Several reasons, but pretty much why no one cares when Indiana Jones murders people. It boils down to tone, heroism, and because they are not famous for having that stupid rule in the first place, whether it is "sacred" or not.
THR: Warner Bros. Mulls Releasing Fewer Films as 'Batman v. Superman' Stalls
- Thread starter Frosty Droid
- Start date
- Status
Several reasons, but pretty much why no one cares when Indiana Jones murders people. It boils down to tone, heroism, and because they are not famous for having that stupid rule in the first place, whether it is "sacred" or not.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
Only if Matt Damon is also a genius janitor.
You're sounding a looooot like Punisher right about now.
Serious? No way. I'm really looking forward to seeing Aquaman. He looks great, and I want to see what James Wan does with him.
Marvel has made films with lesser known characters.
Also I really like the look they have going for him. I wish he looked the same in the comics, etc with the long hair and facial hair.
You don't need to be a law student to know that murdering someone is illegal. :lol
There's a reason why characters like Dexter, The Punisher, etc. are labeled as morally gray anti-heroes, and not law-abiding hero-heroes.
You might think Batman is morally justified to kill criminals (or, certain kinds of criminals). But murder is a legal definition, not a moral one.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
It'd cause Zod's whole head to blow backwards like a peeled banana, similarly to when Bugs Bunny blocks the barrels of Elmer Fudd's gun.
Escape Goat
Member
He was using his hands to hold Zod?
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Remember when in the animated series Superman covered Darkseid eyes when he was gonna fire those lasers and that's how he beat him.
Remember he animated series? That was cool
Remember he animated series? That was cool
WhiskeyDiver
Member
I'm thinking BvS will have a resurgent third weekend.
I want to be excited, but I'm worried that Wan is there as a safe pair of hands rather than a director with a unique vision (or worse, a hired hand to continue Snyder's work).
Sibersk Esto
Banned
I remember Darkseid telling superman he wasn't shit afterward
Is it too late to cast Michael Ironside as Darkseid in the movies?
Cap is a soldier, Iron Man is an arms manufacturer, and both of them are sanctioned by multiple world governments to fight terrorists/HYDRA.
It's an odd creative choice anyways. The scene in TDK where Batman takes down Joker's henchmen and the SWAT team simultaneously to keep everyone alive was well received, so Snyder decides ... Let's not do that?
Also, Batman is not the Punisher. If he kills, then that act is the exception that proves the rule. Never mind that the Punisher is outright insane.
Green Embers
Member
I actually call them anti-villains because there certainly isn't anything heroic (imo) about what they do.
I am gonna guess that Boondock Saints must be one of J_Viper's favorite movies and he probably liked the sequel.
The thing that bothered me in BvS about Batman is the Batmobile sequence. Batman is being the villain, he is trying to rob a convoy and is completely wasting guys who were most likely hired to protect it. These wouldn't be "bad" guys, just mercenaries hired by Lex to protect a cargo shipment, they probably wouldn't even know it was smuggled goods, just something important the boss didn't want to fall into wrong hands. Then along comes Batman trying to steal it, so they try to stop him. Really left a bad taste in my mouth and I can see why people might call him Murderman.
I know Cap is a soldier, I've made that argument myself (not that it wasn't evident in the first place). Iron Man kills people before he was sanctioned by anyone, if he ever really was.
He went on a revenge spree against the people who held him captive immediately after completing his suit. Killing people is heroic in the right context, there's not much more to it than that.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I forget if this was that episode or the next time he shows up on "Destroyer"
"Heh. Loser..."
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Bats has the support of Gotham police, albeit unofficially.
The Artisan
Member
I see. Fair enough. Well I guess that's that. There's nothing else to be said on the matter.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
At the end when Superman tries to do the Iron Man in Gulmira shtick
"I am many things Kal-El, but here, I am god"
It's been a while since I've seen Iron Man, but I'd argue that Tony's kills while in his box of scraps suit are all in self defense. His exploding the tank and killing those militants who were holding the villagers hostage is extrajudicial (as is his leaving the surviving leader guy to the mercies of the villagers), however.
