BvS batman

Does "show not tell" mean anything to you?

Did you really want a flashback?

The funny thing, Snyder actually wanted a MoS sequence and a solo Batman movie before BvS, but WB was against it because MoS didn't do the kind of money they expected and they thought BvS would do a billion on Batman's name alone.

I wanted World's Finest, not some forced wrestling match that fucking pointless and perhaps the primary reason why this film failed. Do you know what's better than seeing Batman and Superman fighting over dumb misunderstandings and ending on a wet fart? Two heroes from opposite sides of the coin learning perspective, overcoming distrust, and becoming great friends by the end. Batman is reminded that there are genuinely good people like Clark in the world, heroes that we need to inspire hope, while Clark gets inspired by a severely traumatized man with no powers choose to make a difference.

>I wanted World's Finest
NICE. I'd love to see Bruce Wayne banging the shit out of Lois Lane and cucking Superman in live action format.

yeah he was the one who came up with the necksnapping scene too, zod was supposed to survive alongside his minions but snyder got his way and fucked it up, wb simply didn't want to make the same misake twice.

Yeah, the mf would never shut up about it. Once he fought a plant and still didn't kill it, but took it to another planet and planted it there. A fucking vegetable.

Attached: page_00.jpg (497x734, 134K)

We don't even see him kill anyone on screen. Would his actions in the car chase result in casualties in RL? Sure. But, we've seen people survive worse in movies before, so why not assume that in the movie world they just got bruised?

>Shredding the back of a truck with turret fire is manslaughter
>Blowing up several trucks with people in them is manslaughter
Fuck off Snyder

Goyer was the one that came up with the necksnapping. Snyder AND DC only backed him up against Nolan.

Snyder said he killed those people you fucking moron, and how the fuck does a goon survive being hit with turret fire, being blown up and having the batmobile driven though you?
Nope, it was Snyder, Nolan thought it was a horrible idea (no surprise) and only convinced WB to let him as he thought it was important to respect Snyder's vision regardless of how much he disagreed

It was Goyer. I've the interview.

No, they're still people. They're not like the fucking Hand where it's okay because they'll come back.

Link please, but even so Snyder thought it was a good idea to put it in the film. And also, Snyder didn't want a batman solo he only wanted another Superman solo but most of that plot was folded into BvS anyway

Not that user but
>DD himself never killed a Hand member in the Miller run
>Only Kirigi was immortal to a point
Bruce killing a bunch of ninja is weirdly out of sync when the movie's meant to justify his no-kill code. Then again, he kills anyway in TDK and Rises in desperate situations, so it's more like he didn't want to kill, but would in such circumstances.
The Snyder version never presents any circumsances extreme enough to justify Batman killing criminals or indirectly sending them to their death

>David S. Goyer: We talked to some of the people at DC Comics and said, “Do you think there’s ever a way that Superman would kill someone?” At first they said, “No way. No way.” We said, “But what if he didn’t have a choice?” Originally, Chris didn’t even want to let us try to write it. Zack and I said, “We think we can figure out a way that you’ll buy it.” I came up with this idea of the heat vision and these people about to die. I wrote the scene and I gave it to Chris and he said, “OK, you convinced me. I buy it.”
>Goyer frames the decision to have Superman kill as a modernizing tactic. “If you don’t reinvent these characters…then they become stagnant, and they cease being relevant… hopefully, we’ve redefined Superman.”
>Zack Snyder, however, goes a little bit deeper in his exploration of Superman’s decision. The director of such films as Sucker Punch and Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole explains that he wanted to specifically explore Superman’s Zod-killing in the context of his development as a superhero. “If it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained,” says Snyder, continuing: I felt like, if we could find a way of making it impossible for him — Kobayashi Maru, totally no way out — I felt like that could also make you go, “This is the why of him never killing again.” He’s basically obliterated his entire people and his culture, and he is responsible for it, and he’s just, like, “How could I ever kill again?”
ew.com/article/2013/06/19/zack-snyder-david-goyer-christopher-nolan-man-of-steel-ending/

>The director of such films as Sucker Punch and Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole
Based, in additon

>>Goyer frames the decision to have Superman kill as a modernizing tactic. “If you don’t reinvent these characters…then they become stagnant, and they cease being relevant… hopefully, we’ve redefined Superman.”
Well, mission accomplished. Yay?

Fucking auto post, need to reply to myself now
>in the context of his development as a superhero. “If it’s truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is unexplained,” says Snyder, continuing: I felt like, if we could find a way of making it impossible for him — Kobayashi Maru, totally no way out — I felt like that could also make you go, “This is the why of him never killing again.” He’s basically obliterated his entire people and his culture, and he is responsible for it, and he’s just, like, “How could I ever kill again?”
This is weird logic, because it's writing Superman into a hole that there's no logical reason for him to face again. There's literally no reason why Superman would never face a second situation where he'd need to kill again, which makes this shit fall flat. This is why no-kill codes are rarely justified like Synder and Goyer's retarded idea.

So Snyder doesn't understand the purpose of something so entry level as the Kobayashi Maru, but I'm supposed to think he's a based redpilled kinographer genius?

The other thing, MoS was essentially Goyer and Nolan's baby. They wrote the script, they produced it, and they had the creative control. Snyder was pretty much a director-for-hire. There's a huge action sequence that Snyder wanted to do during the Krypton segment where Kelex transforms into a huge robot Transformers style piloted by Jor-El and Jor-El/Kelex would go on in an elaborate sequence destroying all of Zod's crew's forces. Goyer and Nolan told him that was retarded and didn't let him filmed. There's another Snyder wanted where for some reason we see polar bears going at each other and that he didn't get a chance to do.

*No logical reason for him to not face again
It's late here, in my defense...

Being vetoed on retarded ideas doesn't mean the movie belonged to other people. He's known to have contributed a decent amount. He just had smarter people trying to stop the budget being blown on dumb shit

It sounds a lot like you're quoting the Jon Peters thing.

I'm really not. Let me try finding it. The interviews for MoS were hilarious, like Goyer confessing that he cried his balls out during the scene with Kevin Costner's Pa Kent and young Clark, because at the time he was raising his wife's son and the kid hated his guts. Or how Goyer originally wanted the movie to focus on Lois trying to discover more about Superman, with Clark/Superman only appearing in flashbacks, but getting cut-off by Nolan, who pretty much a sci-fi movie focused in the Kryptonians in a Third Encounter style-movie.

>his aversion to killing is unexplained

This always kills me. You don't have to explain why someone doesn't want to kill, that's stupid. I'm pretty sure most people have an aversion to killing that they didn't get by murdering someone.

>"Jor-El has this robot called Kelex [voiced by Carla Gugino] and there is this scene where Kelex dons a robotic body and he battles it out with Zod on the landing platform. We had it so Zod had this pack of genetically-engineered war dogs that ran ahead, and Jor-El and Kelex were fighting the war dogs and finally Kelex takes these detonation explosives out of his robotic body and arms them, turning to Jor-El and saying 'Get the kid off the planet!', basically. Kelex says, 'I’m gonna try and hold them off', and then runs and dives and blows himself up. That makes Zod really mad, and then he lands and Zod goes in and the two fight."
empireonline.com/movies/features/man-steel-secrets/

Yea Forums has convinced that tBvS movie is good so any critique is invalid and not based at all.

Turns out we didn't want to see an old man with no hope and the tragedy of a dead robin hanging over him.
Isn't the whole story of batman "I suffered a terrible personal tragedy and will dedicate my life to preventing the same happening to others" ?

Other mistakes like WB execs getting heavy handed with ads for the upcoming justice league movie and supermans weird jesus/john galt persona were also big blows to the film. Hard to pin it down to just one.

