|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Probably my biggest issue with BVS is that a Batman who kills has no stakes. For instance, can you explain why a Batman who kills a random thug wouldn't just murder the Joker? Why not just kill Lex? The entire point of the Under the Red Hood arc is that Batman refused to kill, even when it's obvious that he should just make the Joker disappear. The entire Justice League disbanded for a full year because Wonder Woman killed a man that she obviously had absolutely no choice but to kill. Yeah there's a scene in the last year or two where he literally grabs a crook and tells him to go to Wayne Trucking and get a job and keep it and take care of his kids or Batman will come back for him
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:I think there could still be room for the World's Greatest Detective version of Batman in this universe. I think one thing that's easy to forget is that Bruce's conception of the world and his understanding of it is totally shattered by the appearance of Superman. Sure, he's distracted by his rage, but he also feels like he's the only person capable of dealing with Superman. The rest of the world spends the movie grappling with the existence of Superman, but Bruce has the added burden of being arrogant and driven enough to think he's the only person standing between a Superman gone rogue and the rest of the world. On top of that he's having hosed up dreams and is the lodestone for Darkseid and all that crazy poo poo. The dude quite clearly has a lot on his plate so it's easy to see why Luthor was able to fleece him for so long. One of Batman's defining characteristics is that he's never out of his depth so that's another aspect of Batfleck which didn't sit right for me. I don't actually have a problem with a writer flipping a character on its head and exploring it from a different angle and bending it to the point where it has to break or evolve just as long as they have something interesting or novel to say about the character in the process and I didn't think that BvS really added anything worthwhile to the character. Questions like "What if Batman lost his way? Could anyone stop him, even Superman? What would it take to bring him back from that dark place?" should have provided some really great material (and the comics and the cartoons often did explore those first two questions when they fought an evil version of Batman from a different dimension) but I found the conclusion to Batman's character arc in BvS to be really disappointing in that regard. They spent 80% of the film pushing him in one direction and then limply went "Eh, maybe not" and that was it. As I pointed out earlier, a whoooole bunch of aspects of Batman's character completely depend on the idea that he's actually infallible. Building a movie around the question "What if Batman wasn't infallible?" without it being a parody or a genre satire is a really odd decision. It's like writing a serious, non-parody version of Sherlock Holmes where he's not very good at deducing clues. What's the point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Probably my biggest issue with BVS is that a Batman who kills has no stakes. For instance, can you explain why a Batman who kills a random thug wouldn't just murder the Joker? Why not just kill Lex? The entire point of the Under the Red Hood arc is that Batman refused to kill, even when it's obvious that he should just make the Joker disappear. The entire Justice League disbanded for a full year because Wonder Woman killed a man that she obviously had absolutely no choice but to kill. Eh. I could see your point if he continues to kill in Suicide Squad and his solo movies, but he almost certainly won't. Like yeah, it's a problem in the protracted medium of comics, but the movie very clearly establishes that this direction is a recent development and he's clearly steering away from it by the movie's end. Every death in the movie he's responsible for isn't any different from what Nolan's Batman did, except Snyder gives the audience less of an out to say "maybe that guy survived." This version of Batman is the result of unprecedented events after 20 years of crimefighting. He's in a constant reactionary state until almost the end of the movie. Snyder isn't saying "this is what the DCCU Batman always has been and always will be." Snowglobe of Doom posted:One of Batman's defining characteristics is that he's never out of his depth so that's another aspect of Batfleck which didn't sit right for me. Not really? There are plenty of times when Batman overestimates his enemies or is legitimately afraid of them (Scott Snyder's Court of Owls and Death of the Family) or gets duped and in over his head (Venom). Those are just off the top of my head. If you're going off of Morrison's Batman or the Arkham Batman, sure, that guy has a plan for everything, but I wouldn't call that a defining characteristic even in the modern comic history of Batman. MeatwadIsGod fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jun 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
 double post
