Justice League Zack Snyder Directing Justice League - Part 4

[Arachnerd]

Knew this old tired argument would come back again.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Yea that is a great film. But then that would make this Batman even more of a psycho.

I mean yeah, this Batman was not supposed to be the hero of the story. He was, in almost all ways, a sympathetic villain. As a massive Batman fan, which I don't say to invalidate anyone else's opinions, it was a refreshing take for me. For the first time, a film really called Batman out on his actions.

For me, it'll make his return to glory that much sweeter.

 

[idiot09]

I think this was one of the very few times Batman's mental issues were not romanticized. Also one of those rare stories where Batman is ALWAYS right and perfect.

 

[TheGDBatman]

Captain America is a soldier. There has never been any doubt that he kills and he always has, if necessary.

The problem with this Batman murdering nameless thugs has another angle: why doesn't he just murder The Joker?

I don't think there was even an opportunity to. In Suicide Squad, the club scene has Common telling Letoker "it's good to have you back" (or something to that effect). To me, it sounds like the Joker was already locked up when Batman was going through the event of BvS. So why would you break into a prison to kill someone who is already behind bars?

 

[The Guard]

Rubbish.

Batman kills mercs and criminals who might just be trying to put food on the table for their family.

But he won't kill a mass murdering pyschopath just because he might be insane?

You can buy it in comics because Batman doesn't kill no name mooks. Plus they are an infinite serialized format and major characters never die.

I can buy it in any media if it's established as part of Batman's character, because his decision to kill is not purely logical. He has an almost moral handicap when it comes to taking lives.

 

[misslane38]

They seemed to be tying an awkward knot with how Batman's means related to Clark's reporter crusade from earlier. It's like the murder-filled Martha rescue vindicated the need for brutality while negating Clark's umbrage with his methods -- the only thing he had, earlier on, shown any conviction towards. Only to pass Superman the moral torch again just a few minutes later and concluding the film w that. The plot, with how it divides its beats, has a few turns too many for its own message to be fully effective, imo.

I feel you're tying an awkward knot with this comment. Clark's reporter crusade was mostly focused on Batman's use of the Bat Brand, which was a premeditated act done with the expectation that prisoners in jail would do Batman's dirty work for him and kill the criminal. Even after it was reported that a bat brand put a prisoner in critical condition, Batman still chose to use it with the sex trafficker. What happened during Martha's rescue not only wasn't something Clark witnessed, therefore it doesn't undermine his point of view, but it also wasn't "filled" with "murder."

As I recall it, Batman's acts were primarily in self-defense of himself and of Martha. One individual got blown up by a grenade that he, not Batman, was going to use and that went astray; Batman didn't activate the grenade or aim it at the man. In the case of another man, KGBeast, Batman shot the gas in his flame thrower so if he chose to use it against Martha, he would only be killing himself; the man basically chose to kill himself. The only other incident is the one with the man whose head was hit with the crate. Now, it's fair to say that such a blow could have killed the man, but we don't actually get confirmation of that, and for Batman to have been strong enough to throw it with one arm, it had to be fairly light; therefore, it was a self-defense move that may or may not have been fatal. Similar deaths were caused by the conscientious objector and protagonist of Hacksaw Ridge, and I would hardly call him a brutal murderer.

Futhermore, Batman had only just come to his senses about killing Superman -- someone he was going to kill as a preemptive strike and not merely a self-defense move. He hadn't yet begun his full transformation and redemption, which was inspired by Superman's heroic sacrifice. By the end, he is able to not only resist using the Bat Brand on Lex, he also explains his evolved point of view about how men can do better and will have to.

But again, after his epiphany, after he realised Superman is no longer a threat because he has a mother... he still brutally murdered a bunch of people.

