Support NeoGAF

[Veelk]

Because his anger and rage is towards Superman. How does Superman's mother play into that? If he had done the research she's a nobody with a clean record who (from what we as the audience can gather) has only worked small jobs at Sears and some cafe. She's an innocent. If that was something he was willing to do why doesn't he go after everyone's mom? Or their kids? Or just kill everybody to make sure all crime ends and it's just him and Alfred. And then why not kill Alfred? He may turn too!

You cannot seriously argue that Batman cares about the innocence of people in a movie where he is explicitly out to murder a guy merely for being born with an inconvenient set of abilities and also condemns people to death in his crusade without any measure of guilt by both manslaughter in fights and also premeditated marks of death for other prisoners. That's where blind part of 'blind rage' comes in. It doesn't discriminate based on who deserves it.

Who Martha Kent is beyond a pressure point for Superman is should be irrelevant to someone who is in such a 'blind rage' as Batman is. And I don't see why he wouldn't do those things against other criminals either, for the record. I just don't think he needs to, since his preferred MO is to beat them into submission himself. Superman is the one guy he couldn't do so, and when he finally could, he was practically ejaculating with self satisfaction in being able to beat him down.

But I feel we're getting beyond the point here. You're saying he's in such a blind rage and dark place that he's willing to slaughter anyone who happens to be on his warpath to Superman....but he's also moral enough that he would not dare do something as heinous as use loved ones against his enemies, even as a bluff. To the point where he doesn't even bother to investigate to see if there are any such weaknesses (or any weaknesses in general).

That's a pretty specific mixture of irrationality, moral fortitude, and callous disregard for the lives of others.

 

[Discotheque]

I always thought after lois found out Superman's identity through investigating it that lex and Bruce would find out fairly easily as well.

Was really disappointed that I was only half right. It's a huge plot contrivance just to get that silly Martha moment on screen which snyder clearly thought was a great scene that had to be done.

I get ending the fight with Batman realizing he's gone too far down the rabbit hole becoming the person he used to enact justice against but there has got to be a better way of showing that.

I was really fucking with the movie for the most part up until that fight tbh. I was also under the assumption that batman knew who he was.....

After that silly ending to the fight you also got that dumb justice league email stuff which was placed way too late into the film killing pacing, and the doomsday fight. Didn't like any of it aside from seeing wonder woman for the first time.

 

[cr0w]

The problem is the 3 hour run time goes against market research, especially when internet reviewers/etc. complain about a movie being too long. That's why you typically see superhero movies going for 2:30 run time. In addition, I think the problem is at the fundamental level; there are scenes that don't really go anywhere which hurts the pacing of movie and results in jarring cuts when edited.

I definitely get that, but if you cut a movie to the point where it is nothing but detrimental to the pacing and flow of it, and it's a movie that is as important as BvS is to future plans, you're hurting yourself more than if you keep the length and just have people deal with it.

Then again, WB has shown that they have no idea what they're doing with these movies, which is why the new DC films division was hopefully founded. I'd really like to see fewer studio mandates with the DC films going forward compared to, say, Marvel (and I don't want to start a DC vs Marvel debate) because while it works for Marvel, I'd like to see where DC could go if the filmmakers were given more leeway. I'd like for each movie to have its own identity and tone rather than each one feeling like a part of a bigger whole.

 

[Alienous]

Nah, the problems with this movie aren't because non-comic readers will be lost. It's because Snyder tried to retrofit Batman and Superman into a Watchmen-esque movie, and couldn't pull it together. Superman's Dr. Manhattan, Batman's Rorschach and Luthor's Veidt. So you get a superhero movie that squanders one of its assets; its characters.

I'm a comic book reader, I recognized the Russian character was KGBeast based on his name, I noticed the TDKR and Death of Superman references. Knowing about the comics works against them film; you see all of the ideas brought to screen in a lesser form, you see characters who act against their core characteristics. The adherence to the comics is mostly auxillary to the film's problems. It's just a plodding, poorly written, big dumb movie.

 

[shoreu]

Well I bought it on Cineplex, that's how I'm watching it.

How did you get it early do you have a link

 

[IconGrist]

You cannot simultaneously argue that Batman cares about the innocence of people in a movie where he is explicitly out to murder a guy merely for being born with an inconvenient set of abilities and also condemns people to death in his crusade without any measure of guilt by both manslaughter in fights and also premeditated marks of death for other prisoners.

