|
It does help him when Superman gets sick of his poo poo and busts him through a building. He probably knows supes won't go all out on him, but it gives him the stamina to jerk supes around long enough that the point blank krypto grenade trick will work. Without it, Superman could have taken him down non-lethally a lot more easily, but now he's forced play into batman's dumb wrestling match. I won't argue that it wouldn't have been cool for batman to ditch it the second he landed that first grenade like Zod ditching his armor. Although I guess the contrast is cool too! Batman isn't committing to a pure ideal like Zod did, he's still caught up in this bullshit tactical mindset which is crumbling around him even as he thinks he's winning.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Batman already has a suit that closes of his emotions in the movie. It's the batsuit. He kills people cold-blooded while dressed up in it. Also, if your take-away from my joke was 'DC plagiarized the Hulkbuster' then I don't know what to say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Batman already has a suit that closes of his emotions in the movie. It's the batsuit. He kills people cold-blooded while dressed up in it. This is especially clear in the prison scene, where it becomes extremely obvious that the basic suit costume was designed to give off an inhuman visage:  Not sure if I said it here or in the JL thread but it's also a good example of how lighting specific the costume it; it's very obviously meant to be shown obscured in shadows, looking up at, or looking down from in a shot, and when shown off in JL in broad daylight at/close to neutral he just looks....really puffy. Like a life-sized He-man figure posing next to normal proportioned people. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 14:19 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
The armour made way more sense after the movie when I saw this, where it lets him go toe to toe with almost-healthy Superman for just long enough to let Oliver Queen shoot him with the kryptonite arrow. There were lots of ways to make an homage to this scene that left out the cheesier stuff like Green Arrow, but Snyder seems to have just lifted the imagery and completely ignored and abandoned the context that made it be cool and make sense in the original story. It's probably the best example of how all of the story in BvS is completely disjointed and nonsensical. e: Or whomever was responsible, maybe it was the writers who botched it and not Snyder, but it was still bad. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 15:03 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:The armour made way more sense after the movie when I saw this, where it lets him go toe to toe with almost-healthy Superman for just long enough to let Oliver Queen shoot him with the kryptonite arrow. There were lots of ways to make an homage to this scene that left out the cheesier stuff like Green Arrow, but Snyder seems to have just lifted the imagery and completely ignored and abandoned the context that made it be cool and make sense in the original story. It's probably the best example of how all of the story in BvS is completely disjointed and nonsensical. e: Or whomever was responsible, maybe it was the writers who botched it and not Snyder, but it was still bad. It definitely doesn't let him punch Superman around like it does in DKR, but it fulfils exactly the same purpose: Dragging the fight out for long enough that Superman lets his guard down and takes a kryptonite blast to the face. Even in DKR it's clear that Superman could paste Batman at any point, but can't safely incapacitate him because of the power armor and has to try and grapple him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Batman already has a suit that closes of his emotions in the movie. It's the batsuit. He kills people cold-blooded while dressed up in it. The suit is for our benefit, to further show Batmans emotional state, not his own. And in addition, there's a difference in killing people in self defense and hunting a man down and killing him. MiddleOne posted:Also, if your take-away from my joke was 'DC plagiarized the Hulkbuster' then I don't know what to say. It can be difficult to determine if someone is joking or just dumb when all you got is text. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
Shanty posted:It definitely doesn't let him punch Superman around like it does in DKR, but it fulfils exactly the same purpose: Dragging the fight out for long enough that Superman lets his guard down and takes a kryptonite blast to the face. Even in DKR it's clear that Superman could paste Batman at any point, but can't safely incapacitate him because of the power armor and has to try and grapple him. If it was meant to fulfill the exact same purpose, then it didn't succeed in getting that across
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This is especially clear in the prison scene, where it becomes extremely obvious that the basic suit costume was designed to give off an inhuman visage: That totally looks like a man in a costume
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:29
|
|
|