Attached: fun.jpg (500x667, 64K)

It's called the internet hate machine for a reason. Not the cult of oppositional arguments. This board hates whatever needs to garner a defense force because it's every PR firms personal army, became that way right around d the time "Epic Fail" died as a meme.

Here's an interview with Snyder about some of the themes of BvS:
forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2016/04/01/interview-zack-snyder-discusses-themes-behind-batman-v-superman/#2928042d7104

Throwing a 80's ninja off a belltower and the bomb circus clown were always good kills.

But Tim Burton Batman gave no fucks in his weird ass cartoon movies and was taking the either let these bloodthirsty dumbfucks kill civies or kill them before they could.

Even ignoring the issue of our introduction to this universe's Batman being atypical there's the fact that he only kills nameless mooks while Joker and the like stay untouched.

I think the issue is more the poor explanation of everything and relevancy.
Batman was both off the norm ontop of shit that was made after the fact to fit in. Joker wasn't relevant to the story past the implications of what happened to Robin, so we don't know what happens to him until Skwad in which case the worst he seemed to get was all the teeth punched out of his head, and that's only a behind the scenes thing. Then everything else is an unclear timeline of a Nonkilling Batman.

I want a movie that isn’t shit, but too late for that

BvS wasn't shit.

Well yeah, that's the moral of the movie.

Remember when Burton did it on film multiple times and people didn't bat an eye? Remember when Nolan did it on film multiple times and people didn't bat an eye?

Attached: 1461703467883.gif (294x197, 2.57M)

Snyder’s a director for hire that gets away with a lot of stupid ideas.

Disney paid shitposters. Not even pretneding to be retarded. Early opinions of movies are important and all the big studios pay shit posters on all big social platforms. It’s why MoS had people going “TOO SOON, 9/11 Imagery”. Batman 89 literally blew someone up with dynamite after smirking at them. Every iteration of silver screen Batman has killed people, but this is the one that suddenly it’s a “No No”. These are billion dollar franchises with million dollar advertisment campaigns, you would have to be a complete moron to believe they aren’t paying people to suck off their brand and shit smear anyone else I got a website to sell ya.

>he was supposed to be an old man already and he had just lost all hopen in his crusade after losing robin due to his "no kill" rule,

Yeah, we get it. The problem isn't that we don't understand this, the problem is that this is a dumb thing to do to Batman.

>of course he would change after
Not a guarantee at all. Bad things happen to lots of people who don't become murderers. The idea that one bad day would ruin Batman and make him do a 180 on his most closely held, fundamental belief is how the Joker thinks of Batman. What makes Batman a hero is that this isn't true. The film perverted the entire core of the character.

The movie made it plenty obvious that Batman isn't finding any catharsis in punishing criminals no matter how extreme he may get and that he doesn't see a point anymore to his crusade. That's why Superman became the new thing. Batman's essentially hunting himself through Superman.

You cheeky cunt.
But yeah, they didn't dwell on it.
It's really an issue of dwelling on it, Batman incidentally kills is cool with most people because they don't really care but the movie is ALL ABOUT BATMAN KILLING SUPERMAN. If Batman was pulling that shit but his goals weren't specifically building towards cold blooded murder then it'd probably be fine.
Similarly Superman's issue is just in how bleak and dour it is. People don't even want Pa Kent to touch the question "should Clark let people die" let alone be so unsure about it. Superman could've probably killed every Kryptonian personally if they weren't so graphic and upclose about it in a cheerier movie.

Nolan doesn't get Batman either. The ninjas thing could just be put down to sloppy film making creating some fridge logic, but later on he had the gall to have Batman say, out loud, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.", when almost the entire character of Batman is centered around the idea that there's no difference.

Nolan and Snyder both have a fundamental misunderstanding of who Batman is and what makes him work, but because of the way Hollywood works, they get away with it above the objections of actual comic book creators, and fans forgive them because of individually cool moments in the movies that work out of context.

Remember these Twitter spambots during the movie release?

Attached: 2 - JPmk9Vz.png (442x903, 120K)

People called them out plenty on it, they were just dismissed as gatekeeping purists.

Same shit's still going on, but we're in the era where people pretend that it's cool to like comics, so the pushback is more visible as movie people defend their terrible creative choices.

The idea of Batman getting crushed by the never-changing nature of the status quo is an interesting concept.

Attached: Batman Incorporated v02 - Gotham's Most Wanted (2013) (Digital) (Zone-Empire).cbr-Batman Incorp (3974x3056, 3.11M)

Batman breaking the one rule that makes him who he is something you need to earn with time, not introduce from the get go. This is NOT how you introduce a character as iconic as Batman for a new generation of mainline films, and it never should be because it diminishes so much of what makes his character and the relationship he has with other characters so interesting.
>B-but Keaton Bat kills and everyone loves the original Batman film.
So? It's not like that film magically turned mainline Batman into a killer, or the Joker into...whatever it is they were going for in that film. And Batman's kill count was incredibly low in that movie. Plus Tim Burton is a hack who never even cared about the Batman mythos and doesn't read comics.
>B-But Batman blew up a monastery.
He blew up headquarters of a literal terrorist organization that would later try to nuke Gotham. Twice. And this was because he knew they were planning on fucking up Gotham and didn't really have any alternatives. He was 100% in the right for doing what he did, and this was BEFORE he developed a no kill rule.

Attached: Not this shit again.jpg (604x340, 69K)

I didn't care, I just thought the movie was bad.

Honestly the whole killing thing was the least of the movie's problems. Batman in general was the least of the movie's problems.

Attached: HERESY.jpg (622x349, 30K)

IIRC, Batman, through Burton to Nolan, literally had Batman killing The Joker, The Penguin, Two-Face, mentally scarring the Riddler, killing Ra's and Talia, etc. It's just ridiculous.

No it isn't. It's post-modernist masturbation that only works in the context of "It's a comic book about comic books!" and make no sense in-universe to the actual characters.

Nolan Batman kept on killing. He killed Ra's al Ghul, he killed Joker's henchmen, he killed Harvey Dent, he killed Taliaal Ghul's henchmen, he killed Talia... and so on. Despite having a no-kill rule in those movies he can't seem to help himself.
youtube.com/watch?v=T0kmVEjPKKM

Attached: 1413257206979.jpg (480x330, 70K)

Hello, only theatrical release of a Batman movie since 1966 to not have Batman murder somebody on screen here.

Why is this so fucking hard?

Attached: MV5BODE0YTBiMjQtNWQyZC00YTNjLWJmYjAtMWUwNzI4NGVlZTAzL2ltYWdlL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNTAyODkwOQ@@._V1 (666x1000, 70K)

>he killed Joker's henchmen
When, in the chase scene?

There are only 5 kills in this video post no-kill rule, and you could argue 3 of them are unintentional, casualties. The only real meaningful kill is Harvey Dent, and that's to keep him from shooting a child. A liiiitle different then gunning down a random mook before driving threw him.

Batman killed 14 people in Nolan's movies, i see.
Let's see now Batman v Superman:
youtube.com/watch?v=GgkQS7q6sT0
21! Snyder's Batman is ahead of the game, but now lets check the classical Burton's Batman!
youtube.com/watch?v=psVIG7YvdjM
20! Very close to besting Snyder's!
And 9 for Schumacher's Batman! Does it all count as one, Burton/Schumacher's? If so, that's 29!

That random mook was pre no-kill rule

>post no-kill rule
This should not be a thing. Not killing isn't something Batman learns, it's the core of who he is since he was a child. Bruce Wayne will not take a life, ever. It's how he STARTS OUT.

>3 of them are unintentional, casualties.
Is the same as murder, at least to Batman. He wouldn't risk somebody's life like that, even a criminal. And he wouldn't be reckless enough to do it accidentally.