Who Martha Kent is beyond a pressure point for Superman is should be irrelevant to someone who is in such a 'blind rage' as Batman is. And I don't see why he wouldn't do those things against other criminals either, for the record. I just don't think he needs to, since his preferred MO is to beat them into submission himself. Superman is the one guy he couldn't do so, and when he finally could, he was practically ejaculating with self satisfaction in being able to beat him down.

Y'know, if that was why Batman had a problem with Superman than I would be having an entirely different argument. I also would have scored BvS much lower, lol.

That's a pretty specific mixture of irrationality, moral fortitude, and callous disregard for the lives of others.

Well, Batman is crazy. What can you do?

 

[cr0w]

Nah, the problems with this movie aren't because non-comic readers will be lost. It's because Snyder tried to retrofit Batman and Superman into a Watchmen-esque movie, and couldn't pull it together. Superman's Dr. Manhattan, Batman's Rorschach and Luthor's Veidt. So you get a superhero movie that squanders one of its assets; its characters.

I'm a comic book reader, I recognized the Russian character was KGBeast based on his name, I noticed the TDKR and Death of Superman references. Knowing about the comics works against them film; you see all of the ideas brought to screen in a lesser form, you see characters who act against their core characteristics. The adherence to the comics is mostly auxillary to the film's problems. It's just a plodding, poorly written, big dumb movie.

Again, it's subjective. I personally like what they did with the characters, because I don't want to see a retread of what we've already gotten. Some of my favorite stories were Elseworld tales that took the characters in different directions and explored them in ways that haven't been done before ad nauseum. To most people, that's a bad thing and in some ways betrays the characters we've all grown up with. To me, it's more interesting because it's not a remake of the Reeve or Bale movies.

But again, it all just depends on what you want out of it. I don't want to see the All-Star Superman rescuing suicidal teenagers off of ledges yet. Eventually, sure. But I'd like to see where this arc goes, and I'm in the minority there.

Edit: oh God, thinking of Elseworlds makes me really, really want a Batman/Dracula movie. And not that cartoon shit.

I'm not discounting your opinion here at all, Alienous. Hopefully I'm getting my points across here as to my opinion on the flick without people thinking I'm telling them they're wrong or anything like that.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Nah, the problems with this movie aren't because non-comic readers will be lost. It's because Snyder tried to retrofit Batman and Superman into a Watchmen-esque movie, and couldn't pull it together. Superman's Dr. Manhattan, Batman's Rorschach and Luthor's Veidt. So you get a superhero movie that squanders one of its assets; its characters.

I'm a comic book reader, I recognized the Russian character was KGBeast based on his name, I noticed the TDKR and Death of Superman references. Knowing about the comics works against them film; you see all of the ideas brought to screen in a lesser form, you see characters who act against their core characteristics. The adherence to the comics is mostly auxillary to the film's problems. It's just a plodding, poorly written, big dumb movie.

You're missing the point. You're a comic book reader so you already understand the lore and references, but what about to the typical average joe who comes in? He/She's missing out on all references such as understanding what drove Batman this far (even if it's shoddily written), Robin's death, and so on. In addition gaps in the story that Snyder expects you to know through said knowledge of lore and references, so you end up with a situation where DC fans know what to expect, but at a cost of being inaccessible to non-comic book readers. It wasn't about adherence, but rather relying on the audience to fill in the gaps.

I suppose the Watchmen analogy is relevant, but this isn't something solely relevant to BvS. After all, Watchmen was created as deconstruction of not only DC's main characters, but also the entire comic book industry. Where the analogy falls apart is when you start saying Luthor is equivalent to Veidt/Ozymandias, or that Superman is equivalent to Dr. Manhattan. In the superficial sense, sure they're similar, but Superman isn't a cut-paste of Dr. Manhattan as Superman is about doing the right thing vs. Manhattan being a nihilistic god. Additionally, Vedit was all about Utilitarianism even if his actions are corrupted vs. Luthor who only did this to make a point about gods vs. righteousness and fulfilling his narcissistic desire to supersede god.

 

[Veelk]

Y'know, if that was why Batman had a problem with Superman than I would be having an entirely different argument. I also would have scored BvS much lower, lol.