McCloud posted:The suit is for our benefit, to further show Batmans emotional state, not his own. And in addition, there's a difference in killing people in self defense and hunting a man down and killing him. I think you'd have a hard time arguing in front of a judge that killing people with a veritable tank while raiding a truck falls under self-defence. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:That totally looks like a man in a costume The way it's textured especially suggests otherworldliness, and they do this several times during the film (particularly the kickass intro where he's introduced as a demon or vampire).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:I think you'd have a hard time arguing in front of a judge that killing people with a veritable tank while raiding a truck falls under self-defence. clearly he was preemptively defending himself and others by getting the kryptonite to take down superman
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:34
|
|
|
I didn't know the pragmatic purpose of the iron armor suit was such a hot debate topic. It's armor. He wears it to protect himself. That's what armor does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Serf posted:clearly he was preemptively defending himself and others by getting the kryptonite to take down superman Ah, classic Frank Castle Doctrine
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
The idea, consistent with all Batman depictions, is that the ends justify the means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:If it was meant to fulfill the exact same purpose, then it didn't succeed in getting that across How didn't it. Not only did it tie into the Arthurian stuff going on throughout the movie visually, it obviously let him be slammed through walls and hit by a weakened Superman, and delayed the fight long enough for him to hit him with kryptonite twice, which is what he wanted to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
^^Sniped! Plus the armor adds to the knight and Excalibur imagery. Part of Batman doesn't give a poo poo if he dies, as long as it serves his crusade. He admits as much in Justice League.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
Detective No. 27 posted:^^Sniped! What knight and excalibur imagery? I never got any of that watching the movie. Darko posted:How didn't it. Not only did it tie into the Arthurian stuff going on throughout the movie visually, it obviously let him be slammed through walls and hit by a weakened Superman, and delayed the fight long enough for him to hit him with kryptonite twice, which is what he wanted to do. Well it didn't, because the whole fight I was sitting there wondering why Batman was wearing the powered suit if it was completely useless when trying to fight Superman, and the briefly acting puffs of kryptonite just made it even worse, because he clearly didn't need the suit to smack him around then. It never at any point made any sense. NTRabbit fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:If it was meant to fulfill the exact same purpose, then it didn't succeed in getting that across Well, okay, it serves two purposes: First: Batman needs to go a couple rounds with Superman so he can get in the Kryptonite before Superman pastes him. Second: he needs to be able to gently caress Superman up after the Kryptonite takes effect. I guess only the first one really applies to DKR, so "exact same purpose" may be overstating things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
How was it useless? It protected him and let him hit harder. Kryptonite affected Superman was weakened, not helpless.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Shanty posted:Well, okay, it serves two purposes: First: Batman needs to go a couple rounds with Superman so he can get in the Kryptonite before Superman pastes him. Second: he needs to be able to gently caress Superman up after the Kryptonite takes effect. I guess only the first one really applies to DKR, so "exact same purpose" may be overstating things. Except the suit didn't let him go a couple rounds with Superman in the movie, it literally achieved nothing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Well it didn't, because the whole fight I was sitting there wondering why Batman was wearing the powered suit if it was completely useless when trying to fight Superman, and the briefly acting puffs of kryptonite just made it even worse, because he clearly didn't need the suit to smack him around then. It never at any point made any sense. “Count the dead: thousands of people. What’s next? Millions? He has the power to wipe out the entire human race, and if we believe there’s even a one percent chance that he is our enemy, we have to take it as an absolute certainty.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
I'm not sure what you're talking about. It clearly worked
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
The bit with the suit was so poorly written they should have just ditched it all together and had Batman sucker Superman into taking a grenade to the face, before wailing on him just the once and leading to the Martha scene, that at least would have made some sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:The bit with the suit was so poorly written they should have just ditched it all together and had Batman sucker Superman into taking a grenade to the face, before wailing on him, that at least would have made some sense. But how then would they have referenced a comic book 98% of the audience have never read
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
You are the one who makes no sense. Why wouldn't Batman wear armor? It clearly protected him from blows and clearly let him hit harder and incapacitate the weakened Superman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
the suit did look kinda cool. it had a nice, chunky field-test look to it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
Films have this thing called "characterization".
