|
Gaz-L posted:
My explanation would be that the Burton movies have this heightened atmosphere to them, together with the general design, that makes it easy to dismiss the violence as cartoonish and not to be taken seriously. Meanwhile the recent DC movies adopt a much more realistic aesthetic, coupled with a general thesis statement that this is all depicting what "superheroes would really be like". That the idea Snyder believes the point of Batman is to represent the need for unaccountable violent power to go beyond what the police are allowed to do, to face sufficiently powerful threats. It's this entire package and philosophy of Batman being depicted and lauded that people object to. It's not merely that this isn't people's preferred depiction of Batman, it's a specific version of Batman that makes a statement people do not like. Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Feb 4, 2021 |
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
Yeah, its the package. Burton's films are a weird, dark comic book world. It plays differently than Nolan and Snyder's worlds. Also Nolan directly raised the subject. When you draw attention to it its gonna be more of a thing. And the Snyder films have all this discussion of philosophy and morals around them so Batman killing a bunch of people is part of that package.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
Fangz posted:My explanation would be that the Burton movies have this heightened atmosphere to them, together with the general design, that makes it easy to dismiss the violence as cartoonish and not to be taken seriously. Batman is an antagonist in BvS. Superman's primary motivation to dealing with him is that he opposes Batman basically acting as judge, jury, and executioner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Roth posted:Batman is an antagonist in BvS. Superman's primary motivation to dealing with him is that he opposes Batman basically acting as judge, jury, and executioner. That's why people are focusing on him killing people *after* his reconciliation with Superman. It would be different if he has a big realisation that killing people is wrong. If anything, it is Superman who comes to realise Batman's methods are necessary to Save Martha. Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
The problem I think is I don't think MoS ever finishes the though. Superman thinks Batman's a killer and objects, Batman thinks Superman is a threat, Batman changes his mind, Superman drops the subject? Superman was fighting a monster and dying so you know, he had bigger concerns, but narratively the film doesn't really complete the story. And it doesn't come up in Justice League with any of the other heroes. Maybe it will in the Snyder Cut? Maybe its supposed to be unspoken that Bruce feels bad about killing people because Superman's death made him a better hero? My thought is its just not that deep. Batman is the heavy, Superman is the hero. Superman is mad Batman might kill people but in a "cold blooded" way. Batman doesn't do that but he kills tons of people in action which is "better"... I guess. I just don't think the film really digs in there. Snyder wanted Batman to do bad rear end stuff and for Superman to smash a guy through a wall. So they do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:15
|
|
|
Fangz posted:That's why people are focusing on him killing people *after* his reconciliation with Superman. He's not going to instantly unlearn all of his methods in an hour. He has effectively just begun his path to redemption. I think calling it a "reconcilliation" is a bit overselling what happens in the scene. It's more like he has a PTSD flashback, and then sees saving Martha Kent as a way to make up for not being able to rescue his mom from being killed as a child. The point Snyder is making when he said people need to grow up with regards to Batman killing people, is that it's not possible for Batman to do what he does without killing people. However, unlike the Tim Burton movies, Batman killing isn't stylized in a way to make it more palatable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I'm looking at her scenes here and they loving work:
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
Roth posted:He's not going to instantly unlearn all of his methods in an hour. He has effectively just begun his path to redemption. I think calling it a "reconcilliation" is a bit overselling what happens in the scene. It's more like he has a PTSD flashback, and then sees saving Martha Kent as a way to make up for not being able to rescue his mom from being killed as a child. You can reason it out that way if you wish but it's pretty clear we are meant to find him fighting and killing these guys to be heroic and badass. At that point in the movie there is really no way you can argue that he's the antagonist any more. quote:The point Snyder is making when he said people need to grow up with regards to Batman killing people, is that it's not possible for Batman to do what he does without killing people. Yes, and this is *exactly what people find objectionable*. It is not merely that Batman kills, it is that Snyder makes a declarative statement about the necessity of extrajudicial murder to fight bad guys. When to many people, Batman embodies exactly the *opposite point*, that in an idealised embodiment of law enforcement, even in the most dire of situations, killing should be unnecessary with sufficient skill, judgment, and moral principle. Edit: VVV indeed. Making Batman kill people and have to kill people is a choice, and when you defend that choice from the standpoint of realism it's a choice with a lot of unfortunate significance in the modern context of police militarisation. Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:41 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:30
|
|
|
It’s pretty easy, you can just write people not dying. They do it in the comics all the time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
the fantasy of safe vigilantism is perhaps worse than its violent realitySTAC Goat posted:Maybe its supposed to be unspoken that Bruce feels bad about killing people because Superman's death made him a better hero? "I've failed him in life. I won't fail him in death."
