|
Yaws posted: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! Well see, now you've already gotten badly confused because of poor word choices. Batman is okay with killing, and frequently kills pepl, but he is not 'a killer'. That would imply that he's some kind of assassin, like in the John Woo film. Adam West Batman killed people - that's canon. But nobody would describe him as a killer. He killed those pepl by accident.
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You cannot erase the stain. I agree that Batman not killing doesn't make sense. I don't agree that you then have to make it central to the character. This idea that lies for children are a bad thing is also wrong. Lies are sometimes necessary, doubly so when they're used to teach an important lesson. The message is not that "Batman doesn't kill", the message is that killing is wrong and Batman acknowledges this fact by claiming to others he doesn't kill and then making an effort to prove that claim true. I actually think there's a huge problem with the way people write Batman as an unbeatable, impossibly capable man who can do no wrong. But I also think there's a huge problem if the response to that is to ignore that he is still a very skilled and clever man who can minimise the risk of death whilst dealing out his "justice", regardless of how violent that justice is. The Arkham games are an interesting example, because yes those moves probably do kill some of the thugs, but the game goes out of the way to say Batman doesn't kill because the point is that any death is accidental. This does not make Batman a liar, it makes him human. It's the difference between making a kill strike and a knock-out strike, the second might kill the target but from someone as skilled as Batman the first will. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 10:25 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:22
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Well see, now you've already gotten badly confused because of poor word choices. According to dictionary.com a killer is one who kills. An example of a killer would be Zack Snyders Batman and the Punisher. It's OK to like sadistic killer Batman and creepy weirdo Superman. No one is trying to take that away from you. It's just that some of us would have preferred a different approach. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:I agree that Batman not killing doesn't make sense. I don't agree that you then have to make it central to the character. This idea that lies for children are a bad thing is also wrong. Lies are sometimes necessary, doubly so when they're used to teach an important lesson. are u a child?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Yaws posted:According to dictionary.com a killer is one who kills. An example of a killer would be Zack Snyders Batman and the Punisher. The point with language is that killing is not a defining trait of the character. It's just something he does every once in a while because it comes with the job. Like for example, Tim Allen killed Santa Claus in the Santa Clause, but we do not refer to the character as Tim Allen, The Killer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:29
|
|
|
Needs the theme tune to be perfect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:are u a child? No but I was once, and there are things I was told that weren't true that still taught me important lessons. For example that there is a man who lives on the North Pole who will give me presents if I was good for a year. I know he doesn't exist but now I am older I understand that the important bit is not the Lie, that Santa Claus exists and gives presents, but the other bit, that being a good person is important. In the same way I was told that Batman doesn't kill, which translates more accurately into, killing is morally wrong, unless you have no other choice. Accidents happen but all should strive to avoid needless death. Malicious lies are bad, lies used to explain complex thoughts in simpler terms so that others can be led towards the complex thought without getting lost are useful. I particularly like this quote from Terry Pratchett's Hogfather as it sums up why lies are important to people quite nicely. Hogfather posted:“All right,” said Susan. “I’m not stupid. You’re saying humans need… fantasies to make life bearable.” Who we are as adults is shaped by the things we're told as children. Which is why the claim "Batman does not kill" may not be entirely factual in the grand scheme of things, as mentioned accidents can and do happen, it is still an important statement and writing a story as if it is true is not a bad thing. It is after all a story. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:37
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:No but I was once, and there are things I was told that weren't true that still taught me important lessons. For example that there is a man who lives on the North Pole who will give me presents if I was good for a year. I know he doesn't exist but now I am older I understand that the important bit is not the Lie, that Santa Claus exists and gives presents, but the other bit, that being a good person is important. In the same way I was told that Batman doesn't kill, which translates more accurately into, killing is morally wrong, unless you have no other choice. Accidents happen but all should strive to avoid needless death. That's not how belief works; you're confusing it with 'willful ignorance'. Justice is also not a fantasy. That's an extremely dumb thing to say. "Show me one atom of Justice"? Seriously? Show me one atom of water you fuckin idiot Pratchet. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
