This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
15 Years of Coverage (2010-2025)
DC All Access posted their interview with Wonder Woman director Patty Jenkins from WonderCon today.
Jenkins spoke about the Wonder Woman fight scenes, the incredible chemistry between Gal Gadot and Chris Pine, and lots more. Check out the full video above for more.
This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
Join the conversation
A free account lets you comment, like comments, and get an alert when someone replies to you.
Jenkins sounds a lot smarter than Zack Snyder. Let's hope WW delivers.
Also it sounds like WW will have good character development, unlike MOS and BvS. This could be the first universally well received DCEU movie.
Still hung up on MOS I see..
Well that was the last DC stand-alone origin movie. But BvS lacked character development too.
I gotta disagree. There was plenty of character development. In Batman alone we see drastic change between the dark character at the beginning and the redeemed one at the end. Superman is torn between wanting to be a hero and not being able get past what the world thinks of him. In the end he completely encapsulates the heroic side of himself. Lex goes from being a young, peppy CEO to a dark vengeful villain. I'm sure these aren't convincing, but at the bare minimum they show that there IS character development throughout the movie. I'm sure there's more.
I don't think we ever learn Superman's motivations though and he stays almost the same throughout both MoS and BvS.
Also as much as I like Cavill he just doesn't seem like a likeable Superman and that's due to the writing. When you watched Reeve's Superman you just liked him, when he was losing fights you felt bad, when he won you celebrated it. But Henry's Superman (and I've heard this from other people) doesn't make me feel anything. I like him because he's Superman, but that's it. If I didn't know who Superman was I probably wouldn't even care.
Batman's motivations are also not very clear to me. He just seems very angry and irrational about Superman and then he changes all the sudden cause of "Martha". He does go through a change, but the change doesn't make much sense.
Here's a great video talking about DCEU films lack of character development:
Guy wonders about his place in the world, finds the answers but has to make a decision between possibly being treated as an outsider or side with his kind that will welcome him with open arms. And after he decides to damn his people in order to save the planet, he gets questioned and worship as a god-figure when all he wants to just help people.
......Yeah this guy does sound unlikable.
And with Bruce, he sees his world shatter for the third time in his life. And he knows how people, so he justifiably assumes that Superman will go bad, so he decides to stop him before that happens. And do we really have to go over the Martha thing again?
"between possibly being treated as an outsider or side with his kind that will welcome him with open arms"
Eh? They freaking treated him like a prisoner from the beginning.
"And after he decides to damn his people in order to save the planet"
That's a no brainer. That was an easy choice not a big dilemma.
"all he wants to just help people."
Why? Because he's Superman. Not even his adoptive father wanted him to save people. Batman is just irrational. And please no, don't go over the Martha scene again. I've heard enough fanboy explanations already.
Here's even a better video about Superman's lack of character development.
No. Zod made it clear that he would've welcomed Clark if Clark chose to side with him.
You try making that decision, and then you can say it's easy.
Johnathan only said maybe. He wanted Clark to be careful with the heroics because once his presence becomes public, everything will change. Bvs proved that.
Yeah choosing his menacing future alien friends over his mother's life and home was such a big dilemma.
Don't be ridiculous.
Have you been an outcast like Clark?
Being an outcast doesn't define your moral choices. Clark was shown to be a good person from the beginning. He was saving kids, he saved the men in the oil rig. He even a went to a church and talked to a priest.
Again there was was no dilemma. If Superman had chosen the aliens it would have been the dumbest and most irrational thing ever shown on cinema.
He saved those people before he found the answers. Not to mention, he was damming an entire race to extinction. That's a big moral dilemma.
"before he found the answers."
Yeah before he found Jor-El who told him "You will give the people of Earth an ideal to strive towards".
You expected him to become a killer after that?
Yeah, "Krypton had it's chance", it was such a hard choice that it took him about 2 seconds to make up his mind.
Please stop reaching.
You must've missed the part where he had to stop the World Engine from destroying the planet. Yeah, he kinda didn't have a lot of time think. And then there's when he reslides the ramifications of his actions when he kills Zod.
You didn't adress the Jor-El part. Do you concede that?
"the part where he had to stop the World Engine from destroying the planet"
What about that? Where's the dilemma? He stopped the world engine because he was always good and he wanted to save the people of earth.
Jor-El had also told Clark of his heritage and not to make the same mistakes that the Kryptonians did. His warning is the main reason for why Clark was chose the humans. The dilemma was still that Clark was ending a race
So we can conclude that siding with the bad guys was never really a choice. He was always good and Jor-El only guided him further on that path.
Ending a race was not a dilemma, it was the only logical action to take. If he didn't destroy the ship and world engine then humans would have been killed. Since Kal-El had already been established as someone who saves people and he had already told Zod he wouldn't be part of his plans then the ONLY logical action to take was destroying the ships.
It was like him killing Zod. There was no dilemma. He was obviously going to save the poor family because he was always good and saved people. Killing Zod was just a plot reaction, not a choice that defined him or changed his character arc.
Because we know the choice Superman will always make. Just because we know the answer, doesn't mean that the dilemma is nonexistent. Even if the choice is the most logical, it doesn't dismiss the obvious ramifications of genocide. It's like chooping to let the Rachni queen live or die in Mass Effect 1.
It's not about knowing the answer. It's about the character making a decision that defines him.
In Batman Begins Bruce wanted to fight criminals but when offered to execute one he refuses. That decision defined him as a character.
In MoS Superman saved people because he was Superman. Then Zod comes, tries to wipe out humanity so Sups destroys the ships with unborn kryptonians, then kills Zod.
How did any of that change or define Superman? He was exactly the same before making that decision and he was exactly the same afterwards. He was just reacting to the plot.
But it did define him as a character. He saved people because it was the right thing to do, same as when Bruce saved Ra's and spared the thief. Clark, like many people in real life, didn't need a special reason to save someone. He has the power to do so, and he chose to use it for good. Killing Zod and the Kyrptonians defined him as being more human than anyone else, while his "death" in BvS solidifies it. You say that wiping out the Kryptonians was the an easy and logical choice. Even though Clark didn't hours upon hours on making the decision, wiping out YOUR own race is not an easy choice.
Saving people is a very different and far easier choice than not executing a murder (especially when your parents were murdered).
They are superheros, they will obviously save people. But that doesn't define them. Superman just being good isn't developing his character.
And about him being more human, I think this Superman is easily the the less likeable and caring version yet. He doesn't seem too worried about colateral damage. He just flies away after the senate gets blown away. He doesn't talk much, he barely smiles. In fact he's kind of a douche. He doesn't feel like a symbol of hope.
His dead has no impact because writers didn't make him likeable and makes no significant decisions. We're just supppsed to care because he's good and he's Superman.
Yes because killing someone who has no connection to your parents murder is really difficult. And if saving and helping people was so easy, Clark wouldn't care that much about keeping his identity a secret.
In the UE, he had helped saved survivors from the explosion. And yes, he totally didn't care that much which was why he exiled himself after seeing all of the dead and injured. And in the UE, he talked back to Perry about the Planet should their stories on Batman's brandings, he tried to talk with the witness from Africa, and there are plenty of scenes talked to people. And really? Barely smiling makes him a douche? You don't realize that being an entire planet's savior is kinda stressful?
"Yes because killing someone who has no connection to your parents murder is really difficult"
That depends on each person. However Bruce was at one point an angry person willing to kill. But he ultimately made the decision not to do it and that defined who he was.
Superman exiling himself just led to another pointless scene with Pa Kent. Really made no sense. Why doesn't he try to explain what happened? Why just fly away? He doesn't like being hated yet he does nothing to fix that.
Saving people can be great, inspiring and joyful, but it is stressful in this universe because Zack Snyder likes his characters dark and gritty and he doesn't understand Superman. I mean the guy thinks Superman shouldn't even talk much. He's an idiot.
Have you watched the videos posted above called "Why Superman is a Terrible Character" and "DC Films Character Problems"? Please watch those. They nail down why Superman is a poorly writen character.
Bruce wasn't angry to kill at that point. He was way past it by the time he had met Ra's. Rachel was the one who told him that killing like that is wrong and his father would ashamed of him. Gee, doesn't that sound familiar in a different film?
The scene wasn't pointless because it gave Clark a reason to keep going. He remembered a story that Johnathan had told him, and decided to follow the same way that father had did. And doesn't he try to explain himself? He's wracked with guilt. He has all of this power, and yet people keep dying. He has all of this power, and yet he didn't notice a bomb that was right next to him.
Of course saving people is stressful. Ask your local firemen or police department. It's not as glorious as television tries to paint it as. Superman is trying to be a hero to an entire planet by himself. You don't even try to say "He's Superman. He can handle it." That's complete BS, and you know it. He's a man with emotions and limits.
And I've seen those videos, but disagree with them. I can easily pull up videos that praise his character, and you'll disagree with them.
At this point I get the feeling these people are just gathering views for these videos!
“Of course saving people is stressful. Ask your local firemen or police department.”
Policemen and firemen put their lives in danger. Superman doesn’t when he’s saving people from natural disasters. You claim Superman is the “most human of all” yet Zack Snyder never tries to make him feel human, only a god.
He saves a girl from a fire but then they shift the focus on him being looked up as a God. You know what would have worked better? Him saving a girl, smiling at her, telling her “you’re fine. I’m gonna hand you to your mother” and leaving. THAT would make him more likeable to the audience.
Same for the flood scene. People are about to die. What do you do? Show Superman in the sky and then cut the scene. He barely ever connects with the people he saves. And they didn’t even have to make the scene long or complicated. Him giving his hand to these people and smiling and telling them “You’re gonna be fine” would have been enough.
But again, Superman is a poorly written character. You can defend him all you want, but the biggest evidence is the number of people complaining about it. At the end of the day the film was made for the audience and when a good part of the audience doesn’t connect with your characters, then you have a problem.
“Bruce wasn't angry to kill at that point.”
LOL, Dude are you even reading? That’s exactly what I said: “However Bruce was AT ONE POINT an angry person willing to kill”. My point is that not every person is willing to kill somebody for revenge, but Bruce tried to do it. He could have easily taken the same path Ra’s did when his wife was taken from him, but ultimately he chooses not to.
Ra’s doesn’t even appear to be an angry person, but he’s willing to kill because of what he believes. Bruce simply decides not to believe in that and that decision defines his character as Batman.
Pa Kent scenes are pointless and contradictory. First of all Clark says that Superman was a dream of a farmer from Kansas. That’s just ridiculous. Pa Kent didn’t even want him to save little kids who were drowing. He never leads him to a path of goodness. “You have to decide what kind of man you want to be”. He doesn’t lead him, he just lets him deceide. So how does Pa Kent telling him to keep going (if that’s what you interpret from that scene) makes any sense?
You know what would make sense? Jor-El telling him that. He’s the one who sets him on a path to be Superman, he’s the one who tells him to be a symbol of hope, not Pa Kent.
Yep, I've said it before-- when you help a person, you feel warmth in your heart, unless you're psycho. And if you save a life, you are compelled to smile at the person you saved. Such a simple and obvious notion, completely lost on this Sups. What a missed opportunity...
Exactly!
Gee, isn't that what happened when he saved that Hispanic girl? He smiles as he hands her off to her mother.
He did not. Or it was so quick and weak that I did not notice.
He did. It wasn't easy to miss. What? Did you want him to show off his teeth and the camera zoom in on them?
Yeah. You call that suffered faint smile a sign of joy? Fuck outta here. I actually had to go back, and pause in multiple places to notice it.
Man, the lengths you people go to just to nitpick and shit on is almost inspirational.
Yeah, wish Snyder went to half the lengths I go to inspire people with his movies. But I get it, life is much easier when all you care about is appearances. Bats looks cool, Sups wears a red cape, and that's all we need.
Huh? He did smile to the girl as he had passed her to her mother. The god perspective was how the people he's saving viewed him. If you think that he enjoyed that you clearly wasn't paying any attention. After he had saved the girl and those people started reaching out to him, does he look like he enjoys their worship? No.
You seem to have ignored the rest of my comments when I said that Bruce had already chosen his path before he had met Ra's. We already know what decisions he'll make. And again, that sounds similar to what you were complaining about in MoS.
Again, Pa Kent said "maybe". He wants Clark to be cautious. He repeatedly told Clark that he will be destined for great things, but unlike Jor-El, Johnathan didn't sugar coat it to Clark. He told Clark that people may fear him, and that his presence in general will change everything that humanity knows about the universe. The ghost dad scene was him telling to that it's always good to have a love someone who can help ease the burden on his shoulders.
Bruce had already chosen the path of fighting crime. That’s it. He still had to decide whether he would be a part of the League of Shadows and kill people for justice. You claim we already knew that, but in the context of the film we didn’t. You could only deduce that by knowing he would be Batman and Batman didn’t kill, but as a character in the film he definitely made a choice and that was a turning point in his arc.
He never looks at the girl. Never connects. He also never connects or says a word to the people in the flood. He’s just there flying.
I know exactly the point the film was trying to make by just having people look up to him while he doesn’t say a word, but doing that simply doesn’t make him grow as a character.
How are we supposed to know and LIKE of someone who’s just there? He enters the capitol and he doesn’t say a word. How does that make him grow? Hell he even goes to his mother’s house and says nothing. Then he tries to fight Batman instead of telling him about his mother, and please don’t say he didn’t have a chance to tell him, when he yelled “stay down, if I wanted it, you’d be dead already” and even gives Batman a douchey smile. Kinda of a bad moment to try to look menacing don’t you think?
Pa Kent said “maybe” you should have let those kids die. How is that inspiring him to be Superman?
“Whoever that man is, good character or BAD, he's gonna change the world”. Instead of educating his kid to do good, he pretty much tells him, hey do what you want, you can even be bad. That’s just terrible. Pa Kent is such a poorly written character, that never inspires Superman to anything good. So again the mountain scene was completely pointless.
