|
Yeah, it's good when superheroes take out bad guy in cool ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd6UtMo3JDw E: This still holds up 23 years later
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Fangz posted:It's pretty bold to simultaneously argue:
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:12
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Batman having a no kill rule makes him unique and interesting in a world where superhero films are still struggling not to just be action movies where the bad guy dies at the end. It is in fact good and interesting that Batman does not kill Joker and validate his world view in The Dark Knight. Once Batman's spraying people down, he might as well pop a skull on his chest and grieve two different family members. He kills Dent a couple scenes later
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
Who are you guys trying to convince
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:17
|
|
|
Batman is fictional and so is his wealth. The real supervillain is the very rich Kevin Feige who I can confirm has not built a single orphanage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Whose angry about Batman killing people again?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Who are you guys trying to convince I don’t think it has to be about convincing. Sometimes it’s nice to just contrast and compare ideas with others in a productive discussion. I doubt that’s what’ll happen here, but it’d be nice...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:20
|
|
|
Snyder is similar to Batman in that they both adopt a lot of orphans
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
All of the Avengers kill dudes in the opening scene of Age of Ultron. And that's fine because A) gently caress those guys they're basically Nazis and B) Nobody on that team has a silly no kill rule. As long as preserving all life at all costs isn't a core fundamental of a character then I don't see the problem as long as they're not out there like the Punisher and just murdering anything that moves and taking pleasure in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:23
|
|
|
Then some of them get mad when Hawkeye kills people, for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:26
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:He kills Dent a couple scenes later A good movie can have poor scenes. Everyone is lovely to Snyderbros in this thread because you've spent the last 100 years being mad about people dismissing movies you like offhand and now every post has to be snide with a gotcha or two. bushisms.txt posted:Could've stopped here honestly. Considering not even Nolan touches on his vast inequality, even slamming people actively fighting against it, I don't see why it's not a valid question. especially in response to people clutching their pearls over him killing people, when he beats people almost to death already. Like this, once again, being the dumbest insight into Batman I see on the internet. No, Bats doesn't hang up the cape, run for office in Gotham, and distribute his wealth. Because Batman is a fictional story about a cape guy. You could in fact stroke your chin and say "Ya know being a super vigilante is not actually a good thing" about literally every hero. That doesn't make it riveting insight or interesting to talk about. I'm not even trying to be mean I just genuinely cannot handle reading another person's dissertation on how Batman could do some real good in Gotham if he stopped being Batman. The character's older than everyone in this thread. Someone's had that thought before as it turns out. So we get dozens on dozens of Wayne foundations and hospitals and orphanages and Rises has that young cop who was inspired by meeting fellow orphan Bruce Wayne.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:27
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Then some of them get mad when Hawkeye kills people, for some reason. He was doing it outside of the military system so it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:29
|
|
|
They're after Hawkeye for dropping off the grid and going on an indulgent self destructive rampage over the loss of his family. Similar to someone like Frank Castle for instance. They're after him more to help him, not because he's out there killing dudes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:33
|
|
|
X-O posted:They're after Hawkeye for dropping off the grid and going on an indulgent self destructive rampage over the loss of his family. Similar to someone like Frank Castle for instance. They're after him more to help him, not because he's out there killing dudes. Yes, it's this. Nobody's mad at Clint for exacting vigilante justice, they're worried about him because he's using that as a method of avoiding dealing with his grief. And Nat only goes after him when they actually have something to offer him other than empty platitudes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:35
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:A good movie can have poor scenes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
