|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superman is just a man. Except that scene doesn't humanize him either. His concern for his fellow man in that season is barely evident, he shows more horror at what's happened to Zod than what happened to people in the bombing. He makes no effort to explain himself, he makes no effort to save anyone hurt there, he just flies away. Because the story needs him to look worse in people's eyes, so he just reacts like an idiot because the plot says he needs to. That's not a human failing or a god failing, it's reducing the character to a scripted doll that only serves to enable the events that transpire.
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Like the Superman of TDKR, who's a lovely rear end in a top hat because Miller clearly doesn't loving like Superman, is a government stooge Boy Scout. The whole point of the comic and why they fight is that Batman considers Superman a glorified lackey who does America's bidding and doesn't think for himself (and, to be fair, he's right), but Superman is never under the inclination that he's not doing the right thing. Miller has an obvious chip on his shoulder with the character, and even then he doesn't portray Superman as wavering in purpose or uncomitted to helping people, it's just that Superman's defined "people" as "The American government, specifically the president". And then, even then, in their climactic fight, Batman never at any point even considers killing Superman. Like that's the whole point of their fight - that he very clearly could have if he wanted to, he just never was going to. At zero point was Batman going to kill Superman, because he's not a person who kills. He certainly doesn't decide not to at the last minute because he learns that their mothers' names are the same. Like, again, that's more why it's so weird and so frustrating that Snyder uses TDKR as a defense for BvS; he doesn't get that the main theme of TDKR is that Batman, despite all the hardship and all the trauma and all the pain he's endured, and despite all the hatred both character and creator have for Superman, never even gives the slightest thought to actually killing Superman. And that's one of the main points of the book.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:There's a rumor that John Boyega might be in Black Panther now, holy poo poo. As....the dude from Star Wars? Is that feasible? Aphrodite posted:Green Lantern is a bad example, because nothing has to change to focus on a new one. Well I could've chosen The Flash, but I felt that would be beating a dead horse. Pretend I used Wally and Barry then. As long as you know what I was on about, the discussion can continue. Let's just talk about Geoff Johns until the BvS goes back into its coffin.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
Getting away from horrible, numbing violence after feeling like you've failed everyone is a perfectly human thing to do.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Well I could've chosen The Flash, but I felt that would be beating a dead horse. Pretend I used Wally and Barry then. As long as you know what I was on about, the discussion can continue. Wally didn't go anywhere either though. They could have easily flipped that switch too, until DC decided he never existed anymore. Although we don't know how much of that decision was his.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Getting away from horrible, numbing violence after feeling like you've failed everyone is a perfectly human thing to do. He'll fly to Central America to save a girl from a fire, but he doesn't even check for survivors after a bomb goes off in his face? And that's not to trivialize the first thing either. But it's not consistent even with things that happen in the movie itself. It makes no sense for him to do what he did there.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Why doesn't he try to pull anyone out of the rubble? Why is he not more visibly upset? Why doesn't he stick around to explain things? And somehow everyone except Batman just knows that Lex Luthor did it, because fucksakes what a deeply terrible movie. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Superman is just a man.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:He'll fly to Central America to save a girl from a fire, but he doesn't even check for survivors after a bomb goes off in his face? This is a character arc. He thinks he only makes things worse, so he leaves. Toxxupation posted:Like the Superman of TDKR, who's a lovely rear end in a top hat because Miller clearly doesn't loving like Superman, is a government stooge Boy Scout. The whole point of the comic and why they fight is that Batman considers Superman a glorified lackey who does America's bidding and doesn't think for himself (and, to be fair, he's right), but Superman is never under the inclination that he's not doing the right thing. Miller has an obvious chip on his shoulder with the character, and even then he doesn't portray Superman as wavering in purpose or uncomitted to helping people, it's just that Superman's defined "people" as "The American government, specifically the president". This is what I was talking about an earlier. Batman tortures and cripples people in DKR. But since he doesn't kill anyone, he's "pure". This is the exact opposite of an ethical objection to violence, it's normalizing violence. Horrible violence is okay as long as you don't cross a certain line. In fact, it's okay as long as these certain characters don't cross it, it's okay for others. I'm not actually saying that Batman needs to kill, but at least be honest about it. Rubber bullets. Honest. