|
SOmebody please edit the awesome Batman fight scene where he's rescuing Martha Kent to have the 60's POW and BAM violence effects so the true comics fanboys can be mollified.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:Defenders of this film are not a monolith. It's explicit in the movie that Batman is still willing to kill if necessary because reality doesn't suddenly become able to bend to his will. The real contention and question is why does it offend you so much that Snyder refuses to be complicit in the idea that violence has no consequences? Pretty much any other comic book movie will give you that cathartic guilt free violence you're seeking. Okay, fair enough everyone see's this film differently, including fans of it, I just find it funny that there are roughly two kind of responses I'm getting to this: a: "Duh, the film totally shows that Batman is killing because Superman has driven him over the edge", or b: "Duh, Batman killing is just what this interpretation does, it's just more realistic". Batman does not exist in a real place, reality still bends to this Batman's will because he still takes out a room full of armed and presumably professional killers with bat shaped boomerangs, a rope gun and sick martial arts skills. This isn't a bad thing, it is just what he is as an idealized action hero, it's the same fictional logic that shows action heroes shrugging off bullets or taking multiple punches to the face without severe or permanent damage. It is a fantasy, implying it's actually a realistic depiction of vigilantism is way off base. If you want realistic displays of vigilantism, you will not find them in any thing with the name Batman. Don't get me wrong, I love Batman, he is my favourite fictional character, but he is intrinsically to his core, a reality bending character, of course he is. Snyder, in BvS, does not even come close to exploring the consequences of violence, that's absurd. You don't see imagery of those goons recovering in hospital, you don't get any real compelling depiction of pain, you don't see their families and their suffering at their loss, it's not like Sicario, which does show these things. Saying the violence is there as a discussion of violence itself is a complete misreading. The Dark Knight Rises came far closer to this idea, if we're bringing a Batman thing in, as it showed a Batman broken down by his adventures. The function of the violence in BvS is used in the same way as most action movie violence, as vicarious power fantasy, you are meant to enjoy Batman beating and killing those people, that's why it's shot in a glamorous way, why the music is exhilarating, why the cinematic language employed is done specifically to excite the viewer, make them feel adrenaline, and yes, make them feel powerful, like Batman. And it's what Snyder does really well, that fight scene to rescue Martha is brilliantly constructed and great to watch. But, from what I can tell Snyder placed that visceral excitement over the context, story and themes of his film. BvS is a film that indulges at every turn, giving you surface level fun at the expense of anything real. The great thing about fantastical stories is that they can explore deeper ideas through this surface level, but Snyder fails in this regard, that's why the plotting is so incoherent, why the themes are muddy, why the fans of the film come out with complete opposite takes which are apparently both "so obvious" and the "literal text" of the film despite being in complete contradiction of each other.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
"Batman does not exist in a real place"...wow...wow man...you're gonna make me cry
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
How do you type all that with your fingers in your ears, eyes squished shut, yelling "lalalalala" the whole time? Is that how you watched the movie, too?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Drifter posted:How do you type all that with your fingers in your ears, eyes squished shut, yelling "lalalalala" the whole time? Yes, that is how I watched the film, it's why I didn't realize it's a secret arthouse masterpiece made by geniuses, and not at all a studio mandated, lazily constructed, thematically empty, lifeless and boring mess that has a naked contempt for its audience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Okay, fair enough everyone see's this film differently, including fans of it, I just find it funny that there are roughly two kind of responses I'm getting to this: a: "Duh, the film totally shows that Batman is killing because Superman has driven him over the edge", or b: "Duh, Batman killing is just what this interpretation does, it's just more realistic". IMO Batman becomes more brutal as a result of Superman's arrival because he realizes how little the work that he had done for the last 20 years meant, and started doing poo poo like branding people because the stakes have risen, but always fought/acted like he does in the Martha scene when being a vigilante (which is basically how Batman fights in most media, especially the Arkham games).
