It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I think when the new blu's come out, I might line them all up and watch the episodes in order of release, that way I can catch the crossover eps in proper sequence. :)
Been considering buying Supergirl and Legends on Bluray, I have Flash season 1 and first 3 seasons of Arrow. Arrow and Flash are shows I can watch again easily enough, plus prices on the other shows are pretty reasonable.
Ok ignoring Bruce Wayne murdering people for a split second beyond that how did you view Affleck's portrayal. I know the Batman reverting to his 1989-1998 (though I could argue Batman killed quite a few people in the Nolan trilogy) is a huge issue for you but I never saw you comment beyond that regarding Affleck's portrayal (which for the most part was praised by critics and fans)
I wish I could ignore it @Risico007, but it's far too cataclysmic for that. Separating that out for a minute, however (I'm trying here), there is stuff that could be worked with in the performance, if Affleck can right the ship and give us the Batman we deserve. In scenes with Alfred he was able to convey the anger of futility well as Bruce was faced with his past demons and all the past failures that'd haunted him. In other scenes, like the party for Lex, he made it seem like Bruce was battling something behind his eyes in a way that was effective towards depicting his tragic history. Affleck also played the playboy all right, however briefly, when discussing the fake artifact with Diana.
It's a shame that other parts of what he was given to perform (yes, the murdery bits) undervalued the rest of his performance so heavily, which I think was very good. As I stated before, I wouldn't be as upset about a Batman that killed if the reasons it was done were addressed up front and in and interesting way in the film. But we get no real introduction to this change in Batman beyond reading a newspaper headline that mentions branding and Alfred telling him he changed before dropping the issue entirely; beyond this, the film does little with the idea at all. Even when Bruce and Superman make amends and say "truce," with Batman apparently motivated to not be such an ass anymore, he goes off to the warehouse and kills even more people than he did earlier in the film, as if he didn't learn anything. I know your argument would be, "But Brady, it's only until Superman sacrifices himself that Bruce feels the need to really change," but it really shouldn't take such an extreme for Bruce to know he's done wrong.
My whole argument this entire time was that if the Batman I knew and loved ever had to kill someone to do his job, he's hang up the cape and cowl forever after out of shame. Hell, the best Batman of all, the DC animated one, just pointed a gun at a thug in Batman Beyond and the grief, despair, self-loathing, disappointment, anger and failure he felt in that moment made him quit forever, never looking back. But that man was a hero, whereas this guy is...well, not that.
When you consider that Bruce has no real excuse to kill Superman, the film's story only grows more loathsome. For one, Bruce seems to have this big case built up in his mind against Superman, somehow blind to the fact that Superman has killed nobody or done anything remotely evil seeming since the battle of Metropolis. In fact, most of the TV coverage the guy gets shows him saving people worldwide in all kinds of crazy ways. I mean, does Bruce think Superman has just been acting good two years on and is just bound to snap one day soon, for no reason? The detective is a little short on logic. Even worse is Bruce's rationale. He says that even if there was a 1% chance of Superman using his abilities for evil, he would take it as a 100% certainty that he had to be destroyed. Again, no logic at all. Everyone, everywhere, metahuman over Average Joe, all have a 1% chance of doing something bad. The important thing to note for those familiar with law and order-which Bruce should be considering he's supposed to be a "seasoned" crime fighter-is that you kind of can't just kill someone because you "think" they're going to do something bad. It's just a tad bit illegal, just a tad bit kinda wrong.
What motive does this lead us to image for Bruce, then? He either thinks Superman is just plain evil and needs to die, which shows us that he's absolutely blind and hasn't been paying any attention to the 100% good Superman is doing in the world, or he believes that Superman could easily be compromised by a third party and needs to be killed as a safety measure to protect humanity before he's manipulated, which would paint him as an inhumane, cold-hearted and dispassionate bastard.