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 23:35 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:He'll fly to Central America to save a girl from a fire, but he doesn't even check for survivors after a bomb goes off in his face? They literally explain this one in the film. He was deeply ashamed and humiliated that he didn't stop it because he wasn't willing to look at the man he thought he crippled. He was actually blaming himself for it and it caused him to go off and do some soul searching.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Wally didn't go anywhere either though. They could have easily flipped that switch too, until DC decided he never existed anymore. Wally didn't literally pop out of existence (until he did) but we were left with a universe where he was no longer The Flash. Not like he could go back to being Kid Flash. He was displaced as the main character of a series that was doing pretty great. My issue is that I like the DC Universe to feel progressive and moving forward. It separates it from Marvel which is always kinda trapped in the present. Whenever the heroes retake their mantle from their successor it feels like a big step back. Geoff Johns feels like a step back to me.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Horrible violence is okay as long as you don't cross a certain line. Congrats, you've externalized the very basic tenet of all superhero comics and especially Batman in particular. Like, that whole dichotomy is the very basic presumption that all superhero comics operate under.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
1. It's not the basic tenet of all superhero comics. 2. It's not a very good tenet.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:This is a character arc. He thinks he only makes things worse, so he leaves. Then it's a poorly constructed one. He's been at the epicenter of destruction before. The moment falls utterly flat if it's supposed to be the straw that broke the camel's back, because that's not the way someone with experience being at the center of the fire and flames reacts. quote:This is what I was talking about an earlier. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't CARE if Batman is "pure". Many of the best Batman stories cover the fact that Batman's code has flaws. It's not about saving Batman's integrity, it's about ignoring one of the most crucial points of debate about his character in favor of something that's, frankly, easier to portray. Readers and viewers are SUPPOSED to ask if what Batman is doing is right and they're forgoing all the ambiguity. quote:They literally explain this one in the film. He was deeply ashamed and humiliated that he didn't stop it because he wasn't willing to look at the man he thought he crippled. He was actually blaming himself for it and it caused him to go off and do some soul searching. Then have him do that after the crisis has passed. I have issues with MoS and the rest of the movie, but this kind of rampant immaturity isn't at all consistent even with how Snyder has written him.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:Then it's a poorly constructed one. He's been at the epicenter of destruction before. The moment falls utterly flat if it's supposed to be the straw that broke the camel's back, because that's not the way someone with experience being at the center of the fire and flames reacts. I thought your complaint was that Superman was numb to the violence, not that he wasn't detached and professional enough. TFRazorsaw posted:I don't know about everyone else, but I don't CARE if Batman is "pure". Many of the best Batman stories cover the fact that Batman's code has flaws. It's not about saving Batman's integrity, it's about ignoring one of the most crucial points of debate about his character in favor of something that's, frankly, easier to portray. Readers and viewers are SUPPOSED to ask if what Batman is doing is right and they're forgoing all the ambiguity. ...Why did you think there was no ambiguity?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:1. It's not the basic tenet of all superhero comics. Literally the only thing that differentiates villains from heroes is that there are lines that superheroes aren't willing to cross that villains are willing to to achieve their goals. Even if that goal is a simple as "be evil", what differentiates evilness from goodness is that willingness to cross those lines. Punching people is Wrong, but punching people to prevent Killing is Right. Every superhero story either uses, deconstructs, comments on, or inverts this central idea. You are fundamentally wrong. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 23:56 on May 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Actually what separates a hero from a villain is that a hero fights to do good and a villain fights to do evil.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