So good.At the end when Superman tries to do the Iron Man in Gulmira shtick
"I am many things Kal-El, but here, I am god"
Ironically what Zack Snyder probably said when people criticized what he did.
Well, yes. There are a host of creative reason why he chooses not to kill, including working more closely to improve his community, not turning it into a warzone like the Punisher.
I think it only really bothers people who are more close to the character, but it can also feel out of place when you consider the reasons it is there in the first place.
The Artisan
Member
lol!I'm thinking BvS will have a resurgent third weekend.
All I'm saying is his hands switch position in like 3 seconds and he doesn't break Zod's neck for another 15 seconds after that. He could have covered his eyes, it's not like they would have melted off right?
Sure,that is why I quickly added in the "context" line, although not quick enough for your quote. I'm not talking about killing indiscriminately of course, or just for revenge.
Spring-Loaded
Member
Would Bruce Timm and Co. do a better job here?
ViewtifulJC
Banned
At the end when Superman tries to do the Iron Man in Gulmira shtick
"I am many things Kal-El, but here, I am god"
Dope show
I love their version of Darkseid. Not as idiosyncratic as Kirbys creation, but a unique presence that makes him more than just a big bad for Superman to punch
broncobuster
Banned
Earlier in the film Faora tried covering his eyes and it didn't work out well. It's a contrived scenario, regardless.
Alternatively, this might have happened.
There's also something very different about killing terrorists in a war zone compared to criminals in the inner city.
Earlier in the film Faora tried covering his eyes and it didn't work out well. It's a contrived scenario, regardless.
Alternatively, this might have happened.
Fair enough, that would certainly have made things worse.
Plasticine
Member
"Director driven" my ass. Then again I never believed that bit of pr anyway.
Well, at least Ayer is involved, unlike some directors.
Does this mean three weeks total, or three more weeks on top of the reshoots that have already happened?
Sibersk Esto
Banned
Funny thing is batman killed the guy Captain america didn't
This is great news to me. Reshoots mean that they're doing their best to make it a good movie. Everyone wins.
I have a question. Why does every character need to be open to killing? "No kill" is really not that common, and it can create some uniquely compelling stories.
I have a question. Why does every character need to be open to killing? "No kill" is really not that common, and it can create some uniquely compelling stories.
Saint Gregory
Member
My favorite part of that entire battle was when the flew into outer space, Supes knocked Zod into the satellite which he promptly throws back at him, then they fall back to Earth with the remnants of the satellite... back into Metropolis -_-
Planetary physics... how do they work?
LOL, I totally forgot about that, yes it did! >_<
Sibersk Esto
Banned
and then the same shit happened in bvs
Nope. I'm cereal.
It's been a while since I've watched MoS, but wasn't the sacrifice of Metropolis needed to power Zod's world engine device? If that's the case then I can see why Supes would fight him there.
As far the second point, which is a fair point concerning the oil-rig type scenarios, I'd chalk that down to Snyder's interpretation of an inexperienced, flawed Superman. I don't expect him to be able to balance the fight with Zod and save everyone in the city.
Perhaps he only started killing after Robin's death? I'm guessing we'll have to wait for the solo Batman film to answer those questions.
That's a bit broad, but if we're talking rapists, killers, sex traffickers, child molesters, anyone involved in child pornography, and other similarly vile acts then yes, I personally believe they should die.
Well I do love Bernthal
Then perhaps I find the morally gray anti-hero Batman to be a very interesting take on the character and one that I would have loved to see more of.
I just believe directors should be able to have different interpretations of these characters.
