SolidSnakesBandana posted:

I am... I'm pretty sure if I were to flee the scene of a homicide and they caught me, I would be really really hosed. But I honestly don't know for sure, having never been involved in a homicide.

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

This is... actually super interesting. So what's the idea here? That it's the laws job to prove you did it and bring you to justice, and not necessarily your responsibility to report it? If hypothetically asked why you didn't report it to the police, what would be the legally appropriate response?

Barudak posted:

There are also batmans where he is actually commissioner Gordon piloting a robot suit.

LesterGroans posted:

"Different characters in different stories with different contexts are different" is kind of my point. In the context of BvS (and most Batman movies) Batman seems to kill when he has to.

So there are two reasons I asked that: 1) because SnakeBananas seems to think not having an issue with this is akin to condoning murder irl, and 2) he's bringing in stuff like comics and Batman Beyond so I figured other media was fair game.

Martman posted:

Is having Batman kill comparable to making him wear a fedora to you? I.e., is the problem truly that this character just doesn't "look" enough like Batman? If so, then I don't see how it's anything but a "not my Batman" argument.

It seems like you (or at least others) have been saying there's more to this, that the issue involves the ethics of killing and the nature of heroism, etc. All of that is relevant in the same ways in other movies and other stories.

EDIT: I guess you seem to be arguing in a different direction, but I think the question is relevant to many people's arguments about Batman killing.

computer parts posted:

It's strange how killing is the line that the general public don't want vigilantes to cross. Like, the riots over black people getting shot usually only involve some property damage but people are still ready to crack down on that end.

Or is this another one of those things that doesn't count because Batman's fictional?

Noam Chomsky posted:

BvS isn't a sequel to the Nolan movies. Different Batman, different continuity. If you care about that kind of stuff. Lots of people seem to think BvS is a sequel to TDKR. Which, if that many people do, then I can see why they feel the need to always reboot with an origin story.

Dark_Tzitzimine posted:

Why do you have to remind me there's no GL on JL, Henry?

https://twitter.com/TheDCEU/status/768158124276486144

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

I still think both her and Katie Holmes get a real bad rap for their 2005 superhero love interest performances

Karloff posted:

I'd argue that bringing in other Batman stuff in order to compare and contrast is more relevant than bringing an entirely different character, but I also understand if people do not like this as each individual interpretation should stand on it's own and this is a new Batman, with his own context, but more on this in a bit. I'd argue, and have argued, that this Batman's killing is one of the many symptoms of his bad characterization though. You could cut all instances of his killing out of the film and it would not affect the character one iota, mainly because the killing is not an aspect interestingly applied in order to put more layers on the character or to reveal or say something compelling, but instead a wayward element incoherently bolted on in order to increase the vicarious power fantasy aspects of what is probably the most one dimensional Batmen of them all, and creates contradictions and problems within the film's own terms. Even if BvS was the only bit of Batman media to ever exist it would still not work.

Compare this to Nolan's Batman where his reluctance to kill/execute actually forms a part of the character and has real affect on the narrative and themes of the film, his catching of the Joker at the end of the Dark Knight after he's thrown him off the building is a refutation of the Joker's nihilistic world view, you could not remove this aspect of the character from the film without doing major damage to the entire point.

The difference between the two, isn't that one is "NOT MY BATMAN", though doubtless this post will be accused of such. But, that one film (The Dark Knight) has a strong understanding of narrative, and the other (BvS) barely has any understanding at all. If BvS discussed the idea of Batman killing as a part of it's story, characterization and themes then there is no doubt I would be with you all defending it, but it refuses to do such a thing, It's a bad film, and a wasted opportunity.