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Yes, that is how I watched the film, it's why I didn't realize it's a secret arthouse masterpiece made by geniuses, and not at all a studio mandated, lazily constructed, thematically empty, lifeless and boring mess that has a naked contempt for its audience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:02
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Yes, that is how I watched the film, it's why I didn't realize it's a secret arthouse masterpiece made by geniuses, and not at all a studio mandated, lazily constructed, thematically empty, lifeless and boring mess that has a naked contempt for its audience. It's by no means an arthouse masterpiece (not that I would be able to label a movie that), but your arguments and interpretations are colored by something that has no bearing on what the movie actually portrayed, implicitly or otherwise. Your arguments don't really have any bearing on the movie you're trying to argue against, mainly because they're so inaccurate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Yes, that is how I watched the film, it's why I didn't realize it's a secret arthouse masterpiece made by geniuses, and not at all a studio mandated, lazily constructed, thematically empty, lifeless and boring mess that has a naked contempt for its audience. Ooh, you forgot the term "wooden", you don't win bingo. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
KVeezy3 posted:The real contention and question is why does it offend you so much that Snyder refuses to be complicit in the idea that violence has no consequences? Pretty much any other comic book movie will give you that cathartic guilt free violence you're seeking. Batman killing people is pretty cool, though. I don't agree with people's hangups about Batman killing people in the movies but those scenes aren't really out of place next to other action movie scenes where the hero kills people. Violences having consequences seems a little underplayed when the main focus of some of those scenes is how dope the violence is, specifically the fight when he's rescuing Martha Kent. Jimbot posted:Wasn't there backlash over this Lois because she's competent and managed to figure out Superman's identity? Which is weird cause it fits with Man of Steel being a mashup remake of the first two Christopher Reeve films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Yes, that is how I watched the film, it's why I didn't realize it's a secret arthouse masterpiece made by geniuses, and not at all a studio mandated, lazily constructed, thematically empty, lifeless and boring mess that has a naked contempt for its audience. But enough about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, what did you think about Batman v Superman? Seriously the same criticisms can be levelled at Marvel's offerings, it's the same trite bullshit criticisms that aim for a feel, the vibe , (like Mabo), rather than actually addressing the film itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:IMO Batman becomes more brutal as a result of Superman's arrival because he realizes how little the work that he had done for the last 20 years meant, and started doing poo poo like branding people because the stakes have risen, but always fought/acted like he does in the Martha scene when being a vigilante (which is basically how Batman fights in most media, especially the Arkham games). I haven't played Knight yet, but in Asylum, City and Origins Batman doesn't kill anyone, he throws himself out a window to catch the Joker in Origins if I recall. in fact "I will never kill, not even you" is a line said by Batman in City to Ra's Al Ghul. Batman kills multiple people in the Martha rescue scene TetsuoTW posted:Maybe BvS was a bad choice for your first movie. Well, the first thing I remember watching was an episode of Thomas of Tank Engine where Henry gets bricked up in a tunnel, not a movie strictly, but it has a message that is communicated well, making it a far superior piece of narrative than BvS which fails to clear that incredibly low bar. Drifter posted:It's by no means an arthouse masterpiece (not that I would be able to label a movie that), but your arguments and interpretations are colored by something that has no bearing on what the movie actually portrayed, implicitly or otherwise. Your arguments don't really have any bearing on the movie you're trying to argue against, mainly because they're so inaccurate. So, what is your interpretation of that Batman fight scene near the end, I said it was cynically mounted to viscerally excite the audience as a power fantasy, but what do you think? Please tell me, that would be far more interesting than just saying "you're wrong" without elaboration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Ooh, you forgot the term "wooden", you don't win bingo. I actually think all the performances in BvS are excellent, especially Affleck. Maluco Marinero posted:But enough about the Marvel Cinematic Universe, what did you think about Batman v Superman? Seriously the same criticisms can be levelled at Marvel's offerings, it's the same trite bullshit criticisms that aim for a feel, the vibe , (like Mabo), rather than actually addressing the film itself. I literally just wrote a poo poo load on it, that comment was in reply to an equally sarky comment. ThePlague-Daemon posted:Batman killing people is pretty cool, though. I don't agree with people's hangups about Batman killing people in the movies but those scenes aren't really out of place next to other action movie scenes where the hero kills people. Violences having consequences seems a little underplayed when the main focus of some of those scenes is how dope the violence is, specifically the fight when he's rescuing Martha Kent.. Exactly, that's it, it is cool. That's why it's there, to be cool, and it is cool, the fight is really good to watch. My issue is that it and other elements reduce the character of Batman into something that is less interesting.