|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Uhhh explain. Winter Soldier has a similar perspective as The Dark Knight: It might be okay to morally compromise yourself for the sake of security, the problem is when these compromises become institutionalized. It's summed up in Steve's conversation with Fury when Fury calls him out for not being this pristine beacon of ideals, but someone who got his hands dirty in World War II. Steve admits that Fury is right, but makes it clear that he always saw getting his hands dirty as a compromise. He was willing to let his ideals go to the side, but never forgot what those ideals were. It's essentially making a similar statement that The Dark Knight does with the cellphone machine. People were so quick to call The Dark Knight a pro-Bush movie without realizing that Batman blowing the machine up is vital. It's a criticism because Bush and Obama didn't blow up the machine. They kept it running indefinitely. Steve's fear is not that his ideals have to be sometimes compromised in the name of security. His fear is that his ideals will be replaced with those compromises. That those compromise will be seen as compatible and indistinguishable from the American ideals he stands for. Steve's fear is the climate we live in now in which we have indefinite wars with indefinite compromise of liberty in the name of security.
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
axelord posted:It's been my experience that most people when asked if they liked a movie will state their opinion and a short statement why. Not because they are incapable of articulating an objective critique but that is not what the person asking is interested in listening to or maybe they are not interested in making one.  Wait, so you casually ask people if they liked a movie, they respond appropriately with a cogent, succinct piece of information to accompany that answer, and that sends you into an internal dialogue about wether or not that person is mentally capable of discussing the deep, thematic meaning of cars exploding during THE AVENGERS? Okay, this checks out.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:And just like in the real world, when CIA operatives were outed as Nazis they quietly disappeared into new lives instead of being brought to account for their actions. Checks out. Seriously gently caress the CIA.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
axelord posted:The last big Batman movie trilogy made the "No Kill rule" a big plot point. It's understandable that people would notice the difference and not like it. Sure, but that's not what anyone in CineD whatsoever is saying. Nobody's saying "I'm used to the Nolan trilogy and Batman killing surprised me," it's "Batman not killing is an integral part of the character" even though it's very clearly not.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Sure, but that's not what anyone in CineD whatsoever is saying. Nobody's saying "I'm used to the Nolan trilogy and Batman killing surprised me," it's "Batman not killing is an integral part of the character" even though it's very clearly not. Not killing might not be integral in terms of being necessary, but it is in terms of being defining. As much of this thread has made fun of the NOT MY BATMAN CREW for being big nerds, I honestly find the BUT BATMAN HAS KILLED crew to be even more eye-rolling. Because it's the worst type of pride in being TECHNICALLY TRUE. Yes, technically Batman killed in his early comics. Those comics also sucked and Batman was straight up not a well defined character at that point. Sure, there are some other comics you can point to. And some of them are good stories. Ten Nights of the Beast is a good story and Batman kills in it. But that story's ending was retconned. And it wasn't because KGBeast is an amazing character DC couldn't stop publishing. It's not because of the Comics Code. It's because there was a general feeling that not killing is integral to Batman. If you made a movie where Alfred was a bumbling oaf that Batman met in adulthood then that would feel weird to some people. If Bruce had a whole network of extended family members who took care of him after his parents died that would feel weird to some people. There are stories where that stuff happens. It's all valid, but yet Alfred as Bruce's surrogate father and Bruce having no family define the character. And it feels weird for people when something that is usually taken as a given is not.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
cvnvcnv posted:
Did you read the post I was responding too because that's what he was saying? People are incapable of explaining why they don't like something so they say something like "I didn't like Batman killing" or "The exploding cars in Avengers". That was what the post I was responding to was saying. So I guess we agree, just because someone doesn't go into detail why they don't like a movie doesn't mean they are incapable of doing so. It just means they don't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
axelord posted:Did you read the post I was responding too because that's what he was saying? People are incapable of explaining why they don't like something so they say something like "I didn't like Batman killing" or "The exploding cars in Avengers". That was what the post I was responding to was saying. I wasn't talking about casual watercooler conversation, I was talking about detailed conversation like we have here
