BvS Zach Snyder plans to speak with Frank Miller for MoS Sequel

[Skrilla31]

That's why I love the Nolan interpretation- it makes sense. He wants to create a symbol that the good people of Gotham can rally behind. Grassroots.

Sounds like he wrote him to be more like Superman though, not Batman.

I mean granted there is no real definitive take on the character, but if you just strip down Batman to his core you'd see a tragic figure who clearly doesn't care to inspire.

 

[DChero]

We may be straying away from the topic, but it is an interesting point brought up. In the Nolan series Gordon says that he has a friend to put his hands into to filth so that Gordon's could stay clean. That's kind of debatable. He broke his no-kill rule when he killed Harvey, but refused to kill Bane when he had his chance (when he rescued Selena). It's kind of inconsistent. Then there's what was discussed earlier about the Joker. The comics have varied in the same way too (from what little I've read about Batman).

 

[hafizbat]

You're right he's not a villain but he definitely cares about himself more than anyone else. If he really saw himself as a father figure to Robin he would do everything he could to protect him. Not take him out on his crime fighting adventures and put him in harm's way against the most devious souls roaming the earth.

I've just realized that I'm wasting my time trying to defend the character with someone who doesn't know Batman AT ALL.

Sorry I can't take your opinion seriously after reading that lol

 

[kalhawj]

We may be straying away from the topic, but it is an interesting point brought up. In the Nolan series Gordon says that he has a friend to put his hands into to filth so that Gordon's could stay clean. That's kind of debatable. He broke his no-kill rule when he killed Harvey, but refused to kill Bane when he had his chance (when he rescued Selena). It's kind of inconsistent. Then there's what was discussed earlier about the Joker. The comics have varied in the same way too (from what little I've read about Batman).

And yet some people are complaining about Superman killing Zod... When clearly Zod would not stop and no jail on earth can hold him, plus it was either him or that family.

 

[Skrilla31]

I've just realized that I'm wasting my time trying to defend the character with someone who doesn't know Batman AT ALL.

Sorry I can't take your opinion seriously after reading that lol

Yes or no is Gotham City and it's citizens better off without Joker.

Just answer the question.

 

[BatLobster]

Sounds like he wrote him to be more like Superman though, not Batman.

I mean granted there is no real definitive take on the character, but if you just strip down Batman to his core you'd see a tragic figure who clearly doesn't care to inspire.

But that's the beauty of the trilogy to me, it takes him and the symbol on an arc. In TDK realizes he has to be the villain and that Gotham needs a hero with a face ("You're the symbol of hope I could never be" he tells Dent). That's very un-Superman.

I think Bruce is very much driven by anger and tragedy in the Nolan movies, just like the comics. But that's also tempered with a sense of self-awareness about what he's doing. He has a specific mission, he's not looking to just beat up purse snatchers forever.

The thing is, I think we're both right in a way. It just depends on the story and interpretation of the character. TDKT treats the character as constantly evolving rather than one static thing.

 

[Skrilla31]

@hafizbat

And Scott Snyder himself has went into great detail about the genuine love that exists between Joker and Batman. So if I don't know what I'm talking about I guess he doesn't either.

 

[Skrilla31]

But that's the beauty of the trilogy to me, it takes him and the symbol on an arc. In TDK realizes he has to be the villain and that Gotham needs a hero with a face ("You're the symbol of hope I could never be" he tells Dent). That's very un-Superman.

I think Bruce is very much driven by anger and tragedy in the Nolan movies, just like the comics. But that's also tempered with a sense of self-awareness about what he's doing. He has a specific mission, he's not looking to just beat up purse snatchers forever.

The thing is, I think we're both right in a way. It just depends on the story and interpretation of the character. TDKT treats the character as constantly evolving rather than one static thing.

True, there is no right or wrong. Just what we choose to take from it.

Personally I thought that was a half assed attempt to give Bruce an arc. You can't tell me a guy who chose that path, someone that obsessed and that crazy... is doing it solely in the name of justice. Clearly there's something else going on there. I just don't see this guy saying, "Okay this is swell looks like the city is safe I could stop dressing up like a bat now".

TDK kind of hints at it in the interrogation scene but that side of the character stops being explored once Joker exits the movies. Shame.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

From David Goyer's Reddit AMA this year:



Goyer and Snyder might have to fight this one out.

i've got zach on that one.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

^Of course he would answer like that, he was promoting a Superman movie. Let's see what his answer is if he is asked that now. t:

eh, i don't think he'd change his mind

 

[smallville fan]

People who expect DC to follow up like MC which is not gonna happen and WB announcing a sort of 'SupsBAT' movie is solid conformation to that they are taking a different route .