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I haven't played Knight yet, but in Asylum, City and Origins Batman doesn't kill anyone, he throws himself out a window to catch the Joker in Origins if I recall. in fact "I will never kill, not even you" is a line said by Batman in City to Ra's Al Ghul. Batman kills multiple people in the Martha rescue scene If you genuinely believe that Batman gets through all of those games without killing one of the thousands of henchmen he beats the gently caress out of, then you should be able to believe that none of the people in BvS die.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Karloff posted:So, what is your interpretation of that Batman fight scene near the end, I said it was cynically mounted to viscerally excite the audience as a power fantasy, but what do you think? As far as not seeing the consequences of Batman's actions... you see people die. That is the whole point of this argument. Death is the consequence of action which is very dangerous and potentially fatal. Where other works shy away from showing that fighting (especially the kind of fighting Batman does) will often result in death, BvS does not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Yoshifan823 posted:If you genuinely believe that Batman gets through all of those games without killing one of the thousands of henchmen he beats the gently caress out of, then you should be able to believe that none of the people in BvS die. Well, the game function as a game first and a narrative second, most games do, and what is shown in the game world does not necessarily reflect the narrative. For example, in an older game where enemies disappear when you kill them, it;s not the game saying these are magical people who disappear at death, it's just an element to aid in game-play convenience, the narrative is what is shown and inferred in a game, and the Arkham games state multiple times that Batman does not kill ever. Martman posted:You said this was the goal, and you said the "cinematic language" was used to achieve this goal, but you didn't actually construct an argument for how the cinematic language was used to achieve this goal. Okay, first let's look at the heroic violins employed in the score when Batman pulls that guy towards him with his grappling gun, this is a very simple signifier for heroism. Note how the score changes to depict danger as that one thug with longish hair shoots the grapple out of his hand, the music at least is on Batman's side, becoming triumphant with those big drums and horns whenever he does something awesome. Batman is frequently depicted centre frame, especially when he takes those four guys on at once, shot from heroic angles, often low and wide enough to show off his fighting prowess, though there is some focus on the pain of the crooks it's always in service of showing how powerful and awesome Batman is and not dwelled upon. He is the hero of this sequence, this is almost undebatable, we are asked to more readily empathize with him than anyone else in the scene. This is especially clear in moments where we see things from Batman's POV, which is often, we are with him on the wooden beam as he fires that gun exploding gadget thing at the villains, and when that grenade dude comes in, we see Batman turn towards him and then are given a shot of grenade dude from the angle that Batman is standing, communicating his perspective, and yes, making us feel like Batman, hence the power fantasy. EDIT: Also, to answer your other point, yes people die but is not depicted as consequential, at least not in terms of narrative, Batman seems indifferent to whether he kills people or not, it is there to make the scene more visceral. Karloff fucked around with this message at 06:47 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
What happens in a game does necessarily reflect the narrative. There's a phrase that describes this phenomenon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:What happens in a game does necessarily reflect the narrative. There's a phrase that describes this phenomenon. Is this Ludonarrative?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Snyder has a long running history of giving people what they want whilst accompanying it with the consequences they didn't want. All the shot choices stand in stark contrast to Marvel style beatings of mooks, where they're thrown off frame, hit without blood drawn, or they're not human. The Man Of Steel final confrontation is a clear example of this. Zod vs Supes should be an 'awesome' fight, and it is, but the way their power is demonstrated is through the collateral damage. Turns out people don't like their power fantasies so much when that happens.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Karloff posted:Is this Ludonarrative? Ludonarrative dissonance, specifically.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Ludonarrative dissonance, specifically. The dissonance is when it clearly opposes the story narrative isn't it? Otherwise it's just Ludonarrative. Like Tomb Raider reboot's narrative (reluctant to kill, first time fighting for her life) versus the gameplay (killing scores of mooks like an action hero by game's end)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:The dissonance is when it clearly opposes the story narrative isn't it? Otherwise it's just Ludonarrative. Like Tomb Raider reboot's narrative (reluctant to kill, first time fighting for her life) versus the gameplay (killing scores of mooks like an action hero by game's end) It is dissonance when your ideology going into it is that Batman never kills. Obviously in the context of the game (and several other iterations) he totally kills dudes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:01
