUTAL in his vigilante methods but he's not The Punisher

He's willing to do Superman in, because he doesn't see him as a human being, he sees him as a dangerous extraterrestrial that could potentially bring the world down. This is why he's willing to go that far with Superman.

Just my personal take on it. I feel like the UE will further expand on that, too.

Absolutely.

 

[Mad Love]

He's willing to do Superman in, because he doesn't see him as a human being, he sees him as a dangerous extraterrestrial that could potentially bring the world down. This is why he's willing to go that far with Superman"

"if we believe there is even a 1 percent chance he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty and we have to destroy him."

People like to make fun of that line but it's probably because they're taking it literally. What it really means is that the consequence is so great that it outweighs the improbability. 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.

It's also referencing Dick Cheney: "'If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response." This is about fear propaganda to gain support for a pre-emptive strike on perceived threats.

 

[kguillou]

And you know what? Batman's not totally wrong. What if Superman gets mind controlled somehow? We're screwed.

I mean, think about it for a second. If there was a being out there with that kind of power in real life. Even though he SEEMS to have good intentions, there's that scary unknown, that "what if" from an ordinary person's point of view. We KNOW Superman is good because we, the audience know the character, but if Superman really existed or a man like Superman existed how would any of us regular people looking on from afar REALLY know that one day this guy won't flip a switch on us? It would be scary just knowing there is someone out there who COULD wipe us all out without trying if he wanted to. We'd have to learn to simply place our trust in this stranger from another world somehow. I think that is the angle this film comes from. I think its a very real take on how we the general public and people like Bruce Wayne would feel about this guy.

It's like with Civil War. We root for Captain America because we KNOW Cap and we don't want him to be a government agent. But if it were a real life situation? Heck YEAH we would all be rallying for super powered beings to be registered, just like the police. We wouldn't want them roaming free without accountability.

 

[The Joker]

No offense, but that is just stupid logic. You don't go around making life and death decisions based on what ifs of such small probability. There's a huge difference between that and asking superheros to register and be answerable to some kind of law and control. That's not denying them their lives or even their chance to still be heroes, that's just setting some boundaries. What Batman was planning was pure idiotic and irrational.

According to Batfleck's stupid logic, this kid should be killed because he could possibly turn bad one day and build a nuclear bomb that could kill millions; http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/white-kid-builds-nuclear-reactor-and-homeland-security-offers-help/

 

[AnneFan]

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.

BvS Batman was operating on emotion. He wanted to reclaim a sense of power and control in his life. The brutal side appears when Superman appears. It seems he has come to terms with sharing the world with superpowered beings now. He accepts they need to unite.

 

[ApophènX]

No offense, but that is just stupid logic. You don't go around making life and death decisions based on what ifs of such small probability. There's a huge difference between that and asking superheros to register and be answerable to some kind of law and control. That's not denying them their lives or even their chance to still be heroes, that's just setting some boundaries. What Batman was planning was pure idiotic and irrational/[/url]

As the comment above stated it is what happen when people fear the unkown, fear triggers un-rationnal reaction.Mostly amplified when facing a god-alien like figure with irrational powers. Batman fear's is perfectly understable, he himself would know better than everybody what a man with great powers can do, just seing how himself with tech can go. And like every reaction enced by fear what happen is often changes your nature and make you go radical, even with the possibility to become the things you fear.

And it's not stupid logic, just different.

 

[Kanye West]

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


This batman is essentially universally praised. 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

 

[AnneFan]

As the comment above stated it is what happen when people fear the unkown, fear triggers un-rationnal reaction.Mostly amplified when facing a god-alien like figure with irrational powers. Batman fear's is perfectly understable, he himself would know better than everybody what a man with great powers can do, just seing how himself with tech can go. And like every reaction enced by fear what happen is often changes your nature and make you go radical, even with the possibility to become the things you fear.

And it's not stupid logic, just different.

Emotion is saving a newly orphaned girl and looking up see two men flying in the sky. This is the first cinematic Batman to face superpowered beings, and he reacted by arming himself. That's the explanation, people may not agree with it or like it, but that's it. The debate just goes around in circles from there.

 

[Kanye West]

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? That's too much power for someone to have? With a history of knowing good guys that have eventually turned bad (implied). It's very logical.

Making (not)clever comparisons and applying it to other situations doesn't work because it's a unique scenario.

 

[StormC]

This batman is essentially universally praised.

Sure it is.

 

[Kanye West]

Sure it is.

how is it not? most of the negative reviews praise affleck's performance/ batman in some capacity.

It IS the thing most people don't have a problem with in the film even if they don't like the film as a whole.


I'm talking about the general audience. Not internet forums (even then no one outside of vocal minority dislikes this incarnation)