He was smiling at the mother. It was during a montage. We don't know what the hell happened afterwards. Character usually don't talk in a montage. You keep ignoring scenes where he does talk to plenty of people, and act as if he had no dialogue whatsoever. Remember when he called his mother? Remember when he talked to two people in Gotham who told him that Batman's too pissed to listen to reason? The film even proves this by having us watch Alfred try to convince Bruce to not fight Superman. And then you say that Superman gave him a douchey smile? Gee, maybe because he got tired of getting punched in the face by a metal fist.
He's not trying to inspire his son to be a hero. He's trying to make Clark think about what his actions might lead to. He knows that Clark means, but he also knows how the world works. He knows that his son may looked at as a monster. He believes Clark will will do good, but he wants to be sure that Clark is ready to face the world. He's acting like a typical. Is he being selfish? Yes, but parents are selfish. They don't give a crap about the world. All they care about is their children.
"It was during a montage."
You're using creative decisions as an excuse. It was a montage, why? because fillmmakers wanted it that way, why? because they didn't think Superman connecting to the victims was more important.
"Remember when he called his mother?"
How about hugging his mother? She was a big key in this film and yet he stands next to her without saying a word and only talks to her over the phone. He did show some love to her mom in MoS, but in this movie it would have had a higher impact.
"maybe because he got tired of getting punched in the face"
He got tired of trying to tell Batman his mother was in danger quicker. He had a million ways of telling him, yet he kept fighting. When a character has so many obvious solutions to his problem and yet doesn't seem to figure it out, then it's a dumb character. In MoS he even leaves his mom alone with kryptonian soldiers after tackling Zod. Who the hell does that? Oh yeah, a dumb character.
"He's not trying to inspire his son to be a hero."
You don't have to explain anything. I know what Pa Kent is saying and it is completely stupid. His son is the most poweful being in the world and he's not trying to make him a good person. He's letting him decide to be good or bad. This is a kid we're talking about not a grown man. Superman being Pa Kents dream is just stupid and contradictory.
There was no point in going to the mountains and hallucinating a guy who didn't even like him saving people or inspired him to do good. He needed to be told that Martha gave him hope? Well Lois tried to do just that and Superman just flew away.
Oh my gosh your rebuttals don't make any sense and this isn't really a situation where you have to provide Citations for your sources
What are the odds? I just wrote a reply to you with the same video! Just now seen that you posted it here, indeed a better video. :)
lol yes, just saw it. That video is amazing. Really shows how BvS could have made the audience feel more invested with the characters and make them have better chemestry.
But F***K, it makes me kinda sad knowing how good BvS could have been. Oh well...
The one about Zod is also pretty good. Always thought Zod was an underwhelming villain because he was never established as a physical threat to Superman. Check it out if you haven't.
"But F***K, it makes me kinda sad knowing how good BvS could have been. Oh well..." My feelings exactly!
And no, I haven't seen this video yet. I'll make sure to check it out, thanks!
That's how it starts. The fever. The rage. The feeling of hate that turns good fans into trolls.
This idea that there is no character development in BvS is ridiculous, though, it being done well and to it's full potential can definitely be argued.
I don't have great wifi ATM but I WILL watch the video when I do so I can address it, so for now I'll leave it alone since I can't watch it.
However, I agree that maybe in BvS they could have made it a BIT clearer, but it isn't exactly like looking through muddy water (to me at least). He was a guy that was trying to do right by the planet and people he loved but was constantly being blasted for the events of MoS (which is another discussion for another time haha). As for why he fought Batman, he was between a rock an a hard place. Kill the Bat (which is against everything he believes in and stands for) or let his mother die (which no man with a good relationship with his mother can do). Throughout the movie he is faced with people who hate him even though he only ever tried to do right.
Batman saw firsthand the events of the battle of Metropolis. He saw the people hurt and killed. For the second time in his life he was as helpless as the kid he once was when he lost he parents. He didn't see the man trying to save the world, he only saw the destruction and hurt caused by his battle (tunnel vision I guess). His rage came from a place of being backed into a corner by his lack of ability to change the damage or prevent it. This threat needed to be eradicated. Only until the alien, with his dying breath, asked for Batman (his killer) to save someone ELSE, did he begin seeing him as less than a malevolent being and more of a person. The name Martha simply got his attention (it didn't stop him given that he got even angrier, thinking it was a trick). Superman's selflessness in asking for someone else to be spared snapped Bats out of his kill rage. It was just fate or coincidence that the name he said was Martha.
I found a better video a while ago, you all should check it out:
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
"all" includes you, @schuylerfinley:disqus, see what you think about it. :)
That's the thing though, these are different iterations of the characters. Because they weren't what they should be at the beginning of the story it doesn't mean that won't ever be. And that's ok as long as they DO become the people we know and love and tell a good story along the way.
Batman WAS the person we know him to be. Events throughout his experience (including the Battle of Metropolis) contributed to his rage. He is now the hero he was and also the hero we know. Superman was the hero we wanted. The story, though, gave more attention to those who didn't like him than we've ever known. That's why it felt that way (at least to me anyways). In Justice League, he will definitely become the inspiration we want. Personally, it makes sense to me and I've really enjoyed the twist on the characters (as long as they do become the heroes weve always known). I hope the movies will start becoming more enjoyable to you as well bruh!
The movie is about development, tbh. That's why a lot of people didn't like BvS. They want "complete" and "easy" characters in every movie. But I like the Snyder's descontruction. I think we will finally see the canon characters in Justice League, this is the plan at least.
I don't know if that's necessarily true overall, but you're not wrong about them being deeper versions of the characters.
"Batman shouldn't evolvr from a jaded killer into a hero, he should simply be a hero"
That's what YOU wanted. But we've been seeing Batman be a "hero" in live action movies for decades now, and it was about time we saw something different.
This is what you don't get, you're a whiny b*tch who's always complaining about anything DC-related you can grasp at. Get a life, you f*cking nut-job
Not in a real DC universe, we didn't.
So? That doesn't change the fact that we DID get that version every time before BvS, and now we're getting him again after BvS. Jesus Christ, talk about grasping at straws.
Wanting to see your beloved character interact properly with other character is no straw.
Awwww, here, take this
http://www.gad.net/Blog/wp-...
I'm fine, you need it more. Wipe your shitty lips with it.
No, you're not fine. You're triggered very much hahaha
Nope. I see you whine and complain like a little bitch on nearly every post on Batman-news.
And now that I toasted you, you come up with a weak response about "characterization was mistaken", which is what you're calling 'introducing this batman in a different way than usual'. Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it was done wrong, you asswipe.
http://media.giphy.com/medi...
Lol. I love triggering little troll-cunts like you.
""I toasted you" + "Weak response" + [insert gif here] = The exact way that a whiny little bitch gets out of having to actually make a reasonable point"
I already threw your shitty argument down the drain with my first comment and made my point, and now I'm enjoying making your sour and angry like a little teenager :D
Now that I've triggered you to the max, let it flow through you while I tell you I won't read any more of your responses so don't bother wasting your time typing one LMAO
http://m.popkey.co/559168/W...
Didn't read http://www.reactiongifs.com...
Amen, dude. I offered my simple innocuous criticism of Zack Snyder's Superman last week, and was met with an all-out blitz from pigheaded fanboys; an endless stream of acrimonious attacks. What's interesting is that they like to pretend we're in the minority, even though the response to MoS/BvS and their monumental second weekend drops still speak for themselves.
When JL is met with its inevitable rotten rating there will be a bittersweet upside knowing that those insolent brats are in a frantic state.
Read my post below.
The redemption of Batman!
That's great, because for a moment there I thought he would have to face justice for his homicidal killing spree; you know, him being about justice and all that.
The redemption of a murderer begins when they come to terms with their sin and accept justice, not eschew from it.
But sure, we'll just say he's redeemed because he pontificated "men are still good" while standing at the grave of an innocent man he hounded for 18 months.
Welcome to Snyder's Murderverse.
hahaha! My God how you like to act in that lamish way against anyone who happens to like the movie eh?
I'm sick and tired of saying this, but it seems there still are idiots who a) don't get it from the movie, or b) just jumped on the bandwagon and run with the criticism without even watching the movie.
But OK here we go: Homicidal??? Think about because maybe you are just thinking about Burton's Batman, which happens to fit that description better, because, in actuallity, well, Batfleck only "kills" (and I add commas because he only respond to being attack) just TWICE in the entire movie: once when he shoots another car from the batmobile while the chase, and another from the batwing when the cars shoot at him (and see how he doesn't shoot first). That's it, no more, no less. Maybe you want to take into account the Knightmare scene, but take into account that a) the scenario isn't likely to actually happen and b) in an apocalyptic time I don't see his using guns much of a stretch.
If you still are hell-bent on proclaming him as homicidal, can you at least show proof from the movie? Because if that's so, how the heck are his rogue villains alive? Why didn't he just shoot the KGBeast? Why didn't he kill all those in the warehouse? "but he was going to kill Superman!" you say? Well remember that for him it was an alien, not a person, and was led to believe he was a menace. When he saw his humanity, look how he stopped from killing him because he realised he was going too far off.
And even if those few "killings" bug you, which is understandable, why can't you see it from the movie perspective? Because the way the conflict was laid out it makes total sense that Wayne was loosing it, further proof with Alfred words to him, how Superman's arrival changed everything AND more importantly it showes that Batman "murdering" only happened in those instances, no more. So no, no homicidal at all.
Oh and BTW, Snyder himself said that Batman's "killings" will be addressed in JL, but of course people can't wait for the movie to come out to critisize what further development can there be, huh?
Sad to see that you can’t have a respectful debate, and need to personally attack me. Way to go for losing emotional control, like some of you other buddies. ;)
It just goes to show how thin-skinned and incapable people like you really are in dealing with criticisms of a film. You can’t cope with someone having different views than you, so you publicly lose control and personally attack them, calling them “idiots”. Oh, the sweet irony.
“Batfleck only "kills" (and I add commas because he only respond to being attack”.
All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders. In this case, Batfleck murders, as in “unlawful killing”.
In those two instances, the Batmobile chase, and in the Batwing, Batman kills when it is NOT necessary and NOT justified, and where his life or the life of innocents were not at risk. He kills directly and with total intent or premeditation. THAT'S UNLAWFUL KILLING, ie. MURDER. And that’s nothing to say about his indiscriminate and grotesque use of force. With the exception of saving Martha Kent, his life or the life of others were NOT at risk.
“…AND more importantly it showes that Batman "murdering" only happened in those instances, no more. So no, no homicidal at all.”
Definition of “homicidal”: “capable of, or tending towards murder; murderous”.
It’s safe to say that based on the above definition he is homicidal, or at least was until the conclusion of the film, because, you know, “men are still good”! Lol.
The rest of your missive is frankly nonsense:
‘How is he a murderer if his rogues are still alive?’
That makes no sense – Batman can murder goons, but if his rogues are still alive he can’t be a murderer now? Lol.
“Why didn't he kill all those in the warehouse?”
This is frankly a bizarre question. Just because Batman didn’t murder every or even most of the bad guys in the film doesn’t mean he isn’t a murderer. Joker is a murderer because he murders people, not because he murders everyone in a film. The prerequisite for murder is the act not the quantity.
“Why didn't he just shoot the KGBeast?”
An irrelevant example, since he didn’t murder him, he killed him because it was justified, necessary and designed to save the life of an innocent who was at imminent risk.
“…why can't you see it from the movie perspective?”
I can see it from a movie perspective, which is why I complained about it in the first place. You engage passionately in what the movie was trying to do. I understand that, my point was not only was it not done very well, but it undermines the core concept around Batman – murdering is a redline he will not cross because it would mean the internalization of his abuser (Chill), and would legitimize the very act that brought him into existence.
“Snyder himself said that Batman's "killings" will be addressed in JL”
Yes, because of the backlash to his misunderstanding of a character loved by so many people. That’s not to Snyder’s credit, that’s because he was forced to deal with an error he created, much like how he was forced to deal with the criticism around the Battle of Metropolis.
Don't play the victim here now, as you were the first talking in a condescending way, that's why I replied the way I did. If you look around you will see I rarely loose my nerves and I actually like to engage in debates. Again, mind your tone and I would do the same.
Going into the topic at hand, basically you are saying that I'm right. Those instances where he "kills" are justified within the movie. Self-defense is not seen as you are putting it here, and remember that he was shot first, and even with that, if you pay attention, he only shoots at the vehicles, not the people. Again, within the context of the movie, I don't see that as bad as it has been exaggerated (like people calling him the Punisher, like what the heck.
I'm glad you see it that way. Yes, of course it's logical for people not liking that bits, but it was immenselly exaggerated.
Now, it's always said that Snyder only reacts. I disagree, as we have seen interviews and such where we have seen things plans way before, like JL's change of tone. I say this because in the end Batman got a complete arc in the movie. He starts at his bottom (again, I understand people not liking this) but we see how he ends up inspired by Superman and how he comes back to the justice way (no pun intended). For me it was a good redemption arc, and enough for the character as it wasn't so far lost as some people claimed to be and, more important, we saw he came again to his willingness to be a hero. That's why I think they surely had planned Batman dealing with this as we see he ended up in the good side at the end of BvS.
The problem is, people didn't want to see this and went along with Batman "being a murderer", so when he is in his normal self in JL people will just say that they were reactionary.
Now, if you aren't one of those, then I apologise, but you can't negate there are a lot who think that way and don't se what the movie clearly shows
“Don't play the victim here now, as you were the first talking in a condescending way, that's why I replied the way I did" (calling me an “idiot”).
Can you please explain how I am playing the victim? Can you also explain how my condensation was directed at you personally, especially when not once did I mention you or your character?
So because I was “condescending” to your argument, you chose to call me an “idiot”? Lol. I know you are trying to save face and exculpate yourself from an insult you realize was too much, but you’re coming across way more emotionally thin-skinned than before.
“Again, mind your tone and I would do the same.”
Is this your first time on the internet or something? Are you seriously suggesting my so-called "condescension" equates to petty name-calling? It’s a staggering remark to make. Look where you are, virtually every comment in the context of debate has a “tone” to it that is robust and argumentative. It’s called debating on the internet. Saying you’re going to call me an idiot again while I never even made a personal insult to you makes you look even worse and desperate. Better people would’ve accepted they crossed a line and moved on by now, but you’re just digging yourself into a hole.
