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
What some need to understand is a little word called motive. It's natural for collateral damage to occur as heroes do their work, but what matters most is how they head into each situation, and what they intend to do and not do. Again, Nolan's Batman went into every situation with the express purpose of saving as many people as he could, and never meant to kill any of the people that wound up dying on his watch.
The reason why Affleck's Batman has "upset" (a bit of an understatement, if you ask me) people is because he goes into every situation with seemingly nothing on his mind but that. Killing is his go to tactic, whether it's napalm bombing, running guys over with his batmobile, shooting people into swiss cheese, or stabbing them dry. This Batman doesn't seem to value much of human life, and never debates his decisions before he does them. When he takes a life, it isn't a momentous and impactful moment that haunts him. Instead it plays like a video game where he's competing to get the highest score, with bonuses for how clever he can get with how he kills guys.
Excuse me if that is bothersome or troubling, especially when none of it is given any depth or consequence in the film itself.
P.S. We can actually thank that video you posted for this entire mess of a movie. Snyder saw that and thought, what the hell, let's make Batman kill. Not for any reasons important to the story or character, but just because. As he does with everything, Snyder was only looking at the acts of death in each Batman film and didn't realize that there's a big difference between collateral or unintentional death and absolutely methodical, pre-mediated and full-blown murderous death. Guess which type his Batman favors?
"In Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Batman frequently commits murder with firearms without showing any major signs of guilt. To justify this incarnation of Batman's use of guns, Zack Snyder claimed in an interview that The Dark Knight Returns incarnation of Batman "kills all the time" and stole a criminal's machine gun before he "shoots the guy right between the eyes with the machine gun". However, as the interview's comments section makes clear, this never happens in the comic: Batman takes a mutant's gun, and shoots the wall next to another mutant so that she gives up a baby. Neither mutant is killed, as shown here◊ and here◊. The same mutant shows up perfectly alive later on to confirm that Batman did not shoot her. Furthermore, The Dark Knight Returns incarnation of Batman blatantly◊ Doesn't Like Guns, and it is repeated several times in the graphic novel that no matter what happens to him, Batman cannot be pushed into killing."
You can find it here :
tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CriticalResearchFailure
And speaking of Miller, I'll refer you to that scene in Batman : Year One, in which Batman is in the process of arresting a group of juvies on a fire escape. One of the hoods fall from the railing, but Batman catches him and pulls him back, while still being pummelled by the others. Being Batman, he of course prevails, knocking his enemies down, while stil saving the life of the punk. A Batman who is indifferent to killing wouldn't have thought twice about letting said punk fall to his death. And it's not the only example of Bats going out of his way to save people who may not be deserving of such attentions.
haha! Awesome.
Snyder obviously didn't do his revision on the TDKR graphic novel if he thinks Batman killed the punk.
Even to the Joker. Batman broke his neck to save himself from being stabbed multiple times. Joker then kills himself by snapping his spine through sheer will.
I couldn't believe Snyder nicked that scene where Batman tears through the wall to take out the machine gun assailant so blatantly from the book. But then still manages to cock it up by having Batman say the "I believe you.." line before he takes out the hostage taker.
Missed opportunities all through the film.
The TV Tropes piece says the Mutant woman shows up later, alive and well. Can anyone find the image of when she appears, and in what scene? I don't have my copy with me at the moment, or I'd be leafing through it as we speak.
That scene is still the greatest, most perplexing and divisive thing about TDKR in my eyes.
If Snyder would have cut Batman's killing out and left that moment as his first lethal kill, it would've made for a far more interesting scene and take on the character.
The only way the interpretation could be worse is if, as Batman's shooting Lex's guys to pieces with bullets and exploding their cars during the chase, he said, "rubber bullets, honest," and gave a smirk. Holy hell.
Batfleck solo sans Snyder will rock.
I'm so glad, Bale didn't return for the role. Can you imagine how this would have retroactively ruined his Batman tenure! An awful thought that makes me shudder!
At least it looks like BvS will not hurt Warner financially at the end of the day. No gain, no loss, financially.
Reputation wise it's a disaster.
Very true, @DarthDimi. Because Batman isolates so much of his crime-fighting efforts to Gotham, it seems increasingly implausible for him to spend so much time in the watchtower waiting for things in the galaxies to kick up.
Mutant women all look the same. Like crack addicts.
You know, @Master_Dahark, even if this was canon, Jor would still be a better father than the DCEU's Pa Kent. That's sad.
Mystery Doobie Theatre 3000? =))
Well, except for Batman's introduction scene which is all about it (he doesn't kill, but he leaves his mark). Then he changes because the world has changed.
It's not exactly the mark of a hero to just change with the world though, is it? Batman's always been the stubborn one, never willing to bend to anything, regardless of what is happening in the world or what is facing him. He didn't bow to Superman in TDKR or government pressures to retire and die in silence, and he certainly wouldn't bend to a world gone dark, as he's always seen it as such. If men like him just drop principles in favor of giving in to a changing landscape, that hardly makes them a symbol of good will and justice.
Even in that scene in question, Batman essentially signs the death warrants of the criminals, making them the walking dead, though I don't see how having a brand on you would make you fresh meat in prison. You get beat up by the Bat, so what?
The reason why so little of this film works from the perspective of the characters is because when you try to impose this level of "real world" lensing on the superhero mythos, especially when Superman is present in the universe you're crafting, you often assassinate the characters in favor of exploring that pseudo-reality.
Batman is dark and lonesome and haunted, yes, but the idea that the world would force him into being cruel doesn't sit right with me, nor does his fight with Superman. He knows all about collateral damage, and he comes off as a bigoted bully more than anything when facing Superman, though you'd think that after his long career as a crime-fighter he'd know a good guy when he sees one, especially after the many witness statements of Superman actively putting himself in harm's way for Earth's people. Any attempts to actually talk to Superman are dashed on Batman's side in favor of shouting at him, and later, straight up trying to kill him, which again, Batman never does in the comics. Batman always fights to incapacitate, or in the case of TDRK, defeat and warn Superman above anything else. What we have in BvS is a Batman that instead refuses to try and understand what's in front of him like the logician he is in the comics, and instead opts to just annihilate what he doesn't wish to take the time to understand. And when the Batman of the comics is always about reform and rehabilitation, inherent concepts of which are compassion, empathy and understanding, it just doesn't really add up.
Add to all this how he hasn't killed all his mortal rogue's gallery yet, why Gordon hasn't had his caped arse arrested for his murder sprees and why Alfred still sticks around with him, and there's plenty of questionable things going on that don't mesh logically with the rest of the world and who this Batman is.
Honestly, in the case of the BvS/DCEU universe, I don't think it's the world that's undergone a massive change. It's this absolute monster of a Batman that has, and not for any grand or important reason either, as the dangers and trials he's faced here have been canon forever across various continuities of the character, and those Batmen didn't crumble under that pressure. He's by far the most pathetic and cowardly Batman we've seen yet, not to mention the most sick in the head, and that's just for his bigotry.
Eisenberg is the definite coffin nail to this movie.
Quite frankly after seeing Civil War, I realise that BvS is a total failure. How could this happen :-S
Yes Eisenberg is great. But he was wrong for Luthor, it's the greatest casting error ever.
He would have been wonderful as The Flash or the Toymaker or some other villains or superheroes.