The two aren't related, though. His epiphany was about Superman only, and it wasn't just because he realized Superman had a mother. He was made aware that in killing Superman and not saving his mother, he was becoming the villain of his own childhood. It wasn't even really about Superman. It was about himself. He still believed that Superman could one day become a threat to the world, but he realized he'd rather live in hope than become the villain of his nightmares. He also didn't go on to brutally murder people. Most, if not all, were harmed as a result of Bruce acting in defense of himself and Martha, which is not murder, and for the most part the deaths were ones the criminals themselves instigated or chose by being careless with grenades or choosing to use a damaged flame thrower. Bruce then went on to be more fully inspired by Superman's sacrifice, which was the ultimate turning point for him.

There is a clear dissonance between the thematics and the narrative. It's common with most of Snyder's films. These problems do exist. It's not like 90% of viewers are idiots and you guys are a small minority of geniuses who "get it".

I disagree.

This is a cop out. "Character arcs take time, you don't just change over the course of one film".

It's also a copout to say something is a copout rather than engage with the ideas presented, which in this case was that Batman's characterization was based on a deliberately crafted arc akin to Saul/Paul in the Bible or Edmund Pevensie in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and not rooted in a presumed affection for a brutal Batman and validation of a brutal Batman.

Batman kills mercs and criminals who might just be trying to put food on the table for their family.

But he won't kill a mass murdering pyschopath just because he might be insane?

I believe it's an issue of timing, premeditation, and feasibility. Batman's brutality existed in the narrow window of about 18 months, and it may not have been a lightswitch development. Rather, it may have been something that worsened over time, which means by the time we catch with him in BvS, he has degraded to his lowest point. Additionally, Batman may inadvertentely cause the deaths of criminals who he is essentially warring with as they both try to acheive their goals in the heat of the moment, but he wouldn't just find their lair and kill them in cold blood. It's also highly likely that someone like the Joker is pretty good at evading Batman, so during the time Batman was more brutal he simply may not have had the opportunity to harm him.

 

[Flint Marko]

It's also a copout to say something is a copout rather than engage with the ideas presented, which in this case was that Batman's characterization was based on a deliberately crafted arc akin to Saul/Paul in the Bible or Edmund Pevensie in The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and not rooted in a presumed affection for a brutal Batman and validation of a brutal Batman.

Except that idea was not presented until just now, so....

 

[misslane38]

Except that idea was not presented until just now, so....

Yes, it was. The idea that it was a deliberate arc was presented. I may have provided examples just now, but the idea itself was presented and was part of what instigated the conversation and your comment in the first place. I'm thinking of this post specifically:

I think you guys are giving Snyder WAY too much credit. I think he just wanted to have Batman be violent and murder a bunch of people and didn't care that that is completely antithetical to the version of the character that most people are familiar with and love.

As far as you're concerned, HellYeah posited the idea that "redemption takes time" and you translated HellYeah's words as saying, "Character arcs take time," which is an idea you described as a "cop-out," correct? If not, and I do apologize if I misunderstood, are you arguing that character arcs shouldn't take time or that Batman being on a journey from corruption to redemption isn't a valid reading of Batman's characterization?

What did you mean? Also, if you believe something is a cop-out, then why not explain why instead of copping out with just a dismissive comment rather than actual analysis?

 

[chintai80]

I think with Snyder, for Batman - he wanted to have his cake and to eat it too.

Snyder was questioning Batman's brutal methods but at the same time wanted to show how cool it is to see a Batman killing some bad guys.

Not that I had much a problem with that - because it is cool seeing Batman throw a giant crate into a dood's face, making a bad guy drop his grenade to blow himself up, mowing down mercs with his bat-plane, etc...lol.

For JL, I think Batman will tone down his more extreme tendencies - but I think he will still kill bad guys in the heat of battle.
This is very much like the 1939 Batman. Or some of the 1980s stories where Batman played loose with his "no kill" policy.
Which is - his first goal is to capture or incapacitate criminals, not to kill them - but if they get killed due to their own actions, then so be it, he's not going to prevent it.

Sort of like what we see from this panel in the Son of the Demon story:

What we no longer see Batman do in JL, is be Judge, Jury, and Executioner - which is what he was doing in BvS when he was branding criminals.

