|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Did you just come into the comic book movie thread to insult everyone that likes superhero stories? I like superhero stories. Three of the last five movies I saw in theaters were superhero stories. What I don't like is half-assed pretend revolutionary violence that actually supports the status quo. Give me a radical quasi-pacifist Batman who breaks people out of death row and we're in business. (Or a Superman, better yet.)
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:The no killing rule is not arbitrary. It's explicitly stated that if the Justice League were to start killing people, the law would have to take them down. That is extremely stupid. Like Purge-movie stupid. Like think of what you wrote here for even a few seconds.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Batman gets to a lever where a train is about to run over 5 low-level criminals who are planning to rob your grandma, but he could pull the lever and divert it to only kill Joker who was bound against his will. What does he do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:People rag on this but I actually think it's kind of elegant. Note that in Batman Begins, Bruce never says "I will not kill," he says "I will not be an executioner." That's actually a pretty important distinction. I agree to certain extent. He's still culpable for their death because he could have prevented it, but chose not too. He's not actually bound to save them since he's a viligante and not a nurse or doctor bound to Hippocratic oath or the laws that compel to help anyone in need. I like posting that line because BvS Batman actually pulls this off, but it's not spoken.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:rather than just asking "why is taste?" I guess it's a good thing I never said that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:e: and BvS Batman is hardly different than the other movie Batmans when it comes to no killing. quote:If there are so many of those stories why do you want yet another one?  quote:Batman gets to a lever where a train is about to run over 5 low-level criminals who are planning to rob your grandma, but he could pull the lever and divert it to only kill Joker who was bound against his will. What does he do? quote:Batman doesn't kill people, he just doesn't save them. So he'd just leave probably.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
I'm not the one complaining about him fitting into certain molds. If I was I'd be saying that we should have Adam West style Batman back in the fold.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I'm not the one complaining about him fitting into certain molds. If I was I'd be saying that we should have Adam West style Batman back in the fold. I know, I'm just being dumb. We absolutely should have that, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I know, I'm just being dumb. We absolutely should have that, though. Fair enough, sorry for being defensive haha. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That is extremely stupid. Like Purge-movie stupid. I'm not sure what comics are like since New 52 came out, but pre-New 52 this is a huge part of DC Comics lore. Not just Batman, not just Superman, but every single DC Comics story. Heroes don't kill. Period. That's why comic fans get confused when the heroes kill. SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Aug 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Electromax posted:Batman gets to a lever where a train is about to run over 5 low-level criminals who are planning to rob your grandma, but he could pull the lever and divert it to only kill Joker who was bound against his will. What does he do? What is grandmas name??
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Maybe they should start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
This is going to seem like a trap question, but SSB, do you care at all about Marvel mowing down bad dudes in every movie? If not, is it because they don't have a no kill rule? Do you not see that as a silly distinction if that is the case?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Tezcatlipoca posted:I guess it's a good thing I never said that. The only way I can see to read your comment as meaning anything else is if it's some kind of plea for originality, but that suggests that the problem with 20 years of Batman comics is lack of originality rather than its ideological commitment, which I think is secondary if it's true at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:I agree to certain extent. He's still culpable for their death because he could have prevented it, but chose not too. He's not actually bound to save them since he's a viligante and not a nurse or doctor bound to Hippocratic oath or the laws that compel to help anyone in need. I mean what I'm saying is one can kill somebody without executing them. They're two different things. Batman kills Two-Face in the Dark Knight, but he doesn't execute him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
Electromax posted:Batman gets to a lever where a train is about to run over 5 low-level criminals who are planning to rob your grandma, but he could pull the lever and divert it to only kill Joker who was bound against his will. What does he do? Batman would save them all because he's loving Batman. That's the point of Batman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Batman would save them all because he's loving Batman. That's the point of Batman. Is Batman the best of us, the peak of human performance, able to cut the Gordian Knot of moral dilemmas because he's a deeply traumatized man who dresses up as a bat, or are they incidental to each other?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I'm not sure what comics are like since New 52 came out, but pre-New 52 this is a huge part of DC Comics lore. Not just Batman, not just Superman, but every single DC Comics story. Heroes don't kill. Period. I didn't say anything about comics lore. I'm talking about stupidity. What you are saying is deeply stupid. Like POTUS is talking to this alien invasion force, demigods from olympus, and he's like "all crime is legal for you because you are strong. But there's a catch: all forms of killing, including justifiable homicides, are reclassified as capital 1 murder. Also it's implicit that you shouldnt rape anyone. Good luck!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Batman's just a dude.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:Batman would save them all because he's loving Batman. That's the point of Batman. I got some bad news for you buddy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ3aiM8K6D0