> A liiiitle different then gunning down a random mook before driving threw him.
Not to Batman. In any case, he should have several ways of neutralizing a threat like that. He's a non-lethal specialist. Should have been easy for the writers to come up with a way to resolve that without Batman compromising his principals, they just didn't care to, either because they didn't understand Batman's principals, or they just didn't think they were important.

He doesn't do any killing in TDK.

It just has been proving that he does. Fuck, he tackles Harvey to his death.

Other than Talia and the driver.

Even if he hadn't, how would that change anything?

No it fucking wasn't. That random moonk he guns down before running threw is a reference to BvS. That never happens in the Dark Knight.

>This should not be a thing. Not killing isn't something Batman learns, it's the core of who he is since he was a child. Bruce Wayne will not take a life, ever. It's how he STARTS OUT.
You're aggroing the wrong parts of that statement and ignoring the part where if he did nothing, Gotham would have been fucked. Rewatch this scene youtube.com/watch?v=k7Ye1XxfnZw and think about this rationally before trying to shame Bruce for what he did: You're given an ultimatum. Either A) Properly join the League of Shadows by killing a man who ISN'T an assassin, and then lead a group of ninjas to destroy your home, B) Refuse and die, or C) Actually do something about what's going to happen.

This isn't a "take them to prison" situation that the law can handle. If he didn't try to blow up the LoS headquarters, he would've died, that innocent man would've died, and Gotham would have been beyond fucked. There were no alternatives in this situation, and Bruce clearly didn't want to kill anyone even then. But he had to.

The whole no-kill rule only exists to maintain the eternal status quo of Batman comics or else Batman would be out of all his iconic villains. It was only later through post-modernist masturbation that it became a major defining part of his character.
But the movies aren't like comic books. They don't have to be constrained by the same immutable status quo. They can examine, explore, and develop the character and its world in new ways. There's nothing wrong about BvS exploring the psychological effects of Gotham remaining immutable and never really changed for the better no matter what he does or how much he sacrifices to his crusade. It's an interesting exploration- At least i felt that way about it. Same for Batman breaking, killing criminals and the fallout of that to his already damaged psych.

>The idea that one bad day would ruin Batman and make him do a 180 on his most closely held, fundamental belief is how the Joker thinks of Batman. What makes Batman a hero is that this isn't true. The film perverted the entire core of the character.
This reminds me of a criticism someone posted of MoS shortly after it came out. Zod keeps saying the only way to stop him is to kill him, and it ends with Clark proving him right. A Superman story should not end with the villain being right.

>But he had to.
Nah. He's Batman. There's always another way.

>and Bruce clearly didn't want to kill anyone even then.
He FUCKING DID! Goddamn it! Just because the movie doesn't dwell on it, it doesn't mean he didn't kill all those ninjas. If you blow a building with people inside, if anyone dies in there, that's on you. You murdered them.

I saw some old youtube vids on this, folks lost their minds when burton batman came out.

>Batman with no gadgets and armor successfully defeats the entire league of assassins on his own while simultaneously keeping a hostage they plan on killing safe, while also simultaneously disbanding the entire league of assassins to prevent them from destroying Gotham in the future.
user, this is Batman, not Superman.

I can't tell if you're shitposting or having difficulty comprehending words on your screen, but I never said he DIDN'T kill the League of Assassins, I said he didn't WANT to kill anybody. Let me make these words nice and seperate for you.

Didn't

WANT

to

kill

anybody.

He literally says in the very clip I provided that he will "Not become an executioner", but as said, blowing up the monastery was the only realistic option he had in this situation. I'm not saying he didn't kill those ninjas. I fully except that he killed those ninjas. But as I said, he didn't WANT to kill those ninjas. Even before making an explicit rule against killing, he still has ethics.

Sorry, not shit-posting. I just read it wrong. My bad.

This interview show pretty well how Zack Snyder view super-hero comics and what he attempted to do with his movies.

>Interviewer: That's the exact point that I made about the Superman killing moment in Man of Steel. The statement in that movie [Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan] that resonates with me is, "How we deal with death is at least as important as how we deal with life." So what good are superhero's rules and codes of ethics if you don't challenge it? It's easy to stick to an unchallenged rule. It's easy to support freedom of speech for popular speech we all agree with.
>Zack Snyder: One-hundred percent. One-hundred percent.
>Interviewer: The so-called no-win scenario is the only way to test a hero's rules and ethics.
>Zack Snyder: And it's the only way to move forward with a hero, because otherwise the hero drowns in the mire of his own morality, in that he never can go forward, he never can evolve. He becomes an allegory, he's a lesson, like, "This is the way to be, kids," not a real story. He becomes like one of the Ten Commandments. He's not like an actual [person].
>Interviewer: Like "Just Say No," like it's just that easy.
>Zack Snyder: Yeah, literally. So you give him a real-world scenario, and that's when we all grow up.
Hiring him to build up a cinematic universe of never-ending crowd pleaser movies was a mistake.

Well...alrighty then. Honestly it gets a bit hard to tell who's serious and who's shitposting in threads like these.

Attached: shrug.jpg (630x630, 11K)

>only realistic option he had in this situation
If you lack imagination and a Batman-like drive, maybe.

Even if it was the only option, that'd a fault of Nolan for writing himself into a corner where the only option available is to fundamentally break the character in the first act.

What should have happened was he rescues the guy, sets the League back but fails to cripple them, then goes back to Gotham and becomes Batman to defend his city against the inevitable threat of the League, going the whole movie wondering if he should have killed them all and ended it, but then, at the end, proves their philosophy wrong by stopping them as a fully realized Batman without taking any lives or making any moral compromises, reinforcing who he is as a hero.

Weird Batman plots since a lot of his greatest stories revolve around him facing dark mirrors of himself who either kill or test Batman's no kill/no guns rule.

>Zach Snyder presents: Under the Red Hood

>RED HOOD: "It was me, Jason Todd! I've been killing villains with guns and basically doing what you couldn't do by dominating the crime world and killing it from within! You should have killed the Joker!"

>BATMAN: "Whoa that sounds totes awesome! We should hang out more. Why didn't you tell me you were alive, killing dudes is what I do now. And yeah, I have no idea how the Joker is still alive when I killed a bunch of guards with a remote controlled plane missle. I'm the world's greatest detective who now kills, how the fuck am I letting this happen. Murder team up? Totes on board with this."

'Batman: Under the Hood' and the Red Hood himself are a stupid comic story-line and character that only exist to shit on Batman for something that is emblematic of the publisher's comic line and not Batman himself: the never ending status quo. Batman doesn't kill because of the status quo. Challenging him and shitting him about it is dumb as fuck.

Of course the same wouldn't work on a movie where Batman isn't beheld by the rules and limitations.

Sometimes good men have to make tough decisions user. Imagination and will does not make you immune from your own limitations, and the idea of him somehow getting a hostage out safely, while the entire league of assassins were on his is ludicrous. Either he'd out fight the entire league with just a sword, or he'd somehow outrun the entire league with a bound up hostage. And while both of those sound interesting, they're both also ridiculous in the context of the film and characters. Nolan isn't "writing Bruce into a corner" by having him confront a situation where he isn't in control. If he were constantly in control, Harvey would still be alive, and Bane would have never broken his Batman's spine. I'd also say that he isn't "fundamentally broken" for what he did, because the only reason any of this happened, was so that he could save a person that was going to be killed if he didn't do what he did.

Behold! A chimera of The fool and the man with shit taste! Two of the lowest denominator squeezed into one package! Watch him react for only the price of a simple (You)!

>Either he'd out fight the entire league with just a sword, or he'd somehow outrun the entire league with a bound up hostage. And while both of those sound interesting, they're both also ridiculous
Yes, and?