In either case, that is not Batman. That's not the Batman who tries to rehabilitate, not kill, Joker. Not the Batman that tries to understand and negotiate with his enemies before considering even striking them in an aggressive fashion. Not the Batman who brings orphans or vagabond kids into his life to protect them from the pain that swallowed him up as a boy, and certainly not the Batman who values life so heavily (because he saw it taken away in seconds in front of his eyes) that he has crafted an entire code against killing that has defined how he operates as a vigilante forevermore.
Because of the monolithic failures of this Batman, of how badly he was written, characterized, developed and presented, I find it hard to be optimistic going forward, even though Affleck showed promise. I feel far worse for Henry Cavill, however, because Superman was just as character assassinated, if not more, than Batman.
Let's see all the ninjas at Ra's al Ghuls location according to joker Batman let 5 people die (again Adam wests Batman would of had some anti bomb spray for the judges car)
Bane (yeah that is catwoman but Batman handed her the gun essentially)
Talia (yeah that was 110% him)
Like I said I love the Nolan trilogy well apart from rises but it's not as if Bale's Batman has no blood on his hands and he only one that affects him is Rachel (which let's not get into that stupid writing)
So after debating and debating and debating I honestly think I am just going to stick with the WB live action batman stuff... I do want to do a run through of Batman films but the issue is there is over 50 of them so if I did it would put me well into 2018 however if I narrow the list a lot and basically focus on wb's tenure and any potential live action films (which a few animated films can supplement it) then I get a nice narrow list that will still put me into summer time (where I can then do either Jason Bourne or Die Hard) my current list
Batman 1989
Batman Returns
Batman forever
Batman and Robin
Batman year one (2011 animated)
Batman beyond pilot (again was though of at the time)
Batman Mask of the Phantasm (thinking of placing it here in honor of the script by the guys who wrote from hell)
(I am unsure how I want to handle Batman Unchained also known as Batman triumphant and Batman Vs superman the 2004 version)
Batman begins
Batman Gotham knight
The dark knight
The dark knight rises
Justice leAgue pilot (to cover the lost justice league film)
Batman v superman dawn of justice
I am on the fence with the serials and batman 1966
What the entire argument rests on is studying "murder" or any kind of aggressive action and judging the person that acts with it by their motive and the context of the situation in which they find themselves in. Therein you will find some of the many differences between Batmans like Nolan's and those like Snyder's.
No, Batman did not "hand Catwoman the gun", as you put it. And even if he did, that was her choice to kill Bane. If I hand you a gun and you go on a killing spree, does that automatically absolve you of any guilt and pin it all on me?
So, as it stands, Batman killed all of three people in the Nolan trilogy. Ra's al Ghul, Harvey Dent, and Talia al Ghul (I'll give you that one). Compared to the... what's the count... 28 people he kills in Batman V Superman?
I'll once again say, Affleck's performance as Batman and Bruce Wayne - his homicidal tendencies aside - is excellent. He's the best Batman, I just don't like how quick to kill people he is. The whole core of Batman's character is that his parents' murders have led him away from guns, and his training led him away from murder. Here he is ignoring both of those things.
34 not including Ra's al ghul
35 if we include him
I tend to get more involved in shows when I binge watch, I only get Sky TV on 720p so bluray
Is a notch higher in quality.
It's also why I'm not really a fan of Nolan's Batman honestly.
The period between Begins and The Dark Knight was actually much bigger, I'd say. But that's neither here nor there. You must also remember that although much of the comics character was retained in Bale's interpretation, this Bruce wasn't playing the long game. He wasn't like the animated Batman, so loyal to his vow that he became a slave to it and lost everyone he loved who deserted him along the way when he cut them out of his life for not joining him on a nightly suicide mission. From jump this Bruce is creating a symbol that he knows-or hopes-can be adopted by other people beyond just him down the line, and he even considers giving up period in The Dark Knight when he sees Dent making progress without a mask.
It's as realistic as a Batman take can get, where Bale's Bruce structures and paces his mission according to the politics and society of our age with practical expectations for his vow and how far he could go with the Batman symbol with what was stacked against him. I find it fascinating, so say the least.