“Those instances where he "kills" are justified within the movie. Self-defense is not seen as you are putting it here, and remember that he was shot first.”
Killing in self-defense is only justified if your life is at risk. A quick observation of both scenes show that Batman's life was NOT at risk. Not even close. His Batmobile was so heavily armored that not only did it withstand heavy gun fire (as demonstrated by Bats’ unwillingness to dodge the bullets), but it also successfully countermeasured rocket fire. Likewise with the Batwing, it suffered no damage by gun fire. Therefore, not only was Batman NOT at risk, but he was not at imminent risk of death. So your argument fails the self-defense test.
“…he only shoots at the vehicles, not the people.”
…………………………………!
Yeah…that’s still called murder. So what if he shot the vehicles? Who’s in the vehicles? Are you seriously trying to say that it’s not murder because he was shooting the vehicles? LOL! By shooting those vehicles with the firepower he has, it’s clear his intent is to kill - a precondition of murder. Do you think this has any difference from an identical situation where instead of shooting the vehicles, he shoots the thugs inside the vehicles only, thus leaving the vehicles in tact? No, of course not. In fact, what he actually does is much worse than this, because it is an indiscriminate and grotesque use of force – you will recall that these are preconditions for murder.
Again, please explain to me how shooting the vehicles means he wasn’t shooting at the thugs inside them, and more importantly, please explain to me why this difference is the difference between killing and murder.
“I say this because in the end Batman got a complete arc in the movie.”
Sure, he has an arc, and it’s clear by the end that he’s a changed man. My point is that this was NOT done well. It wasn’t done well because the characterization sucks (even though the premise of why Batman would want to fight Superman was decent). It wasn’t done well either because other than the growth of the character, he was exceptionally poorly defined, had absurd motivations that made him look like an idiot and not the World’s Greatest Detective, and his actions were incoherent at times. So yeah, he has a beginning and an end, but that’s all he has.
“The problem is, people didn't want to see this and went along with Batman "being a murderer", so when he is in his normal self in JL people will just say that they were reactionary.”
It’s an open question if Snyder was going to deal with Batman’s redemption in JL before the BvS fallout – you say yes, I say it’s a reaction. The problem I’m getting at is this: he has not EARNED his redemption – it is a character development problem, not a characterization problem. Yes, you can hate/love the characterization of this Batman (for example, he murders), but it’s an altogether more profound problem that his arc is unjustified because he hasn’t earned his redemption – and that was the point of my first reply. Let me put it another way, if they left the end open, that he feels changed by the death of Superman, but he doesn’t think he’s redeemed, that would be a great way to lead into it in JL because no-one thinks he’s justified in saying “Men are still good” virtually standing over the grave of Superman. I’m sorry that was totally cringeworthy.
No, I was showing you how keen I am on doing a debate on good terms. I stick to my response against your condescending reply, which, although it wasn't thrown at me personally, it was against my opinion nontheless. If you want to go ahead on discussing in a good way, you will always find me willing to do that, no matter the topic.
For the rest of your comment, we will have to agree to disagree here, as I think both the character of Batman and his arc were well developed. However, I do agree with on the last part and at least that's how I expect it to be in JL
“…I was showing you how keen I am on doing a debate on good terms… If you want to go ahead on discussing in a good way, you will always find me willing to do that”.
Well no, and that’s my point. You have NOT been able to debate on “good terms”, and you have NOT been willing to discuss in a “good way”. You personally attacked me, calling me an “idiot”, all because I was condescending, which you now finally accept was towards your argument and not to you personally.
So, with that said, why do you think personally insulting is a proportionate response to someone who was only condescending of an argument NOT the person? How are you able to say that one focusing on the argument, and the other attacking the person’s character, are considered on the same level? Do you know what an ad hominem fallacy is?
“…we will have to agree to disagree here, as I think both the character of Batman and his arc were well developed.”
That’s fine if you wish to end the debate, but just to be clear, we’re not agreeing to disagree because of stalemate, you’re agreeing to disagree because you are unwilling to respond to my clear refutations of your argument. Unless you want to engage with them, which I am more than happy to do, the debate has concluded because your argument has been defeated. Saying “I think both the character of Batman and his arc were well developed” is just an unsubstantiated assertion.
Ahem, I was referring to my second post, and if you pay attention the only thing I pointed towards you was the first lines of my first response to you. The idiots part was me speaking in general, and I stick to that. I said that if you aren't one of the idiots that compares Batman towards the Punisher, then good, that line wasn't for you, and we saw that you don't see Batman that way, so good, that line it's not for you, but yeah I still say that you patronize people who like the movie as I've seen around here and towards my own post.
I'm not ending the debate because of what you say, I'm ending the debate because you are still a condescendient tool. Yes, now that's pointed to you, because I gave you the opportunity to speak in good terms, but you still act like you are wisest around here.
Oh, and I already pointed out why I thought the arc was well developed, why the heck do you want me to repeat myself? You see it one way and I see another. We disagree, end of the story. So I can say the same to you. You are stuck because your arguments haven't convinced me, you are nitpicking everything apart while ignoring the context of the own movie. Batman was pissed-off, he was loosing it, but he saw the light before he completed his journey to the dark side. It was there for everyone to see. If you don't like it, cool, but you don't have to tear anything apart just to make a point that the own movie refutes, just like what has been happening since more than a year ago, people not seeing things for the sake of criticising.
Now, we can end it here or you just respond again as a triggered fanboy/hater, but we have already seen both parts of the discussion and our opinions aren't going to change
“Now, we can end it here or you just respond again as a triggered fanboy/hater,”
Says the triggered person. That is a genuinely hysterical reaction. This comes from you who thinks you can insult and personally attack someone, calling them an idiot and a tool just because I destroyed your argument to such an extent you no longer wish to defend it. You even said you are able to deal on “good terms”, but all the evidence of your character and conduct suggests that you are projecting your own problems on to me. It’s a stunning level of hypocrisy, and your latest bizarre accusation against me says more about you then it does about me.
Not once have I insulted you, not once have I been condescending to you personally, not once have I patronized you personally. Why do you then feel you are justified in calling me an “idiot” and calling me a “condescending tool”? Most rational people would say that being condescending to one’s argument does not justify the other being rude, insulting and overly emotional and accusatory. Your continued attempts to focus on insulting me will have no effect, I will not stoop down to your level.
I’ll ask you again, are you aware what the ad hominem fallacy is?
“The idiots part was me speaking in general, and I stick to that. I said that if you aren't one of the idiots that compares Batman towards the Punisher, then good, that line wasn't for you, and we saw that you don't see Batman that way, so good, that line it's not for you”
Nope, you said: “but it seems there still are idiots who a) don't get it from the movie, or b) just jumped on the bandwagon and run with the criticism without even watching the movie.” At no point did you mention the Punisher in that reply. It was directed at me because it was one of the first things you said to me. If you weren’t referring to me then it’s a bizarre nonsensical comment to make when it’s not even relevant to me. In any case, actually, yes, I do think Batman is effectively Punisher with gadgets. So the fact that you ARE STILL calling me an idiot just because I broke your argument speaks volumes about your psychology.
“…but yeah I still say that you patronize people who like the movie as I've seen around here and towards my own post.”
Bizarre. You now seem to be making a completely different argument now. At first you said you were calling me an idiot because I was condescending to you. After forcing you, you then relented and changed your position, saying that I was condescending NOT to you personally, but to your argument, which is correct. I replied suggesting to you that being condescending to an argument does not mean you can then name call and insult someone personally. And now, you’re saying something different, that because I “patronize people”, you are justified in personally insulting me. Can you please show evidence of this? Furthermore, and you failed to answer this the last time, how is there any moral justification for insulting and calling me an idiot for criticising an argument? How can you equate someone being critical to an argument with namecalling? Do you not wish to answer because of how it will make you look?
“Oh, and I already pointed out why I thought the arc was well developed”
Nope. I dismantled and destroyed all your arguments, so much so that you have now failed to reply to them. I tore your Batman is not a murderer argument to pieces, I tore your “Batman isn’t homicidal” argument to pieces, I tore your ‘why didn’t he kill all those in the warehouse’ argument to pieces, I tore your “self-defense” argument to pieces, I tore your “why didn’t he just shoot the KGBeast” to pieces, I tore your “movie perspective” argument to pieces, I tore your “Batman got a complete arc” argument to pieces, and I tore your “he shoots at the vehicles, not the people” (lol) argument to pieces.
“You are stuck because your arguments haven't convinced me,”
100% agree. My arguments haven’t convinced you. But it’s become clear the reason they haven’t is because of your lack of profound understanding of basic things, like argumentation, evidence and reason. I mean look at some of your arguments, they are so bizarre and amateurish. That’s why you don’t reply to them – because you can’t reply to them, and that’s why you no longer wish to continue with this –because you know you will never win this argument.
More than happy to end this argument, all I said with my last reply was that you were doing it for incorrect reasons, and, for the avoidance of doubt, when someone doesn’t wish to respond to an argument like this (and insults instead), it usually means they don’t have an argument at all. And yeah, perhaps you should reflect on your lack of manners and your pathetic attempts to disparage me through insulting me as a reason why I so happily ripped your argument to pieces. Next time, watch YOUR tone, otherwise you’re going to get more of the same.
I want you to know that I destroyed your argument without stooping down to your level of personally attacking you. Remember that.
So it took you 4 days for that triggered response huh? Sorry but the time has passed and the conversation ended days ago
Well, remember that you started all this with your tone. Oh and you didn't destroy any argument, less so while using (again) that tone of yours. You try to give a lesson when you haven't even paid attention to your faults. Haven't you read what you have writtn there? Because I can see how you insult me and my opinions
I will say it one last time. You want good debates with me, ok, I'm willing to do it as you can see everywhere. But if you want to keep on talking like that, you will receive the same from me. Remember that
“So it took you 4 days for that triggered response huh? Sorry but the time has passed and the conversation ended days ago”
LOL! That's too funny! You really have no concept of how ridiculous that sounds, do you? If your previous nonsense arguments weren’t enough, then that comment says all that needs to about your unwillingness to engage in debate.
It was Easter, I was on vacation over the extended weekend. I never knew there was a time limit on debates - can you point me to this? I have a family to take care of and I work, I don’t have time to spend my waking hours on here, and your response says more about your craven anxieties about debating when you know you're wrong than it does about me.
I notice too that you've completely abandoned debating. You STILL cannot even bring yourself to respond to any of my arguments. You STILL will not answer any of my simple questions, like how can you equate destroying your argument with namecalling me. You STILL won’t accept your intransigence, your pettiness, and your insulting manner. On the other hand, look at your comments – you are incapable of debating on good terms, you are incapable of debating like a rational individual, and you are incapable of debating without succumbing to a base level of hypocritical, shameless and insulting behavior.
The truth is you deserve me destroying your arguments because of your insulting behavior. Let that be your lesson. Watch your tone.
"...the time has passed..."....Bahahaha...(with a condescending tone). ;)
sigh... ok let's try to finish this with some sense just for the sake of it .
you still act in a condescending way and you don't even want to see it. See, it's not that I don't know how to counter your arguments, it's that I tried to relax the tone and discuss well but you resufed. But OK let's see:
First you give a bad reason of why you don't like Batman's arc. You state your point of view as an absolute but it's not. If you want Batman to face trial for his "killings", shouldn't he be processed for every unlawful thing he has done? Torture, beatings, entering and a long list of wrongs. If you play with real world logic then every superhero story falls apart. Shouldn't Superman be prpcessed for entering foreign soil? Iron Man for killing a bussinesman? Captain America for helping a escapee? Why wasn't Black Widow condemned after her confessions before a court? See how that can't work in a fictional world? Everything can be nitpicked until ots death.
Anothee thing you fail to see is that this is just another iteration of Batman, not the actual one. Be angry if the one in the comics do it (although he did it long ago). And by your logic you should also criticise all Batmen in movies minus West's and Clooney's. If not you are a hypocrite. If you do that's ok, but it certainly doesn't help you to enjoy these movies.
Again, I stated my opinion on what I saw in the movies. We see Batman's progression towards redemption. In addition to that we know he is going ahead with that redemption in subsequent movies because it has been reported, said by Snyder and Affleck among others. Now, you can like it or not, that's ok, but the redemption is there within the confines of the movie universe.
As I said before, we can agree or disagree, but our points of view have been debates and our opinions remain the same. Can't we at least agree that it's useless to go on with this?
PS: And don't say you didn't reply because of Easter, I saw you comment in other news ;)
“you still act in a condescending way and you don't even want to see it. See, it's not that I don't know how to counter your arguments, it's that I tried to relax the tone and discuss well but you resufed.”
LOL “I tried to relax the tone”, by calling me a “condescending tool” and REFUSING to accept that you were wrong to insult me when I hadn’t insulted you? Most sensible people would have held their hands up, admitted they were wrong, and we all would have moved on. But you, you still pretend that you did nothing wrong and that you were justified in insulting me.
I’m going to keep asking you the question you keep condemning yourself with by avoiding. For the FIFTH TIME, why is being condescending to an ARGUMENT, ie being critical of it, somehow justifies YOU to insult ME?
“If you want Batman to face trial for his "killings", shouldn't he be processed for every unlawful thing he has done? “
I cannot believe a Batman fan actually said that. That’s the most inexplicable comment I’ve heard from a fan. Notwithstanding the false syllogism fallacy you have committed (look it up), Batman is justified and sanctioned to commit some questionable acts where he isn’t for some others, like murder. He’s not justified because he has a no murder policy which is born from the tragedy he suffered as a child. He makes a promise that no innocent will have to suffer what he had to. Psychologically speaking, not only would murdering internalize his abuser, Joe Chill, and make him as bad as the bad guys, but it would also legitimize the very act that brought him into being in the first place – thus creating an inherent paradox of the Batman.