That was Superman's main issue with Batman in the movie.

 

[markjoedelonge]

This is a fictional story where the film-makers are completely in control of how things play out. Batman didn't "have" to murder anyone in that warehouse but he did seemingly because the film-makers didn't think things through and sacrificed story for spectacle.

Are you serious? What kind of ridiculous argument is this? With that logic, you can poke a major hole in ANY movie because the film-makers are in "control" of how things play out.

Martha being kidnapped is obviously part of the story and formed a huge part of Lex getting Superman to fight Batman and presented an opportunity for Batman to redeem himself. Also, as mentioned countless times, there was a pressing time limit to save her. He didn't straight up murder anyone in the warehouse. As idiot09 has mentioned, the people that were killed were killed by their own stupidity, like trying to throw a grenade at him, or trying to shoot down his plane.

 

[HellYeah]

All these endless debates and i'm sitting here thinking what kind of epic action sequence we're going to see in JL ...

 

[markjoedelonge]

All these endless debates and i'm sitting here thinking what kind of epic action sequence we're going to see in JL ...

All kinds my man.

 

[Flint Marko]

Are you serious? What kind of ridiculous argument is this? With that logic, you can poke a major hole in ANY movie because the film-makers are in "control" of how things play out.

...yeah?

Martha being kidnapped is obviously part of the story and formed a huge part of Lex getting Superman to fight Batman and presented an opportunity for Batman to redeem himself. Also, as mentioned countless times, there was a pressing time limit to save her. He didn't straight up murder anyone in the warehouse. As idiot09 has mentioned, the people that were killed were killed by their own stupidity, like trying to throw a grenade at him, or trying to shoot down his plane.

Or just standing there and getting their head cracked open by a crate. That was totally on him

 

[_Superman_]

...yeah?



Or just standing there and getting their head cracked open by a crate. That was totally on him

I wish people would stop acting like Batman has never killed anyone. Bale's Batman killed, Keaton's Batman killed, Kilmer's Batman killed. The only Batman who hasn't killed since Adam West was Clooney's Batman.

 

[HellYeah]

I made a meme

Zod damn....he had the best lines..

 

[Arachnerd]

"These Hype users with their endless debates, have led the forum to ruin!"

 

[Polux]

I made a meme

Thank you, I was actually thinking of that at the time

 

[Nemeres]

I feel you're tying an awkward knot with this comment. Clark's reporter crusade was mostly focused on Batman's use of the Bat Brand,

You're really going to make it that simplistic? It's clearly not, by the film's own design. It's very leaky logic that which makes Clark outraged ONLY at Batman's death-sentencing, but not the actual executioning. Plotting to kill Superman was another instance of Batman ignoring his "diamond absolutes" from his earlier career. Then he decides not to, due to Superman being who he is and the collapse of his early reasoning. Fine. Minutes later, that self-disgust proves ineffectual and short-lived. I think it's lazy to peg this on Batman's redemption needing to be, oh, gradual. Why would Batman be turned off from his own brutality by Superman's sacrifice but not by his Martha epiphany, which relates more closely to the notion of suffering as a product of violent murder? And...

The only other incident is the one with the man whose head was hit with the crate.

... no, because he also bombs the machine gun dude on the ground. As a whole, the film gives mad props to Superman's dying to kill Doomsday -- which is brave, but also a course of action that's obvious and circumstantial, with this monster, hitherto completely unrelated to Supes's arc, popping out of nowhere while he happens to be nearby, and Lois being in peril, what else was he going to do -- while negating Clark's passionate pursuit of social justice from earlier, which was something he had shown much more agency towards. By showing that he WAS wrong and that Batman DOES need to kill violently. The priorities feel confused and the effect is clumsy.