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:37
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:It’s pretty easy, you can just write people not dying. They do it in the comics all the time. That’s the liberal fantasy that plays out in the MCU already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:39
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You can reason it out that way if you wish but it's pretty clear we are meant to find him fighting and killing these guys to be heroic and badass. There is no "idealised embodiment of law enforcement" is the problem. The problem with that fantasy, is that Batman is regularly doing things that will absolutely kill people, even with the narrative going out of its way to stress that the people he brutalizes aren't dead. It helps to keep in mind what Snyder actually said. He certainly didn't say anything about it being necessary. He actually describes it with a lot more negativity. quote:“It’s a cool point of view to be like, ‘My heroes are still innocent. My heroes didn’t loving lie to America. My heroes didn’t embezzle money from their corporations. My heroes didn’t commit any atrocities.’ That’s cool. But you’re living in a loving dream world,” he added. I suppose we'll see with Justice League where Batman's arc was going to lead, but it seems clear to me that Batman at the end of BvS is on the path to redemption, not that he's fully redeemed already.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
Lol that people think Batman kicking the poo poo out of people in the most violent way possible was some deep metaphor and not just Snyder doing whatever he thought looked cool like everything else he’s made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:42
|
|
|
police don't kill people because they're too "militarised" - deaths in custody occur without tanks and guns being involved, in countries where most police are not armed. police kill people because they are the tool of state violence, and violence kills people regardless of how "safe" or "non-lethal" it is
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
Roth posted:There is no "idealised embodiment of law enforcement" is the problem. The problem with that fantasy, is that Batman is regularly doing things that will absolutely kill people, even with the narrative going out of its way to stress that the people he brutalizes aren't dead. Or, in your brand new continuity where you have 100% control over everything that happens, he can not do that stuff. Comics are a dream land.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:45
|
|
|
Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is a movie in which, through an act of providence, Superman saves Batman's soul. It does not, however, present killing per se as the moral line which Batman has crossed to require salvation.
Bongo Bill fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:46
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Or, in your brand new continuity where you have 100% control over everything that happens, he can not do that stuff. Boo hoo
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
Roth posted:Boo hoo You don’t need to repeat yourself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
The important thing is not whether or not the physics of the real life situation would kill a person or not, the important thing is whether Batman despite being a superhero acts with callous disregard for human life or not. Superheroes do not exist. I don't see how a version of Batman that goes around murdering people is any less of a dream world than one where he does not. The former is just a rather shittier dream. Edit: Certainly Snyder seems to consider the spectacle of these characters delivering visceral violence in a realistic manner with realistic consequences to be more important that what these characters represent and how folks might admire or relate to them, but many people like these characters with the complete opposite sense of priorities. Fangz fucked around with this message at 03:56 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:50
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:That’s the liberal fantasy that plays out in the MCU already. What Roth posted:There is no "idealised embodiment of law enforcement" is the problem. The problem with that fantasy, is that Batman is regularly doing things that will absolutely kill people, even with the narrative going out of its way to stress that the people he brutalizes aren't dead. Nothing about the Batman fight in BvS is framed in a way to suggest that Batman's actions are bad or that he's "unredeemed." You're pretty clearly meant to cheer at hypercompetent Batman fighting for justice. The scene itself is his "redemption." And I really don't like that Snyder quote because what he doesn't seem to realize is that trying to avoid killing (at least, where you can) is a core, inextricable element of the fantasy of superheroes. When you go, "actually, these superheroes would be murdering people left and right" you kind of have to wonder why that bit of "unreality" is something that needs to be corrected, but the rest of the patently absurd premise of the superhero character stays intact. And frankly, "because it's more realistic" is... a bad answer. The MCU doesn't do no-kill rules much at all, and while it's potentially something of a missed opportunity, they also at least tend to not try to mine drama from superheroes killing. BvS tries to play Batman's murders as both a sign he's going too far and later as outright heroic. That's the problem.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
It’s gonna be crazy when Matt Reeves Batman comes out. I hope it’s rated R.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:52
|
|
|
Roth posted:There is no "idealised embodiment of law enforcement" is the problem. The problem with that fantasy, is that Batman is regularly doing things that will absolutely kill people, even with the narrative going out of its way to stress that the people he brutalizes aren't dead. Yeah you don't need to have a story where Batman kills people, but him actually killing people is miles better than Nolan style, "Batman doesn't kill, but he does torture people and strap machineguns to his bike so Catwomen can kill Bane for him."