I like it when Batman doesn't kill because it means he has to use more creative methods of defeating his enemies such as martial arts, gadgets and ropes instead of blowing them away with machine guns. It ties in very neatly with his origin, his vow "I'll work to make sure what happened to me never happens again" is somewhat undermined if he's taking lives left and right leaving other young kids parentless. Batman also has the best villains by far, and they're great in part because they have long standing complex and reflective relationships with him which they would not be able to have if he puts them in the ground. I also like Arkham Asylum as a concept, which again doesn't have much place in the Batman mythos unless Batman's bringing in his enemies alive. It also creates good drama, I always thought that Batman's most compelling character flaw is his arrogance, obstinacy and rigidity, which are more keenly examined when he has certain rules which he won't cross, to a fault. Batman's "no kill" rule is more of a thematic idea in Batman stories than it is in, say, Spider-Man because there are interesting juxtapositions and contradictions to be mined from that kind of moral line in the darkness of the world he inhabits. Plus, there's a relatively small amount of heroic figures who don't kill, and I think it's nice that not every solution to evil has to be "murder". Is Batman not killing realistic? No, but neither is Batman himself. This is all personal preference mind, and I really love plenty of murder Batman media like Batman Returns as an alternate take but on the whole I like it when he doesn't kill. There's a distinction I think between like tackling Two Face when he's about to kill a child inadvertently leading to his death, and spraying multiple vehicles with machine guns during an attempt to rob a magic stone. Also Batman: The Animated Series is a really good, I don't know when that became a lovely thing that was dumb to like, but I think it still holds up, and is probably the best screen interpretation of Batman. Karloff fucked around with this message at 16:47 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:42
|
|
|
Unless it's some super being with a specific weak spot, Batman's creative techniques boil down to how quickly he can make someone unconscious. and even then after he figures out their weak spot he just finds out how to unlock them unconscious. And Batman has and will continue to kill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
I'm trying to say nobody cares about that because looking at a fictional cartoon world using real world logic is mental masturbation. It's not interesting or fun to talk about. I dunno who you are preaching to here about the villainy of the fictional billionaire or how that naturally progressed from whether or not he should have guns on his car. A radioactive spider bite wouldn't give you spider powers, it'd probably give you liver cancer. But I don't think any of us want Spider-Man movies to be about a 16 year old who leaves behind a kind aunt and uncle. Well I'm sure somebody would, but most of us wanna see him web swing and do flip kicks. EDIT: Also Arkham Asylum is good because it reveals an optimism that is core to Batman as a character. Sure not Joker or Clayface, but he actually does believe Two Face or Riddler could get better. Riddler did for a while! SonicRulez fucked around with this message at 16:48 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
I'm at a point where I'm fine with fascists like Zod and paramilitary PMCs like Luthor's men getting got.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
It's fun applying real world logic to it tho. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUfnQPoJbSc "Take em out? Like on a date? YOU JUST GOT QUIPPED"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:46
|
|
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:I'm at a point where I'm fine with fascists like Zod and paramilitary PMCs like Luthor's men getting got. If Superman flew into Lex's house and snapped his neck and then did the same with every other billionaire on Earth, regardless of their supervillain status, he would be the greatest hero we've ever known. In fact, I could make the argument that his no killing policy doesn't actually make him moral, because he literally has the power to fix the entire world at his fingertips and doesn't actually do it. I would argue a proactive character who had no issues with killing but actually fixed the real problems would be much more moral than Superman. Vince MechMahon fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:I'm trying to say nobody cares about that because looking at a fictional cartoon world using real world logic is mental masturbation. It's not interesting or fun to talk about. I dunno who you are preaching to here about the villainy of the fictional billionaire or how that naturally progressed from whether or not he should have guns on his car. Simething is only tired if it's been discussed in the medium that we're discussing it in, and since it hasn't been discussed yet in film, you can hold off with all that condescending bullshit about what you think should bethe actual conversation. Especially when the other driving force in comic book movies revels in these same topics. bushisms.txt fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Feb 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:51