|
|
|
Maluco Marinero posted:The dissonance is when it clearly opposes the story narrative isn't it? Otherwise it's just Ludonarrative. Like Tomb Raider reboot's narrative (reluctant to kill, first time fighting for her life) versus the gameplay (killing scores of mooks like an action hero by game's end) The dissonance is that the gameplay has its own narrative philosophy outside of the scripted narrative. This is what the player discovers. Though you interact with movies differently, it's not too dissimilar.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
Robin's dead, that's a pretty huge consequence of Batman's violent actions. Someone clearly responded to Batman's behavior. The movie also shows the moral consequences of violence more than the boring "ho-hum watch me be laid up in a hospital for three months" type of simplified immediate reaction to the act of violence. We see the victims of Batman beating the gently caress out of them and branding are in decent enough shape after their trial and sentencing, showing that he'll try to submit them before he'll try to kill them in self defense. The people Batman kills are all in the act of trying to categorically kill Batman - that I can remember. The car chase, the day of him stealing the kryptonite is him at his essentially lowest, most desperate point. I guess he kills people with his batmobile pre-emptively, perhaps. The first time we see Batman in the film he's running away; he's barely human as he slinks out away from the gunfire; he's a demon. The women he's saved are terrified of him and he doesn't really give much a poo poo about them because he's so focused on finding a way to destroy Superman his energy is on the criminal. As for the warehouse fight scene, he's beast-moding out and is free of all his previous fears of the past two years. He's aware of his manipulation and realizes that Superman is actually probably not that bad a guy - at his death Clark's begging Bruce to save his mom - and he's got a purpose at that moment in the warehouse that is explicitly the reason he became Batman in the first place, all those years ago. He's saving someone's mother from the bad guys with guns. At the warehouse he's no longer afraid of Superman, he's actually found a kindred soul and he shrugs off those bullets because he's fighting to save lives again. The woman he saves is friendly and even grateful for his intervention - doesn't she even wave to him as he flies away? Batman's renewed his purpose and is no longer cognitively dissonant. Thankfully, he's still the beautiful, violent angel of destruction we all know and love. In the 'real' Batman movie world he's going to capture criminals and send them off to the cops, but if it comes down to killing or dying he's probably not going to sit down and wait for someone to murder him. Them or him it's going to be them. You can't peacefully violence someone into unconsciousness or catastrophic skeletal damage. In the movie, Batman's time to shine was this warehouse scene. He's fighting bad guy humans to save an innocent human - and in doing so to also save himself and bring Batman back under the mantle of humanity. WW and Superman shone against the alien menace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:06
|
|
|
Karloff posted:
 After Batman's kryptonite theft, Lex returns to Lexcorp to a scene of devastation where dozens of brutally injured people on gurnies are brought on ambulances. Superman threatens Batman by standing up for the civil rights of a sex slave trafficker. KVeezy3 fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I haven't played Knight yet, but in Asylum, City and Origins Batman doesn't kill anyone
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:20
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:You mean all those dudes he leaves "unconscious" with "30 bpm" heart rates? It's a shame Batman's developed faulty software for his biofeedback sensory hardware. Someone should look into that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Drifter posted:SOmebody please edit the awesome Batman fight scene where he's rescuing Martha Kent to have the 60's POW and BAM violence effects so the true comics fanboys can be mollified. http://i.imgur.com/yFNwgpu.gifv
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I haven't played Knight yet, but in Asylum, City and Origins Batman doesn't kill anyone
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I haven't played Knight yet, but in Asylum, City and Origins Batman doesn't kill anyone Actually I threw people off rooftops and into the ocean so they are super dead; sorry dude but Batman murders people I guess!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 08:26
|
|
|
The secret to every "no kill rule" post is to replace batman or superman with 'America' or 'the police', & see if you can do it without sounding like a loving idiot. Like: "America does not exist in a real place, reality still bends to this nation's will." "It's okay if you have a fictional nation who fights people with a no kill rule, applying 'real life' to America rarely works for just this very reason. And when did the animated series C.O.P.S. kill someone?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Let's talk about comic book movies that aren't Superman related. Good luck with that, they should probably just rename this thread the BvS Forever War. Thanks for the clip tho, its beautiful. I'm guessing this stuff is on youtube or one of the streaming apps?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 08:47
|
|
|