 

[misslane38]

You're really going to make it that simplistic? It's clearly not, by the film's own design. It's very leaky logic that which makes Clark outraged ONLY at Batman's death-sentencing, but not the actual executioning. Plotting to kill Superman was another instance of Batman ignoring his "diamond absolutes" from his earlier career. Then he decides not to, due to Superman being who he is and the collapse of his early reasoning. Fine. Minutes later, that self-disgust proves ineffectual and short-lived. I think it's lazy to peg this on Batman's redemption needing to be, oh, gradual. Why would Batman be turned off from his own brutality by Superman's sacrifice but not by his Martha epiphany, which relates more closely to the notion of suffering as a product of violent murder? And...

Huh? Of course the Bat Brand issue includes the judge, jury, and executioner part! The problem was using a brand to set a criminal apart for vigilante judgement in prison for specific crimes. It's one thing to kill in self-defense or the defense of others, which is something cops do all the time, but it's a totally different thing if an average person seeks out criminals to brand them for death. It's premeditated. With Superman, Batman had escalated even further. Before, his brands were a premeditated way of bringing harm to a criminal who had actually committed a crime, but Superman was a pre-emptive strike against someone who had a 1% chance of someday becoming an enemy. Superman and the goons holding Martha hostage and attacking Batman are therefore very different and should be analyzed as such.

Batman needs to be turned off from his own brutality by Superman's sacrifice because Superman's sacrifice is what demonstrates to Bruce that "men are still good" not just because Superman is good, but also because humanity's response to his sacrifice revealed how mankind can change. It's about shifting Bruce's entire outlook on society and himself from cynicism to optimism. It means everyone can be redeemed.

... no, because he also bombs the machine gun dude on the ground. As a whole, the film gives mad props to Superman's dying to kill Doomsday -- which is brave, but also a course of action that's obvious and circumstantial, with this monster, hitherto completely unrelated to Supes's arc, popping out of nowhere while he happens to be nearby, and Lois being in peril, what else was he going to do -- while negating Clark's passionate pursuit of social justice from earlier, which was something he had shown much more agency towards. By showing that he WAS wrong and that Batman DOES need to kill violently. The priorities feel confused and the effect is clumsy.

What else was he going to do? Of course, the Superman we know and love, and the Superman we see in the DCEU has proven himself capable of sacrifice, but that's not what the world believed at that time did it? Superman's sacrifice is the obvious outcome of his confrontation with Doomsday, but it was not the obvious outcome the world saw coming. Superman's death changes the way the world sees Superman. It resolves humanity's existential crisis: mankind has hope. This is what changes Bruce.

Clark's journalism arc -- his crusade against Batman's brand of justice -- is not undermined by Batman continuing to use brutal tactics in order to save Martha. First of all, Clark didn't know or witness Batman's tactics. He was confronting Luthor at the scout ship. Clark only knew Lex had manipulated Bruce, and that Batman was able to stop himself from an act of premeditated murder. Batman's redemption did not start with "Save Martha." All "Save Martha" did was to pull Batman away from his revenge against Superman and back towards going after the real bad guys. "Save Martha" helped Batman realize that he didn't want to be a monster like Joe Chill -- a man who would kill innocent people for no reason at all. That's not what he was facing when he went up against KGBeast and his goons at the warehouse. Of course "Save Martha" wasn't going to lightswitch away his more brutal methodology!

Superman's sacrifice matters because it changes how Bruce sees himself and humanity. He sees good guys that go bad as capable of becoming good again. It's that hope -- that shot at redemption for everyone -- that gives Bruce a reason to seek non-lethal solutions to criminal activity. Because criminals aren't weeds that just grow back anymore. Those who hate, doubt, fear, hurt, kill, and betray can be better when they see better. That is why Superman's death is more powerful than "Save Martha" because it wasn't just about Bruce anymore. It was about all of us. It was about an arc and agency of Superman's relating to whether this world was his -- a place that could embrace hope -- whereby dying for the world that had rejected him not only resolved an arc that ran parallel to the social justice crusade, but also gave Bruce someone whose ability to have faith in his fellow man inspired him to have faith too.