He is also sanctioned by Gordon, a legitimate lawgiver, to uphold the ‘order’ in law and order. But if he’s murdering people then he’s judge, jury and executioner, and can longer be sanctioned by Gordon, because he doesn’t have that right. It’s one thing to rough up and beat up criminals, it’s another thing to murder them cold blooded.
Any serious Batman fan would understand the difference between roughing up and murdering, would understand the importance of ‘the promise’, and also understand the slender legitimacy he has through Gordon. I’m frankly astonished that you made this comment, more so than your ‘shooting indiscriminately at a car filled with people is different from shooting indiscriminately at people’. Serious question, how long have you been a Batman fan? How old are you? I'd like to know.
“If you play with real world logic then every superhero story falls apart.”
Good thing I’m not playing “real world logic”. I’m “playing” on who the character is, who he’s been for nearly 80 years, and what he stands for. So when you talk about what Superman, Captain America, Black Widow or Iron Man do, you are talking about details that are extraneous to the essence of their character, whereas I’m referring to the essence of the character. How can you get those two things mixed up? Murdering is a redline for the character. So, when you say “everything can be nitpicked until ots death”, that completely misunderstands the point.
“Anothee thing you fail to see is that this is just another iteration of Batman,”
Nope, nope, nope. Again, this is about the essence of the character. Yes, Batman did murder, like in the first issue. Clearly they were still trying to flesh out the character; a character who didn’t even have Robin, the Batmobile or Alfred at that point. Out of the tens of thousands of comicbooks and graphic novels since then, how many times has he murdered? Exactly. Again, look at the essence of the character throughout his nearly 80 year history. BvS is an aberration.
“And by your logic you should also criticise all Batmen in movies minus West's and Clooney”
Only the ones where there is a profound misunderstanding of Batman, and he’s been turned into a bloodthirsty, homicidal maniac ie. BATMAN VS SUPERMAN.
“Now, you can like it or not, that's ok, but the redemption is there within the confines of the movie universe.”
You don’t understand. I’m basically going to have to repeat myself to you since you didn’t bother to read or reply to what I wrote. The point isn’t so much that the ‘redemption’ will continue in the next movie, it’s that what was done at the end of BvS wasn’t justified. The characterization of him is not the central issue I’m getting at here (I address that above), it’s the character development problem. He hasn’t earned his redemption. If they had left the end of BvS open ended, that he feels changed by the death of Superman but he doesn’t think himself he’s redeemed, that would be a great way to lead into it in JL. So the point I’m making here is not only separate from the characterization problems above, and separate from whatever is taken on in the next film, it’s about how BvS unjustifiably portrays him at the end as being redeemed when he isn't. His arc doesn’t justify this. That was the whole point of my first comment.
“Can't we at least agree that it's useless to go on with this?”
As I said to you before, I’m happy to end this. The point I made was that this debate isn’t ending because I’m wrong, it’s ending because you don’t want to debate anymore. In other words, this is not a stalemate, that’s all. That’s not a controversial statement, it’s based on fact. In any case, I felt compelled to continue this to interrogate and criticize your views because of, frankly, the impertinence and insulting behavior. I don’t take kindly to namecalling, especially when I haven’t deserved or reciprocated it. There’s a lesson for you to learn in how you conduct yourself in future - be more respectful to people, otherwise you invite more mockery and scorn.
“And don't say you didn't reply because of Easter, I saw you comment in other news ;)”
You seem to know more about what I was doing at Easter than me. Before my previous reply yesterday, the last message I posted on here was on Good Friday, six days ago. This is confirmed if you look at the dates. So yeah, nice try.
MY GOD! How can you be so triggered? It's like anything I say is a offense to you!
"LOL “I tried to relax the tone”, by calling me a “condescending tool”
and REFUSING to accept that you were wrong to insult me when I hadn’t
insulted you? Most sensible people would have held their hands up,
admitted they were wrong, and we all would have moved on. But you, you
still pretend that you did nothing wrong and that you were justified in
insulting me."
I already did that, IDIOT! You just don't want to see it. But again, you still went on with that tone of yours. Well, I tried to maka amends, you KNOW that, but keep like this, so yeah, as I said, now I don't have to watch my tone, condescending tool!
"I cannot believe a Batman fan actually said that"
You can believe whatever you want, prick. I, as a big Batman fan, have seen myriads of things happening to Batman, by Batman and so on. I just accept the mutability of the character (one who is almost 80, BTW).
"Psychologically speaking, not only would murdering internalize his
abuser, Joe Chill, and make him as bad as the bad guys, but it would
also legitimize the very act that brought him into being in the first
place – thus creating an inherent paradox of the Batman."
And isn't that the point? He was on the brink of becoming that very Joe Chill by killing Superman, but he recovered before the last step of his downfall. And remember that he didn't kill anyone on cold blood, only shooting against vehicles which shot him first (not indiscriminately as you claim. Seriously have you seen the movie? i would like to know). Superman was going to be that cold-blooded murder.
"He is also sanctioned by Gordon"
But we also have seen him reprimend Batman for all those things. Again, "iterations".
" Serious question, how long have you been a Batman fan? How old are you? I'd like to know."
I'm 29, been a fan since 1992 with Batman TAS. Seen all movies (live action and animated). I have more than 2,000 comics related to Batman and some DC in general. So, in case you are wondering, yes, I know what I'm talking about. Can you say the same?
"Nope, nope, nope. Again, this is about the essence of the character.
Yes, Batman did murder, like in the first issue. Clearly they were
still trying to flesh out the character; a character who didn’t even
have Robin, the Batmobile or Alfred at that point. Out of the tens of
thousands of comicbooks and graphic novels since then, how many times
has he murdered? Exactly. Again, look at the essence of the character
throughout his nearly 80 year history".
Yep, that's what I'm talking about. The actual essence of Batman is his mutabilty. We have seen him in HUNDREDS of different ways in DOZENS of different media. Some of them killed, some of them not. Again, you can like it or not, but it is there. Learn to live with it. I do, and that's why I can enjoy this Batman. And if my enjoyning it rattles you... well that's your problem, I'm quite happy with this iteration that is more comic accurate than others before
"BvS is an aberration."
Yeah, sure... but this brings me to the next point:
"Only the ones where there is a profound misunderstanding of Batman, and
he’s been turned into a bloodthirsty, homicidal maniac ie. BATMAN VS
SUPERMAN."
And there's the last straw. I think that at the core of all this is that you are hypocritically critisicing BvS, and what's worse, you are hating those who like the movie.
You see, by that sentence of yours that I copied there, you are just saying that you don't like Burton's Batman, isn't it? I mean, he killed there while smiling, what you say it's a homicidal maniac huh? So you are saying that Burton's movies are shit... smh... And if you don't then there I have my proof that you are hypocrite.
And wait a minute! You don't like TDK trilogy either?? And you call yourself Batman fan? Because, basically, Nolan's did more or less the same as Batfleck. We had him crashing trucks against ceilings, shooting rockets against other vehicles... Oh, and he didn't even saved Ra's, something the canon Batman would have never done, but again, "iterations". And, what's even worse: HE RETIRED!! Say whaa? How can Batman do that? Well, Nolan's did, and you now what? I loved he dare to give Batman a happy ending (and even having Batman sanction Catwoman although she killed Bane with his guns, no less).
Oh, I know what you are thinking. Yes, I'm being condescending now on purpose.
" it’s ending because you don’t want to debate anymore"
I think I have shown you several times now that I'm more than willing to go on debating. If I want to end this is because I tried (really!) to go on on good terms, independently of how we started (I didn't deny my part, but you kept on denying yours). You say you just keep on replying to me because of my behaviour. Well I offered you to start anew, why didn't you take my offer? It's not the first time this has happened with me and other people and in the end we got on good terms and long time after we continue debating with no hars words. And i'm still offering this to you, but you have to admit that everything started by how you replied to me at first at my comment with the picture
And my opinion hasn't changed as of now, because as I said you treat people who like this movie like we are lepers or something like that, and you still come along on your high-horse and saying that your opinion is fact. Well, it isn't.
And sorry (well, not really) but for me Batfleck did what he had to do to earn that redemption. Oh well. The thing is that both of us have shown our points (several times now) You disagree, I disagree, end of the story. You want to reply again ad nauseam (look it up)? Go ahead, but this is stalemate although you don't want to admit it
MINUTES AFTER POSTING YOUR RESPONSE YOU CREATED A NEW ACCOUNT, BTFCK16, AND STARTED UPVOTING ALL YOUR FAILED ARGUMENTS!!!! BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
YOUR HUMILIATION IS NOW COMPLETE. WHAT A TOTAL FARCE!
I'M CRYING WITH LAUGHTER!!!! :D
Wuh? The fack are you talking about? How the fuck do I know who that is?? That account also has upvoted me on a Spanish site! What does that have to do with this??
SMH... I knew I should have just ignored you
LOL. BECAUSE IT'S YOU!!!! BAAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I was alerted the moment you posted, and literally two minutes after that you using your fake account started upvoting your comments. No one else has upvoted this, and like you said, this is an old news piece with over 200 comments, and the person only voted you???? Bahahahahahaha!!!!!!
Seriously, I'm crying with laughter right now. The fact that you thought you could start a brand new account today (it has the date) and then upvote your comments and I wouldn't realize? Bahahahaha!!!!
YOUR TOTAL AND UTTER HUMILIATION IS COMPLETE!!!! THAT'S HOW MUCH I CRUSHED YOU. :D
Aham... so you are just ignoring all what I said on my last comment? You are just diverting or what? Bah, don't care hypocritical hater.
Oh, by the way, couple of days ago on cinemablend I upvoted a post 10 months old. That shit happens.
Bye hater, it's been a wasting of time!
Oh no! I had a look at it, and it's an incredible bout of verbal diarrhea! I'll read it carefully tomorrow. I just wanted to tell you how much I'm laughing my ass off at you right now!
Never known anyone so insecure they need to start a new account and upvote themselves!
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!! BRILLIANT!!!!!
THANK YOU FOR THE THURSDAY AFTERNOON LAUGHS!!!! :D
"Bye hater" BAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! BRILLIANT!!!
Hi, new here. Liked the article. read all. sorry I dont like you sound obnoxious
Ha! good one!
thanks!
¿español?
Si! Me gusta mucho Batman pero no hay muchas páginas por aquí que tengan que ver tanto con Batman. Pillé está de casualidad, no se muy bien inglés pero vaya, ese ha demostrado ser un capullo total
No está mal esta página, de las pocas que quedan que se puede hablar bien del DCEU, aunque siempre hay gilipollas como ese por ahí sueltos. Bienvenido, si vas a hacer por quedarte por aquí ;)
Puf, después de ver conversaciones como esa no se yo. La verdad es que no me gusta mucho el comentar, asi qu lo mismo me quedo flotando por aquí pero sin participar
Bueno como veas, aunque siempre que quieras fastidiar a ese puedes participar cuando te de la gana XD
jaja, lo haré! Gracias!
¡No hay de que! ;)
YEAH...YOU'RE JRVC. PRETENDING TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH BTFCK16 NOW BECAUSE I CAUGHT YOU JUST HUMILIATES YOU EVER FURTHER.
SERIOUSLY, HOW DID YOU THINK I WOULDN'T FIND OUT? TOTAL HUMILIATION, THAT'S HOW MUCH A TORE YOU TO PIECES. :D
PS. I'LL REMIND EVERYONE YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON WHENEVER YOU TRY THIS AGAIN, SO THANKS FOR SIGNPOSTING WHO YOU ARE. :D
FUCKING HYSTERICAL...
We speak at same time, how we do that if we are the same person?
na dejalo como cosa perdía
ya veo
You started an account TODAY, and the first thing you do is head for an article that is ONE WEEK OLD, IGNORE upvoting the newer or top comments, all 200+ plus of them (I just checked), and head STRAIGHT FOR THIS COMMENT THREAD AND UPVOTE THEM MINUTES AFTER YOU POST YOUR COMMENT, AND HAPPEN TO ALSO BE SPANISH LIKE HIM??? THAT'S MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE.
I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER MET SOMEONE WHO IS WILLING TO HUMILIATE HIMSELF SO MUCH AS YOU!
I MEAN...MY JAW HURTS FROM LAUGHING. HOW UTTERLY PATHETIC. THANKS FOR THE LAUGHS!
We have been speaking at the same time, how in the world am I going to write from two different accounts at the same time?
Bah believe whatever you want
gilipúa
Insulting me in Spanish? BAHAHAHA!!!! I will maintain my superiority over you. I will NEVER say that to you. So I win again!
Keep humiliating yourself! Keep going! Please!
You are the one who has been humiliating himself, always speaking from that high-horse.
I know I'm acting stupid by saying this but go and check my last comment, that you have refused to reply. You will see that I have been willing to debate even though you haven't wanted to admit it. Even I have offered AGAIN the opportunity to talk in good terms.
I like debating, so yeah I'm willing to go on good terms with you. You don't want? Ok, but don't say that is for lack of trying on my part
Well, it took a while for me to stop laughing last night at your humiliating attempt to upvote yourself using other accounts. That was one thing, but your attempt to have a conversation with ‘him’ to prove that he was someone else was one of the most hysterical things I've seen on here. In all seriousness, I would absolutely die of SHAME if I was so insecure about myself, that I had to push up my upvote number. I noticed that if you hadn’t upvoted your own comments, your upvote number would’ve dropped below your comments number. Another coincidence? No wonder you were trying to finish the discussion! I mean, I’m actually feeling sorry for you, you must be extremely fragile about yourself to do that...
“so yeah I'm willing to go on good terms with you. You don't want? Ok, but don't say that is for lack of trying on my part.”