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" only doesn't apply to those dudes Batman wastes with his rocket-cannons or w/e and maybe the guy with the flamethrower so that's like three people. Everybody else pretty much dies by their own hand (especially grenade guy, which was hilarious). The first branded guy was a pedophile, which information they give you so you can factor in that maybe he would have died in prison anyway. The second guy is definitely killed on Lex Luthor's orders, to rile up Superman against Batman (I mean it's actually Lex who sends Clark those photos he's clearly behind it). In the case of flamethrower guy it's let him burn or let Martha die. It's pretty much about as "bad" as Keaton Batman letting that ninja dude fall down the belltower or knocking that clown guy off that walkway with his bomb stuck to him. Or when Catwoman blows Bane away and Batman's like "awesome, let's roll." e: I mean I'm arguing that it's easy to overstate or miss the context of the people who die Bat-related deaths but again, new adaption, doesn't really matter. It is however easy to see this Batman as what Nolan's version would become if he hadn't retired. Or Keaton's, if he got some hair implants. ee: jtbs since this isn't the BvS thread I'm spoiling all this Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 18:15 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:Well, it's kind of the same thing though isn't it? People are surprised that Batman kills not because Nolan's films, but because of this perceived platonic ideal of the character they've arrived at from a variety of sources. I get it. I just think it's dumb. Batman not killing or Batman killing as such a minor quibble. It's like what made parts of Season 2 of Daredevil crash and burn - Murdock's screaming at Punisher for killing bad guys and all the while he's throwing people down stairs, twisting their heads off, strangling them, punching their heads until they're unconscious and beyond, crushing foreheads, et cetera. Oh, but I guess magically by the grace of god they survive because ...? CLearly there's a delineator to Batman, going back to the movies. Otherwise he'd just kill everyone ever. He's branding the pedos and human traffikers, sending criminals to the courts...who are legalizing his brand of vigilantism, by the way, so it's mandated at least. So, Batman kills, but what's his modus? What's his decision making process for who dies and who doesn't? Just because Batman didn't kill people in BTAS doesn't make that the only way Batman can act.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:Sure, but that's not what anyone in CineD whatsoever is saying. Nobody's saying "I'm used to the Nolan trilogy and Batman killing surprised me," it's "Batman not killing is an integral part of the character" even though it's very clearly not. For about 30 years of Batman's life in the comics, 75% of stories were about him not killing and pursuing those that do, including his friends and family. Same thing with Superman comics and Justice League comics. We're talking dozens of stories specifically debating the morality of killing in a wide variety of situations. This is the entire basis for the Huntress's character. And Jason Todd. Huntress, Jason Todd and Batfleck would be the best of friends in the Snyder universe. Wonder Woman causing a single fatality caused the Justice League to break up for a full year. It's cool if you don't read comics but don't pretend that it's not a very vital part of his character. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 18:08 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Drifter posted:So, Batman kills, but what's his modus? What's his decision making process for who dies and who doesn't? It's the "I don't have to save you" thing taken to a logical extreme. Those guys in the technical could have abandoned their posts and it's unlikely Batman would waste bullets gunning them down while they ran. But since they chose to stand there and shoot at him they weren't going to escape when he removed that gunpost as an obstacle. Batman won't go out of his way to kill anybody but he is done bullshitting around and will take the quickest route from A to B and if that means some rear end in a top hat burns alive from his own (horrible) weapon malfunctioning welp. SolidSnakesBandana posted:For about 30 years of Batman's life in the comics, 75% of stories were about him not killing and pursuing those that do, including his friends and family. Same thing with Superman comics and Justice League comics. This i the entire basis for the Huntress's character. And Jason Todd. Huntress, Jason Todd and Batfleck would be the best of friends in this universe. We're talking dozens of stories specifically debating the morality of killing in a wide variety of situations. Wonder Woman causing a single fatality caused the Justice League to break up for a full year. It's cool if you don't read comics but don't pretend that it's not a very vital part of his character. Nope because Jason Todd and Huntress were on very specific missions of revenge out to kill a certain individual and anyone who stood between them and that individual. That would cross the line into murder in Batfleck's eyes and murder's A CRIME. Harime Nui fucked around with this message at 18:15 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:For about 30 years of Batman's life in the comics, 75% of stories were about him not killing and pursuing those that do, including his friends and family. Same thing with Superman comic and Justice League comics. We're talking dozens of stories specifically debating the morality of killing in a wide variety of situations. Wonder Woman causing a single fatality caused the Justice League to break up for a full year. It's cool if you don't read comics but don't pretend that it's not a very vital part of his character. For about 25 years, 100% of Batman stories were about fighting dinosaurs, traveling through time, marching in the Gotham Day parade, hanging out with Bat-Woman, etc. What's your point?