Attached: 204b3135bf57f9a2da8bbceb7aceaff2.jpg (500x637, 30K)

We're just talking past each other.

You don't think there was any other way to write Bruce out of that situation, and I think there was. You think the way it was written worked as a Batman story, I think it didn't.

I guess the fundamental difference is, is Batman still Batman if he's killed people. Everything I know about the character says he isn't, but I guess that's just my perspective (And a lot of really influential creators, but Death of the Author and all that means Nolan is free to ignore Denny O'Neil if he wants to.)

Stuff like this can get pretty subjective, so neither one of us is really going to be able to 'prove' our cases, at least to each other. I'm glad you were able to enjoy the movie, I'm actually a little jealous. I just couldn't handle what I perceived to be such a sharp departure, and I'm a little frustrated that every live-action depiction of the character has the same - what I preconceive to be a - problem.

Challenging comics Batman's about not killing the Joker is a stupid, fruitless exercize because the real answer will always be the fact that Joker fucking sells comics books and DC wants to maintain him alive to milk him for all that's worth. There's no other answer. If it wasn't for that Batman, someone else, or the state would have killed the Joker's ass a LOOONG time ago. And that would be the end of it. But it hasn't happen because the Joker sells. So to create a story to shit Batman for it is dumb as fuck.

The thing weighting on your opinions is the fact that you're letting yourself be influenced by the comics status quo. The great comics authors that worked on Batman trying to write inside the confines of said status and the status quo prevents Batman from killing his rogues because the rogues need to come back ad-nausea. If Batman killed the Joker, it'd hard to justify him not killing the rest. So comic writers knowing the nature of the beast try to come up with all kinds of nifty justifications for it and over time you got great tales about it.
That user is ignoring the comic books and their never-changing status quo and is evaluating the Nolan's movies by what the director intended, which was a semi-realistic Gotham with a semi-realistic Batman. So that user analizying the movie in that light agree that there was no way for Batman to escape that situation without manslaughering the fuck out of all those ninjas.

The reason behind every work of fiction is because someone is selling a story. Is this your 13th birthday? What’s your next revelation? “Stories mostly have happy endings becuause sad endings sell less”? Or the classic “The hero only is able to do all this because it’s a story”? Wait! I got it! Your next revelation is that the stories of a culture are a peek through the glass darkly of the culture! A classic!

Sure, whatever. Tell me something, what did Under the Hood accomplish other than shit on Batman to push another character?

I'm not a fan of Batman killing either. If I were, I wouldn't have made an entire post about how Zack Snyder is a hack who doesn't understand Batman. Maybe there could have been an alternative to him blowing up the monastery, but even with Bruce's skills, I just don't see how that would happen. I do believe that Batman shouldn't kill. It's an important part of his character, but I'm just acknowledging that he isn't immune from having to make these kinds of decisions, and I don't see him having to make this kind of decision as a thing that negates his ability to try and prevent it happening in the future. Even if he blew up the monastery, he still has a no kill rule. If he didn't the Joker would have nothing to work with in the sequel. It's not like he's just casually murdering criminals after all, unlike certain versions of Batman from certain hacks who don't read comics, or certain hacks who just want an excuse to blow shit up.

It told a story, idiot. “(It) shit on Batman”. The greatest sorrow is that people like you are using oxygen that could have gone to something useful, like fruit flies.

I think Hollywood just doesn't actually understand what a superhero is, they treat them as action heroes in tights. Action heroes kill bad guys all the time, so why shouldn't Batman?

the comics status quo
But this is what makes Batman Batman. They might as well have made Jon Peter's Superman movie where Superman doesn't fly or wear a red and blue suit. It would have worked in the context of the movie, sure, but these characters are bigger than one movie.

I also feel like it's selfish of these directors to be putting out their own personal interpretations of these characters into the big blockbuster movies. These movies are like the ambassadors of the characters to the mainstream audience. There's a kid out there who's first impression of Batman was Ben Affleck running people over with his car. That doesn't help the character get new fans. That kid's going to pick up a comic where Batman takes care not to kill a mook and think the comic got it wrong.

>So comic writers knowing the nature of the beast try to come up with all kinds of nifty justifications for it and over time you got great tales about it.
And in doing so created what distinguishes the character from every other dime-a-dozen pulp action hero. Batman who kills is just The Shadow. These characters evolve, and this re-examination of the core of his character is what elevated it. Getting rid of it isn't deconstruction, it's destruction.

Someone should do a story where a character demands angrily why Jason Todd haven't killed the Joker yet. I'd like to see that. By the way, why hasn't he?

Or hell, why Arkham Guard Bill hasn't killed the joker.
Or why Citizen Who Can See Joker Through A Window And Has A Hunting Rifle #234 hasn't killed the Joker.

If Batman has a moral obligation to kill him, then so does every one else on the planet. Why does Batman get all the shit?

Why doesn't Commissioner Gordon rape the Joker himself?

You know, Zack Snyder said he attempted to do the same thing as Nolan with Batman throughout BvS:
>I played the technicality just like it's been played by all the other filmmakers up til now. You know, Chris [Nolan] did an amazing job surfing that line, and I feel like I kind of did the same thing. You shoot the car and it blows up, or you do everything but. Always the light is being shined on the concept that that's possible for him.
He consider that until Superman, Batman was only manslaughtering the fuck out of everyone in his path. He wasn't purposely killing anyone. He didn't have the strong intent. It's just that he wasn't too bothered about it by that point if anyone died because of his actions, by chance.

But we all know the answer to that, don't we? Then don't kill them because they can't. Not because of the law, but because of the status quo. Because the publisher demands the Joker remain alive.

>It's just that he wasn't too bothered about it by that point if anyone died because of his actions, by chance.
This just so utterly Not Batman that it's obscene.

>He wasn't purposely killing anyone. He didn't have the strong intent.
"I won't murder you, but negligent homicide is okay!"
Fuck. Batman is non-lethal for moral reasons, not legal ones. Not saving somebody is THE SAME AS killing them. I don't understand how a grown adult can fail to understand this.

Snyder is just an edgelord Ayn Rand fanboy who doesn't think heroes should exist because altruism is for fags.

>But this is what makes Batman Batman.
Superman used to be the one to have a even stronger no-kill rule than either Batman or Wonder Woman, but things evolved over time and now Superman has killed more than once canonically. In the case of Superman, i feel, is because the publisher isn't that invested in his rogues.

Because the current canon is that he is/was trying to not completely break his relationship with Batman. The previous canon was the Joker managed to scaddle everytime Todd went looking for him.

Honestly, probably the same reason actual horrible people tend to survive even when locked up. Some of the cops/random Joes wouldn’t want to murder someone, some are afraid of the retaliation that would happen to them and their loved ones, some don’t really care enough because they live far from the horror, and some are on the payroll. Just answer what’s your own personal reason for not bumping off some known drug lord or dictator.

I'm aware of the interview that you're referencing, but I'm going to call bullshit on Zack because, driving through people, crushing them under your two ton car, turning cars into flails with your bat-hook, gunning down people from the safety of your jet, and crushing people's skulls with crates is completely unethical no matter how you spin it, and anyone who believe's they're in the right, because they're """"""indirectly""""""" murdering people is a fucking psychopath who should be behind bars. He's using Nolan bat without understanding Nolan bat, or why he did the whole 1 (arguably) bad thing he did, because he's literally using this video youtube.com/watch?v=psVIG7YvdjM to justify having "cool" scenes where Batman gets to murder people. And I do mean literally. He references this video in the very same interview you're quoting as justification for why Batman kills. But this is no longer Batman. This is the Punisher with extra income.

Honestly, the no-kill rule seems like something Snyder's annoyed he has to deal with people asking him about more than anything he's put any thought into.