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:54
|
|
|
Roth posted:There is no "idealised embodiment of law enforcement" is the problem. The problem with that fantasy, is that Batman is regularly doing things that will absolutely kill people, even with the narrative going out of its way to stress that the people he brutalizes aren't dead. Yeah, as i recall that Snyder quote was at a panel, where he was basically shooting down some kid asking the question, which is exactly what I was talking about with him coming off like a bro-y douchebag who thinks Rorschach is secretly the hero of Watchmen (and he kind of does, look at that film). I don't read that quote and see 'oh, look at that daring film-maker making a statement about modern America', I see a guy who is so cynical he probably shouldn't be making movies about literally the biggest symbol of idealism and hope in the medium.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
the dark knight: a symbol of idealism and hope?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:00
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:the dark knight: a symbol of idealism and hope? Superman. And the fact that you forgot that that movie is technically MoS2 tells you a ton about how poorly he did Superman. EDIT: Because maybe I'm misremembering but I think that quote isn't about Batman in BvS, by the way. It's about Superman killing Zod.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:02
|
|
|
The "Man of Steel" series takes place in a world where, even after Superman shows up wearing a red cape, there isn't really a concept of a superhero. In this context, Batman is simply a vigilante with a lot of fancy toys. In imagining this world, you're asked also to discard your ideas of what superhero characters must be like. (Plus the idea that superheroes don't kill, or are preoccupied with the moral status of taking a life, is a pretty situational and narrow phenomenon.) Superman is still a symbol of hope, and in particular he inspires hope in a Batman who has given in completely to rage, despair, isolation, and guilt. Batman's redemption is to go from punishing the wicked to helping the innocent. A better concept of justice dawns on him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:04
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:It’s gonna be crazy when Matt Reeves Batman comes out. I hope it’s rated R. After BvS Ultimate Edition and the Snyder Cut, an R rating for The Batman as well would kinda suck imo. I just don't think pretty much all the modern live-action Batman should be R. I'm just never gonna get behind taking this character who is fundamentally for children and deciding he's actually gritty and hardcore and only for adults. I'm excited for the Reeves version but locking out children from that version too would be a bummer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
Fangz posted:The important thing is not whether or not the physics of the real life situation would kill a person or not, the important thing is whether Batman despite being a superhero acts with callous disregard for human life or not. They have about 80 years of comics, movies, tv shows, and cartoons to choose from so I'm sure they'll be fine. Gaz-L posted:Yeah, as i recall that Snyder quote was at a panel, where he was basically shooting down some kid asking the question, which is exactly what I was talking about with him coming off like a bro-y douchebag who thinks Rorschach is secretly the hero of Watchmen (and he kind of does, look at that film). I don't read that quote and see 'oh, look at that daring film-maker making a statement about modern America', I see a guy who is so cynical he probably shouldn't be making movies about literally the biggest symbol of idealism and hope in the medium. There's nothing in the Watchmen film that wasn't in the comic with regards to Rorshach. In both versions, Rorshach is a compelling character with a sympathetic backstory, and most importantly: Is the only one of the "heroes" to not go along with a rich billionaire killing millions of people. The movie, by the way, takes it a step further with Ozymandias, showing that he fully intends to capitalize on the destruction. I also think the cynicism is overstated about his DC movies. My read is that the introduction of Superman is introducing a return to hope and optimism in a world that kind of does suck. Man of Steel is about Superman finding the drive to be a hero. BvS sees Superman's idealism bring back Batman and Wonder Woman from their disillusionment with humanity, and Justice League would be about the League forming. I think it's more like he's saying that the world sucks, but that's no reason to give up hope or start condemning people to die in prisons. Keep on fighting the good fight and all that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:06
|
|
|
the conversation was about Batman and the fantasy of a "good I would suggest both films place Superman as the hopeful ideal struggling with a world that decidedly does not match up to that ideal. myself, I think this is more valuable and meaningful than a story in which everything is already great, everyone is already good, and all that is required of Superman is mechanical busywork
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:12
|
|
|
For what it's worth, I watched BvS: Ultimate Cut with my best friend who hadn't seen it, and they were really into the idea of an older Batman that just doesn't give a poo poo about trying not to kill people anymore. It's an interesting take on the character, where killing is normally considered something he'll never come back from. BvS, to me, concludes that it's still possible for Batman to redeem himself after his fall from grace, but it's going to take some work. This is the point of his speech at the end where he talks about how we have to do better, and if you care about the visuals in these movies, is why he has a clear path out of the field at the end whereas before there was no such path.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:15
|
|
|