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:I wasn't talking about casual watercooler conversation, I was talking about detailed conversation like we have here How is it different? Not everyone is going to want to engage in detailed critique of every movie even in here. Sometimes you just don't give a poo poo. Again that doesn't make you incapable of doing so.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:For about 25 years, 100% of Batman stories were about fighting dinosaurs, traveling through time, marching in the Gotham Day parade, hanging out with Bat-Woman, etc. What's your point? Ok? I'm not telling people that fighting dinosaurs isn't a part of Batman's character.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Pirate Jet posted:I really wish people would stop saying the no-kill rule is "integral" to Batman's character when it was a late addition to him usually applied to appeal to censor boards. The "no kill rule" appeared within two years of the character's existence and it certainly wasn't due to the comics code authority. He's had it for the majority of his existence. A lot of integral elements of the Batman mythos took time to be introduced. The dead parents thing didn't show up for six months.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:For about 30 years of Batman's life in the comics, 75% of stories were about him not killing and pursuing those that do, including his friends and family. Same thing with Superman comics and Justice League comics. This i the entire basis for the Huntress's character. And Jason Todd. Huntress, Jason Todd and Batfleck would be the best of friends in the Snyder universe. We're talking dozens of stories specifically debating the morality of killing in a wide variety of situations. Wonder Woman causing a single fatality caused the Justice League to break up for a full year. It's cool if you don't read comics but don't pretend that it's not a very vital part of his character. Wonderwoman was totally in the right killing Maxwell Lord. Huntress killed EVERYBODY. Huntress would've killed a grocery store employee for not asking her 'paper or plastic?' Batffleck isn't killing everybody. He's killed a very select few who were I think trying to kill him as well. HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:For about 25 years, 100% of Batman stories were about fighting dinosaurs, traveling through time, marching in the Gotham Day parade, hanging out with Bat-Woman, etc. What's your point? NOT MY SUPERMAN. Harime Nui posted:It's the "I don't have to save you" thing taken to a logical extreme. Those guys in the technical could have abandoned their posts and it's unlikely Batman would waste bullets gunning them down while they ran. But since they chose to stand there and shoot at him they weren't going to escape when he removed that gunpost as an obstacle. Batman won't go out of his way to kill anybody but he is done bullshitting around and will take the quickest route from A to B and if that means some rear end in a top hat burns alive from his own (horrible) weapon malfunctioning welp. Seems reasonable.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Nope because Jason Todd and Huntress were on very specific missions of revenge out to kill a certain individual and anyone who stood between them and that individual. This is simply not true. The entire basis of their characters is that they would kill a bad guy in self-defense and Batman never would, under any circumstances. Jason Todd believes Batman can't accomplish his goal of wiping out crime unless he kills the bad guys. The very first thing Red Hood does is kill some low level gangsters and put their heads in a duffle bag. The no-kill rule is literally the only way they can explain why they haven't killed the Joker. It's the entire basis of the conflict between Jason Todd and Batman. Batfleck would just murder the gently caress out of the Joker, and rightly so. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 18:21 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Ok? I'm not telling people that fighting dinosaurs isn't a part of Batman's character. Then he should be fighting dinosaurs in every movie, and hell if anyone will disagree with that. Drifter posted:I didn't like BvS because the Batcave didn't have a giant robotic dinosaur or an even more gigantic 8-ton penny. NOT MY BATMAN (or superman) - Superman let jimmy olsen die rather than marrying him off to Grodd, the Gorilla King. Or painting himself with blackface and racing in the olympics. Where's Aunt Harriet's trophy case?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:This is simply not true. The entire basis of their characters is that they would kill a bad guy in self-defense and Batman never would, under any circumstances. Jason Todd believes Batman can't accomplish his goal of wiping out crime unless he kills the bad guys. The mno-kill rule is literally the only way they can explain why they haven't killed the Joker. I was explaining why Batfleck would not partner with comics Jason or Helena were he to somehow meet them. They were specifically looking to kill Mandragora and Black Mask. Batfleck is all about reactive, defensive escalation and preserving the "no deliberate killing" rule by his own twisted standards. If Joker just stuck his hands out and said "I give up Bats, take me in!" Batfleck would probably, in fact, take him in (but cripple him first or something maybe, like DKR).