Guy isn't talented enough to know how to make an action hero cool without killing people in badass ways.

Snyder, as dumb as he is, actually tried to bring Batman to back to his comics roots. The fact that Batman is willing to make such compromises in the movie IS supposed to be a bad thing. That's why he place so much focus on Batman's carnage. For him, the real Batman would never compromise, so the fact that he does now is supposed to show that he doesn't believe anymore in the worthiness and validity of his own crusade. He's not Batman anymore.
And just as he can't believe in the goodness of Batman anymore, he can't also accept at face value the goodness of Superman. He can't accept that Superman will be true to his words. Since he, Batman, eventually ended up compromising, there's nothing stopping Superman from doing it as well. And that's dangerous for everyone.

>Zack Snyder: Yeah, and that's it. He goes, basically, Superman could fly into the White House and kidnap the president, and there's nothing we could do. We're just accepting he's not going to do that. And that's okay with everybody? We're going to take it on his good graces, that he's just going to say, "You know what, I'm a good guy, and I'm just going to stay good."
>Batman's like, "Listen, we all made that pledge, we've all said that, and look at the compromises we've made along the way. When this guy makes a compromise, it's like, that's it, it's the end of the world. So that's the 'why' of any of this vigilante nonsense that I started. That's a way to maybe finally be cathartic, to finally heal myself from a wound that hasn't scabbed over."

>and anyone who believe's they're in the right, because they're """"""indirectly""""""" murdering people is a fucking psychopath who should be behind bars.
That's the point. Batman doesn't think he's in the right.

Yet Zack said that this is the moral justification for why Batman kills, so Bruce has to believe this isn't wrong at least to some degree, because if Barman really believed he wasn't in the right, he wouldn't be attempting to do things """"""""indirectly""""""""".

You're correct. Batman is trying to justify his compromises and extremism with excuses despite being aware on some level that he's full of shit. He's constantly with an excuse ready for Alfred, whenever confronted. Neither believe him. It's only in the end, though, when he tries to kill Superman directly, that he comes head to head with the man he has become.

That was all intentional. Even his hatred of Superman is based on his own self judgment. He condemns himself, and thus Superman by extension.

Batman killing criminals isn't that great a direction from a story perspective. It erases a lot of the ability for moral conflict in the story. The whole plot revolves around the idea of Batman seeing Superman as an alien he must kill because he's a threat to humanity, and this conflict is resolved when he finds out Superman is a man, with a mother named Martha, who he cares about. Why would that matter to a murderer vigilante who kills men who presumably have mothers they care about all the time? There's no reason. Superman is still partly at fault for the destruction in Metropolis, him having a human life changes none of that, when Batman has already resigned himself to taking human life all the time. It also opens up questions for the larger DCEU, like "Why hasn't he killed Joker and Harley?". Suicide ought to not be able to happen in this universe, there's no reason for it to. Joker killed Robin, which is supposedly the action that led Batman to kill, but he never killed the man responsible, or his accomplice in the act, Harley Quinn? It also makes no sense for him to retain good relations with Jim Gordon, who we see him talking to in the very next movie, who vouches for his character. The DCEU can't answer these questions, because it refuses to take Batman killing to its logical conclusions. It's a great test case for why the comics keep Batman's rule in place, even though there's no CCA to deal with, and many other characters kill.

Here's Snyder on this:

>Zack Snyder: And also the thing he [Bruce] says about, "They took me into the light... a beautiful lie," which is of course the idea that like, "Oh, if I decide or somehow the path takes me toward this road of being a crimefighter, that's a path toward enlightenment or what is best in men." And he realizes now, at the twilight of his crimefighting career, that maybe that's not what happened, you know? "Twenty years in Gotham, how many good guys are left? How many stayed that way?" "Among us [crimefighters]!" you know? "We are not excluded from that!" He says to Alfred, "We're criminals. We've always been criminals."

>Suicide ought to not be able to happen in this universe
Sorry
*Suicide Squad ought to not be able to happen in this universe.

I suppose that's a solid analysis of Bruce in BvS. I'll give you that. But it still infuriates me that Batman starts his new DC appearance, as a fundamental misrepresentation of his character. And this isn't an "I'm teetering the line of who I once was" kind of misrepresentation, this is "I decimated one of the fundamental aspects of my character, and you have to live with the knowledge that that can't change" levels of misrepresentation. He should've gotten a dedicated film if they were going to have Batman go off the deep end like this.

It honestly reminds me of Injustice and how Wonder Woman inexplicably became a murderous sociopath and cock-sleeve to Superman because the story needed her to be. Her character is RUINED, and you can't bounce back from that, but you have to live with it so other characters can look good by comparison. The only difference is Injustice was a spinoff.

Attached: 1498507494914.png (639x480, 428K)

Nolan not getting Batman
makes best Batman films and superhero films ever made
I'm not even greentexting this because you don't deserve it.

>It's only in the end, though, when he tries to kill Superman directly, that he comes head to head with the man he has become.
That would be an okay arc...if it wasn't for the fact that after he gives up trying to kill Superman, there's no turning point in the kind of Batman he decides to be. He rescues Martha by splattering men's heads against walls, and shooting them with the Batplane. He never actually confronts how he's fallen, not in any way that's shown to us rather than told, because then Snyder wouldn't be able to have as much blood and explosions.

The Joker and Harley Quinn can be easily explained as Batman simple not being able to catch them. They were both just too good at escaping and hiding. No more explanation needed.
And it has been explained that Batman has been killing criminals indirectly in several ways as he progressively compromise more and more of his previous ideals in a desperate attempt to leave a more significant mark. Because he wants his crusade to matter. He wants to matter.
And he condemns Superman for much the same reasons. He believes that Superman will eventually compromise and get as extreme as he did for much the same reason: to make it all matter. He says as much when he confronts Superman. And because Superman holds so much power he can do a worse damage to Earth than he, Batman, can or does. So Batman's new way to make himself matter and have his crusade have a worth is by die trying to kill Superman.
What sets him back is realizing that Superman is nothing like him. Superman, rather, remind him of his father, Thomas Wayne. Superman also never compromised. So after Superman's death he decides to honor Superman living his life having Superman as a role model. He believe again that he can do good. No compromises.

Now the movie have several problems, but i liked Batman arc. I like Batman regaining faith thanks to Superman.

Attached: m66nnvr20kjy.jpg (1200x847, 162K)

I agree, but mostly because my autistic sunday quarterbacking about how a Batman movie between MoS and BvS that's not your basic "episode" and more a full view of the fall of Batman leading directly into BvS could've helped people both acclimate to Batman and set things apart from the Marvel formula.
It'd have idealist Batman get beat down into bitter Batman and the final scenes would've been the MoS from his perspective.
Also this is spinoff.

Movie worked as a movie. Nolan knows how to tell a story, no argument.

But you can't have Batman say the line, "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you." and have any claim of understand who Batman is. You just can't.

I didn't like the way Snyder handled Batman. Watchmen proved he has some sort of fucked up Midas touch that lets him turn any character he writes into edgy 90's style self-inserts, so that much isn't surprising

That said, no-kill policies are mostly a tired excuse for being able to recycle the same villains for decades. More to the point, that isn't likely to ever change and the big 2 are kind of bad and creatively bankrupt in general

I meant to say "elseworld" instead of spinoff, but that's besides the point. DC wanted to make an entire cinematic universe with this, meaning we could have potentially had these characters and likely just these characters as the theatrical representations of DC for nearly a decade. You don't get more mainline than having a decade's worth of mainstream appearances, so I don't see how BvS is a spinoff of anything, unless you're one of those people who believe everything that isn't from the original run of something is a spinoff. (People like this exists, so it's a legitimate thing to mention.)