This is how you have reacted thus far:
“I already did that, IDIOT!...you can believe whatever you want, prick…you condescending tool…Gilipúa…”
Yeah, really sounds like someone on “good terms”. You say I don’t want good terms, and yet not ONCE have I insulted you or acted like a maddened and triggered person. IT’S BEEN YOU AND ONLY YOU. You cannot pretend to be on good terms and respectable if you’re not even going to accept your behavior is wrong, apologize, and answer my two questions YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY AVOIDED ANSWERING, BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT WOULD YOU SHOW HOW YOU’VE DISGRACED YOURSELF. For the SIXTH time, why did you feel the need to insult and namecall me when I didn’t and HAVEN’T insulted and namecalled you, and why do you think you are justified in insulting and namecalling someone who has only criticized (“condescend”) your argument? I’m going to keep asking these questions until I get an answer. Everytime you ignore this it just confirms that you have disgraced yourself and have no intergrity.
“How can you be so triggered?”
You’ve lost total emotional control. I’ve crushed your arguments, and like a broken down record player, all you have left now is “you’re triggered”. LOL. I’m pretty calm, in fact I find your reactions very enjoyable, and frankly, hysterical. I love arguing. You cannot match my argument and skill, so you get frustrated with yourself and start hurling abuse and upvoting your own comments. What an epic meltdown you’re having.
“I already did that, IDIOT! You just don't want to see it. But again, you still went on with that tone of yours. Well, I tried to maka amends, you KNOW that, but keep like this, so yeah, as I said, now I don't have to watch my tone, condescending tool!”
Don’t worry. I won’t call you an idiot. I won’t call you a tool. I won’t call you a prick. I’m better than you and more intelligent than you, and even though you are willing to humiliate yourself because you have no respect for yourself, I won’t. I'm comfortable and confident about myself. My arguments will continue to tear you apart, and you will continue having a total and hysterical meltdown on here. For as long as you insult me, I will face down and destroy every single one of your arguments. Oh, and are you seriously complaining about my “tone” towards your failed arguments, while you continue to namecall and insult me? Do you realize how pathetic that is? LOL.
“You can believe whatever you want, prick.”
Bahahaha!! I REALLY LOVE IT when you insult me. It proves the power I have over you. It shows I’m getting to you and it turns you into a hypocrite who only knows how to humiliate himself. What happened to your “good terms”? You’ve now completely crumbled. The façade you were showing of someone respectful, willing to debate on “good terms”, and intelligent has disappeared, and you are your own worst enemy. You’ve melted into a mess because you couldn’t handle me. Frustrated in your own pathetic arguments, you’ve begun to lash out in anger. Good. That’s it. Keep going. Your hatred is testament to what I’ve done to you. I knew it was only a matter of time before you had your meltdown! :D
“He was on the brink of becoming that very Joe Chill by killing Superman, but he recovered before the last step of his downfall. And remember that he didn't kill anyone on cold blood, only shooting against vehicles which shot him first (not indiscriminately as you claim.”
No, no, no. He wasn’t “on the brink”, he had passed the brink, because he had already murdered thugs. He had already internalized the abuser, because he had already done what his abuser had done – murder. And yes, he did murder in coldblood. Shooting against vehicles is not only more indiscriminate than killing persons (because the former doesn’t care who who’s being targeted in the vehicle – the very definition of indiscriminate), it’s also the same as shooting the same number of people. A court will treat the both cases exactly the same. I can’t believe I need to explain a 29 year old this point. I mean, you literally have no idea what you’re talking about. At least be embarrassed that you are making a meal out of this.
“But we also have seen him reprimend Batman for all those things.”
Show me evidence that Gordon has reprimanded Batman for cold-blooded murder? Go on. I can wait for as long as you want. I’m not going anywhere.
“Seriously have you seen the movie?”
Yes, have you?
“I'm 29, been a fan since 1992 with Batman TAS.”
Either you have SLEEPWALKED through what Batman is for 25 years, or you are deceiving yourself? And since you lied about starting up another profile to upvote your comments I think you’re deceiving yourself.
If you were a Batman fan for ONE YEAR, you would know that Batman is sanctioned by Gordon to rough up criminals, but not murder them.
If you were a Batman fan for ONE YEAR, you would know that ‘the promise’ he made means he cannot murder anyone.
If you truly are a Batman fan for 25 years (not as long as me anyway), then you might be the worst one I’ve encountered, because you don’t have a clue about him. Watch B:TAS again, then you might have an idea WHY he doesn’t MURDER. 25 years….yeah right(!)
2,000 comics and you have no idea about the most BASIC concepts around the Batman. My God.
“So you are saying that Burton's movies are shit... smh... And if you don't then there I have my proof that you are hypocrite.”
I think you need to grab a dictionary and find the definition of hypocrisy again, because that’s not it. I don’t like BvS because it is one of the worst superhero films I’ve seen, not just because Batman murders. BATMAN 89, and BATMAN RETURNS are much better films than BvS, no question. And yes, they murder too, but no-one knew about Batman then, or cared about Batman murdering – they just wanted a live action Batman movie, and the first superhero film of the modern age. Most Batman fans at the time didn’t care about him killing. Do you know how I know? Because I was able to see BATMAN 89 in theaters. Now, in today’s world, where everyone knows about his no murder policy (expect for you it would appear), and in amongst other superhero films, we expect more. More people than ever know about Batman, and EXPECT him to be represented correctly. His poor representation and how bad BvS is shows why people didn’t like it. So yeah, the only hypocrite is still you. Keep failing.
The kills in Nolanverse are only that, whereas the kills in BvS are murders. BIG difference.
Every single kill in the Trilogy is not murder, it’s done when his life, or the life of others are at imminent risk, and he has no choice but to act. In other words, it is justified, and therefore CANNOT be murder. I’m perfectly fine with that. In a realistic take, I don’t expect Batman to patiently blow out tires of a truck while there’s a bomb in the back that’s going to annihilate the whole city. Batman kills, no question, but he doesn’t murder, doesn’t show bloodlust, doesn’t kill indiscriminately, doesn’t kill when it isn’t necessary, and doesn’t murder with “malice a forethought” (look It up). Only someone with a total unsophisticated understanding of what ‘murder’ and ‘killing’ are, would make such a terrible claim. For a 29 year-old, you don’t appear to have a grasp on conceptual and philosophical ideas.
This is about ‘murder’, and it being a REDLINE for Batman. In other words, he can never break it unless he isn’t Batman anymore. How often in those “2,000” (lol) comicbooks you have does he murder? Naturally, you wouldn’t know, because either you haven’t read them, or you don’t own them.
Him not saving Ra’s is not murder, it’s an act of ‘supererogation’, if you want to know what that means then look it up –I’m not your teacher (THAT’S condescension). He has no obligation to save him. As for Batman retiring, that is NOT a redline. That is NOT a fundamental essence of Batman. Of course Batman would probably retire at some point. The comics take advantage of a never ending story, but of course it’s a possibility if you have one actor playing him that they need to end the story. It’s called real life. Besides, THE DARK KNIGHT RETURNS begins with a retired Bruce Wayne, so retiring is explored in the comics. So, you’re completely and absolutely wrong yet again.
"Yep, that's what I'm talking about. The actual essence of Batman is his mutabilty. We have seen him in HUNDREDS of different ways in DOZENS of different media"
No, no, no. If you were right then ALL superheroes are subject to change and therefore they all have it as their essence. So to you, that means their essence is all the same, but it’s not essence if ALL the superheroes have it and are the same. The essence is what has been with them from the beginning, what is part of their foundation, and what makes them special. All of this points to his no murder policy (as well as a number of other things). You keep saying ‘oh murder is OK because the character changes!’ Just because the character changes doesn’t therefore mean that you can change KEY parts of Batman that end up UNDERMINING him and what he stands for. Him murdering is a case in point. I’ll ask you AGAIN, how many canon stories of the 2,000 comics you have show him being a murderer? Go on, I can wait.
“Oh, I know what you are thinking. Yes, I'm being condescending now on purpose.”
It’s only condescending when you know what you’re talking about, otherwise you are just reducing yourself to mockery and incoherence.
“Go ahead, but this is stalemate although you don't want to admit it”
As well as your arguments here:
I tore your ‘Batman is not a murderer’ argument to pieces
I tore your “Batman isn’t homicidal” argument to pieces
I tore your ‘why didn’t he kill all those in the warehouse’ argument to pieces
I tore your “self-defense” argument to pieces
I tore your “why didn’t he just shoot the KGBeast” to pieces
I tore your “movie perspective” argument to pieces
I tore your “Batman got a complete arc” argument to pieces
I tore your “he shoots at the vehicles, not the people” (lol) argument to pieces.
I tore your Batman beating up is the same as Batman murdering argument to pieces.
This will now be updated with every post to track the "stalemate". LOL. I actually understand your why you're lashing out. You thought you were right, and your seeing your argument get crushed, and you don't know how to cope with my arguments, so you get angry and insult me. Rid yourself of your ignorance. Seriously, you are one of the worst I’ve seen here. You have the logical reasoning skills of a donnut.
Please do reply. You want to keep insulting me? Please go ahead, nothing displays my intellectual superiority over you than you having to lower yourself in the gutter and humiliate yourself. If you do want to start acting like a 29 year-old, then I expect you to stop avoiding my questions about your why you felt justified in insulting me when I never insulted you. The choice is yours, but I think you're going to prove me right again!
I'm just going to say one more thing just to show you wrong you are about me:
If I really wanted to have the same number of upvotes and comments, shouldn't I have upvoted everyone of my comments? How do I have so many with out upvotes? And what's more, if that were true, I wouldn't comment because of fear to have less upvotes than comments!!
Truth be told, I never got more upvotes than comments. NEVER! In fact I have literally HUNDREDS of comments without upvotes, I only got more the last three-ish months. My profile is free to see, i don't have anything to hide. You can check what I'm saying. What's more, this is not the first time I have had such a long conversation with somebody. Again, if this was for the upvotes, why do I keep replying to you? Or to anyone? Last time I checked we do not receive any prize for getting votes. And if this is some kind of popularity competition, who wants to win here? If you are popular (i.e. well-known) on sites like this one, it is because a) you are a extreme fanboy, or b) a extreme hater. I'm not, nor do I want to be one of those. You can ask any user around here.
Next point: I already admited to you that I'm acting that way on porpuse. The first time I used the word "idiots" (and I have said this to you before) I was speaking in general, and we already saw you didn't fall into the category of those I called idiots. If I keep saying that afterwards was because you didn't want to get off your high-horse. And again, I'm doing it on porpuse. I don't like that you didn't relax your tone, you don't like my insulting you. However I'm willing to stop now even if you don't do it.
-Next point: Again, you fail to see the mutabilty of the character. Have I said anything related to how he acts in comics? About the promise? Anything? Nope, I was talking about DIFFERENT ITERATIONS from the actual canon Batman. For 25 years I have seen MYRIADS of different versions, from the campiness of Batman on the 60's, to the recent LEGO Batman. Are they different from the canon one? Of course they are! Are they less enjoyable because they change things from the canon Batman? I would say nope, because then I wouldn't be able to enjoy any other Batman apart from the original.
And yes, in some of those iterations batman has killed. However, if the story of that elseworld Batman justifies that change and I like the package in general, then I don't have any problem (case in point: Batman in Flashpoint). But again, I'm talking about OTHER iterations. For me Batfleck is another iteration, not the original. Even in BTAS, which I think is the closest to a definitive version of Batman outside comics (and MY favourite version), had me scratching my head in the episode "Mudslide" because I'm quite sure that Clayface died (years later he happened to survive) because of how Batman acted at the final confrontation. But I love that series nonetheless
Even I can add that canon Batman killed ONCE, he admitting he was going to break his one rule, when he shot Darkseid, stating that the radion poison will finish him. But it was justified, and I accepted it.
That brings me to the point of your justifications of Bale against Affleck. Case in point: Bale's shot vehicles at the end of TDKR, those vehicles exploding and we can clearly see onscreen how the truck's driver die. He was racing for the bomb because the whole city was a stake, so by your point of view is justified. OK. But now, how's different is that from Batfleck shooting vehicles when he is trying to get something that helps him stop an alien that can leveled a whole city? It's not THAT different. And remember that this different version of Batman was totally pissed off for several reasons. Now, through the canon Batman glasses we shouldn't accept that, but again, through the canon Batman glasses we shouldn't accept either that Bale's didn't save Ra's from the train (we know canon Batman would have totally done it) or that he would retire (we know Batman will fight until the last moment). The same for Batman'89. Around those years Batman killing rule was already there, but as you say, it wasn't that important at that time. However a purist would be totally pissed because of that. But hey, another version from another time, so again I'm totally fine by that.
Now, you prefer Batman'89 over BvS, that's cool. However I would argue that, minus the killing that both of them share, Batfleck is more accurate to comics that Keaton's, but that would be a discussion for other day, don't you think?
Going back to the point I was talking about, you say that No killing is a part of Batman that shouldn't ever change. From a comicbook perspective, I agree. From other media perspective, I disagree. Let me explain myself: we readers of comics are a minority.We are asked about Batman essence, we will go straight to the no killing rule. Now, ask anyone who doesn't read and certainly they will answer "batmobile, Joker, Alfred, Signal" and little else. What I mean is, the general audiences have only seen Batman killing on the cinema. They would not care about that rule, so, unfortunately, that's not the essence of the character for the big majority. That's why IMO the way Batman can be adapted to virtually everything, it's what makes this character to be so cherised for different types of people of different ages and generations. That's what makes Batman so big (and for me he is THE biggest).
Now, don't get me wrong. Would I like to see a movie where Batman is perfectly portrayed at least as well as it was in BTAS? Absolutely. Can Batffleck at least approach that point? I'd say yes. From what we have seen from the movie and interviews Batman is retorting back to his good ways, and the killings would be adressed, and if they totally go that route for the next movies (and remember we agreed on this) then we will see a more developed Batman, one who finally is going to be against killing. Did he started bad? From your point of view, absolutely. From mine, not quite so because I accept his redemption. Now I hope they really stick to what they have said and we see all that and that, luckily, you accept that redemption too ;)
Well, there you have it. No insults, me pointing my counter-points trying counter yours. However I insist this is not going any further. I have shown to you why I didn't mind Batleck killing. You have shown to me why you didn't like him for that. We are seeing this from our own perspective and how we see Batman and our idea of Batman, and you and I know we aren't going to change our perspectives. That's what I'm saying this is stalemate. We won't agree to each other at least on this point.