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:This is simply not true. The entire basis of their characters is that they would kill a bad guy in self-defense and Batman never would, under any circumstances. Jason Todd believes Batman can't accomplish his goal of wiping out crime unless he kills the bad guys. The no-kill rule is literally the only way they can explain why they haven't killed the Joker. It's the entire basis of the conflict between Jason Todd and Batman. Batfleck would just murder the gently caress out of the Joker, and rightly so. But there are people he DOESN'T kill, like all the OTHER mercenaries. He also captures a SHITTON of normal criminals and sends them out for the police to deal with. Who were the people he killed, and in what context? He's not some robotic killing machine in the movie. Also, there's an evolution to comics. BvS is a Batman down a different path, but even without the costume he is still unarguably (to non-autists) Batman. IIf you want to, you could also say that as he grew older, Batman's line between heroism and whatever grew so fine that there wasn't any divide anymore, so he would use whatever he could use however he could use it. Maybe after this BvS he'll begin to have some form of self-regulation again. This whole time in BvS Batman was villainous. He was no longer a superhero, not until near the end. Drifter fucked around with this message at 18:27 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Drifter posted:But there are people he DOESN'T kill, like all the OTHER mercenaries. He also captures a SHITTON of normal criminals and sends them out for the police to deal with. Who were the people he killed, and in what context? The comics made it very very clear that even one single fatality, regardless of the circumstances, is a huge deal. Entire story arcs of Batman, Superman, and Justice League have revolved entirely around this concept. For like 30 years.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:For about 25 years, 100% of Batman stories were about fighting dinosaurs, traveling through time, marching in the Gotham Day parade, hanging out with Bat-Woman, etc. What's your point? Drifter posted:I get it. I just think it's dumb. Batman not killing or Batman killing as such a minor quibble. It's like what made parts of Season 2 of Daredevil crash and burn - Murdock's screaming at Punisher for killing bad guys and all the while he's throwing people down stairs, twisting their heads off, strangling them, punching their heads until they're unconscious and beyond, crushing foreheads, et cetera. Oh, but I guess magically by the grace of god they survive because ...?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:The comics made it very very clear that even one single fatality, regardless of the circumstances, is a huge deal. Entire story arcs of Batman, Superman, and Justice League have revolved entirely around this concept. https://forums.somethingawful.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=144
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Drifter posted:Batffleck isn't killing everybody. He's killed a very select few who were I think trying to kill him as well. A criminal initiating violence against other criminals and using their actions taken in self defense as an excuse to kill them seems reasonable?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:A criminal initiating violence against other criminals and using their actions taken in self defense as an excuse to kill them seems reasonable? ur gonna be real bummed out when u hear about the police
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Mazzagatti2Hotty posted:A criminal initiating violence against other criminals and using their actions taken in self defense as an excuse to kill them seems reasonable? Otherwise known as "a vigilante". Timeless Appeal posted:I think you're confusing a character's ethos with their actions. Adam West's Batman, B:TAS's Batman, and Nolan's Batman do different things--but their values are pretty much the same. Batman who knowingly incites prison violence would clearly be a villain in the eyes of all three of those dudes. Probably because he also calls himself a villain.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think you're confusing a character's ethos with their actions. Adam West's Batman, B:TAS's Batman, and Nolan's Batman do different things--but their values are pretty much the same. Batman who knowingly incites prison violence would clearly be a villain in the eyes of all three of those dudes. In one of the 'recent' camic arcs, Batman was outed as Bruce Wayne and he went to jail, and he 'incited prison violence' a la Rorshach and just kept loving up dudes. That was the mainstream comic. Timeless Appeal posted:Batman can do whatever he wants and you can write a story where Batman does whatever he wants. And it's ok to find it dumb. Sure, but he's still Batman, no matter what he does. He may not be a young nerdling's prim and proper idealized masturbatory version they've cooked up in their own head, but you're never going to achieve that. Drifter fucked around with this message at 18:32 on May 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