We've been over this before (as I warned earlier), but all Bruce does is start the flame. All of Faux Ra's ninjas choose to stay after the man barks at them to stand guard with him. They all could have gotten out alive like the prisoner Bruce frees, but the League and their leader seems to have a dangerously strong hold on their will. They made that choice, and suffered the consequences.
Even if Bruce were to actually take up a sword and kill people (which he didn't do, mind) it would still be valued as a far more moral action than what Affleck's Batman did. Bale's Batman would be practicing a utilitarian moral model in that situation, where the danger posed by the threat (the League and their promise to destroy Gotham) would lead him to literally burn their house down to stop them from doing harm in the future to a majority of people. He is usually a deontologist, doing what is right simply because it is the just thing to do, regardless of the outcome of that action, but at times he acts when there is only an aggressive option open. As with any time Batman makes the choice to kill, in the comics or in the films, it should always be as a last resort, with no other way out. This is how Batman is in The Dark Knight Returns (a Batman Affleck's take is not based on), for example, and how Nolan portrayed him on screen.
Affleck's Batman, however, seems to be more of a nihilistic fatalist. He's so certain that nothing good can come of people and that no men can be good in his world, characteristics that ultimately make him a very Machiavellian figure. These feelings of meaningless and cynicism come out in his actions as this distrust and hatred for his opposition has driven him to kill anyone in the criminal classes that crosses his way. While Bale's Batman views these criminals as able to be rehabilitated and worthy of saving (like a Batman would), Affleck's Batman seems to view them as just in the way, and will kill them even if he doesn't need to. He's also clever (for a sadism), using knives, guns, grenades, crates and his own car to burn, slash, stab, blast, pummel, bludgeon, steamroll and very nearly vaporize everyone he runs into while on patrol. And somehow in his sick mind he's rationalized that killing Superman is his last chance, his only chance, to have a positive legacy, which goes a long way toward showing just how many shovels this bastard is short of a tool shed.
This kook makes Keaton's Batman look like Saint Peter, for Christ's sake, because though that man killed too, in very sick ways at times with strapped bombs and bullets or missiles on his car, he didn't eradicate everyone he saw, and incapacitated a good number of people to offset his murders. Affleck's Batman doesn't leave survivors and acts without sound motive or logic, however, and from a standpoint of morality as studied in academia, his actions are therefore not in line with those you'd expect a hero to display, one of the many reasons he is a disgrace to his name.
How many times must we retread this?
I don't read the comics so I can't really compare notes on that front, Watching the trilogy whether it was intended or not, It comes off as Bruce only dawns the cape and cowl for less than a year. Begins ends with Gordon giving Batman the Joker card foreshadowing the next film Obviously some time has passed but not much. I just don't like Bruce or Batman's portrayal in those films. He becomes a vigilante and only after Rachael dies and Harvey becomes Two-Face also dies, he lets himself get painted as a villain and quits. Batman doesn't give up for that. More versions of the character have been through worse. It's sloppy in my eyes. I don't so much care about realism in Batman since he's a man who dressed like a Bat to take on themed costumed villains. It just doesn't do it for me.
6-9 months was the time given between Begins and TDK in the "I Believe In Harvey Dent" viral promo pieces, from what I can recall.
So yeah, he's Batman for about a year before he disappears for eight.
No, no, on the point of the timeline you lads are correct. No amount of analysis on my part could contradict cold, hard fact.
@Murdock, Bale's Batman is very much the man from the comics, but of course the more realistic tone didn't give space for everything to be featured, including his more "out there" villains like Freeze or Croc for obvious reasons.
I understand why Nolan's take might not be your thing, as you are a fan of the animated Batman where the universe the character operates in isn't as real and raw as what Nolan depicts (though I think both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Rises manage to feel like the perfect marriage of a comic and the real world). I guess my love of Batman and love of real, raw films came together to make a baby I really was taken with.
On the point of Batman quitting, he's doing that because he is always striving to be the cure that ails Gotham, acting only in ways that help the city. He sees his city crumbling, and so he leaves to train, coming back to stop the hell he knew was spilling out onto the streets and the danger the League would pose if they returned to burn Gotham to ashes. In Begins, then, the threat to Gotham's safety was crime in the form of Crane and Ra's, threats which Bruce faced knowing who his enemies were directly.