BvS do feel like Kingdom Come in that aspect where all the other heroes are in a bad place and they're all elevated back to their proper roles by the influence of Superman. Wonder Woman in BvS, for example, gave up on humanity after fighting for us in the Great War because we never got any better despite he how much she sacrificed and instead of blaming herself and trying harder, she blamed us justifying her opinion by stating that we will never work together. Then Superman and Batman proves her again that men can work together and do good. Mostly Superman. So she's back as a hero.
Bruce was desperate to save Martha and prove his worth, though. It was all very soon as well. But after Superman's funeral the movie shows you how much he's willing to change. He takes Superman's death as another failure on his path and vow to honor Superman by living as him. The same way he did with his father. The movie tries to show that before Bruce was essentially trying to live up to his father. That's why he took the death of his employees so personally. He was failing his father in an area that his father worked. He complains about living more than his father did and not measuring up by comparison. In the end he places Superman in the same pedestal.

I agree that it can be irksome, but i feel that Snyder's vision of the DCEU was that Superman was the center of everything. Everyone and everything was made possible by him. So other characters have to bite the bullet, so to speak. That's all changed now whoever.

No-Kill rules are really just silver age censorship work arounds that just became a part of the mythology of the characters.
Well yeah, movies ain't comics. It's an objective fact.

>The Joker and Harley Quinn can be easily explained as Batman simple not being able to catch them.
Batman catches Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad, leading to her current imprisonment, so that doesn't wash. Comics Batman has caught the Joker plenty of times, and supposedly, this Batman did too, after Robin's death, when he smashed Joker's teeth in, also leading to the "Damaged" tattoo.

>What sets him back is realizing that Superman is nothing like him. Superman, rather, remind him of his father, Thomas Wayne. Superman also never compromised. So after Superman's death he decides to honor Superman living his life having Superman as a role model. He believe again that he can do good. No compromises.

That's also nonsense, because Superman HAS compromised. That interpretation is undercut not by Batman breaking his no kill rule, but by Superman doing it. Superman on multiple occasions in his fight with Zod, put innocent people in danger, like when he let an oil tanker crash into a building behind him, rather than catch it, and it was only when he was confronted with Zod about to kill in front of him, in a way he couldn't ignore, that he did everything he could to stop this, and stopped it by snapping Zod's neck, taking a life. Baman gets no proof of Superman's incorruptibility before joining him, only his humanity, in the Martha scene, which should mean little to someone who shows himself willing to compromise his code, and take human life. Superman's still a major threat, he's shown this already. The scene of Batman's turning point is still massively undercut by the rest of the movie.

>He takes Superman's death as another failure on his path and vow to honor Superman by living as him.
Snapping necks and punching people through walls? Still doesn't work, m8.

>when he smashed Joker's teeth in, also leading to the "Damaged" tattoo.
Not that guy but the memes prevent me from being able to take this sentence with any amount of seriousness

To be fair DCEU Superman snapped one neck

DCEU is already nothing but a meme people can't take seriously.

He catches Harley NOW that he's trying to be a better dude.

>Batman catches Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad, leading to her current imprisonment, so that doesn't wash.
It takes place after BvS. No, it does.
Superman didn't kill anyone intently. Seriously. Rewatch MoS, or don't. It's Zod that throws Superman into buildings. Superman only compromised when he killed Zod. That's it. Everything else where the doing of the other kryptonians. In BvS as well everything was done by Lex Luthor to make it seem that Superman is nothing but trouble.

Attached: 5558c724246cad4ca6635d99baa9f1c1.png (1001x681, 381K)

How convenient for the plot that the timeline worked out that way. Still doesn't work for his capture of the Joker.

We don't know what happened then. He could have tried to do things by the book and only after said act felt the crush of the pointlessness of his crusade. I agree with all the other anons that we needed a previous solo Batman movie focused on Jason's death.

>How convenient
Well it was made after the fact, so yeah. Don't you watch capeshit movies, it's all just convenient things that weren't mentioned until they were thought up.

Now that you bring Lex up, let's take a moment to examine the beauty of Grandma's Peach Tea

I honestly found that moment funny and creepy. Talking about Lex Luthor, Snyder had this to say:
>Interviewer: The God vs Man element is about turning the god mortal, but also subversively turning the man into something godlike -- Batman has his mech-suit, his alien spear, etc. there's that subtext of Batman wanting to lift himself up as much as he wants to bring Superman down, right?
>Zack Snyder: Yeah, I think it is. And that's how Lex underestimates us in a lot of ways. He doesn't think we're capable of rising, so he has to bring the god down, right? And look, Luthor's a humanitarian on some level. But in that moment it was about leveling the playing field, and what seems like a vast difference between our perceived "god" and our perceived "man" are really just labels and sort of ways of looking, but in reality there's this common morality they share -- and a really common kind of mythology too.

There can be multiple depictions of media user. Something being a spinoff would imply that it's separate story running off of an already established continuity, or there's an already existing continuity happening along side it.
BvS isn't a spinoff, because even though it is based off of Batman and Superman comics, it does not exist with those comic continuities, and has an entirely unique continuity to it. Hence, not a spinoff for the same reason The Little Mermaid or Mulan are not spinoffs. That's besides the point though, because I meant to say elseworld in the first place.

>BvS do feel like Kingdom Come
Kingdom Come's entire premise is beginning near the end, and there are still plenty of other comics available that would neatly fill any gaps such a premise brings. BvS doesn't have this courtesy though, because you can't just watch Batman & Robin, or the Dark Knight Returns, and have everything naturally fit together as a result. With this in mind, you don't just introduce characters with story arcs that have already happened in the background, without the viewer's knowledge. That's terrible story telling for a film that's attempting to set up an extended interconnecting story, because you're telling instead of showing, and removing any emotional impact these characters being in a bad place in their lives may bring, unless a viewer's already engrossed in the comics, and they're using their already existing love of the property as a crutch to ignore gaps in storytelling.

The "Punching people through walls" was a reference to the terrorist he smashes through walls in BvS. And in the Zod fight, he has many opportunities to prevent more damage, like the example I listed, where he does not. Nothing Superman has done has actually SHOWN Batman his incorruptibility until maybe he goes Jesus mode and sacrifices himself to stop Doomsday. Nothing he does before the Doomsday fight shows Batman that he is nothing to fear, and that Batman needs not worry about him, justifiying him throwing the spear away, and giving up killing Superman. Saving Martha, sure. But none of the rest of it.

>With this in mind, you don't just introduce characters with story arcs that have already happened in the background, without the viewer's knowledge.
Sorry, but that's bullshit. Rambo first movie opens with Rambo being a veteran of the Vietnam that got fucked mentally and just wanted to be alone. We didn't need a prequel movie to show what exactly went down with him during the war, who were his mates that died and affected him so much, how he and the general began their relationship, and all that. We could just infer by the little things the movie threw at us.

>The "Punching people through walls" was a reference to the terrorist he smashes through walls in BvS.
He didn't die.
>Nothing he does before the Doomsday fight shows Batman that he is nothing to fear, and that Batman needs not worry about him, justifiying him throwing the spear away, and giving up killing Superman.
Superman's actions during their fight with one another.

Rambo doesn't have baggage though.
Batman and Superman have an issue of expectations and when you don't meet them, people feel betrayed.

>That being said it was bad how little he hesitated in BvS.

The entire fucking point of his arc in BvS was that he was broken down, engulfed in rage and losing control and slowly turning into a villain. And then Superman redeems him and inspires him to become a better hero again.