How is Justice not a collective societal fantasy. We believe that there is justice in the world, so we enforce that idea of Justice through our laws. We say if you kill someone you have done wrong, yet there is no universal law that says this. It is only people telling other people things. From Death's point of view, as an actual fact of life, Justice does not exist. Yet to humans it does because we believe in it. Also whilst you cannot be shown one atom of water with a theoretically powerful enough telescope you could be shown one molecule of it, and the atoms that make up said molecule, but you will never, no matter how hard you look, find tangible justice. Wilful ignorance is being given tangible proof of something and ignoring it, belief is thinking something is true without requiring actual evidence to that thing. I believe in world peace, doesn't mean it exists. I believe in god, but that does not require proof of his existence. I however have been told water exists, and that evolution occurred on earth, and given proof of these things, so I accept them as reality. Lord_Magmar fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:52
|
|
|
I think it's good that batman doesn't want to kill or that he does everything he can to avoid it. But only to a certain extreme, you know? After a certain point it does become ridiculous when he chooses to save some of the villains in some insane situations instead of taking them out
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:whilst Oy vey. Put down the bong & read a dang book. And not a Terry Pratchet book.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 11:41
|
|
|
Thank u Lord_Magmar for verifying my belief that Terry Pratchett is bad, I read "Going Postal" a few years back & didn't like it but ppl on the web get so rowdy for him I thought maybe it was on me. But that quote...yeesh
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 11:48
|
|
|
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions I guess, but I still don't see what's so wrong about that quote. It seems to me to be a pretty nice quote about the importance of faith in things, even if those things don't necessarily exist in tangible reality we all agree that they exist so that society functions. The reason the law works is not because it should, but because we agree that it should. When the majority no longer have faith in the justice system the system breaks down, at which point it's either reinforced or changed until we can again believe in it. You're not supposed to agree with Death in that conversation, because while he may be factually correct he is wrong about those things not existing. They exist because we as people say they exist, because that's how we define our society. Fantasy, belief and faith in things is what makes us human, otherwise we are just a particularly intelligent breed of chimpanzee.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:07
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Oy vey.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Do u believe that law = morality?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Kurzon posted:I liked Identity Crisis. Perhaps some people hate it because it went places they would rather comics don't go. No, comics are entirely willing to go stupid and rapey at the drop of a hat, don't know where you've been. I'm just thankful the movies based on them have had more tact, which considering how terrible so many of them are is a bit of a shock really. e: I mean your gimmick is funny and everything but you are swinging above your weight class on that one. Mulva fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Hat Thoughts posted:Do u believe that law = morality? I don't believe that. Morality is how we are taught to be a good person, laws are what society deems to be unacceptable or acceptable for a person to do. They're very different things that both amount to people being told how to live life, not that that's a bad thing. But if we were say, brought up in a society that believed eating the dead so that they continue to proved for their community and were never given another point of view we'd probably think that was morally correct. Or if laws were written such that eating meat that you had not caught yourself was illegal we would either have to follow them or demand they change. This is the difference, one is a personal evaluation of how life should be lived, the other is a societal evaluation of what can and cannot be done. But both are only as real as people think they are, which is good, because society without either would probably be terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
Eararaldor posted:Needs the theme tune to be perfect. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfhunXbAPVA&t=286s
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
By teaching that acting good will result in presents, maybe what is actually taught is selfishness. Similarly, by presenting a superhero as able to meaningfully fight evil while (practically) always avoiding killing anyone, maybe what is actually taught is that nobody can be as good or heroic as Batman in the real world. Is that a good message?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 12:51
|
|
|
Martman posted:Similarly, by presenting a superhero as able to meaningfully fight evil while (practically) always avoiding killing anyone, maybe what is actually taught is that nobody can be as good or heroic as Batman in the real world. Is that a good message? He will give the people of earth an ideal to strive towards. We will race behind him, we will stumble, we will fall. But in time, we will join him in the shadows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Lord_Magmar posted:I don't believe that. Morality is how we are taught to be a good person, laws are what society deems to be unacceptable or acceptable for a person to do. They're very different things that both amount to people being told how to live life, not that that's a bad thing. So all beliefs are societal? & whatever society believes at the time is correct?