In The Dark Knight, however, Bruce's mission gets more muddled. He loves Rachel and wants to be with her, but she knows that right now Batman is his life and his mission consumes him. When Bruce sees all the good Dent has done without resorting to vigilante justice, he thinks that maybe the symbol of the Batman isn't needed anymore, and makes plans to shut down shop. Then the events of the film unfold, Rachel is killed as a casualty of Batman's war with the Joker and Dent is ultimately turned to the side of darkness by the anarchic clown. At the end of the movie, Bruce (and Gordon) knows all the bad things Dent has done, all the people he's killed with the flip of his coin, and he realizes all the criminal cases that would be thrown out if the public found out about what their hero did, and he also knew the panic and hopelessness that would erupt as the city fractured down the middle knowing Dent was compromised and corrupted. Bruce as Batman vowed to do whatever he needed to save Gotham, and at the end of that film, Gotham needed Dent to be a hero, so Batman shouldered the blame and made it seem like he was responsible for all Dent's crimes. It wasn't Bruce quitting as much as it was him shouldering the blame so that Gotham would be able to live on, holding on to more hope than it would have if the truth about Dent was to come out. Bruce couldn't let Joker win, and so he made the call, the only one he could make, and forced himself into hiding knowing that the police would never stop coming for his head.
It's a noir-caked story with very realistic outcomes and the classically cynical ending with a hero placed in a moral quandary that has no easy answer, and that they respond to in the only way they are able, though the consequences for them are dire. It just so happens that Batman is the hero in this particular noir, which makes it all the more fascinating. Again, I know it's not your thing, but that's Bruce's rationale and why the choice he made at the end of The Dark Knight is the only just one left open to him. As with everything in reality, the choice isn't an easy one and there is no easy resolution to the situation Joker had designed for him.
A few shots of Aquaman from Justice League. Momoa seems to have hit the gym a few times.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/batman-solo-movie-clouded-by-uncertainty-ben-affleck-unsure-helming-film-1598914
I hope he sticks to his principles on this one. The last thing we need is a rushed Batman film to cap it off.
It's very apparent that Affleck is being pressured into getting the film ready for that open release slot that was reserved for JL 2. "Prioritising", my ass.
He is an Oscar winning writer and probably the finest director they have on side at the moment (at least until we see how Jenkins does with WW).
Ever since being a little boy I loved the Batman universe and The Flash and a bit later The Justice League.
The only reason I learned to read were the comics, I forced my father to teach me. When I got into primary school I already was able to read fluently.
Batman has saved my life a couple of times. When it's all said and done and there is no hope left I still can escape to the comics.
In 1989 my dream came true and I have loved every Batman film since, yes even Batman & Robin who I regard as highly entertaining with the perfect Mr Freeze and Poison Ivy.
BvS has almost broken my heart.
The Justice League film will probably despatch me. Since 25 years I'm dreaming of getting a real live version of JL.
And now Warner/DC is doing anything to make sure it will be a catastrophe. How can they? How can they be so blind? Especially after MoS? Even letting Snyder take the helm after MoS must be like giving a murderer another weapon and send him to the next house to kill. And now that he has butchered BvS it is already too late to stop him finishing off JL as well.
You can't undo Cavill Supes, you can't undo Lexenberg and both will be in JL, making sure it will be another bloody mess.
If there is any hope at all for JL then it's that they have secretly turned it into a Batman film with Batfleck in the lead and most of the screen time. It's possible I guess, there are many rumours about shuffles behind the scenes after BvS.
I am so not looking forward to its release. But I will be there in the cinema seat, I will face it, I never run away. I know it can kill my dreams but I will endure the pain.
And if it destroys me, I will pick up the pieces go home and lose myself in my favourite Justice League comics and animated TV episodes.
"I just saw "Justice League" this weekend and guess what? It wasn't a total pile of shit. Just a turd, really. Like a deer dropping. That's something, right?"