quote:I thought your complaint was that Superman was numb to the violence, not that he wasn't detached and professional enough. He fought desperately to stop Zod and even committed an act that caused him considerable mental anguish. Why isn't he showing that same furious need to hunt for survivors? Why is it THIS moment that causes him to suddenly go "I need to leave immediately"? I don't see how it tracks. quote:...Why did you think there was no ambiguity in Batman mutilating someone? That's not my point at all. "Is beating the holy hell out of them REALLY any better than killing them?" is one of the questions you're supposed to be asking about the character. As is "What happens if you throw the Joker in jail and he just escapes and kills someone all over again?" And so on, and so forth. It's not about keeping Batman pure, it's about exploring whether or not what he's doing is even helping stop crime or right in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Actually what separates a hero from a villain is that a hero fights to do good and a villain fights to do evil. What about their moral code? Heroes have boundaries they do not cross. They have a point, you don't need to be a smug rear end in a top hat about it. Jonny_Rocket fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Jonny_Rocket posted:They have a point, you don't need to be a smarmy rear end in a top hat about it. You're wrong, he does.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:That's not my point at all. "Is beating the holy hell out of them REALLY any better than killing them?" is one of the questions you're supposed to be asking about the character. As is "What happens if you throw the Joker in jail and he just escapes and kills someone all over again?" And so on, and so forth. It's not about keeping Batman pure, it's about exploring whether or not what he's doing is even helping stop crime or right in the first place. But Batman tried it that way, for 20 years, and had nothing to show for it. Combined with finding out that space Gods exist, he broke. You keep wanting Batman movies to ask the same question, apparently. This movie asks different ones.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:But Batman tried it that way, for 20 years, and had nothing to show for it. Combined with finding out that space Gods exist, he broke. I think those questions are important ones to ask, and that if you're not, you're not really telling a story about Batman anymore. That and I don't think many of the Batman movies have effectively tackled these issues, either, so. I'm still kind of waiting for a movie that does.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:There's a rumor that John Boyega might be in Black Panther now, holy poo poo. I'm just waiting for Marvel to cast Daisy Ridley as Jane Foster Thor now.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:He fought desperately to stop Zod and even committed an act that caused him considerable mental anguish. Why isn't he showing that same furious need to hunt for survivors? Why is it THIS moment that causes him to suddenly go "I need to leave immediately"? I don't see how it tracks. Because he's frustrated. This is why he seems so apathetic despite rescuing people, and despite getting the dream job at the Planet. Because he thinks he's failing. The Congress attack is where he breaks, because there's no chance to defend himself. He thinks Superman is a lost cause. A farmer's dream. TFRazorsaw posted:That's not my point at all. "Is beating the holy hell out of them REALLY any better than killing them?" is one of the questions you're supposed to be asking about the character. As is "What happens if you throw the Joker in jail and he just escapes and kills someone all over again?" And so on, and so forth. It's not about keeping Batman pure, it's about exploring whether or not what he's doing is even helping stop crime or right in the first place. This doesn't actually change based on whether or not he kills, it just reframes the question from. Jonny_Rocket posted:What about their moral code? Heroes have boundaries they do not cross. They have a point, you don't need to be a smug rear end in a top hat about it. Having values isn't fundamentally good or evil, or heroic or villainous.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
MrAristocrates posted:You're wrong, he does. What defines "good" and "bad" if there isn't a set of moral codes or boundaries heroes won't cross? What makes a hero any better than a villain if he doesn't have a degree of restraint and empathy for others?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Having values isn't fundamentally good or evil, or heroic or villainous. Why not? So what you're saying is that heroes and villains are essentially the same but with opposite agendas?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Jonny_Rocket posted:Why not? So what you're saying is that heroes and villains are essentially the same but with opposite agendas? ...Yes? In superhero comics in particular, the heroes want to do good, and villains want to do bad. Obviously there's a whole spectrum of anti-heroes and moral complexities to confuse that, but it's kind of a basic distinction.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Jonny_Rocket posted:What defines "good" and "bad" if there isn't a set of moral codes or boundaries heroes won't cross? What makes a hero any better than a villain if he doesn't have a degree of restraint and empathy for others? I'm not on BotL's side, i was just saying that being a smug, bad faith rear end in a top hat is kind of his gimmick.