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
Yaws posted: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! He actually does, and then has robin ask for confirmation which he provides. Even zany adam west batman has an aside moment where it recognizes the impossibility of not killing when using violence to resolve conflict even with the best of intentions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:06
|
|
|
Martman posted:Similarly, by presenting a superhero as able to meaningfully fight evil while (practically) always avoiding killing anyone, maybe what is actually taught is that nobody can be as good or heroic as Batman in the real world. Is that a good message? Strangely, that is how a lot of fundamentalist Christians view Jesus. Instead of, you know, an example to be followed and emulated.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted: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. I don't really like how the term ludonarrative dissonance became synonimous to decoupling narrative from gameplay, when they're not. It's not like with movies we evaluate it seperatly, story A+, acting C-
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:I don't really like how the term ludonarrative dissonance became synonimous to decoupling narrative from gameplay, when they're not. It's not like with movies we evaluate it seperatly, story A+, acting C- Uh a lot of people do. It's really common for people to say [x] actor turned in an amazing performance and elevated a mediocre script.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Barudak posted:Uh a lot of people do. It's really common for people to say [x] actor turned in an amazing performance and elevated a mediocre script. But you're talking of the movie experience as a whole, that the parts worked towards the whole, while in gaming it seems people almost want to split it into story and gameplay, like saying "I play Metal Gear for the story".
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:35
|
|
|
Honest Thief posted:But you're talking of the movie experience as a whole, that the parts worked towards the whole, while in gaming it seems people almost want to split it into story and gameplay, like saying "I play Metal Gear for the story". And there are people who watch middling films because it's by a director they like, has a beautiful visual, or features a property they like. People absolutely are capable of splitting films into little boxes of what drives their enjoyment and interest in film just like people do it with books and oral traditions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Barudak posted:And there are people who watch middling films because it's by a director they like, has a beautiful visual, or features a property they like. People absolutely are capable of splitting films into little boxes of what drives their enjoyment and interest in film just like people do it with books and oral traditions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
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. Batman. Is. Not. Real. It's absolutely mad that I have to point this out, "America" is a real place with real consequences, Batman is a fictional comic book character symbolic of the ultra-resourceful archetype, there are a lot of things that Batman does that do not make sense in the real world, most of the things that Batman does in fact. The whole "but.... in real life a no kill rule couldn't happen" defence is utter nonsense because once again, Batman does not exist in real life. He's a comic book character created for children, then they made some darker versions in the eighties for adults and occasionally continue to do so, none were realistic. Toady posted: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. I think the desire to have Batman kill is a result of the need to have something one loved as a child legitimized as an adult thing, so that the now adult fascination with a children's comic book character can be done so without shame. In a sense "guys, I like Batman, but... but.... Batman's totally adult now, look he kills people". I said that Batman not killing makes no sense with the texture of the character as presented, as he uses non lethal weaponry, and has a roster of returning villains, which you can't have if you straight up end them. To use your examples; Luke Skywalker, John McClane and Neo exist in their own fictional worlds with their own contexts and have different functionalities to Batman, they are not immediately comparable simply by the virtue of being fictional characters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
Karloff posted:I said that Batman not killing makes no sense with the texture of the character as presented, as he uses non lethal weaponry, and has a roster of returning villains, which you can't have if you straight up end them. You can't simultaneously say "This character isn't real so logic doesn't apply to him" and "this character logically supports being non-lethal".