Isn't it? The film seems to agree that Superman wasn't held culpable for the Metropolis fight. The only one who explicitly blamed him was the wheelchair guy. But Batman himself had the motivation based primarily in fear and insecurity.

There was even the line "If there is even a 1% chance that he is our enemy". Meaning that, when it comes down to it, even he is unsure what to make of superman's character. He just doesn't care, because the risk of someone with powers that great is too much to bare. That was his thesis, not "He fucked up metropolis, he has to answer for his crime". That line makes absolutely no sense if we suppose that Batman already deemed Superman to be evil. And it makes the martha moment even more nonsensical.

Well, Batman is crazy. What can you do?

What Nolan did, I guess. Give him a competently written character arc.

 

[Discotheque]

I dunno if it was intentional or not from snyder/terrio but you could look at batmans stupidity and hatred as a condemnation of xenophobic ppl

Bruce Trump comparisons were popping up a lot after that 1% quote.

 

[shoreu]

I dunno if it was intentional or not from snyder/terrio but you could look at batmans stupidity and hatred as a condemnation of xenophobic ppl

Bruce Trump comparisons were popping up a lot after that 1% quote.

The thing about dc is some alien races are just evil as fuck and untrustworthy. I'd never trust a damonite

 

[Bleepey]

I've seen that video and understand the scene just fine. That doesn't mean it was at all convincing or a satisfying resolution for me.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

I think this quote sums up what Snyder was trying to do. Superman at death's door doesn't ask for his life to be spared, doesn't say fuck you bitch, he says superman's actions are killing a woman called Martha Kent. He tried to say the Kent part but he kinda had a boot to the neck and kryptonite in his face at the time. Superman was about to become Joe Chill. I don't get why in Civil War Bucky shows he was back to normal by remembering events in his past like Steve's mum's name (in the Winter Soldier Bucky when under mind control couldn't remember his name) audiences responded to it. Yet when a Batman who has been driven by blind rage and is about to kill a man who he only saw as an alien and who on his deathbed only wanted to try to save his mother's life is reminded of why he became Batman by Superman pleading for him to save his mother's life it gets criticised. Similar premise and somewhat similar execution but i don't get why people knock BVS for it. I find it telling people always ignore the you're killing Martha bit when they mock the Martha scene a bit like "a well-regulated militia" but that's for another thread. But then I think Snyder is unfairly shit on in his cinematic universe whether it's people overlooking the numerous people Superman saved

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EydFeuPK8

The criticism of the collateral damage during the fight despite him saving as many people as he could (him not saving people after the fight is fair criticism though). Meanwhile in the animated series Supes sets fire to fuel tankers on bridges, punches villains through children's hospitals and people think that iteration of Superman encapsulates truth justice and the American way.

Oh and before I forget:

the killing of Zod where people shat on him for that. Despite the fact 1) it wasn't the first time Zod was killed on film 2)he was upset about it 3) unlike Superman 2 he didn't smile and crack a joke about it like the man who first made you believe a man could fly 4) but I guess this is where people bitch about Cavill not smiling.

Oh and don't get me started on Batman killing despite the only one not to have done so was Clooney. I guess Bat nipples and a Bat credit card are what truly makes someone Batman.

This rant has gone on too long and I could go on all day about it. I think the theatrical cut was kinda confusing but not as awful as it was made out to be and I look forward to it. I also like Snyder's films mostly. Suckerpunch is still shit though.

 

[IconGrist]

Isn't it? The film seems to agree that Superman wasn't held culpable for the Metropolis fight. The only one who explicitly blamed him was the wheelchair guy. But Batman himself had the motivation based partially in fear and insecurity.

There was even the line "If there is even a 1% chance that he is our enemy". Meaning that, when it comes down to it, even he is unsure what to make of superman's character. He just doesn't care, because the risk of someone with powers that great is too much to bare. That was his thesis, not "He fucked up metropolis, he has to answer for his crime". That line makes absolutely no sense if we suppose that Batman already deemed Superman to be evil. And it makes the martha moment even more nonsensical.

I believe it was a combination of things. Bruce believing that's too much power for someone to be in control of unchecked and the uncertainty of it. The loss of his friends/employees in the Metropolis battle, the little girl who lost her mother, not to mention why Superman was on Earth in the first place and what brought the rest of the Kryptonians AND (something you brought up before) that Superman never made his intentions clear. Does Bruce understand why Superman chooses to save these people but not these people? Does he understand why Superman was in Africa? That Superman wasn't responsible for Capitol Hill incident?