So wait. Was Batman killing was an abberation brought on by Super 9/11 and the movie is about him redeeming himself and turning away from that path, or is it totally what he should have been doing to fight crime and is totally justifiable? It feels like what people are saying keeps changing.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Who does Batman answer to? To whom does his methods need to be justified? He's clearly shown as a guy who needs Jesus.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Who does Batman answer to? To whom does his methods need to be justified? He's clearly shown as a guy who needs Jesus. See that's the exact same thing I'm talking about. "He answers to no one he doesn't need to justify himself!" and "He needs Supergod's example to sort him out" are mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:ur gonna be real bummed out when u hear about the police
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:See that's the exact same thing I'm talking about. "He answers to no one he doesn't need to justify himself!" and "He needs Supergod's example to sort him out" are mutually exclusive. Only if it's the same person saying both.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:It's the entire basis of the conflict between Jason Todd and Batman. Batfleck would just murder the gently caress out of the Joker, and rightly so. You're wrong. Jason's conflict with Bruce is not that he doesn't let people go, is that Bruce didn't broke that rule for him. Under the Red Hood is essentially Jason throwing a tantrum, because he believes Bruce didn't care about him. If Jason's goal truly were killing the Joker for his crimes he would've done it as soon he got him at his mercy instead of dragging the whole thing just to stage a scenario where Bruce would be forced to show if he truly cares about Jason or not. That is the irony about Jason, he believes Bruce doesn't care about him when in fact, Jason has been a constant presence in Bruce's mind since his death. Going so far to Bruce actually going out for Joker's blood in the original Death of the Family story. Assuming Jason shows up in the DCEU, I can see the core conflict being not that Bruce kills but that he stopped after meeting Superman. In this case Jason would be sort of an inversion to the current complaints about Bruce's lethality.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:See that's the exact same thing I'm talking about. "He answers to no one
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:ur gonna be real bummed out when u hear about the police I have been for quite some time. What's that got to do with anything?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:See that's the exact same thing I'm talking about. "He answers to no one he doesn't need to justify himself!" and "He needs Supergod's example to sort him out" are mutually exclusive. Keep in mind that we're talking about the POV character for much of the film. Justification to himself is justification enough. However, he probably needs to get out of the brutal cycle he's set up for himself, something the Nolan films also point out.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think you're confusing a character's ethos with their actions. Adam West's Batman, B:TAS's Batman, and Nolan's Batman do different things--but their values are pretty much the same. Batman who knowingly incites prison violence would clearly be a villain in the eyes of all three of those dudes. Adam West's Batman would be so disappointed in Batfleck.  
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
So it was his endless cattle against crime that did it? I thought it was Super 9/11 that broke Batman. But as I've said before, he didn't stop. He still kills people to save Martha. TetsuoTW posted:Only if it's the same person saying both. It looked like the person I replied to kinda did.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Yeah, this story was a sequel to Man of Steel that shows how Superman changes Batman. It also explores a Batman who's grown old, there is a lot going on in that movie. To be honest, between Beevis, CW and Deadpool we are seeing comic movies ask questions about themselves and that's cool.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 10:00 |
|
|
In my mind, Batman killing people in BvS is absolutely fine, because thats what this version of the character does in that story.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2016 19:10
|
|