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:What the film consistently calls attention to in both versions is Batman's conspicuous failure to liberate the consciousness of Gotham's citizens, as occurs momentarily in The Dark Knight Returns, and instead only deal blows to 'common thugs.' This is the other key point: Clark/Superman is not angered because killing is inherently bad, but because the Batman is undemocratic. I do not mean undemocratic in the sense that he needs a vote (that is Finch's limitation), but in the sense that the people - the poor - are living in fear. Batman's a corporate-backed warlord, exactly the same as in the Africa scenes. He's no revolutionary. So again: can we imagine a Batman who actually stands for Truth, Justice, and the American way? And note that 'Not Using Guns' isn't part of that list. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 21:05 on Jun 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:We're talking about a world with super criminals and massive amounts of organized crime. We're talking Gotham. Your argument is seriously "well he might not have to fire it?" A world where normal criminals will commit a bank robbery in Metropolis in the middle of the day and have a shootout on the freeway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:As I pointed out earlier, a whoooole bunch of aspects of Batman's character completely depend on the idea that he's actually infallible. Building a movie around the question "What if Batman wasn't infallible?" without it being a parody or a genre satire is a really odd decision. It's like writing a serious, non-parody version of Sherlock Holmes where he's not very good at deducing clues. What's the point? I think automatically this isn't the question that Beavis is interested in at all. You should assume that Batman is fallible because he can not possibly be infallible. Bruce Wayne in comics and cartoons and what-have-you makes mistakes and errors all the time. What you're referring to is the generic presupposition that he will either get the bad guy or live to fight another day, which isn't infallibility but cliche. Snyder's deconstructive diegesis is satiric because it's depicting the inherent impossibility of Batman's infallibility. The perception of this infallibility in itself had nothing ever to do with truth, but was a conscription of the serialized, generic, consumer narrative. We only needed to read the stories to realize that the boogeyman can't actually deter the worst kinds of crimes. And there is no about-face at the movie's end. Bruce has still objectively failed to protect Clark's life, even though, yeah, he technically hasn't brutally murdered him. The absolution you're noting is actually a reckoning with the true extent of his fallibility, and the ambiguous deliberation to move onto a 'higher calling.'
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
For those of you tired of epic-length superhero movies, according to David Ayer, Suicide Squad is a relatively lean 1 hour and 40 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:For those of you tired of epic-length superhero movies, according to David Ayer, Suicide Squad is a relatively lean 1 hour and 40 minutes. No wonder they had to shoot new material.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:For those of you tired of epic-length superhero movies, according to David Ayer, Suicide Squad is a relatively lean 1 hour and 40 minutes. Didn't he deny this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Eh. I could see your point if he continues to kill in Suicide Squad and his solo movies, but he almost certainly won't. Like yeah, it's a problem in the protracted medium of comics, but the movie very clearly establishes that this direction is a recent development and he's clearly steering away from it by the movie's end. Every death in the movie he's responsible for isn't any different from what Nolan's Batman did, except Snyder gives the audience less of an out to say "maybe that guy survived." Snyders Batman has a giant robot just in case
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:It's funny you say this because any decent police force should have no trouble dealing with 95% of Batman's villains. Only Clayface and Ra's Al Ghul come off as real super threats. I'm sure police would have no problems dealing with a man with a freeze ray and a lady who can control superplants. No problems at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Equeen posted:Didn't he deny this? David Ayer retweeted someone else announcing it this morning, so I assumed it was accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Seriously man how much literal cop porn do you have on your hard drive I won't judge you I just want to know how often on average you touch your weird dick to pictures of Are Police
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Like, the most normal of Batman's villains that are considered super villains are, like, the Penguin- and he's What If A Mobster Had Pretty Crazy Tech And Was Also Way Way Way Way Way Harder To Stop And here's a fun fact for you- the police? Do not have a good track record against actual literal Mobsters in real life. And those guys don't have elaborate super villain plots and convoluted super umbrella weaponry. Then you get to the B listers like, say, Firefly, who is a dude with a flight suit and a flamethrower that, yeah, normal police would have a loving hard time dealing with. Hell even Croc would be difficult as gently caress to deal with since he's generally held to be bullet proof and is super humanly strong and violent. That's not touching the people that can reasonably say they are on Batman's intellectual level, like the Riddler, which puts them far beyond any real world prospects. If Batman has any amount of trouble with some one, they are too insane to work in real life and not in a mental way. I think the one guy the police IRL could stand a chance against is loving Scarface, but he's also got the most open and shut case of honest to God mental illness of any of Batman's villains ever. Two-Face has his poo poo more together than Scarface.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:41