Can we finish now on good terms? I swear i woudn't mind debating with you on other topics. As I pointed out, I like good debates and people who are willing to have them ;)
EDIT: Let me just add this that has just happen:
Err well the edit button doesn't let add a picture now so I will reply to myself so that you can see what I mean
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Take a look. Someone has upvoted me right now for a comment SIX months ago! I have checked his profile. He made his account months ago and have never commented around here. Don't ask me how he got around there because I have no idea, but please accept it as a proof that someone can upvote old posts ( I have done it several times too as I told you) and that that Spanish guy wasn't me
I had already written this message before I got to your last point that you are not going to reply anymore. That’s fine, I might as well post this now that I’ve written it. Besides, you want to keep ending the discussion, but you also keep making the argument. It’s like you want to have the last word.
What a refreshing difference your reply makes when you don’t bother to insult or namecall someone. It’s a great pity that you didn’t do this at the start so our conversation wouldn’t have descended into a farce. Having said that, I’m extremely disappointed that you STILL choose not to explain to me why you thought you were justified in insulting me when I mocked your argument. There is no comparison. Criticizing arguments (whatever way) is absolutely acceptable - take a look around you. If you think this is not acceptable then you shouldn’t be here on the internet. Insulting, namecalling, or personally attacking is absolutely unacceptable, and I’m extremely disappointed that instead of taking ownership of your mistakes you continue to make excuses.
You said you weren’t replying to me when you called me “idiots”, but that’s total rubbish. You said “…it seems there still are idiots who a) don't get it from the movie, or b) just jumped on the bandwagon and run with the criticism without even watching the movie.”
Not only was this a direct reply to me (and why would you raise this if, as you say, it had nothing to do with me?) THAT MAKES ZERO SENSE. It clearly shows that not only was your “idiots” reply directly referring to MY comment, but your “but OK here we go” shows you were about to make an argument against me, BASED ON the “idiots” remark. The most embarrassing thing is that you are STILL trying to avoid accepting blame for your ridiculous overreaction.
You said you won’t reply, but in the off chance you will, I still want you to answer this simple question I keep asking. For the SEVENTH TIME now, please explain to me how you justify insulting someone who criticizes your argument, and why do you think criticizing an argument means you can personally attack a person? Have you heard of the ad hominem fallacy?
As for this ridiculous thing with the upvotes, I don’t believe you. Sorry. Look at it from my point of you. The post was more than a week old and no-one was commenting on it, but somehow, someone started a brand new account, and the first thing they did was IGNORE all the new posts made on the site, went STRAIGHT for this news article, and went STRAIGHT for your posts only, and upvoted them MINUTES after your last comment? Oh, and to top it all off, this person also speaks Spanish. A coincidence? Oh, and on top of all that, since commenting, the account has MADE NOT ONE OTHER COMMENT SINCE. What was worse was btfck only started commenting when I brought up the fake account - like he appeared out of nowhere to say he was someone different. LOL. I mean, the most ridiculous thing about this is that you’re STILL trying to act like there’s no way it was you. Dude, it’s so obvious. There are too many coincidences. Furthermore, the person that upvoted your 6 month comment (and another account that upvoted you) are phantom accounts -they’ve made only a COUPLE of comments in the last few years. This is a clear example that all these accounts are secondary accounts that people have to bump up their comments. Finally, you are STILL trying to persuade me that it wasn’t you. If I was wrong, then you wouldn’t have cared less about what I thought – you would have thought I was daft or crazy. But the fact that you are trying so hard to persuade me is ridiculous. I know it’s you, there are far too many coincidences, and nothing will persuade me that you are being honest. Sorry. Let's move on to the actual argument please.
You’re confusing mutability with essence. Of course you’re able to have “DIFFERENT ITERATIONS”. That completely misunderstands my point. The issue is that there are essences of Batman that exist and have existed for decades. These are primary connotations of Batman. Things that have transcended for decades. Batman’s no murder policy is one of them. So you talking about iterations misses the point. You can have different iterations of Batman, these are secondary connotations. But Batman's no murder policy is a primary connotation – it’s part of the core of the character. I’ll ask you for a second time, how many of those 2,000 comics does Batman kill/murder? And yes, this is entirely relevant because we are talking about the essence of the character, and this transcends “iterations”.
Really? That’s the one example you chose to show Batman killing? Darkseid? Firstly, Darkseid never died. Secondly, he’s not exactly human. One of the reasons why Batman doesn’t murder is because he is not sanctioned to by law and jurisdiction. Darkseid is an intergalactic evil god – I think Batman can kill him, especially if it’s in self-defense or to save the world. I have no problem Batman killing in these types of circumstances, because they make sense. You can’t expect Batman not to defend himself against a god, nor can you expect Batman not to try and do whatever he can to save the world(see below for my TDKT argument). The fact that you offer a really dubious example of Batman killing in the comics shows how right I am.
The kills in TDKT and the kills in BvS are profoundly different. Batman shoots down one vehicle, that’s the truck. He has to shoot it down, because if he doesn’t, the nuclear bomb in the back will kill the whole of Gotham City – millions of people. What I’m trying to say is that this kill was justified and necessary. The kills in the chase scene in BvS are not justified and necessary. There is no imminent destruction of a city, or even the death of others if he doesn’t murder those thugs. In other words, IF Batman didn’t take down the truck, then the bomb WOULD HAVE gone off killing millions. IF Batman didn’t murder those thugs in the cars, then that would NOT have caused the death of anyone. You are incorrectly attributing CAUSAL RESPONSIBILITY to the chase scene where it doesn’t exist. It does exist however in TDKR. As for Ra’s Al-Ghul, that’s not murder. Yes, it’s true he may have saved him in the comics (though there are times he didn’t), but what he did in Begins is not murder, or even killing. It was Gordon, the legitimate lawgiver, who shot the supports of the monorail that caused the train to derail, not Batman. If Batman had saved Ra’s it would be a morally praiseworthy act, but it would not be a morally obligatory act. As a moral philosopher, I know this. It’s called supererogatory acts.
There is a wider point to this that I feel you are missing when it comes to distinguishing the kills in TDKT and BvS. Batman’s kills in the former are proportionate, justified, discriminate and necessary. They are done when his life, or the life of others, are at stake. Pick any kill in the Trilogy and I can show you how it is justified, necessary and proportionate. Ie. not murder. The BvS kills however are indiscriminate (firing without care who gets hit), excessive and grotesque (dragging, upturning and burning cars), are NOT necessary (killing unlawfully, or when his life or the life of others are not at risk), and therefore are not justified. Ie. murder in the first degree.
Yes, you’re probably right. Batfleck is more of an accurate representation than Keaton’s Batman if killing is completely removed from both. The point is that 1989 is a long time ago (I watched B89 in the theaters when it came out). You won’t get away with BATMAN 1989 anymore because too many people know Batman and have a better understanding of him. BATMAN 1989 worked for its dark, sleek and sexy age. BvS’ Batman doesn’t work for the age we’re living in, that’s why it’s so divisive.
“What I mean is, the general audiences have only seen Batman killing on the cinema. They would not care about that rule, so, unfortunately, that's not the essence of the character for the big majority.”
But, clearly they do care. Look how divisive BvS has been with fans, and look how critically poorly it’s been received by general audiences. In any case, the nature of something, the essence, is not contingent on perception. Just because people don’t know it (that’s debatable, I see no evidence to suggest that), it doesn’t therefore mean that it doesn’t matter. It’s a core concept of the Batman, and it’s no excuse not to know it. I understand that you would say that he’s an adaptable figure, but again, his no murder policy (no kill in the comics) is fundamental to the character. It’s the core. It's a primary connotation. Once you go there, you can never come back. There is no redemption for him, and that was the very point I was making in my first comment. You cannot just make him murder, then automatically make him redeemed (according to his own opinion, not the law) and then pretend the essence of the character has not been compromised. He's compromised, unless he sacrifices himself or does time.
Furthermore, you need to address the significant reasons why Batman cannot kill: it would make him as bad as the villains he fights, it would end up making him internalize his abuser, it would legitimize the very act that brought about his creation, thus creating a paradox, and it would mean he’s broken the trust and legitimacy given to him by Gordon. As I said, there’s no going back from this – there’s no redemption, especially if he thinks he can give it to himself, like he does at the end of BvS.
The fact of the matter is the story portrayed him at the end as redeemed, but that’s not redemption. Redemption is accepting your sins and facing justice for it. Ok, so you say that this will be addressed in JL, fine. But my point is it wasn’t addressed in the film, therefore they had no right to act like he was redeemed at the end. It was unearned. As I said before, if they showed him at the end feeling ashamed, but not necessarily redeemed for what he did, that would be totally fine, then you could have this addressed in JL. But the point is the way they portrayed him at the end was totally unjustified, and that was my initial point.
That’s all I want to say. You say it’s stalemate, but I think you are being way too generous with your arguments since they seem to be incorrect. At least I enjoyed this discussion, it was a LOT more respectful than your other posts. If you are serious that you will not reply to me, then fine. But you can’t say that then choose to continue with the argument. If you want to end, you will cease arguing, because I will just keep replying (I may not reply immediately). The last thing I want to say that is vitally important for you to understand is this: this debate went on for so long as it did because you chose to insult me. I wasn't offended, but I wasn't going to let you get away with it. So, if you do reply, I will continue to demand an explanation. Other than that, I'm more than happy to continue, if not, then fine.
Dude, I already told you that I kept insulting you on purpose, because you didn't change your attitude. That was it. You saw I didn't mine change mine. Yes, it would have been nice if both of us would have done the same.
I know I said I wouldn't reply anymore, but I can't help but defend myself against your accusing me of upvoting myself. No way I did such thing. You are then accusing me of having ANOTHER account for that. If that other account was really mine, why the heck did I create another one in the first place?? And one that even a) Uses a real name as nick (never would I do that) and b) wrote whatever about studying medicine, and I'm a philologist! And you probably have seen that I got upvotes for other users that are usually around here. And last, as I said before, if I reaaaaally wanted to be the most upvoted guy around here, how the heck do I have hundreds and hundreds of comments without any upvote? As I said, I don't mind that, I only mind enjoying discussing about movies that I like around here. Proof is that this is not the first conversation that it has gone this long. If I wanted that, why am I still replying? That's it, just enjoying this shit. I even remember upvoting you once after this discussion. Again, just liking to hang around here.
And now you come here almost two weeks later and you say that I want the last word. Seriously? Dude, you can have it, as I'm not going to change my opinion on this conversation. You say my arguments are wrong, but they aren't, they just come from my perception of Batman, the same that yours aren't going to be wrong because they come from yours. You say Batman killing can't be justified, but you did with Batman 89 and TDK in a way, the same I'm doing with Batfleck. Now you prefer those before this one, and you defend those two the most. That's perfectly ok. I like the three and I won't defend/attack one for the detriment of other. I learnt long ago that in order to enjoy them I have to be aware of how different they can be and also not to take the killing rule very strictly because then we could think that more people die because of Batman leaving villains like Joker live. Or like you said about Ra's and the train being Gordon's fault. Batman knew what was going to happen to the train, he gave Gordon his batmobile with the guns for doing it, so he put and left Ra's there knowing what his fate was going to be. And that's another thing: Batman feels an aversion towards guns (understandable), but he never stops mounting them on his different vehicles. It's quite the contradiction, but as I said, it's better to not give it a double-thought because then it falls apart.
I think I'm giving you enough evidence that I'm not the guy you think I am, so please stop accusing me of that. You can see I'm more than willing to discuss with you on any topic, because as I told you long ago, I like that there are people that can withstand conversations like this one. You can ask around here or just take a look into my history of comments, I'm not making anything up. So please stop with that
“Dude, I already told you that I kept insulting you on purpose, because you didn't change your attitude. That”
Yes, I understand that. That’s not what I am asking you. I’m asking you how do you JUSTIFY insulting someone if they never insulted YOU? You can carp on as much as you want about you doing it because of my “attitude”, but the fact of the matter remains it was ill-judged of you to namecall me because you didn’t like the way I mocked your argument. So, for the EIGHTH TIME, why do you think you are JUSTIFIED in insulting me when I didn’t INSULT you? Again, do you know what the ad hominem fallacy is?
I’m not interested in discussing the issue around upvotes. I’ve made my argument, and I don’t find yours convincing. As I said, there are just too many coincidences: comments being upvoted minutes after they’re posted, by accounts created on the very same day, accounts that have little or no posts, hardly upvote anything on here (I checked), but are able to specifically upvote your weeks old comments, and who also speaks Spanish. Coincidence? I don’t think so. The fact that you are STILL protesting over this tells me a lot. I don’t want to discuss this further, it’s a distraction from the real argument.
“And now you come here almost two weeks later and you say that I want the last word. “
Firstly, I reply whenever I can. Sometimes I can reply quickly, sometimes it takes time. If the reply is long then I won’t have the time to read the message carefully, think about it, then reply in detail. I just don’t have the time available everyday to reply immediately to everyone, and I haven’t seen a rule on here that you need to reply instantaneously, despite your complaints.
I don’t understand your thinking. Despite saying that you are ending the conversation on several occasions, not only do you continue to reply but you also continue to make the argument. Which is it? I’ve made myself emphatically clear: if you are wanting to end this argument then I can end it too, but if you keep incessantly making the argument and replying to me, then I’m going to reply to you. Simple. For example: if you just reply only with “agree to disagree”, then I’m unlikely to respond to that. But you keep wanting to make the argument. It’s clear therefore, that YOU want to have the last word, despite the fact that none of your arguments have been proven.
“You say Batman killing can't be justified, but you did with Batman 89 and TDK in a way, the same I'm doing with Batfleck.”