Yeah, and Into the Spidervese has Peter Parker tell the audience, "Look, you already know who I am", but the difference between those movies and this movie is that this movie raises questions that shouldn't be ignored by existing. Rambo being a veteran is understandable by the following words: "He's a veteran". Batman being a murderer is a lot more complicated, and has a lot more to unwrap, and because of that, that isn't something you should just start with.

low iq post

>Batman being a murderer is a lot more complicated, and has a lot more to unwrap, and because of that, that isn't something you should just start with.
Not more than any other Batman movie. Sure, BvS put a lot more focus on it, but it still provided the audience with the "whys", even if some of it was obscurated by Bruce lying through his teeth.

The real problem wasn't BvS, but the expectations people and specially fanboys had after the MCU made bank with the concept of cinematic universe. Everyone expected a DC cinematic universe that could go on and on and branch out indefinitely. Because of this they took BvS as a bad beginning for such a thing. Whereas BvS works better as a solo thing or a closed trilogy.

>Superman's actions during their fight with one another.
Try again. Superman, two seconds into their fight, loses his temper and pushes batman like forty feet. He gives up trying to reason with Batman for most of the fight, and after saying "There's no time" wastes time throwing Batman around several times, wordlessly smashing this human in a metal suit through buildings, and when he does try to reason with him, it's to threaten him by saying to stay down, because he could have killed Batman already. When the Kryptonite wears off, rather than be lenient, because now Batman can't hurt him with punches, instead of taking that opportunity to tell Batman to break up the fight, and help him save his mother, he has a cruel slight smile, and smashes Batman around some more.
Batman has no reason to see Superman's character as something so different than he thought before throughout the fight, and is perfectly willing to kill Superman until the Martha reveal. Like it or not, the story is not saying that Batman has realized Superman's goodness in that scene, only his relatable humanity, which is why it's so funny in a movie where Batman casually kills criminals.

Self-defense when he's being fired at by rockets. Crashing heavily armored and hostile military vehicles.

If it were a solo film, it definitely could have worked better. a standalone film can get away with plenty, but the problem isn't that people were expecting BvS to be the stepping stones of some greater cinematic universe, the problem is that it was precisely what people thought it was, without any room to breathe. DC wanted a cinematic universe since that flop of a Green Lantern film from 2011 after all, and BvS was 100% the stepping stone to making that happen, so judging it by the expectations of it being an introduction to a cast of recurring characters is fair, but BvS isn't a good stepping stone, because it doesn't have room to fit everything it wants to fit in. If all direct references to other meta humans, Diana, and maybe a few miscellaneous elements were removed, and that time was directed on the focus of Bruce and Clark, it wouldn't have been the set up for Justice League that DC wanted, but it certainly would have been a stronger product.

I agree whole heartily with you, despite liking BvS.
Ironically enough, Wonder Woman wouldn't be able to be cut, if it had been a solo movie. The movie carries this dumb idea of characters reliving their parents life and needing a partner to share their life. Superman does it by trying to live up to Jonathan Kent and loving Lois Lane the same way his father loved his mother, Martha Kent. Lex Luthor sorta kills his Mercy, something very on the nose. Showing that he's fucked. Batman, meanwhile, have Wonder Woman fulfilling this role for him. The "woman that will set him straight".

MoS have the same weird ass message with Jor & Lara, Jonathan & Martha, and Clark & Lois. And Zod & Faora losing because they, i don't know, aren't into fucking one another.

>The movie carries this dumb idea of characters reliving their parents life and needing a partner to share their life.

People are always defined by their relationship to their own parents, or the lack of relationship, I don't understand how that's dumb. And people need companions and partners in life, because we're social creatures and we need other people to help us shoulder the heavy weight of our personal issues and problems. No man is an island. So again, I don't get how this is weird.

I just feel that Snyder is screaming at me to go find a lady and reproduce, and that shit makes me butthurt.

I don't think normals got the robin is dead thing. Nor that Batman is unhinged without the bat senpai

thats the thing superman has larger than life problems. kill one of the few surviving kryptonians or let all humans die

I thought Doomsday Lex stuff was the weakest. Batman and Superman weren't the problem. They blew their load on Doomsday too soon. Should have used Metallo or Parasite first.

A lot of reasons have been said in this thread already but for me part of it that never gets discussed is the waste of potential of having an older Bruce in comparison to the younger Clark.
And by that I mean that for the years in between MoS and BvS I listened to defenders saying it was Superman's first day, he's inexperienced, he's new a this, so obviously he's going to be shit at dealing with collateral damage and bystanders.
So I think, okay, here's a Batman that's been doing this for years, and he's clearly got a beef with the fact that Superman was so crap at collateral damage mitigation.
Except then he starts unnecesarily firing rockets at shit. And yes, it was unnecessary to have that big explosion filled car chase; he steals the kryptonite easily, off camera, with no casualties at all.
I don't think Snyder really got that they have to be complementing contrasts.

Zack makes dumb action movies but he isn't dumb. Unfortunately general american audience members are stupid. Also Marvel flicks have conditioned people to think these movies have to be funny, safe and sjw friendly. DC has to play by their rules. They did it with Aquaman and now they have to do it with everything else. Yay homogenous paint by numbers movies forever

>Zack makes dumb action movies but he isn't dumb.
That interviewer lead him on in that that entire quote and Snyder just kept saying "yeah totally"
Subversion aren't inherently smarter or better. That's how you get square wheels.

I don't get why this confuses people. Martha was literally Tom Waynes last word. It was about to be Supermans last word. Thats why he stopped. They make a apoint of it in the title sequence.

Not that user but that's scriptwriting. The script gave him that dilemma. To be blunt and stubborn, they could have written a different scenario. It's not like they only had a week to think of what Superman should do

probably because you don't have a lady? i'm glad snyder made you realize this

Like he said in the interview, the heroes needs to be challenged or they don't grow. I keep thinking what if the end of MOS was all neat. No one dies and every villain is sent to the phantom zone. I'm sure the movie would have been critically acclaimed but it would have been safer. I know it's a business but I like when a movie raises uncomfortable questions especially if it doesn't have to or is expected too

the fact that we are still talking about this movie makes me think its based. we don't have a daily iron man 2 or cap 2 thread.

you might be right co and tv talking about bvs constantly since its release

>I don't think Snyder really got that they have to be complementing contrasts.
The movie was about people not dealing with their own issues and projecting said issues on to another person who they then demonize, with the answer being to finally look deep inside and face your own demons. That's what the whole movie is about outside the ruminations about power relations.

But like an user pointed out, the studio was backing the movie as a stepping stone for their own ever-growing, ever-expanding cinematic universe and if you're going to do that you've to play it safe and pleasing. Cinematic universes aren't meant to have challenging movies. Fuck, i'd argue that cape movies aren't fucking meant to be challenging. This is comic book stuff. It's for the kids and the family.

So Snyder was simple the wrong visionary for such an endeavor. Nobody wanted to raise uncomfortable questions about Superman, but he did.

Snyder is not a visionary. He got famous by trying to reference other people's material, and made a terrible movie (Sucker Punch) when he had his one shot to do anything original. Cape comics have been doing deconstruction, or at the very least, justification, since the 60s-80s. Snyder had terrible ideas WB couldn't salvage

>BvS fans starting threads means that it's actually good
No. 99% of the time, only BvS fans want to start talking about it

What if Wonder Woman fought to save the Man's World from wars and gave up after realizing men will never change their violent nature no matter how much she fights?
What of Batman spent decades fighting crime in Gotham and started compromising his morality and becoming extreme after realizing Gotham will never change no matter what he does?
What if Superman tried to save people throughout the world and started to doubt if he was needed after realizing everyone are criticizing him for all the unintended consequences his involvement causes no matter how many he saves?
Nobody asked for these what ifs.

>Cape comics have been doing deconstruction, or at the very least, justification, since the 60s-80s
In comics, not movies.