Here's the thing with the "NOT MY BATMAN" argument.A lot of people who have been fond of and defended the kill Batman in BvS and other media have stated how much more a killing Batman makes sense and how it's a superior take than other versions where he is not seen killing (the cartoons etc) for a multitude of reasons, but fail to grasp that this is also a "NOT MY BATMAN" argument. By admitting to a preference in Batmen, you have admitted a preferred vision for Batman, and therefore any Batmen that do not align to this (ergo, any version that does not kill) is "NOT YOUR BATMAN". When Justice League is released, and Batman is shown to not be killing (which interviews and set reports have suggested will be the case, murder Bat is going away for a while guys, sorry) a lot of pro kill-Bat people in this thread who have accused others of making "NOT MY BATMAN" arguments will look at this new vision of Batman and think to themselves "Well, that's not MY Batman".

The question then becomes, should all previous versions of a character be discarded when looking at a new version? Are there any intrinsic elements to Batman that need to be retained in order for a character to still be Batman? Here's an extreme example: imagine if Ben Affleck's solo Batman film is about a man named David (played by Affleck) who runs a restaurant, and when his supply of fish and chicken gets too expensive decides to catch Bats and fry them up instead, earning the moniker "Batman" from the local community who condemn him, leading to a final act when it is revealed that his Bat dishes are really very good and he is embraced by the people. Now, that film could still be called "The Batman", but there's no doubt most people would be dissapointed, they would watch it and say "well, this isn't like Batman at all", are they making "NOT MY BATMAN" arguments? Are they wrong to do this? Is there a line where Batman stops being Batman? And if there is, where is that line?

BvS acknowledges previous versions, so the film itself isn't willing to let go of other Bats, it cribs elements from The Dark Knight Returns and others (incredibly poorly and with little understanding mind you). But it's biggest problem is that it can't encapsulate all these different Batman elements into one coherent new version. BvS's Batman is bad because it does not work in it's own terms, removed from other versions . In order for drama to be compelling and conflict between characters to be rich, a narrative has to coherently outline these character's perspectives, what they want and why they want it and then see the sparks fly, at least in an action/thriller narrative, which BvS consistently fails to do. This is why people in this thread, fans of the film, can't agree on what Batman's motivation is. That's a problem. And, no I'm not decrying people having different interpretations, or saying that fans should be a monolith, but this is the primary motivations of the lead characters, the fact that this is so obfuscated speaks to the deep writing troubles with this film and is why, outside of the Bizarro world of this thread, Batman v Superman was received poorly by both critics and audiences.


Yes, Batman being fictional matters a lot, a lot of the arguments in this thread are pitched as if Batman's a real person and we are objectively judging his actions, as opposed to a fictional one whose every action is decided by the writers/storytellers.

Karloff posted:

Karloff posted:

You could cut all instances of his killing out of the film and it would not affect the character one iota, mainly because the killing is not an aspect interestingly applied in order to put more layers on the character or to reveal or say something compelling, but instead a wayward element incoherently bolted on in order to increase the vicarious power fantasy aspects of what is probably the most one dimensional Batmen of them all, and creates contradictions and problems within the film's own terms.

Schwarzwald posted:

Big O was an excellent show.

Karloff posted:

Karloff posted:

Yes, Batman being fictional matters a lot, a lot of the arguments in this thread are pitched as if Batman's a real person and we are objectively judging his actions, as opposed to a fictional one whose every action is decided by the writers/storytellers.

Bedshaped posted:

The zeitgeist of the 10s wouldn't allow a superhero that declares an aversion to killing. A film made in a country where mass shootings happen daily, police shoot dead over a thousand suspects a year and your average American is ready to draw and kill someone who crosses their path at the slightest provocation.

The protection of life, even life that threatens your persons or property is an alien concept to your most important audience.

"It's not that we can't believe a man can fly, we can't even believe that a man can know it's wrong to kill."

computer parts posted:

Batman has far more in common with the police that beating up suspects than as a champion of the people (he was even an official member of the police in the racist-as-gently caress 1960s!).

ThePlague-Daemon posted:

In Batman's case, at least in The Dark Knight, it can kind of be looked at as one of the ways he distinguishes himself from other vigilantes. He tells the copycats at the beginning that he isn't like them because he isn't wearing hockey pads. He thinks he's better than them because he had money and training. That may be true, but that's kinda classist and partly just excusing his own failings.