I am not against it I just want it perfectly done

IMO The sequel to MOS will have to take place few years after the First to show Superman as well established Known Icon as Superhero and not a Newbie in his career .
Then There will be Batmans 'Vigilante' Sort of Image in worlds eye if he is already batman and the story will follow the consequences of uniting them to form a Elite Force .

It can be done well without boring drama and non established bats origin if they do it right .

the only problem is they really made MOS Origins a little stretchy and Gritty which made the film taste Sour .They should have fast forward his origins and made the Flashbacks less traumatic and show superman more 'Happy go lucky' but then maybe we are getting a darker Universe of JL .

Superman still has an uphill battle to go before he really becomes a hero or icon in the public eye after what happened in Metropolis.

Regarding Superman's origins, I always thought his origin and childhood would be inherently dark and traumatic over the 'Happy go lucky' image the Silver Age/other versions and Reeve movies led on to believe. I think the childhood flashback sequences is something they got right and captured the whole "I live in a world of cardboard" thing.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

I think this is just an issue of there being multiple interpretations of the character.

I tend to prefer my Batman to be more on the heroic side. He has a lot of traits of an anti-hero for sure, but in my favorite interpretations of the character he wants to make the world a better place too. But he's born out of a city that needs cleaning up and the law isn't going to get the job done.

The Joker is a great foil for Batman, and I think more than any other character he's the one who can make Bruce get lost inside the mission. They have that eternal back and forth thing going on. But I still think Bruce is essentially a good person. A damaged person, yes, but not a villain.

Yep. FYI, I'm a fan of Batman, and have read several stories by several authors. Probably not enough, but when I get employed I'll probably buy more comics.

So while I think Batman has SOME validation by the Joker, I think morality is the major thing that comes into play. Batman will try to save everyone because he feels responsible for any person in a dangerous situation.

As for the "killers of bad guys aren't any better" mentality, it can only exist within the pages of fiction. As soon as a real life high-stakes situation (like a madman loose) occurs, it becomes pretty clear that even good guys must do what's necessary to stop villainy.

That being said, I wouldn't want Batman to start killing, and Superman is usually non-deadly in comics.

 

[Skrilla31]

Batman is fully aware that Gotham would be better off without the Joker in it. 99.999% of the people in Gotham would rather Batman have killed him when he had the chance. Keeping him alive is a hazard of monumental circumstance.

And yet Batman chooses to spare him every time. Not because he's doing what's best for Gotham or it's people, but because what's best for himself. Whether you want to play it off like he's taking the moral high ground or whether or not he's deeply in love with what the Joker or what the Joker means in his life... the fact is Batman wants Joker alive for selfish reasons.

It's about what Batman wants and what Batman believes, not what he thinks is best for the people he's "supposedly" claiming to protect.

 

[weezerspider]

Batman is fully aware that Gotham would be better off without the Joker in it. 99.999% of the people in Gotham would rather Batman have killed him when he had the chance. Keeping him alive is a hazard of monumental circumstance.

And yet Batman chooses to spare him every time. Not because he's doing what's best for Gotham or it's people, but because what's best for himself. Whether you want to play it off like he's taking the moral high ground or whether or not he's deeply in love with what the Joker or what the Joker means in his life... the fact is Batman wants Joker alive for selfish reasons.

It's about what Batman wants and what Batman believes, not what he thinks is best for the people he's "supposedly" claiming to protect.

What are you smoking and can I have some?

If Batman kills The Joker than The Joker wins. Evil wins. Joker's world view of the world being all one joke where no one really is good, they tell themselves they are good, but they are really just as bad as the next person, which, to Joker, is hilarious and shows how the moral views of society are a joke, would win. Batman takes the moral high ground and doesn't kill Joker because he's better than the society. Most of the society claim's they'd be ok killing The Joker, but in reality, if they had their hand on the trigger, most people wouldn't do it. Batman doesn't kill Joker because its the right thing to do and shows that society is more good than bad and Joker is alone.

And the ferry scene in TDK pretty much perfected this aspect of their rivalry.


Gotham City's citizens are not better off if Batman kills The Joker. Batman killing The Joker sets up the new status quo: Killing is alright. This leads to Batman and other vigilantes killing people in the 'wrong' in Gotham and soon they are killing people they think are in the 'wrong', but actually aren't. Batman killing any of his enemies opens up a whole can of worms for the moral on the streets of Gotham.

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Batman is fully aware that Gotham would be better off without the Joker in it. 99.999% of the people in Gotham would rather Batman have killed him when he had the chance. Keeping him alive is a hazard of monumental circumstance.

And yet Batman chooses to spare him every time. Not because he's doing what's best for Gotham or it's people, but because what's best for himself. Whether you want to play it off like he's taking the moral high ground or whether or not he's deeply in love with what the Joker or what the Joker means in his life... the fact is Batman wants Joker alive for selfish reasons.

It's about what Batman wants and what Batman believes, not what he thinks is best for the people he's "supposedly" claiming to protect.