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:I mean people actually do care because people have made a cottage industry out of Batman's actions in BvS, despite the same actions being depicted in a video game being praised. Snyder goes out of his way to balance the foolishness of the rule and people freak out because the camera didn't cut quick enough. There's even a scene where batman has a sniper rifle camera gun, which flies directly in the face of Batman just being a murderous killer, and yet people only focus on the blatant, while still missing what's going on. All of this is just you being extremely mad people didn't like BVS. That's why it's not interesting. You don't actually have anything to say here but "Well it happened in these other things people like." I like Blade, but if Thor said "Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate up hill" I would think he shouldn't. Well maybe at least. There's nothing inherently more "foolish" about a no kill rule than literally anything else about Batman. He fights plant monsters and his best friend is an alien. An alien who disguises himself with a pair of glasses. It is wholly arbitrary to decide what in Batman is too silly to take and what isn't. You can like Batman mowing guys down without also insisting people who don't just don't get it. Or trying to appeal to hypocrisy. Like how much of the last few pages has just been "Ohoho, you don't like Batman killing a guy with a grenade? Well what about Iron Man?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:All of this is just you being extremely mad people didn't like BVS. That's why it's not interesting. You don't actually have anything to say here but "Well it happened in these other things people like." I like Blade, but if Thor said "Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate up hill" I would think he shouldn't. Well maybe at least. There's nothing inherently more "foolish" about a no kill rule than literally anything else about Batman. He fights plant monsters and his best friend is an alien. An alien who disguises himself with a pair of glasses. It is wholly arbitrary to decide what in Batman is too silly to take and what isn't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:despite the same actions being depicted in a video game being praised. Nope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:02
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:I don't give a poo poo if Batman kills a bunch of goons. I didn't give a poo poo when he did it in Burton's movies, I didn't give a poo poo when he killed the villain in Batman Begins, and I don't care about it in Snyder's movies. You've had since 1989 to accept the idea and get over it. The Batman Begins one kinda bothered me (and I think other people) because that version of Batman was set up with the whole "Killing is Bad" concept. He struggles with it when planning to kill Joe Chill. He defies his teachers by refusing to execute someone. He works to become a person who can do this whole Batman thing without killing people. And then at the end of the movie, he's just like "Ah, gently caress it." And I'm not exactly sure what that's meant to be. I don't even think the movies knew what that was meant to be. Batman never seems to have much conflict over his decision to kill Ra's. He justified it as "I'm not killing you. I'm just also not saving you." but then it doesn't seem to have any meaningful definition for him going forward, except he stupidly decides not to let Joker die, which is something he should totally be OK with doing by that point. And then Joker talks about how "incorruptable" Batman's code is, except we've seen it in the last movie with Ra's, and then we see it in Dark Knight when he knocks Two-Face off a building to his death. Also I watched clips of these moments just now and I forgot how absolutely terrible Christian Bale's Batman voice was. I can't believe someone let him do that for three goddamn movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Play it straight? Hmmm. I'll give it a try. I like that the simple fact Bruce Wayne is wealthy excuses the equally obvious fact that he is mentally disturbed and has no real support system. There's no family, no teachers, nothing but his butler. That's it. And so he spends a solid decade and change having a mental breakdown before lashing out, but it's all his fault because he's rich? He should have used his preteen mind and just wealthed all his problems away? Or, having grown up with serious PTSD and obsessive issues, he should have just instantly gotten help when he came of age? As people with severe untreated mental disorders are known to do easily and without help. Bruce Wayne is a victim. His wealth only makes it harder for him to get help, because it eliminates a lot of the hardship that others would have to face. A normal person in his situation would probably just have picked up a .38 when they were 16 and tried to shoot the first mobster they came across in the face. Batman gets to spend years training with loving ninjas and crisscrossing the globe. This isn't a good thing, this doesn't empower him. It makes it that much harder for him to get help. He can actually take wildly illogical actions and get away with them, because he has that much wealth to go around. This doesn't mean he's a rational actor. Like the defining moment of him becoming Batman in a lot of the versions is him sitting alone in a dark room before a bat crashes though the window. He then has a conversation with his dead father and decides to quite literally fight crime in a giant bat suit. And yet people are pretending he's this totally rational capitalist overlord who could be funding full luxury gay space communism instead of beating homeless people to death or some poo poo, rather than a man who clearly shouldn't be allowed to have a license.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:04