Fair. I'm stretching my timeline here, but we could probably apply it to Batman '89, and why complaints about BatMurder are usually taken less seriously. In '89, like a more extreme (T)DKR, it's implied, if not said outright, that Bruce became horribly fucked up by his parents' death and wasn't mentally stable enough to be then-comic Batman. This is a decent level of deconstructing his obsession, and arguable need for revenge, that raises a lot of questions about how terrible it is to be driven to that, and whether Bruce can move past his grief and reconnect with people.
BvS has *none* of this apart from maybe that Harley and Joker killed Robin which ain't quite the same

My point being, comic movies can be fun, and/or present interesting ideas around the title character(s), but Snyder had no clue what made the comic versions compelling or previous adaptations The MCU's great as a way of compressing what makes Marvel fun in 2-2 1/2 hours, because the people behind them know what they're doing.

Manchildren don't want batman as the antagonist. He is a bad guy in the movie, there's no much more to be said.

>BvS has *none* of this apart from maybe that Harley and Joker killed Robin which ain't quite the same
There's the whole idea of Batman losing faith on his crusade and existence because of all his sacrifices and failures not amounting to anything positive in the long run.

With better writers, the end of that arc is
>Bruce gives up
Not
>Bruce kills people and escalates the crimes he's committing
JL Gordon should want to fucking arrest Batman, not buddy up

Why is Bruce giving up the only good scenario? Just because then he doesn't have to compromise nor do anything bad?
BvS take was compelling precisely because it show Bruce doubling down on violence in his desperation to feel powerful and important again as a way to justify his parents murder, because otherwise their death doesn't matter and was pointless.

Their death and his crusade still doesn't matter if he kills people. Nothing changes in the long run with regards to crime. It's a compromise that acheives nothing. Don't be fooled by shitty writing.

>It's a compromise that acheives nothing.
That was the motherfucking point. You've to understand that Batman in BvS was completely in the wrong. He's not a protagonist. He's the antagonist.

He's still meant to be empathised with, which doesn't work because we're told about a bunch of crap but how it links into his current state makes no damn sense.
>He's the bad guy
This doesn't contradict anything I've said

>It's a compromise that acheives [sic] nothing

Brainlet, Batman is depicted to be in the wrong throughout the entire picture when it comes to his dishonest post-9/11 rhetoric and actions. He's fundamentally one of the two bad guys until Superman redeems him and brings him back from the shadows, i.e. what his dream in the beginning where he's lifted up to the light by the bats is about.

>this is the why of him never killing again.

Except for that african warlord he kills by smashing through multiple brick walls at high speed, the very first scene he has in the next movie. But whatever, i guess it looked cool to you mr snyder.

Arguing over and over about whether Batman should kill or not is focusing on the wrong issue. The real problems are more complicated and are all about the movie being a messy mashup of ideas, like how we're told Batman got fucked up with age and years of crimefighting but we're given no context to how he changed. Like how the movie presents moral dilemmas like Batman's victims getting murdered in prison because of the association only to then reveal it was all a Lex ruse and said dilemma was never there. Like how we're told meeting Superman changed Bruce's heart for the better but the first thing he does afterwards is mow down people with machine guns. Like how Alfred brings up the aforementioned dilemma of Batman getting people killed but then later he's the one remotely piloting the aforementioned machine guns, no questions asked

The movie is fucking retarded in how it constantly challenges the characters while at the same time trying to present them as innocent saints, every moral ambiguity is immediately made irrelevant when the movie reveals that a single man manipulatedv almost every little aspect of the story from behind the scenes, from Bruce's paranoia to what Clark eats at breakfast

The real reason anyone is fighting over Batman's no-kill rule is that the movie itself presented that issue as a crucial part of the character but never did any legwork on it, everything is just sweeped under the rug

Attached: 1487895721071.jpg (2000x1444, 927K)

There's nothing challenging about MoS' ending expect the potential headaches. The movie spends half an hour turning Metropolis to ashes and killing villains only to unceremoniously cut to a rebuilt Daily Planet and a jolly Clark a second later

>but we're given no context to how he changed.

We get all the necessary context from different people talking about him. Alfred mentions how his methods have changed. Bruce gives multiple defensive and increasingly strawman speeches explaining his motivation about how criminals are like weeds and how his family are hunters. Perry dismisses Clark's Batman story because nobody gives a shit even if he's acting more and more erratic. The old black dude talks about he's more mean now. All you had to do was pay attention. And as the movie progresses, his methods become more and more erratic, until he finally abandons any attempt at sneaking around and just wrecks the entire Lexcorp facility to get he Kryptonite and SIGNED his work with a batarang.

>Like how we're told meeting Superman changed Bruce's heart for the better but the first thing he does afterwards is mow down people with machine guns.

People don't just change their behavior like an off switch when they have an epiphany and realize the error of their ways. It requires a lot of conscious work and time to break a circle of bad habits. You clearly see the change in him when he doesn't brand Luthor, despite clearly wanting to.

>Like how Alfred brings up the aforementioned dilemma of Batman getting people killed but then later he's the one remotely piloting the aforementioned machine guns, no questions asked

Alfred's issue was that Bruce intentionally was torturing people after they've already been put down by doing shit like branding them. Self-defense and using force when trying to help people is different, and Alfred's always been fine with that, especially when he's doing it because it's way more limited in what he can do. And he still uses the batwing to give suppressive fire rather than eagerly gunning people down.

I always assumed that Bruce's whole "If I kill once, I'll never be able to stop" logic was really a testament to how little faith he has in himself.

Having a dozen characters report that he's mean now doesn't provide any context, it's still a character operating on a vague (and ultimately clearly non-existent) backstory. I find it hilarious that you thought i missed all these heavy handed messages to the audience, my point is that there's nothing substantial behind them

Batman is such a well known pop culture character you do not need to be spoonfed what he usually is like. The contrast of his actions, backed by people commenting on it already gets the job done.

>It also makes no sense for him to retain good relations with Jim Gordon
This does bother me. The moment he started killing people, his relationship with Gordon should have been shot to hell. His refusal to kill is the only reason the GCPD tolerates him.

If Batman doesn't get the public agitated over his increased violence, the GCPD could just turn a blind eye due to blue wall of silence.

There you have it a normal casual mcu guy I like marvel but your delusional if you think comic books never have any challenging themes or need to be kid friendly

There you have it a normal casual mcu fag don’t get me wrong I like marvel and dc but your delusional if you think comic books never have any challenging themes or need to be kid friendly all the time. I wasn’t a fan of bvs apart from a few scenes but I enjoyed they attempted something different instead of just doing what everyone expected .

I wonder if Batman killing often enough in live action movies is a sign of how hard it is to write a big crime-fighter with non-lethal options.
Like in a live action setting to seems too unrealistic so it gets tweaked, as if it were as a cosmic/scifi character that would be too difficult to pull off live action without making changes.

Attached: 860D34BFB012463AA1151FAC21E19476.jpg (1332x2048, 476K)

Comic books can absolutely tackle challenging themes. They just need to be allegorical and as accessible as possible.
Your ivory tower is nice and all but a superman movie needs to make fucking money and if parents are afraid to take their kids into the theater because they might get nightmares that's money left on the table. Money that a franchise needs to be successful. Money that the sequel needs so that it can have good special effects.

It's more indicative of the cliches and apparent wants of audiences.
None of it is unrealistic but there's probaby lists most directors are pushed to check off because some producer thinks its what sells and "Villains gotta die" is probably on there somewhere.

"Villains gotta die" probably helps for actors since they don't need extended contracts for multiple film appearances.

We're still talking about this movie because of the mistakes made with the crossover of two iconic franchises that should each be worth a billion alone leading up to the point where a movie like Aquaman overtakes them.