It's all an idealistic fantasy anyway, just with a different set of "ideals". So it feels weird to be poo-pooing the idea that Batman doesn't kill for being overwrought and impossible when the alternative is equally overwrought and impossible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:17
|
|
|
The cinematic depiction of Rorschach as a figure with some admirable qualities is pretty consistent with Alan Moore's opinion of Steve Ditko, whose work inspired the original depiction of Rorschach:Alan Moore posted:But I have a great deal of respect for [Steve Ditko], and certainly respect for his artwork, and the fact that there's something about his uncompromising attitude that I have a great deal of sympathy with. It's just that the things I wouldn't compromise about or that he wouldn't compromise about are probably very different.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:18
|
|
|
Roth posted:For what it's worth, I watched BvS: Ultimate Cut with my best friend who hadn't seen it, and they were really into the idea of an older Batman that just doesn't give a poo poo about trying not to kill people anymore. It's an interesting take on the character, where killing is normally considered something he'll never come back from. BvS, to me, concludes that it's still possible for Batman to redeem himself after his fall from grace, but it's going to take some work. This is the point of his speech at the end where he talks about how we have to do better, and if you care about the visuals in these movies, is why he has a clear path out of the field at the end whereas before there was no such path. But nothing about his behavior changes at all beyond his desire to kill Superman. From a strictly narrative standpoint, that speech comes off as hollow because he has not demonstrated an alternative.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
I agree that the kind of filmic violence we often see Batman engage in, which is glorified action movie violence for the sake of cinematic spectacle (and is admittedly fun to look at as an exercise in visceral adrenaline cinema), would irl end up with a lot of people dead, crippled, permanently maimed or disfigured, and so on. The violence he enacts often seems cruel beyond necessity. Focusing on that outcome opens up a set of problems, eliding that outcome opens up a different set of outcomes. Personally, I prefer Batman to avoid those situations whenever possible in the first place. Batman has become seen as "the badass martial arts fighter guy" because that's a comparatively easy thing to make look exciting and cool in a movie, but it excises a part of the character that I like, which is that he is intelligent, tactical, patient, stealthy, and well prepared. If he is standing in the middle of a dozen guys with machine guns, you've already made a really weird choice about how to portray him. He shouldn't need to be killing dudes to solve a situation, and I imagine would be furious with himself for ending up backed into that kind of corner.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:the conversation was about Batman and the fantasy of a "good This is kind of the 'Superman is boring' argument just extrapolated out and thought out a bit more. No-one is saying the world these characters exist in needs to be perfect or free of corruption or conflict, but Snyder's take basically has everything INCLUDING the symbol of hope be tainted by that same corruption which makes the idea of them being this symbol ring hollow to many. It's why so many people point out the Pa Kent 'let them die' scene as a massive misstep because it fundamentally takes the heart of Superman away from his humanity. Roth posted:They have about 80 years of comics, movies, tv shows, and cartoons to choose from so I'm sure they'll be fine. There's actually a few subtle changes to make Rorschach's position seem more sympathetic in the film, such as having Niteowl be present for his death and visibly mourning it. Snyder is definitely more sympathetic to him than Moore and Gibbons are. I also think the 'there's tons of comics they can read' is a really crappy way to respond to people criticising these films. Yes, there are tons of comics and shows that have a different take, it's also completely valid for that audience to say 'I don't like THIS take, here is why', especially when on some level, it's supposed to be aimed at a mass audience. Gaz-L fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Feb 4, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:20
|
|
|
Nodosaur posted:But nothing about his behavior changes at all beyond his desire to kill Superman. From a strictly narrative standpoint, that speech comes off as hollow because he has not demonstrated an alternative. Within the narrative of just BvS he refuses to brand Lex Luthor, which was the main thing that got Superman going after him in the first place. There's also a whole other movie about to come out in a month that picks up where the story left off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
Arist posted:After BvS Ultimate Edition and the Snyder Cut, an R rating for The Batman as well would kinda suck imo. I just don't think pretty much all the modern live-action Batman should be R. I'm just never gonna get behind taking this character who is fundamentally for children and deciding he's actually gritty and hardcore and only for adults. I'm excited for the Reeves version but locking out children from that version too would be a bummer. Eh the kids will be fine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:21
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:Eh the kids will be fine. I think this is an incredibly lovely response! Like, the character is for them, you don't get to just come in and claim ownership. That really bothers me.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:22
|
|
|
They can watch the older movies, they ain’t gonna care. And when they get older they can watch the r rated ones.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 09:10 |
|
|
Arist posted:I think this is an incredibly lovely response! The only thing Batman belongs too is DC and WB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2021 04:24
|
|