Which is part of the reason that Superman's a more moral character. Supes will take a life (ie. Doomsday) if there are no other options. Batman would probably let the consequences play themselves out.

A notable exception would be TDK Returns and the Mutant Hostage situation in the book.

 

[kguillou]

If I may chime in, i think the reason that batman doesnt kill is plainly and simply he CANT kill. Its not in his nature. He's not programmed that way. He may be badass, he may be brutal when the situation calls for it but he is literally incapable of taking a life just like most good people are. If he were to try to force himself to do such an act it could end up breaking his soul and i think the very thought of that...dare I say it...scares him.

 

[kalhawj]

Batman can take a life.. it's up to the writer... Nolan had Batman killing Two-Face in TDK... It's all how you write it... this he cannot kill is BS...

 

[TheFlamingCoco]

Batman can take a life.. it's up to the writer... Nolan had Batman killing Two-Face in TDK... It's all how you write it... this he cannot kill is BS...

This is why comic fans tend to be annoyed with movie adaptations

 

[Asgard]

Yes or no is Gotham City and it's citizens better off without Joker.

Just answer the question.

Why is it up to Batman to murder another person?

Like the other guy says, Batman's caught Joker numerous times, so why hasnt the justice system in Gotham made an exception to their laws and execute a crazy person?

Youre putting the onus on Batman to do the "greater good" by murdering someone in cold blood, and by not doing so he's not a "true hero" right?

Let me as you this: What would Superman do if the Joker were his problem? Would Superman be a "true hero" if after numerous breakouts by the Joker and the killing of innocents afterward, Superman gets fed up with it and blasts a hole in the Joker's face with his heat vision?

 

[Skrilla31]

Gotham City's citizens are not better off if Batman kills The Joker. Batman killing The Joker sets up the new status quo: Killing is alright. This leads to Batman and other vigilantes killing people in the 'wrong' in Gotham and soon they are killing people they think are in the 'wrong', but actually aren't. Batman killing any of his enemies opens up a whole can of worms for the moral on the streets of Gotham.

That is a good point, but can't Batman do it in the shadows? I'm talking the millions of times he has The Joker where he wants him and no one is around. The people of Gotham wouldn't know what happened to Joker, just that he hasn't shown his face in awhile. They'd have to use their imagination I guess.

But I guess then you can argue that Batman would be setting a new status quo for himself... and that might not be a good thing. If all he's doing is going out there and killing people he doesn't like, in a weird way then he's no different from the sickos he chases. I guess to prove that he's different from them then he has to be a champion of the law no matter what and at all costs.

That's a great way to look at it, and it paints Batman in a very noble light. If you choose to view it that way, I won't try and stop you. But what makes the myth so deep is that it can work on so many different levels. So while you may choose to believe what you believe, surely you could see why there are people out there that might paint him as not so noble. It all depends on what they believe.

 

[Skrilla31]

Let me as you this: What would Superman do if the Joker were his problem? Would Superman be a "true hero" if after numerous breakouts by the Joker and the killing of innocents afterward, Superman gets fed up with it and blasts a hole in the Joker's face with his heat vision?

No, you're right. Superman would never kill Joker because that would be the moment he crosses the line. And once he crosses the line, he loses who he is.

 

[Loki882]

People saying that Batman killed Harvey in TDK annoys the hell out of me. Harvey's death was an ACCIDENT!! He was going to shoot Gordon's son and Batman, who had fought an entire SWAT team, been mauled by dogs, beaten with a pipe by the Joker, and shot by Harvey, tackled him in order to save an innocent child. It was an act of desperation and he didn't intend for them to role off the side of the building, it just happened. He wasn't strong enough to hold Harvey and Gordon's son with one arm, so he saved the son, and Harvey fell. He never intended for Harvey to die, it just happened.

 

[hops]

People saying that Batman killed Harvey in TDK annoys the hell out of me. Harvey's death was an ACCIDENT!! He was going to shoot Gordon's son and Batman, who had fought an entire SWAT team, been mauled by dogs, beaten with a pipe by the Joker, and shot by Harvey, tackled him in order to save an innocent child. It was an act of desperation and he didn't intend for them to role off the side of the building, it just happened. He wasn't strong enough to hold Harvey and Gordon's son with one arm, so he saved the son, and Harvey fell. He never intended for Harvey to die, it just happened.

This is somebody who knows what he's talking about.

 

[Asgard]

If I remember those old debates, the people that had a problem with Harvey's death didnt care for Batman resorting to tackling Harvey in the first place. I think they wanted Batman to have thrown a batarang or done something else to disarm Harvey without having to put his life in danger.

 

[Loki882]

The only time that I remember Batman using batarangs in the entire trilogy was in BB (he used knockout darts in TDKR). So he may not have even had them. Also, he was exhausted and injured, so he did the desperate thing.