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:The way it's textured especially suggests otherworldliness, and they do this several times during the film (particularly the kickass intro where he's introduced as a demon or vampire). There's nothing "otherworldliness" about the texture. It still looks like a man in suit. Worse, it fails to even evoke a creepiness that it's suppose to project
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:01
|
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:You are the one who makes no sense. Why wouldn't Batman wear armor? It clearly protected him from blows and clearly let him hit harder and incapacitate the weakened Superman. it didn't though? He could have done that without the suit. MiddleOne posted:But how then would they have referenced a comic book 98% of the audience have never read Yeah I guess so, but they really should have tried a little harder to give the reference some context that functioned in the movie. The whole movie was a pretty mess from start to finish, but that was the bit that confused and then annoyed me the most.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:Except the suit didn't let him go a couple rounds with Superman in the movie, it literally achieved nothing. If he hadn't worn the suit, Superman wouldn't have punched him around like he did. He would have simply picked him up or something. By wearing his mech suit, Batman tricked him into a entering a pissing match he was certain he'd win. Supes couldn't have given him the same kind of "stop doing that" love taps if he hadn't been wearing the suit, so the fight would have been some extremely contrived poo poo without it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:There's nothing "otherworldliness" about the texture. It still looks like a man in suit. Worse, it fails to even evoke a creepiness that it's suppose to project It was a deliberate choice to ensure that nothing else in the film resembles Batman's costume and theming other than fantasy demons in his dreams and visions. As a counterexample, the strappy, teched up look that the Falcon has in Winter Soldier is shared by every other character vaguely associated with the military.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
He should've turned the Kryptonite into a chest laser like Metallo
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:05
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:What knight and excalibur imagery? I never got any of that watching the movie. They weren't exactly subtle about it:  Then there was this whole scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p49F-qcstw Edit: huh, that scene also had the "confused horse all alone in the fog" thing Snowglobe of Doom fucked around with this message at 16:09 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Davros1 posted:He should've turned the Kryptonite into a chest laser like Metallo he should have used it to infuse an attack dog with superman powers and turned it loose on supes the dog's mother is also named martha
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:They weren't exactly subtle about it: I've never seen that Excalibur movie, and I don't recall seeing that sign
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Why are Batman and Superman's mothers, both named Martha? Shaken and traumatized by her near fatal experience outside of a theater in Gotham, Martha Wayne abandons her kid and her wealth by faking her own death and moving to Kansas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:09
|
|
|
NTRabbit posted:I've never seen that Excalibur movie, and I don't recall seeing that sign The film references the 1981 film Excalibur quite often, that's the "knight and excalibur' imagery that people are talking about. As for you not seeing that sign .... I dunno, pay more attention next time you watch the film??
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Snowglobe of Doom posted:The film references the 1981 film Excalibur quite often, that's the "knight and excalibur' imagery that people are talking about. I really don't plan on watching it again, it wasn't enjoyable enough for that. Also, being able to understand a superhero film from 2016 shouldn't be contingent upon me having seen an obscure fantasy film that screened in 1981, 2 years before I was born. Although this line about Excalibur, "Film critics Roger Ebert and Vincent Canby criticized the film's plot and characters, although they and other reviewers praised its visual style" is pretty much exactly what can be said about BvS, so maybe it was a good take.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
You don't need to have seen excalibur to understand anything in this film. It's extremely straightforward
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 23:24 |
|
|
Al Borland Corp. posted:You don't need to have seen excalibur to understand anything in this film. It's extremely straightforward It's really not. The movie is confusing, and it jumps from scene to scene without laying out a coherent story. The scenes were really pretty, but the plot was a hot mess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 16:24
|
|