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Nope.  I guess twinkling stars over victims heads makes it alright.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:10
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:The Batman Begins one kinda bothered me (and I think other people) because that version of Batman was set up with the whole "Killing is Bad" concept. He struggles with it when planning to kill Joe Chill. He defies his teachers by refusing to execute someone. He works to become a person who can do this whole Batman thing without killing people. I took the I'm not going to kill you but I'm also not going to save you part as Batman saying you put yourself in this situation and now you are going to face the consequences for it. Batman acted passively and just left. Joker wanted Batman to actually execute him which would have required Batman to actually use action to kill Joker. You can see it as Batman growing as a character if you want. You can
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:The Batman Begins one kinda bothered me (and I think other people) because that version of Batman was set up with the whole "Killing is Bad" concept. He struggles with it when planning to kill Joe Chill. He defies his teachers by refusing to execute someone. He works to become a person who can do this whole Batman thing without killing people. I think it's basically saying that, while Joker was wrong about people in general, the life that Batman has chosen means that he'll have to choose between his rule and someone's life. And he does. He chooses Jim's son over Dent, and it costs Dent his life. And life goes on. Batman doesn't suddenly explode or vanish. He has to live with what he's done, and know that he might be faced with that choice again. So Batman's existence will be a struggle between trying to abide by his one rule and knowing that there will be times where, to save someone's life, he might have to break it, but to never, ever take that fact for granted and abandon his principles. And then, in the next movie, it turns out that he just quit and became a hermit, so...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:When you said you weren't born before 89, I should've known your take was gonna be in bad faith. :Hmm:
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:13
|
|
|
I've mentioned it before, but on some level it's always interesting to have a character with certain prohibitions, lines that he won't cross, lines that he will cross, so on so forth. It's in examining those lines that you build a more solid character. A character like, say, the Falcon probably just treats combat like a soldier does and accepts that body-counts are part of the mission. But if for some reason Sam Wilson decided to adopt a no-kill policy, I'd venture to say that would actually make him more interesting and not less. It might be something fascinating to explore in the upcoming show, especially if his or Bucky's public image becomes a focus of the story. Arrow actually does a decent job of this in the second season -- y'know, when it was the best superhero show on TV and before it went to poo poo -- where Oliver Queen decided to start abstaining from killing, not because he thinks killing is all that wrong, but more for his own development and a little bit for rehabilitating his image. Nolan's Batman does break his rule...but his rule had to exist for him to break in the first place. This establishes him as a person who set principles upon himself, but whose circumstances occasionally push him past those brinks. The fact that Batman seems to bend or ignore this rule at his own whim can be a point of contention for us, but I think people generally agree that it makes sense and is interesting that he has the rule at all. It's characterization, pure and simple. Which is something Snyder tragically fails to apply, with either Batman or Superman. If it's simply taken for granted that any vigilantes will kill people in this world as a matter of course and Batman never had any codes or compunctions against it, then his murders here are ultimately nothing more than shallow displays of flashy Hollywood action. But if it's supposed to portray how far Bruce has fallen as a man and a hero, it also fails because there's no meaningful character distinction here between a Batman who kills versus a Batman who doesn't; Snyder has Batman killing people both before and after his change of heart and it makes no difference to anything and no one ever even mentions it anyway. Perhaps this wouldn't be so big a deal if Snyder directly followed Burton's Batman, but Burton's Batman was thirty years ago and Snyder is actually following a series of Batmans who did set this principle upon themselves and were made all the more interestingly three-dimensional for it. He basically took an extant, compelling facet of the character and...well, killed it, in a rather hamfisted manner, all the while crowing to the skies about how his version of the character is much more mature and compelling. Somehow.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Snyder's Batman is well past his prime and has all but given up. Jeremy irons literally talks about him breaking the no kill rule, "diamond absolutes." So it's more mature, because it's a fantasy to think batman can "lose" so much and still be all happy about the best for humanity. Though the only people who bring up the word " mature" are the ones who don't like the movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:20