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:I think those questions are important ones to ask, and that if you're not, you're not really telling a story about Batman anymore. I disagree. e: more specifically, with the last part. MacheteZombie fucked around with this message at 00:16 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:...Yes? In superhero comics, superheroes want to do good, and villains want to do bad. Obviously there's a whole spectrum of anti-heroes to confuse that, but it's kind of a basic distinction. But what defines "good" and "bad" if you're arguing that there's really no difference? It's human to have morals and boundaries, and it helps define what we consider a "good" person.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Because he's frustrated. This is why he seems so apathetic despite rescuing people, and despite getting the dream job at the Planet. Because he thinks he's failing. The Congress attack is where he breaks, because there's no chance to defend himself. He thinks Superman is a lost cause. A farmer's dream. "He's frustrated." That's the point. That's all he is. How do we go from someone desperately pleading Zod not to fry some innocent people to making a frowny face and then flying away? People don't fundamentally detach that immediately. The idea that this is a Sisyphus-like effort he's just DONE WITH is poorly sold.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Jonny_Rocket posted:But what defines "good" and "bad" if you're arguing that there's really no difference? It's human to have morals and boundaries, and it helps define what we consider a "good" person. I'm not trying to be smug, but you want me to explain ethics to you. Ethics. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 00:20 on May 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:They literally explain this one in the film. He was deeply ashamed and humiliated that he didn't stop it because he wasn't willing to look at the man he thought he crippled. He was actually blaming himself for it and it caused him to go off and do some soul searching.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I disagree. Well, you're certainly welcome to that opinion. But I just want to stress that I'm not arguing this because I want Batman to be "pure".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:18
|
|
|
Do you have a loving red phone in your study that beeps when somebody mentions BvS in this thread and you push a button in Shakespeare's neck then slide down a pole and post feverishly on your giant atomic computer or what
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Do you have a loving red phone in your study that beeps when somebody mentions BvS in this thread and you push a button in Shakespeare's neck then slide down a pole and post feverishly on your giant atomic computer or what ... Huh? Are you talking to me?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:"He's frustrated." That's the point. That's all he is. How do we go from someone desperately pleading Zod not to fry some innocent people to making a frowny face and then flying away? People don't fundamentally detach that immediately. The idea that this is a Sisyphus-like effort he's just DONE WITH is poorly sold. CapnAndy posted:Again, though -- super-speed, super-strength, invulnerability. "It happened too fast to react" is not a valid excuse for Superman ever, and exponentially more so given that we see the explosion from his point of view, and it's in slow-motion. He couldn't get even one person to safety? He couldn't grab the exploding wheelchair and throw it away? He couldn't do one of his most iconic moves and spread out his cape to protect the people behind him from fire? He couldn't do anything but stand there and watch people burn to death as an American landmark was desecrated? The irony is that you're both in the movie: 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The irony is that you're both in the movie: His pain and frustration is sold with all the sincerity of someone wondering who farted. But that's more on Cavill I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
TFRazorsaw posted:... Huh? Are you talking to me? No bravestofthelamps, sorry, like five people posted while I was typing
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Geoff Johns Promises To Bring "Hope And Optimism" To The DC Films UniverseTravis343 posted:Do you have a loving red phone in your study that beeps when somebody mentions BvS in this thread and you push a button in Shakespeare's neck then slide down a pole and post feverishly on your giant atomic computer or what
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I'm not trying to be smug, but you want me to explain ethics to you. Ethics. Fair enough. But I absolutely don't agree with your argument that "Having values isn't fundamentally good or evil, or heroic or villainous". It absolutely does, otherwise why would people look up to superheroes if they weren't any better values or morals than their villains. It's a fundamental aspect of hero to have a set of morals and boundaries. Spider-Man would've killed Uncle Ben's killer if he hadn't chosen to be the bigger person and set an example.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2016 00:26
|
|