Why would anyone want to talk about movies other than Superman/Batman? Steve Rogers' Civil War was instantly forgotten, for good reason.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The secret to every "no kill rule" post is to replace batman or superman with 'America' or 'the police', & see if you can do it without sounding like a loving idiot. The No Kill Rule is an explicit fantasy, it's the idea that Batman can be a great hero without becoming a monster, because killing people is a monstrous act in modern society. Even killing something that could be construed as people is considered a somewhat monstrous act by some people, as the nonsense about Harambe shows. Now it'd be much easier to argue that it's a no execution rule, which it is, but not a no kill rule, because as multiple people have said that's a ridiculous notion. Then again an alien powered by the sun who is weakened by the radiated remains of his home planet is also a ridiculous notion. A hidden nation of Amazonians who not only still worship the Greek gods but also have explicitly magical items given by those Greek gods is a ridiculous notion. Atlantis existing and it's ruler being a super skilled combatant who looks like a person but can breath water and communicate with any and all animals of the sea is a ridiculous notion. A group of space police who wear magical rings powered by their own will and often fight other people with rings powered by different emotions is a ridiculous notion. Comics in of themselves are full of ridiculous notions, and I personally dislike when movies try to take those in realistic directions because to me it loses some of the magic in the process. That is not to say there is no where to study a realistic take on superheroes, I actually like Watchmen because it's a study on these ideas of realistic superheroes. I just don't think that it should be the primary thrust of movie adaptations of comic books, because comic books in of themselves are a fantastical medium. At least as far as Marvel and DC go.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The secret to every "no kill rule" post is to replace batman or superman with 'America' or 'the police', & see if you can do it without sounding like a loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 08:57
|
|
|
One might assume it would distress people to learn that Luke Skywalker, John McClane, Neo, and other beloved movie heroes casually kill in multiple films, yet outrage is hyperfocused on comic book characters, specifically Batman, because his imaginary "no kill rule" is just a rationalization for violent, fetishistic vigilantism and police brutality. It's okay for Batman to maim criminals and leave them comatose--injuries that would last a lifetime--because he doesn't doesn't sink to their level and kill them. The fantasy of a non-lethal Batman, common among those who relish the cartoon, requires a child-like view of human bodies as painless punching bags of no consequence. If there's anyone we should fear becoming a dictator with a dehumanizing worldview and a total disregard of civil rights, it's Batman.
Toady fucked around with this message at 09:18 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
As I noted in the other thread, Batman originally loved killing people with guns until he met Robin. Batman literally stopped using guns for no reason except to be child-friendly. No-kill rules are, canonically, lies invented to protect children. The only question is: who is the child in a given Batman story? Is it Robin? Is it Rachel? Is it Bruce himself? Or: is it you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 09:28
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:As I noted in the other thread, Batman originally loved killing people with guns until he met Robin. Batman literally stopped using guns for no reason except to be child-friendly. Whilst this argument is true from an outside perspective they have since re-written Batman such that the original characterisation never actually existed, regardless of if we experienced it in the current understanding of Batman is that he does not kill. This is why there's been new origin comics for Batman, so that his original characterisation could be re-written into someone whom would actually have a no kill rule. Even though as I have mentioned it's more accurately a no execution rule, it just sounds nicer to say no kill rule. Although Bruce being a man-child is pretty easy to read into any Batman setting, as he was traumatised as a child and never moved past that Trauma. So in general I'd argue that in any given Batman story the metaphorical child is Batman, the literal child is Robin, and the child who enjoys the story is the reader, because there is nothing wrong with enjoying comics written towards teenagers/children, depending on the comic of course.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 09:48
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:Whilst this argument is true from an outside perspective they have since re-written Batman such that the original characterisation never actually existed You cannot erase the stain. When pepl say that batman doesn't kill, there is NEVER any sort of explanation for why it makes sense. Because it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense from a legal position, or as a moral/ethical stance, etc. Even in the fantasy, his victims survive due to incredible luck - not because he's 'beating them up safely'. 'Batman doesn't kill' is, and always has been, a lie for children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:51 |
|
|
Man, you guys sure want Batman to be a loving killer don't you? Adam West Batman never killed anyone and he's the best Batman yet!
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:08
|
|