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:None of this is incompatible. #2 is pretty much, stop worshiping power and it's not the commenters fault comics have yet to fix this (black Batman could fix some of it). #3 is for hypocrites who get mad when Batman is shown defending himself against lethal weaponry, compared to other superheroes being praised for killing people they vastly overpower. bushisms.txt posted:Snyder's Batman is well past his prime and has all but given up. Jeremy irons literally talks about him breaking the no kill rule, "diamond absolutes." So it's more mature, because it's a fantasy to think batman can "lose" so much and still be all happy about the best for humanity. Though the only people who bring up the word " mature" are the ones who don't like the movies. Seriously, decide whether batman breaking the no kill rule is a significant thing, an indicator of his tragic fall as a character, or an insignificant, entirely reasonable response to threats. Are we in the context of the films, *supposed* to be mad that Batman is breaking the no-kill rule or not.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:Yep thor and blade are the exact same as Tony stark and Bruce wayne. When you said you weren't born before 89, I should've known your take was gonna be in bad faith. You know what. I think you've had enough of this thread and the thread has had enough of you. Take yourself a break for a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
bushisms.txt posted:So it's more mature, because it's a fantasy to think batman can "lose" so much and still be all happy about the best for humanity. Is it? This seems...I don't know, remarkably cynical. Lots of people lose things and maintain their integrity in real life. I'm not saying anything about Snyder's choice, I'm just saying that to dismiss a contrasting choice as "fantasy" or "immature" seems kind of silly. I don't think I even know what's being argued anymore, at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:27
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Seriously, decide whether batman breaking the no kill rule is a significant thing, an indicator of his tragic fall as a character, or an insignificant, entirely reasonable response to threats. Are we in the context of the films, *supposed* to be mad that Batman is breaking the no-kill rule or not. I always took it as a signifier of how far he's fallen, same with the branding.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:29
|
|
|
Maybe I have less problems with killing because I'm such a big fan of Power Rangers/Sentai and Tokusatsu, properties nobody would argue are dark or edgy, and they kill a different bad guy every week usually(with a few seasons being an exception where they capture or freeze a guy cause they're literally cops)
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Interestingly Batman Forever has a far more interesting take on the killing than BvS, which is funny as one is supposedly more "mature". There's a speech that Batman gives in that to a revenge fuelled Robin which is quite good. "So, you're willing to take a life. Then it will happen this way: You make the kill, but your pain doesn't die with Harvey, it grows. So you run out into the night to find another face, and another, and another, until one terrible morning you wake up and realize that revenge has become your whole life. And you won't know why." It's a great moment within a fairly preposterous film, because it speaks to a Batman who initially began his mission as one of revenge, but found that he didn't resolve anything and all it achieved was robbing him of his humanity. It tells us succinctly why the Batman in Forever doesn't kill when it's sequels to films where he did. It does a better job of examining the psychology of a killing Batman than BvS does. I have heard contradictory explanations from fans of BvS about whether Batman's killing is a recent development because Superman has made him crazy, or something he has always done because it's more realistic. The Robin costume holding an axe implies it's something Batman has been doing a while, and the only new development is the branding, as opposed to the killing. The film doesn't really examine the killing at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 01:02 |
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:I always took it as a signifier of how far he's fallen, same with the branding. Yeah, I don't think there's any doubt. The movie isn't particularly subtle about it, with several relatable, trustworthy characters expounding on the fact that Batman has lost control and that him killing now is bad. It gets a bit muddled by things like him continuing to kill after his supposed conversion and metatextual things like Snyder saying "Of course Batman kills! If you think he doesn't, you're lying to yourself!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2021 17:33
|
|