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:Batman's just a dude. Actually he's a fictional character. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzmxUXvE3m4 Sorry, I mostly took your post as an excuse to post Ben talking about fictional characters within Batchat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I wasn't describing "my batman" I was describing the Batman presented to us from over 20 years of comic book/animated media. . What you're talking about is editorial fiat. The continuity versus story thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Batman could probably derail the train with a bat-bomb.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
net cafe scandal posted:Batman could probably derail the train with a bat-bomb. A single well placed batarang.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
I don't think that either of "powerful because of his human foibles" or "powerful in spite of his human foibles" are inherently silly ideas, mind, I'm just curious which one fuels the reverential attitude that Batman can do anything, because it says a lot about the worldview being expressed. Particularly in any context where he's compared to Superman.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:This is going to seem like a trap question, but SSB, do you care at all about Marvel mowing down bad dudes in every movie? If not, is it because they don't have a no kill rule? Do you not see that as a silly distinction if that is the case? That is indeed my opinion and no I do not see it as a silly distinction, because it does not directly contradict 20 years of established lore. In fact one of the reasons I gravitated towards DC over Marvel as a kid was because the no kill thing made them seem more like heroes. Marvel would always seem to strive for a kind of gritty realism, whereas DC felt more like... idealistic optimism? I guess? Like drat, I don't think there's anything in DC's library that can match up with some of Punisher's super R-rated adventures. Also pointing out that the no kill thing wasn't just in comics, it was also in the animated universe. My ultimate point is that a Batman that doesn't kill is just a more compelling character than a Batman that kills. People that love and read the comics and watched the shows know this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
This Batman never killed before but after 20+ years of poo poo piling up no matter what... he's had enough. Until Superman shows up to show him the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Are people arguing that Batman doesn't have a no kill rule, or that it shouldn't matter in a new interpretation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:My ultimate point is that a Batman that doesn't kill is just a more compelling character than a Batman that kills. Batman Begins contriving some stupid way to get Ras out of the train wouldn't have changed the level of "compelling" about the character at all. Same with any of the other Nolan movies Same with Batman '89 Same with Affleck's Batman, widely considered to be the best part of BvS Not sure this statement holds up
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
Was anyone ever even accidentally killed by Adam West Batman? I don't think so but I've only really have memory of the movie at this point.Vintersorg posted:This Batman never killed before but after 20+ years of poo poo piling up no matter what... he's had enough. He kills even more people after that and presumably will continue to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:Are people arguing that Batman doesn't have a no kill rule, or that it shouldn't matter in a new interpretation? The no-killing rule was invented for Robin, because Robin is a literal child. When you elevate that to the level of an actual law, you are a crazyperson.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:He kills even more people after that and presumably will continue to. Who does he flat out kill? Mortanis posted:Are people arguing that Batman doesn't have a no kill rule, or that it shouldn't matter in a new interpretation? The baggage of a no kill rule shouldn't apply to a new interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:Who does he flat out kill? Basically every gangster after he hears the word "Martha"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:Are people arguing that Batman doesn't have a no kill rule, or that it shouldn't matter in a new interpretation? That he can or can't have a no kill rule depending on the kind of story the filmmakers want to tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Basically every gangster after he hears the word "Martha"? He hurts them badly
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Should the bad guys just fall down and do that thing from video games where they fade away? I could see how he may have killed the guy with the grenade but he either eats it or possibly deflects it somewhere else. I dont know though - I am not Batman. Perhaps when you are - you'd do it differently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
MacheteZombie posted:He hurts them badly He strafes them with a gatling gun then machine guns the dude with the flamethrower (or hits the tank or something, I forgot how that guy dies exactly)!
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:Was anyone ever even accidentally killed by Adam West Batman? I don't think so but I've only really have memory of the movie at this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVIG7YvdjM&t=181s When you argue this garbage about Batman killing being "less compelling" you end up saying that George Clooney's Batman is the most compelling of them all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Okay, making sure. Felt like some people were denying a no kill rule and it's powered a lot of the big plots of Batman over the last two decades. No, they shouldn't be beholden to it during a new interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 00:15 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:The only way I can see to read your comment as meaning anything else is if it's some kind of plea for originality, but that suggests that the problem with 20 years of Batman comics is lack of originality rather than its ideological commitment, which I think is secondary if it's true at all. This is what I was getting at: MacheteZombie posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2016 18:32
|
|