No, I said in the comics he has a no kill policy, but in the Trilogy he has a no murder policy. I can completely accept kills in the Trilogy because Nolan’s take on the films was realistic to begin with. Once you have that, it's difficult to show him as not killing when it's absolutely necessary. You cannot expect Batman to hover over the truck, patiently blowing out the tires so he can stop the bomb with literally minutes left. That would be ridiculous and destroy the realism of what Nolan was trying to do. You can do that kind of stuff in the comics. You can’t the way Nolan was telling the story. After all, he made it clear in Begins that Bruce Wayne is “no executioner”. With regards to BATMAN ’89, as I said, it received an understandable pass; it was the first superhero film of the modern age, it was the first screen version of Batman since the camp 60s Batman, and few people had an understanding of the Batman. None of those aspects apply now to BvS. The bar has been risen. People expect more from their Batman.
“also not to take the killing rule very strictly because then we could think that more people die because of Batman leaving villains like Joker live.”
But that’s the whole point of Batman! He doesn’t kill because the ends do not justify the means. The act is the most important thing, for the reasons I’ve already mentioned: it would make him just as bad as the villains he hunts down, it would make him Joe Chill, it would legitimize the very act that created him the first place, thus making Batman a paradox, and it would turn him from having legitimacy and consent from the law to an outlaw - he's sanctioned by Gordon to uphold order, not murder. These are all sacrosanct for Batman, they are concepts, intellectual underpinnings of what makes Batman Batman. If you can’t understand that, then truthfully, you don’t understand the essence of Batman. Batman is more than just kicking ass and looking mean. There is a philosophy to him, and continuing about how there are different iterations of him (I agree, this is a strength of the character) misses the point completely. You need to have a deeper understanding of Batman, who he is, what he stands for, and why. If you know that then you know why murdering is unacceptable.
“And that's another thing: Batman feels an aversion towards guns (understandable), but he never stops mounting them on his different vehicles.”
I think it’s always been a case that Batman has no problem having guns, but not using handguns or personal firearms. There’s a difference.
As I said, I’m happy to continue this, but if you want to end it, then fine. But, you cannot say you want to end it then continue making arguments, otherwise it just makes me think you just want the last word. All I'm doing is replying to you. I think my arguments are still strong and have not been defeated. If you reply simply “Let’s agree to disagree”, then I will end the discussion. If you continue to say more than that then I will continue to reply (just not always immediately). Well?
Well, I think I made my argument very clear towards that point several points as of now, but if you want it spel for you I don't have any problem:
Let's agree to disagree because, as I said before, this argument is not going anywhere ;)
I would slightly disagree with you as I would say we've made some progress since the insults have stopped (though disappointingly, you refuse to explain yet again why you felt JUSTIFIED in insulting me when I didn't insult you). I think my points stand and have not been refuted.
But sure, let's agree to disagree. :)
All the best.
Haha! C'mon you can't say that we are going to agree to disagree and then say that stand on top like that! Now you are the one who seems to want to have the last word XD
I asked if you were sincere about ending the conversation, you could simply write "only" that you agree to disagree. You didn't, you went on making an additional point, so naturally I did the same.
You need to have the last word always, don't you? ;)
Not really, I told you that before. And you? :p
Yeah keep saying that but in the end you didn't reply to my comment
http://disq.us/url?url=http..., looking to add some new blood into our site.
MoS is the single greatest superhero movie there is. Sorry you can't wrap your head around that.
lol, not even close. I liked it, but it could have been soooooo much better.
lol wtf were they thinking
The idea that Superman would let his father get swallowed by a tornado to protect his secret id is just...astoundingly stupid
What made it the "worst written scene ever in the history of cinema?"
Sure, but what are the chances of a being like Superman existing at all? It isn't about the odds. The purpose of the scene was to appeal to the emotional side of everyone watching, and that includes those lay people (like myself) who may not read the comics on the regular or focus on those details like chances or odds. Now I'll grant you, a tornado may BE over the top (as is EVERYTHING in a superhero movie for the most part), but it's not out of the realm of possibility. Kansas is susceptible to them, so why not? It's something different. It adds drama and again, does appeal to the emotions.
Honestly yes, haha I did. In fact my girlfriend cried and she's by no means a "geek" 😂
Maybe the writing will get better and better as time goes on so we can both geek out over agreements rather than debate!
Clarks father didn't want Clark to expose himself until he was man enough to deal with the World changing consequences which we see in BVS. Clarks father knew that Clark was not ready for those consequences... and in that situation instructed Clark not to save him. it's a compelling dynamic between the typical superhero and his father figure relationship. Pay attention
Well, it´s the best life action superhero origin movie. I will give you that. Zack even avoided the curse of having a thrown together 3rd act.
To be honest, Zack doesn't seem like a particularly smart guy to begin with, so the bar wasn't set extremely high.
Talk to him.
Or you know... Watch his interviews and see for yourself how lackluster his vocabulary is, not to mention his thought process (or lack thereof).
Ahem, that's because he is dyslexic and suffers from social phobia because of that -_-
That doesn't explain his piss poor usage of words... Nor do I remotely believe he has "social phobia" because of it. Dyslexia isn't exactly frowned upon. I personally know several people with (severe) dyslexia, yet none of them have as poor a vocabulary as Snyder. In fact, most of them happen to be really smart people. It is *blatantly* obvious Zack is not one of those people. And using dyslexia - which has more to do with writing and reading than anything else - as an excuse for his lack of intelligence, is pretty weak if you ask me. At best, it's a poor acknowledgement that he is indeed not very smart. And I'm not even talking about whether or not he is articulate... I am talking about his ideas, the way he perceives stories, etc. This has *NOTHING* to do with dyslexia at all. Sorry.
Well, you were talking about how he speaks, not his ideas or anything but. And sorry, but dyslexia doesn't act the same on every person. Because of that illness he developed social phobia. It can happen and happened to him, unfortunately for the man.
Also, dyslexia is often accompanied by disphasia, what can be what unables him to formulate sentences correctly, although I think his phobia gets him nervous (as it has been seen) and that's why he can't speak that well.
And last but not least, about you saying he is not smart (which baffles me how people can make laugh of something like this), well, you are quite wrong, as dyslexia appears on people with high intelligence. Apart from that, people who have and are working with him always praise him for his work. Even people who haven't worked with him! (Cameron even said he was inspired by him at one point, check it out if you don't believe me). Even people working for the "competence" have said this (Daredevil showrunner for example).
So don't confuse his social inability as lack of intelligence, as you are far away from the track. And again, people laughing at this (not saying you do) are quite lame and, well, some @ssholes.
But now you're assuming things, and yes should he have aphasia, then it's a different story. But as far as we know, that's not the case.
It'd be like saying:
"He sucks at math"
"That's because he has dyslexia"
"Dyslexia has nothing to do with mathematics"
"Yeah, but dyslexia often goes hand in hand with dyscalculia"
Sure, sometimes these things do go hand in hand, but that doesn't mean dyslexia is the core of the problem. It's not even a correlation.
As for his "social phobia". I'm sorry, but I really can't take that seriously. The problem is, literally everything is an issue nowadays.
There are people who feel unhappy for a few weeks, and we call that "severe depression".
There are people who are a bit hyperactive, and we call that "severe ADHD".
There are people who get a little nervous around strangers, and we call that "severe social phobia".
Sorry, but I know a guy who literally died from *actual* severe depression. Not as in suicide, but he literally didn't care anymore, didn't eat, and developed internal problems (I don't know the exact specifics) which apparently caused him tremendous pain, but he didn't tell anyone and showed no signs of physical pain. *That* is what I call *true* depression. Literally dying from physical consequences of emotional pain.
One of my old childhood friends cannot act properly if he doesn't have his ADHD pills. He would flip out without them. *That* is what I call ADHD.
And lastly, my sister had a boyfriend for 7 years, and he was at our house pretty much every week. He barely said anything to me (nor my parents, or brother) during that *entire* time period, because he had extreme signs of social anxiety. I am not exaggerating, I've probably talked more to you on this site than I've talked to him in nearly 10 years. *That* is what I call social phobia.
So when Snyder goes to Hall H, and speaks in front of THOUSANDS of unknown people without too much trouble... when he does countless of interviews with total strangers, etc.. I am severely skeptical when claims of "social phobia" are made. Is he a little nervous around people? Sure, possibly. Is that a chronic condition that should be considered a "severe phobia"? I think that's absolutely ridiculous.
"as dyslexia appears on people with high intelligence."
Didn't I say so in my previous comment?
As for people mocking these "inabilities", sure they're pricks. But I've never actually met such a person in my life.
Well, just look that for yourself. I didn't make up anything about his social phobia. Quick search on Google and that's it.
As I said before not everybody goes the same with a given illness/phobia. Obviously he tries to have it under control, but we have seen several times how nervous he can get in a interview. And BTW you were saying he had lack of intelligence and that he wasn't very smart ("as an excuse for his lack of intelligence, is pretty weak if you ask me. At best, it's a poor acknowledgement that he is indeed not very smart"), that's why I said he is indeed quite intelligent, and I was talking about disphasia not aphasia, but yeah, I told you he can possibly have it, but not 100% sure. That's why I think his phobia is what takes him down. I'm not bluffing, I assure you. You can read it elsewhere and the same about the people who have praised him ;)
And of course I said you weren't laughing, but I have seen several tools doing it, and I can't stand that type of cruel comments against anybody, famous or not
I didn't say you made it up, I am saying I don't believe it's actually true. In other words, I believe *you* didn't make it up, but I don't believe the assertion in and of itself. Like I said, some people are unhappy at a given moment in their lives, and some would call that "depression". But just because some people "around them" have stated they are depressed, doesn't mean it's actually true. I think you missed my point entirely. I have no doubt Zack is a nervous kinda guy. But to call that "severe social phobia" is a huge stretch. It belittles what *actual* social phobia really means. Just like all these attention seeking emo teens, claiming they are "depressed"... But this just trivializes *real* depression. I know what depression is, and it's something I take very seriously. I am not dismissing anyone's feelings, but that's precisely why I don't take these assertions so lightly. These are very serious issues, and to assert Snyder has this problem, even though he doesn't showcase *any* of the *severe* symptoms of real social phobia, is enough for me to conclude it's a grand overstatement.
"disphasia not aphasia"
I thought they were the same thing? 'disphasia' is not an English word as far as I know, but I could be wrong.
Again, look on the internet. The stories are there. I don't know why you don't want to see it.
Yes, they are different things.
Seriously, it's real that he suffers that, just take a look
Again, I have seen those "stories". I'm not denying that people are saying it. I am simply skeptical towards these claims. There's a difference I don't think you quite understand.
Your argument is basically this: "Theists believe God exists".
I say: "I don't believe that".
Which means I don't believe the existence of a God. But I *do* believe you when *you* say "theists say X".
It's the exact same thing. I have looked this up. I have READ these stories. I simply don't think there is any truth behind it, for all the reasons I have mentioned (in the same way that unhappy people aren't always necesarilly depressed, neither does Snyder have "severe social phobia" just because he's nervous around strangers. And *especially* when he does not showcase any significant symptoms). I don't think I can make myself any clearer.
You know that Stanley Kubrick sucked with interviews as well? Maybe even worse than Zack. That's why he never done it. Zack would've skipped them too but WB is way more possessif than they were with Kubrick.
Not being able to use words to describe your feelings and all doesn't mean that he sucks as a director. Zack's movies are powerful. Epic storytelling & visuals.
Keep deluding yourself, mate. Your comment is pure bs.
I recently watched a documentary on Kubrick hahahahaha he was harassed by WB for never giving interviews. He was hated by London reporters for that too. They thought he never like these reporters while the truth was because of his poor ways of expressing himself.
You should watch it. But wait?! Does that mean Kubrick actually sucks as a director too? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
2 of my favourites directors I have to put a cross on now (Zack & Kubrick).
No, because Kubrick despised marketing, not because "he was bad at expressing himself". He was a man who mostly kept to himself and had no interest in giving interviews. There's a huge difference. Zack cannot express his own emotions and thoughts very well... How the fuck is this guy supposed to express the emotions of fictional characters (which is basically what movies are all about), if he cannot even express his own? False analogy, friend. Try harder.
Or maybe engage another human being firsthand. Still an option. I'd love to one on one with Snyder.
That's true.
Let's see One of the movies you directed so we can compare
You don't have to be an artist to criticize art. With your logic, only the best director in the world should be allowed to criticize anything. This type of reasoning is ludicrous and lazy. It's basically just a petty way of trying to shut down people you don't agree with.
And in his logic there comes James Cameron with "Zack Snyder is an inspiration".
* drops the mic *
That made no sense whatsoever... As for Cameron. We are talking about a guy who endorsed both Michael fucking Bay and said T3 was a great film. The same freaking guy who gave Terminator Genisys or whatever the fuck this piece of turd was called, a seal of approval. And you expect me to take him seriously? Give me a fucking break. *drops the mic*
(Btw, I think Cameron is a great filmmaker. But when it comes down to his "talk", that guy is 100% bullshit, and EVERYONE knows it).
Damn, it all comes to their talking ability. Damn! I thought directors were to be judged about their directing skills but apparently not. I couldn't have been more wrong. Thank you for putting me on the right track, man.
So who talks fine? Share your knowledge bro!
Ahh, so you make non-arguments about Cameron and made pathetic arguments from authority, but when I completely debunk this moronic reasoning, your instinct is to change subjects yet again and dismiss your previous non-arguments. Weak.
As for "I thought directors were to be judged about their directing skills". Umm, who said otherwise? I was talking about his intelligence, not his directing skills. Do you even know what it is we are talking about? Or are you just talking shit for the sake of it? The thing with Snyder is, he's not a very good director either. He is a *master* visual artist, but a piss poor storyteller. The primary job of a director is to translate a script to screen. He's responsible for making sure the story has focus and makes sense. He fails miserably in that regard.
with my logic? im just trying to compare you and zack snyder in some way, i just know the work zack snyder has done...
oh and there is such thing called "expertise" and yes you are right... you dont have to be artist to criticize art... but guess what? an opinion coming from an "expert" does count for something versus an opinion by someone who doesn't know anything or has zero knowledge concerning the topic being discussed...