|
|
|
It's actually a ridiculously popular misconception. A lot of people say "if the police were competent..." or "if Batman just killed..." like this would solve everything in Gotham overnight. These people completely miss the point on many levels. Poison Ivy alone is a huge threat. People , please do not confuse TAS Ivy who's main power was being a seductress who had a green thumb with the real potential of the character. There's an episode of The Batman where its incarnation of Ivy essentially conquers Gotham in no time with just some inconspicuous flowers delivered as a gift. Plants are pretty loving awesome and can do a whole lot more than be big tentacle monsters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
And Hell, TAS showed that no matter how many times Batman seemingly killed the Joker, directly or not, or how many times the Joker REALLY SHOULD HAVE DIED, the dude never died with one exception. It got to the point where Batman would see the Joker vanish in a hellish explosion while being eaten by sharks and know, automatically, that yes, he would be back. I'd honestly be shocked if snapping the Joker's neck COULD kill the guy with the kind of bullshit comic book logic that gets thrown around for him and other A list super villains. Apply that to the real world and they would never be stopped.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Snyders Batman has a giant robot just in case https://youtu.be/G9xzhyp431c
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Hm, what would Batman do if faced with a superperson of unbelievable power who could kill thousands and the only option given is to kill them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOooJW5SSDA
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Snyders Batman has a giant robot just in case True, but he's out of his depth in the sewer labyrinth and talks a tough game that he's going to come back and gently caress everyone up while he's thinking "I'm never coming back here ever again." The "Batman has a contingency plan for literally everything" is really only prevalent in Morrison. Granted, I haven't read every Batman comic, but writers like Snyder and O'Neil write him as a dude who is fallible and not prepared for every eventuality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:True, but he's out of his depth in the sewer labyrinth and talks a tough game that he's going to come back and gently caress everyone up while he's thinking "I'm never coming back here ever again." Ehhh. There's a reason "if Batman has time to prepare" is an old joke, to the point where Midnighters superpower is literally the ability to always be prepared for anything (Midnighter being a parody/analog in the authority)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:True, but he's out of his depth in the sewer labyrinth and talks a tough game that he's going to come back and gently caress everyone up while he's thinking "I'm never coming back here ever again." Yeah, Batman being infallible is a relatively recent development, but there are still different stories where his fallibility is a plot point, most notorious the recently published official prequel to DKR (Last Crusade) where is all about Bruce's body taking a toll over his many years of crime fighting that not only have him nearly dying more than once but also considering retirement and leave the Batman mantle to Jason Todd. It ends poorly. Sir Kodiak posted:David Ayer retweeted someone else announcing it this morning, so I assumed it was accurate. https://twitter.com/DavidAyerMovies/status/746352805166735360
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Last Crusade would be cooler if it wasn't shackled by Death in the Family
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
David Ayer does not know how to use twitter, gotta put a period before the @ my man
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Last Crusade would be cooler if it wasn't shackled by Death in the Family Does it incorporate Death in the Family? I thought the Dark Knight stuff was supposed to be off in its own continuity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:Does it incorporate Death in the Family? I thought the Dark Knight stuff was supposed to be off in its own continuity. In a way, Last Crusade explains why Bruce retired as Batman and develops a lot his relationship with Jason Todd (while also giving Jason some characterization beyond "he was a good soldier"), plus the book itself ends with Jason's death but doesn't elaborates on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:In a way, Last Crusade explains why Bruce retired as Batman and develops a lot his relationship with Jason Todd (while also giving Jason some characterization beyond "he was a good soldier"), plus the book itself ends with Jason's death but doesn't elaborates on it. thanks guy who likes noted piece of sexist trash Red Hood and the Outlaws, now here's the actual answer: the dark knight stuff (dkr, dksa, asbar, and dk3) are theoretically supposed to be in their own little bubble. the problem is that as soon as miller said that something happened to jason (it's never actually specified what happened to him in DKR), dc tripped over themselves to fulfill that prophecy that wasn't supposed to be canon, because dkr was super popular and look guys it's the thing that is referenced in that other thing even though the other thing came first and we weren't planning on doing this until then!!!! if Death in the Family hadn't happened it'd be cool to see what, y'know, actually happened to jason in that timeline but we know what happened to jason. his death is this immutable part of the batman story now. not just that he died, but the "joker beat him to death with a crowbar" thing. so instead of getting a cool totally original story we got the azzarello/miller version of the lead up to Death in the Family which isn't bad but man it could have been cooler