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You can't simultaneously say "This character isn't real so logic doesn't apply to him" and "this character logically supports being non-lethal". There's a difference between internal narrative logic created by the work, and real world logic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
Karloff posted:There's a difference between internal narrative logic created by the work, and real world logic. By internal narrative, Batman puts bad guys into life threatening and fatal situations.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Shageletic posted: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? Yeah, just do a search for Corto Maltese. Actually, it's tangentially related to superman because the Corto Maltese island/country featured in DC stuff is named after the character. He's pretty influential.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
I like how Karloff can come in and make numerous excellent points with actual evidence from media to back them up, and when people can't come up with a response they just insult him out of the thread. To be clear, people think that Batman not killing is totally unrealistic whereas him killing a few people every now and then is totally realistic. And we should cheering Batman for taking another mans life, despite the fact that he possesses the skill and the numerous non-lethal tools necessary to subdue them non-lethally. We can introduce 20 instances of Batman being non-lethal but this is totally cast aside the moment its pointed out that some Batman, somewhere, killed. 20 years of awesome stories are irrelevant because in a "post watchmen world" (which I have to assume is everything after 1986) they are suddenly stupid. It totally makes sense for Batman to see an alien and decide then that human life isn't worth saving, despite it being a lifelong vow from the worlds most disciplined man, and the thing he's afraid Superman will do.
SolidSnakesBandana fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Aug 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I like how Karloff can come in and make numerous excellent points with actual evidence from media to back them up, and when people can't come up with a response they just insult him out of the thread. To be clear, people think that Batman not killing is totally unrealistic whereas him killing a few people every now and then is totally realistic. And we should cheering Batman for taking another mans life, despite the fact that he possesses the skill and the numerous non-lethal tools necessary to subdue them non-lethally. We can introduce 20 instances of Batman being non-lethal but this is totally cast aside the moment its pointed out that some Batman, somewhere, killed. U never answered my question
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
Yaws posted: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! Well, he was a deputised member of the police so it's a surety that he has killed at least one black person away from cameras
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
SolidSnakesBandana posted:I like how Karloff can come in and make numerous excellent points with actual evidence from media to back them up, and when people can't come up with a response they just insult him out of the thread. To be clear, people think that Batman not killing is totally unrealistic whereas him killing a few people every now and then is totally realistic. And we should cheering Batman for taking another mans life, despite the fact that he possesses the skill and the numerous non-lethal tools necessary to subdue them non-lethally. We can introduce 20 instances of Batman being non-lethal but this is totally cast aside the moment its pointed out that some Batman, somewhere, killed. 20 years of awesome stories are irrelevant because in a "post watchmen world" (which I have to assume is everything after 1986) they are suddenly stupid. It totally makes sense for Batman to see an alien and decide then that human life isn't worth saving, despite it being the thing he's afraid Superman will do. You are amazing because that's literally not true. I'm amazed by your abilities to deceive yourself and create a new pocket fictional reality where you can function semi-coherently.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
So I just made up in my head all the posts of people saying that Batman having a no-kill rule is totally unrealistic and that a realistic Batman would kill? To say nothing of the people that come out and claim that Batman has always killed and its weird to expect him to have a no-kill rule. Man I should probably see a doctor. And let's be clear, if you are OK with Batman killing people, you are condoning the act of killing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Pretty much all of his arguments boil down to an emotional reaction of "NOT MY BATMAN!", which combined with an utterly bizarre reading of BvS (along with yours) are easy to dismiss.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 23:35 |
|
|
Gorn Myson posted:Pretty much all of his arguments boil down to an emotional reaction of "NOT MY BATMAN!", which combined with an utterly bizarre reading of BvS (along with yours) are easy to dismiss. Imagine a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie comes out, and Michaelangelo is suddenly no longer a party dude. He wears a tie and goes to work at a 9-5 job. He never says Cowabunga, not even once. People saying they want the old Mikey back aren't saying "NOT MY MICHAELANGELO" they are saying that the new interpretation is shittier than the old one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2016 16:30
|
|