Haven't seen either, but I have been meaning to check them out. I'm a big Dafoe fan.
call_kotaku
Member
I wonder if Zack Snyder is the personification of "Hollywood executives don't hire Black/Asian/Hispanic/Female directors because they tend to prefer people who remind them of their younger selves". It's sort of perplexing that he keeps failing into success and consistently getting bigger projects, even though his two biggest hits were somewhat controversial adaptations of existing material.
Even if he truly is a misunderstood genius, it's pretty clear that audiences aren't getting any closer to understanding him, and that has to factor in on such large business decisions. The amount of leeway he gets really seems out of character for the industry.
Even if he truly is a misunderstood genius, it's pretty clear that audiences aren't getting any closer to understanding him, and that has to factor in on such large business decisions. The amount of leeway he gets really seems out of character for the industry.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
There has been a lot of ink spilled on the idea that this Batman doesn't care about killing and is the same as the punisher now, but I'd say that's not strictly true. It's more like that he no longer considers it completely forbidden. We see several times in the film that he has criminals at his mercy and he renders them unconscious or lets the police grab them - the whole Bat Brand As A Mark Of Death subplot is kind of poorly explained but apparently only one person had died in prison because of it based on news reports at the start.
I've been harping on about it for weeks now it feels but we've had Burtman killing people since 89 and Nolan Bats killing people while pretending like he wasn't for 3 films. If I was a comic reader maybe I'd be more pissed but from the filmverse it only feels one step removed from what was already happening - dropping the pretense.
Alandrus Sun
Banned
Well, Uncharted 1-3 were not a complete story although UC4 seems to be the end of the franchise. But, LOTR is a good example doing a new story with a new big conflict post-Sauron sort of defeats the entire purpose of the trilogy. TDK trilogy is a complete story and TDKR perfectly ends the tale of Nolan's Batman. Bruce Wayne is able to overcome the tragedy of what happened to his parents and put down the cowl to start a new life of his own with someone else. He manages to do this after giving Gotham the hope it deserves for a better tomorrow while ensuring that Batman continues to exist to help rebuild this new Gotham.
To bring Bale Batman into the mix is to disregard the entire last movie and his entire character arc. Could it be done? Sure, logic has never stopped a sequel from being made. Should it be done? No, especially when they can simply create a brand new Batman not tied down by Nolan's established universe.
The Artisan
Member
because "that would give [the joker] the final victory. by turning me into a killer!"
MHWilliams
Member
Pretty much, which is why I've noted it my least bothersome aspect of the film.
My only real question is: Why is the Joker still alive? Something that's aptly taken care of in previous incarnations. That's a story for another film.
But Batman IS a killer in this universe. Are you being sarcastic here?
The Artisan
Member
huh? no, I put the quotations there because iirc, that is literally what batman says when he has joker defeated and has the chance to kill him, but doesn't.
It goes beyond not having an aversion to killing. BvS Batman kills for convenience sake - he blows people up seemingly because it's the easiest thing to do.
It makes him punching people silly - he should be fighting Knightmare sequence style in the rest of the film. I guess you could see it as him just enjoying feeling bones crack under his knuckles, though.
It is a film Batman idiosyncrasy, but when you have a Batman that looks so comic book accurate it is especially jarring to see him also be the most murderous Batman. It also devalues a character wrinkle that could have been explored.
It makes him punching people silly - he should be fighting Knightmare sequence style in the rest of the film. I guess you could see it as him just enjoying feeling bones crack under his knuckles, though.
It is a film Batman idiosyncrasy, but when you have a Batman that looks so comic book accurate it is especially jarring to see him also be the most murderous Batman. It also devalues a character wrinkle that could have been explored.
Okay. I'm not arguing against any of that. I'm just telling you that murder is not a label that only applies to killing innocent people. :lol
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
He may not be alive, I'm unsure of ss chronology. But if Batman had flamethrower guy in cuffs, he wouldn't have killed him anyway. I don't think it's that much of a stretch tbh.
The Jason Todd Theory is the best bet on this.
- Status