 

[The Guard]

You're really going to make it that simplistic? It's clearly not, by the film's own design. It's very leaky logic that which makes Clark outraged ONLY at Batman's death-sentencing, but not the actual executioning. Plotting to kill Superman was another instance of Batman ignoring his "diamond absolutes" from his earlier career. Then he decides not to, due to Superman being who he is and the collapse of his early reasoning. Fine. Minutes later, that self-disgust proves ineffectual and short-lived. I think it's lazy to peg this on Batman's redemption needing to be, oh, gradual. Why would Batman be turned off from his own brutality by Superman's sacrifice but not by his Martha epiphany, which relates more closely to the notion of suffering as a product of violent murder?

Why is it leaky logic? By and large, civilized society tends to have issues with torture and terrorism, but less of an issue when someone kills in self defense. You can call it "execution" all you want, but not every instance of Batman killing in this film can be reasonably classified that way.

Batman's self disgust can only really be said to be about his actions in relation to Superman in particular (which is why he angrily throws away the instrument of his persecution of this man), not his actions in relation to criminals, period. There's certainly a good chance that Batman is disgusted with how far he himself has fallen, but his reactions are directly tied to Lois Lane's reveal and what he planned to do to Superman.

There's not really a single line in the film that equates to "I should not kill criminals". Now, we know that type of character growth is probably coming, because (notably after Superman's sacrifice) Batman does not brand Luthor when he had the opportunity to do so, and perhaps more importantly because fans have complained endlessly about Batman killing, but that is not really the focus of the film.

The movie's overall focus isn't on Batman killing. In the world of the film, people may well have less of a problem with Batman killing "in the line of duty". The problem people seem to have in the world of the film is, much like Clark, issues with Batman torturing needlessly, and causing needless deaths. When he brands someone, he is not acting even remotely in self defense. That's punitive. That's why all the story points regarding Bruce and his fall focus on the emotional brutality of criminals being branded, etc.

... no, because he also bombs the machine gun dude on the ground.

Which, given the fact that he is being attacked with machine guns, does not seem all that excessive from a combat perspective.

As a whole, the film gives mad props to Superman's dying to kill Doomsday -- which is brave, but also a course of action that's obvious and circumstantial, with this monster, hitherto completely unrelated to Supes's arc, popping out of nowhere while he happens to be nearby, and Lois being in peril, what else was he going to do -- while negating Clark's passionate pursuit of social justice from earlier, which was something he had shown much more agency towards.

By showing that he WAS wrong and that Batman DOES need to kill violently. The priorities feel confused and the effect is clumsy.

Clark's issue in the film do not appear to be about Batman killing, or about Batman killing in self defense. His issue is Batman terrorizing, torturing and branding criminals, and essentially punishing them even after they're already in the justice system.

And I don't know where you get the idea that Clark is shown to be in the wrong, as in the film, Batman himself shows that he realizes HE was in the wrong. First, when he throws away his instrument of torture (the spear)and acts disgusted with himself, and second, when he resists the urge to brand Luthor.

 

[Nemeres]

Why is it leaky logic? By and large, civilized society tends to have issues with torture and terrorism, but less of an issue when someone kills in self defense. You can call it "execution" all you want, but not every instance of Batman killing in this film can be reasonably classified that way.

Clark is more aware than that. The Batmobile chase had enough careless urban killing to bother someone who also takes issue with branding and disregard for law. Self-defense often doesn't play into it.

Batman's self disgust can only really be said to be about his actions in relation to Superman in particular (which is why he angrily throws away the instrument of his persecution of this man), not his actions in relation to criminals, period. There's certainly a good chance that Batman is disgusted with how far he himself has fallen, but his reactions are directly tied to Lois Lane's reveal and what he planned to do to Superman.