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
also dc's hardon for dkr as this unshakeable cornerstone of batman is super dumb when you realize that dkr was a response to batman not being allowed to turn 30, so they responded to this book about how batman changes and needs to change by....shackling them to the version of batman in that story there's a decent article to be written about dkr, its successors, and dc's general direction for the last five or ten years and its direction wtih batman for about 30
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:thanks guy who likes noted piece of sexist trash Red Hood and the Outlaws, now here's the actual answer: Thing is Last Crusade and Death of the Family are entirely different stories dealing with different characterizations and plot beats that only happen to share Jason's fate. Miller and Azzarello focus in exploring Jason's character and his relationship with Bruce while also exploring certain aspects of the "Millerverse" that hadn't been touched until now like Poison Ivy, Killer Croc or Selina's fate. Saying Last Crusade is "simply" a lead in to DITF is hilariously short sighted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:Thing is Last Crusade and Death of the Family are entirely different stories dealing with different characterizations and plot beats that only happen to share Jason's fate. Congrats you entirely missed the point I was making about the history of the Dark Knight books and how it relates to DC Par for the corse for the guy who said sexism doesn't exist if you don't acknowledge it
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Well, I don't know how I hosed that up, but thanks for catching it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
edit: Nevermind, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Codependent Poster posted:Hm, what would Batman do if faced with a superperson of unbelievable power who could kill thousands and the only option given is to kill them? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaJ47V2pnUw
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Well, I don't know how I hosed that up, but thanks for catching it. Twitter is garbage and if ur just looking at Ayer's feed u won't see it, all you will see is that he retweeted it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
MeatwadIsGod posted:Eh. I could see your point if he continues to kill in Suicide Squad and his solo movies, but he almost certainly won't. Like yeah, it's a problem in the protracted medium of comics, but the movie very clearly establishes that this direction is a recent development and he's clearly steering away from it by the movie's end. Every death in the movie he's responsible for isn't any different from what Nolan's Batman did, except Snyder gives the audience less of an out to say "maybe that guy survived." Yeah but as we saw in BvS, the Joker already killed Jason Todd or at least some form of Robin. It doesn't make logical sense (i know, its a movie, but work with me) that the Batman from BvS would have ever let the Joker live after that. I really hope that Suicide Squad directly addresses this. Honestly since Batman killing isn't brought up by any of the characters, I just assumed that nobody told Zack Snyder about the no-killing rule and he just didn't know or care. I always thought the moral dilemma of Man of Steel is that Superman never ever kills and he had to kill Zod, but after watching BvS its became clear that Zack Snyder didn't see that as the moral dillema of the film at all and I was just assuming, because I knew about the no-killing rule. In the Pre-52 comics, BvS would have been more about how Superman was forced to commit murder and the implications of Superman taking someone's life, but it wasn't about that all. That was a huge reason why BvS felt like a let-down to me. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Jun 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:its became clear that Zack Snyder didn't see that as the moral dillema of the film at all and I was just assuming, because I knew about the no-killing rule. You have progressed from mere assumption to full-blown hallucination.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
Rumor going around that Michael Mando is going to be Carnage in Spider-Man: Homecoming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
It's acknowledged multiple times in BvS that Batman straight up killing people is a new and bold direction he's taking in the wake of metropolis, not his standard operating procedure.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
I like Zsasz as a "realistic" Batman villain. Clearly intelligent and competent, but he just wants to slice people and mark that on his body. No supervillain plots, just an old fashioned serial killer. Batman-Zodiac chasing Zsasz is my ideal Batfleck movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 04:06 |
|
|
Zsasz is one of the dullest, most voguish characters there is but he'd be ok for a Law and Order episode feat. Batman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2016 02:50
|
|