SO with a statement like "to be honest, zack doesn't seem like a particularly smart guy to begin with" pretty much tells me that you belong at the little kids table and should keep quiet unless otherwise spoken to by an adult.
You don't know anything about me. Who the fuck are you to say what I do or do not know? As far as your beloved "expert" goes... Let's just ignore the fact that he has a terrible history of being blatantly disingenuous? Let's just pretend he never actually praised Michael Bay, and the massive turd that is Transformers 3. What's next, Bay is a great, or smart director as well? After all, the """"expert"""" said so. Or what about Terminator Genisys. Apparently, that movie was fantastic. Why? Because your beloved """"expert"""" said so. What you're doing is presenting a fallacious argument, called appealing to authority. If you were even half as intelligent as you think you are, you would've realized that. If you truly believe anything Cameron says - who by all intends and purposes, is still a great director - just because he happens to have praised someone you personally like, then you are gullible as fuck.
Seems to me you think anyone who likes Snyder, is automatically an expert and has "knowledge concerning the topic" and anyone who has the audacity to disagree with your rhetoric, is an ignorant child who should listen to self proclaimed adults such as yourself. Exactly how am I supposed to be convinced by this fucking nonsense? Try harder, you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
That's great, although I'm gonna take any early opinions with a grain of salt. Good to hear anyway.
"Every action sequence is from her point of view and for her story. There was no point in the movie that we were ever like stepped out and were like look at this extravaganza"
Take note Zack Snyder.
"take note Snyder" I guess you don't know Snyder is the one that helped on most of her action scenes?
Way to miss the point, lol
Both Zack and Deborah are producers on that movie, so joke's on you.
Can't wait! As for female-led action movies, no doubt Wonder Woman and Atomic Blonde, will make up for ScarJo's Ghost in the Shell disappointment. Chris Pine was a great choice to play off of Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman. Stoic characters like Diana Prince and Bruce Wayne, need the more lighthearted love interest or supporting character, to fully humanize them, and flesh them out. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
So... is the intent that Hawkeye is so attractive that no one wants to hit him? Honestly IDGI (I also haven't seen any of the Marvel movies so if there's an actual in-joke I wouldn't know about it).
The meme? SPOILERS: In Avengers 2, Cold-blooded Joss Whedon (the director) had Quicksilver (Marvel's less cooler version of the Flash) take several bullets for Hawkeye (Marvel's less cooler version of Green Arrow). He acted as a human shield.
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
Thanks; I appreciate it. Obviously I wouldn't have gotten it seeing as I thought that was Hawkeye when it was Quicksilver.
This barely even looks like Wonder Woman, she's more like a weak sauce Red Sonja / Captain America hybrid. Reboot the DCEU
Are you gonna start crying because of your "nut mah wondur womun" bullshit? Seems like it. https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
You and your ilk are the ones who'll be crying when Justice League scores a single digit on RT
All that matters to you is the % of critics that liked a movie? What a sad little sheep you are...
That's just too rich coming from a die-hard dc fanboy, the pot calling the kettle black? for the record, I didn't agree with BvS and SS's RT scores, imo they deserved a lower rating, it's astonishing to me that 1 in 4 critics gave them a positive review
What's wrong with being a fanboy? If DC movies make people happy and they enjoy them, why is that a bad thing?
I'm only saying that I'm not the one behaving like a "sheep" as I've been accused of
Gotcha
To be fair he said a weak sauce version. Gal Gadot doesn't look like that in the slightest (besides the fact that that's a fucking cartoon).
Idk why I find this woman very attractive
https://i.redditmedia.com/V...
We sure have a few talented eggs among us. What this is based on:
https://images.fineartameri...
Watchmen Animated Movie Possibly in the Works:
http://screenrant.com/watch...
Who knows if this will go somewhere but sure, why not. Just make it a 5 to 6 hour long trilogy with the comic ending. The film´s take on it didn´t make all that much sense if yo think about it and the Minutemen were cut short in all version. Vertigo toons would be nice too.
Mmmmyeah I don't believe it would reach the epicness of Snyder's take but who knows, right?
Don't forgot that Snyder had to do it in a 2h30 movie.
The UC is 215:08 min. The Under the Hood in-universe doc takes another 38 min.
Even when Sam Hamm worked on the screenplay in the 80s, before Terry Gilliam was attached to the project, there was general agreement that the comic ending didn't quite work. I still think that's the case. How long does peace last when no more monsters ever show up?
Yes, it won´t though. That´s the whole point and melting half the big cities all over the world is nonsense. Breaking the spirit of the strongest nation there is work though. Oz choosing an uncontrollable god as the crux of his plan is just stupid. The comic went for kitsch sci-fi, as it is a sci-fi comic after all. Even the artist of the Black Freighter ties into that sub-plot, as he deigned the space vagina. The film´s take though is telegraphed a mile away and Gilliam´s take sounded awful, as Watchmen would have traveled to our world by the end of the film.
It's already been 5 years since Snyder's, so this should only take another 20.
I see the same three or four guys commenting on every article very negatively. Imagine living such sad, pathetic lives that you waste your time hating things on the internet and hating people that don't hate them too. Sad! That being said, I cannot wait for WW and JL later, everything looks so good!
Imagine living a life where you know shit ain't always rainbows and sunshine, and you probably have a more critical way of looking at things. I don't know about you, but maybe sometimes that's the way to go... You know, living in the real world and all. Nothing wrong with being positive, but to crap on those who choose not to be so all the fucking time?
Sorry, but you are not on the "good guys" side just because you choose to be overly positive all the time.
Yeah, you tell em, man! XD
Well I think there's a difference between pessimistic and realistic. I think you can be realistic AND negative and everyone can agree or at least agree to disagree. There's also realistic AND optimistic. Same thing. I think the people he's talking about (I could be wrong) are the ones who post negative things for the sake of starting arguments, making people mad, and just overall being jerks.
Did he have a point besides "I'm have an extremely weak confidence in myself and in what I like, so everyone that's against me is automatically on the wrong side of the equation. Hate them all!"?
Oh shut up. You get on your high horse and admonish people who actually enjoy the movies for being "overly positive". NEWSFLASH buddy, it is possible that people out there GENUINELY like the movies. You don't like it, fine. But this is a website to celebrate Batman/DC, not shit on it every chance you get.
Newsflash buddy: anyone and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What you are doing right now with that comment is as bad as those people you accuse of just wanting to start shit up on the comment section. I'm here because I love DC (and Bats of course). Fucking glorious hypocritical reply right there.
I think you have me confused. I made a general statement and YOU felt the need to comment on it. You're quick to pull the victim card after YOU were the one being the aggressor, sitting atop of the high horse because you're so "realistic" than anyone else because you know "shit isn't all rainbows and sunshine.". I'm sorry that you don't like what DCEU is doing, I disagree with you. But your constant negative comments do make the comments section very annoying.
I dislike plenty of things, I do not sit on message boards and comment negatively on every singly article because, unlike you, I don't try to spend my time discussing things I dislike. I put that energy towards actually doing the things I do like.
Because I mostly disagreed with your point. So everytime I see something I don't agree with, I'm not supposed to respond to it? Is debate out of the question for you?
I like coming to these comments sections, and I love DC comics. Sorry, but if you don't want people who disagree with you replying to you, then maybe the internet really ain't the place for you. Shit dog, be more confident about the things you like.
Except you pull this downer shit on every single article. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when somebody goes out of their way to crap on every aspect of something, it eventually gets tiring for those who don't share your opinion. We get it -- you don't like the DCEU. That's your prerogative. But it does get to a point where it simply comes off extremely petty and obnoxious.
He opened an article on WW and commented "I'm just hear to see if she's talking about being a woman again because that's all she does" he actively seeks out articles to be a Negative Nancy
Is it downer? I mean, shit, are ya'll that fucking upset someone simply likes to talk and debate this kind of stuff?
Or do you prefer a nauseating "We all agree on everything, these movies are all masterpieces, we are all friends" comment section?
Sorry, but that's not how any comment section on any website on the internet works. If you don't like how it works, then I'm not the one who shouldn't be here.
You should really learn that just because someone challenges your way of thinking, it doesn't mean they are a downer or wrong. There's two sides to a coin, you know?
No, that's not even what I'm saying. I'm simply stating that you do it at nauseam. And quite frankly, I'm not upset... I am merely pointing out why constant negativity gets annoying for some of the others on here when it's done obsessively. Life's a balance, and incessant bellyaching will only bring you more negativity. Just saying.
It's one thing to vocalize one's displeasure, but it's another when it's done on a daily basis and you then proceed to put others down that don't share your outlook on something. I'll never understand why people choose to get personal on these comment sections just because it's "the internet." Where's accountability in one's actions there? And yes, that's absolutely targeted at those who defend this stuff as well. We all need to rise above the pettiness and find a common ground.
Is it really, though? I mean, when Reeves was confirmed to direct Batman I was excited. But just because I don't comment "OMG! Amber Heard is my queen! All DC ladies are the best actresses and most beautiful as well!" every single time a new article pops out, is it really being annoying?
In my book, those types of comments are the cringy ones, not just disagreeing or wanting some kind of intellectual debate to go on around these parts.
To be fair, I do get your point. It just really doesn't apply to me and many others some dudes accuse them of doing. Trolling is one thing. Not being positive all the fucking time is another.
Nobody is telling you to get overly excited and eat everything up (I certainly don't mean for it to come off that way). There's a lot of stuff I read where it does absolutely nothing for me, or even news that I completely disagree with as well. Like yourself, I do have my own reservations, and I have no idea if things will wind up appeasing the masses or not. I've personally loved MoS, was extremely impressed with BvS (most notably because of the political, theological, and existential elements that were involved), and was very "meh" about Suicide Squad. I certainly can't say that it's all been flawless, and I'm sure there will continue to be things I love and also feel indifferent towards.
But at the end of the day, I am just so tired of all the fighting and hostility among the community, you know? I find a lot of the disgusting amount of vitriol towards Snyder, Gadot, etc. to be extremely unwarranted and even unfair. I understand that they've gone about things thus far in a rather controversial manner, but that also keeps this universe very relevant at the same time for me. I've enjoyed some of the unconventional choices! At the very least, I've viewed quite a few of them as bold and even inspired. I haven't viewed them as dumb or careless -- quite the opposite! But I guess others might see it as trying to fix what isn't broken, or attempting to reinvent the wheel.
I know for a fact that at least one is trolling.
Now imagine you, being the friendly neighborhood DCEU fan you are, and outta nowhere you're worse than a Trump Supporter. Believe it or not, it's happening on twitter.
*cough* Hector Navarro *cough*.
THIS
Pretty much lol. I don't understand why certain folks feel the need to incessantly vocalize their hate for something. Personally, if I don't care for something, I disregard it and focus my time and energy on the stuff which brings me pleasure. I don't get the obsessing. Snyder has won; he's a Hollywood director who gets to deal with his favorite characters for a living, gets paid millions to do it, and clearly owns space in the minds of both fans and haters alike.
You don't even see the irony in this?
You're the one being negative because your complaint is about people expressing an opinion that you don't like. At least they're being critically minded. You're just being thin-skinned.
You could've talked about the film, the interview or engaged in constructive dialogue. Instead, you chose to complain about others because their opinions undermine your beliefs and you can't cope with that, and you knew it would be popular with the other thin-skinned lot.
"You thin-skinned lot" I'm sorry, I guess for me not to be "thin-skinned" I must enjoy people being constantly negative about something I thoroughly enjoy. There's a difference between having different opinions because you're disappointed in the movies and just flat out going out of your way to be negative. There have been plenty of people who have crossed that line over to the former.
No-one recognizes the false dichotomy you created. Of the few here that DO criticize Snyder, or DCEU's strategy, they've always provided careful, sound, constructive, rational and compelling arguments.
By contrast, by far the bigger problem here are those that lash out at a tiny minority for expressing their unpopular opinion. Even IF they're negative, they can do it if they want. Just because you like/love something doesn't mean you have the right to stop others from having an alternative view of it.
Instead of pointing an accusatory finger at a vague "three or four guys", why don't you give us names so we can see if they are "flat out negative", or in fact have made consistent, constructive criticisms because they've been "disappointed" with what they've seen, and want the DCEU to do well.
Who are they?
http://disq.us/url?url=http..., hey man come join. But first thing u gotta do is create an account. Our site doesn't feature the guest option. Dope ass name btw.
Patty Jenkins is hot!
Patty Jenkins is Wonder Woman.
Everyone is so pumped about Wonder Woman that on every article about Wonder Woman you'll find people in the comment section talking about anything BUT Wonder Woman, 75 comments but no more than 10 are about Wonder Woman. And it's always like this
Damn, you're actually right!
REBOOT DCEU, please!
Probably because, for this article at least, folks wanted to talk shit about Snyder. And you joined in the conversation too.
For every article concerning Wonder Woman...every time I come here I skim through the comment section and everyone's engaged in conversations that don't have anything to do with Wonder Woman
Normally I would sympathize you, I again, you joined in the conversation as well.
Patty Jenkins can talk! She's a good director!
Am I doing it right, @disqus_IqqBtqIGiC:disqus ?
Keep reaching.
If this movie is rotten will fans petition rottentomatoes again?
If this movie is rotten, will a small vocal minority of fans still bitch about it a year later on a fan website? What about 4 years?
https://i.imgflip.com/115cu...
They will be here too, for the 10th anniversary in 2023. They will survive us all...
Probably. As if it should really matter lol. If somebody likes something, they should be free to do just that! Who really cares what RT has to say? I mean, I think the frustration comes from how much influence sites like that seem to have for certain factions of people, but, at the end of the day, if you can find pleasure in something, it's important to embrace it!
I have that clown below blocked, but here is my rebuttal:
http://i.imgur.com/VWioS7k.jpg
MoS is about to turn 4 years old, Jesus Christ.
Y'all motherfuckers is crazy.
Heaven forbid somebody values their intelligence. I swear, people just shame others for the sake of it.
http://disq.us/url?url=http..., BP the homies are over here now
cool
Well it is from Fox "News"
This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