If the scene makes it a point to go back to the moment of his parents' deaths by murder, just as he's about to murder someone, after he's been murdering several others for a while, it stands to reason that his epiphany extends to his own proclivity to kill outside of this specific instance. It's information the film gives you, why ignore it at the earliest convenience. His reasoning for killing Superman is that he's dangerous and "not a man". Then later he decides against killing him after getting a glimpse of his humanity. Why would the lives of other Men -- even if they're criminals and dangerous in their own right, but just as human -- not deserve the same consideration. Which, it's implied, was there during the earlier Batman years.

Which, given the fact that he is being attacked with machine guns, does not seem all that excessive from a combat perspective.

Gas pellets are a thing in the comics.

And I don't know where you get the idea that Clark is shown to be in the wrong,

Superman's opening line before the fight is "Bruce, I was wrong".

There's not really a single line in the film that equates to "I should not kill criminals".

Clark mentions Batman being "above the law". Killing is above the law. It implies Clark's expectation, not just that of the fans in the audience, that crime-fighting should adhere to certain standards. If his standards imply NOT branding and NOT terrorizing, is NOT killing needlessly a total stretch? It's really not, it's a conclusion that stands to be made.

My issue here is how much of a shame it is that the film robs Superman of the chance to vindicate his (few) convictions. The dichotomy over the issue of brutality is eventually disregarded and forgotten, taken as a given.

 

[misslane38]

Clark is more aware than that. The Batmobile chase had enough careless urban killing to bother someone who also takes issue with branding and disregard for law. Self-defense often doesn't play into it.

Two things. First, "Save Martha" wasn't about lightswitching Batman into someone with a new approach to criminals; it was about himself, Superman, and premeditated murder. Second, it is valid to evaluate lethal situations with care for the differences between murder, careless killing, and self-defense.

If the scene makes it a point to go back to the moment of his parents' deaths by murder, just as he's about to murder someone, after he's been murdering several others for a while, it stands to reason that his epiphany extends to his own proclivity to kill outside of this specific instance. It's information the film gives you, why ignore it at the earliest convenience. His reasoning for killing Superman is that he's dangerous and "not a man". Then later he decides against killing him after getting a glimpse of his humanity. Why would the lives of other Men -- even if they're criminals and dangerous in their own right, but just as human -- not deserve the same consideration. Which, it's implied, was there during the earlier Batman years.

I disagree. The scene echoes the Wayne murders to compare a thug killing innocent people to Batman about to kill an innocent person. The similarity of Martha Wayne to Martha Kent as victims and to Lois Lane as the beloved of a fallen man exist to draw those parallels. When Batman makes Superman the promise to save Martha, it's about not allowing innocent people -- people who are victims or who have yet to commit crimes -- to suffer. There is nothing in the "Save Martha" moment that relates to killing criminals in self-defense, and if Batman was so liberal with his careless killing he would have and could have done much worse to those men guarding Martha Kent. The people who he harms most in the Batmobile chase and the warehouse fight are not premeditated murders like what the Bat Brand had the potential to cause or what the crusade against Superman and his perceived potential threat could have resulted in. The brutality against guilty criminals who have already committed crimes or in the act of committing crimes is something that shifts later due to Superman's sacrifice and humanity's response.

Superman's opening line before the fight is "Bruce, I was wrong".

When Clark discovered that Lex had been manipulating them both, he has to consider that his perception of what Batman had been doing was wrong. He was showing empathy in that he knew how it felt to have the world against him for things he felt were misconstrued or manipulated, and so he had to consider that he had acted unfairly against Batman based on similarly warped situations and evidence. His apology is a way to clean the slate and focus on the real enemy: Lex.

My issue here is how much of a shame it is that the film robs Superman of the chance to vindicate his (few) convictions. The dichotomy over the issue of brutality is eventually disregarded and forgotten, taken as a given.

Superman's convictions weren't left un-validated. The Bat Brand was excessive and Bruce does stop using it, and his faith in humanity ultimately sets it and Bruce on new path.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

So about Zack Snyder

 

[Arachnerd]

He's great, m8. Would totally bone.

 

[Polux]