Yoshifan823 posted:

Holmes looks worse because Maggie Gyllenhaal is so great in Dark Knight.

Also, Kirsten Dunst is the worst in the Spider-Man movies (even though she's probably a better actor than Holmes and Bosworth).

ThePlague-Daemon posted:

In Batman's case, at least in The Dark Knight, it can kind of be looked at as one of the ways he distinguishes himself from other vigilantes. He tells the copycats at the beginning that he isn't like them because he isn't wearing hockey pads. He thinks he's better than them because he had money and training. That may be true, but that's kinda classist and partly just excusing his own failings.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

now these are both some wild-rear end opinions. Gyllenhaal has maybe the worst line readings in that whole trilogy, and it's not a trilogy short on clunky line readings.

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

Did you miss the issue where Batman starts his community outreach program and puts on an apron and gives soup to homeless people?

Bedshaped posted:

The zeitgeist of the 10s wouldn't allow a superhero that declares an aversion to killing. A film made in a country where mass shootings happen daily, police shoot dead over a thousand suspects a year and your average American is ready to draw and kill someone who crosses their path at the slightest provocation.

The protection of life, even life that threatens your persons or property is an alien concept to your most important audience.

"It's not that we can't believe a man can fly, we can't even believe that a man can know it's wrong to kill."

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

Did you miss the issue where Batman starts his community outreach program and puts on an apron and gives soup to homeless people?

Martman posted:

BvS would still be good if Batman killed a puppy.

computer parts posted:

No, but I saw the one where he strangles a Turkey to cook it for Thanksgiving.

MacheteZombie posted:

Yeah, Katie Holmes wasn't amazing but she was definitely better than Gyllenhaal.

Drifter posted:

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

Batman brings a turkey dinner into the sewers for Solomon Grundy every year.

Drifter posted:

I always thought it was pretty hilarious that Batman's giving all those copycats poo poo about equipment and then the next cut his mecha-fist is having critical usage failures and he's being driven into garage columns because he's stuck to a van door.

Also,

and

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

the part where Harvey Dent's getting taken away and she's like "you can't leave that up to chance!" hits me the same way as the sound of rubbing two pieces of Styrofoam together, or a marker that's starting to dry out on a piece of paper.

Cythereal posted:

I rewatched Cap 2 and Avengers 2 over the last couple of days. I know full well Marvel would never go for it, but I'm still struck by the incredible homoerotic subtext to Cap, especially his relationships with Bucky and Stark. I feel like the whole plot of Civil War could have been nipped in the bud if Cap finally acted on his chemistry with Stark, or admitted to Stark that he's doing all of this because of the feelings he has for Bucky. I think Stark would be much more forgiving of Cap if he cited that, rather than blind ideals, as the reason he was going out on such a limb for Bucky.

Cythereal posted:

I rewatched Cap 2 and Avengers 2 over the last couple of days. I know full well Marvel would never go for it, but I'm still struck by the incredible homoerotic subtext to Cap, especially his relationships with Bucky and Stark. I feel like the whole plot of Civil War could have been nipped in the bud if Cap finally acted on his chemistry with Stark, or admitted to Stark that he's doing all of this because of the feelings he has for Bucky. I think Stark would be much more forgiving of Cap if he cited that, rather than blind ideals, as the reason he was going out on such a limb for Bucky.

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

Can't it just be his oldest friend? The only thing he has from the 'old days'? It's pretty clear he has a soft spot for things like that. That seems reason enough.

SolidSnakesBandana posted:

Can't it just be his oldest friend? The only thing he has from the 'old days'? It's pretty clear he has a soft spot for things like that. That seems reason enough.

Drifter posted:

This is kind of what I think, too.

I've never thought Cap was jockin' after dick - that just wasn't the sign I got between him and Buck (rhymes with gently caress?!?!).