What Nolan did, I guess. Give him a competently written character arc.

We will not being coming to terms here. Bruce had the worst arc of anyone in that entire trilogy.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

We will not being coming to terms here. Bruce had the worst arc of anyone in that entire trilogy.

How?

 

[AlteredBeast]

Where is everyone seeing this movie? Is it out legally? I don't steal, so i want to know if I can legally get it already.

 

[Bleepey]

Why not?

No, seriously, if we're in the depths of his anger of a man who is already perfectly willing to kill people willy-nilly, and we're dealing with what he classifies as a world ending threat, why is threatening the life of one woman not an acceptable means of action to detaining him?

Hell, he could lie about it if you think he's still not hard enough to murder innocent woman. It's not like Superman will know, just have her placed in a secret location somewhere he can't find her and tell Supes she'll die if he doesn't comply.

There's no real reason not to except for the fact that it would be too heinous a thing to consider in the traditional batman interpretation...but this isn't the traditional batman interpretation, a man who is completely lost in anger and hatred. He's already a shitbag, seeking to murder an innocent being just for existing with too much power. The only real change here is that by doing this, he'll be a competent shitbag, rather than one who does not see the advantage of investigating your enemy.

The thing is, Superman in the Battle of Metropolis as well as the interrupted transmission by the Kryptonians was presented to the world and Bruce as an alien. Not as a guy brought up with a mother who cares for him.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

The thing is, Superman in the Battle of Metropolis as well as the interrupted transmission by the Kryptonians was presented to the world and Bruce as an alien. Not as a guy brought up with a mother who cares for him.

Superman was fighting his own kind, is that not enough to cause cognitive dissonance?

 

[guek]

I don't get why in Civil War Bucky shows he was back to normal by remembering events in his past like Steve's mum's name (in the Winter Soldier Bucky when under mind control couldn't remember his name) audiences responded to it.

They're entirely different scenes. For one, Bucky having access to his memories doesn't result in a change in character in anyone like the Martha line in BvS. It's merely to convey to Steve that he's regained control of himself. Secondly, Sam immediately questions Steve's ability to unquestioningly trust Bucky which is a common thread throughout the movie and one of the crucial reasons why Tony not only distrusts Steve's judgement throughout the film but also why he's so hurt by Steve prioritizing protecting Bucky's role in the murder of the Starks over what Tony thought was a relationship of mutual respect and friendship.

 

[Veelk]

I believe it was a combination of things. Bruce believing that's too much power for someone to be in control of unchecked and the uncertainty of it. The loss of his friends/employees in the Metropolis battle, the little girl who lost her mother, not to mention why Superman was on Earth in the first place and what brought the rest of the Kryptonians AND (something you brought up before) that Superman never made his intentions clear. Does Bruce understand why Superman chooses to save these people but not these people? Does he understand why Superman was in Africa? That Superman wasn't responsible for Capitol Hill incident?

Those are some pretty good questions that might be cleared up with some INVESTIGATION, dontcha think? One could almost wonder why he doesn't do any.

Also, a lot of this is pure speculation on your part. That's not the evidence that the movie gives us. I'm sure plenty of mothers died, but for all know, that girls mothers survived, so it's not quite fair to assume worse case scenerio. All we know for sure is that he is not happy about the metropolis attack. Fair enough, but the official military reports would have verified that Superman was their ally in that fight and he didn't want Zod and his gang here (unless you want to argue he is so colossally stupid as to never investigate even that far). From that same report, he'd know Superman came to earth and has been living their peacefully all these years, so the paranoia of why he's there should be gone. And then we know that Lex is trolling bruce through mail to push him into that territory of panic and fear even more which I always felt was laughably weak. I mean, I assume internet trolls send him "lol, ur parentz r dead" messages anyway. And then he personally threatened him as Batman, which is unfair as he intentionally plays up his bad rep anyway. Is there anything else? Unless I'm forgetting something, that's all the solid justification he has.

I mean, if we just assume that Batman is assigning him blame for everything he is even partially involved with, then all that means is that Batman is verifiably being stupid to protect his world view of Superman as the quintessential bad guy. If you are having to paint Batman a complete moron, jumping to the wildest conclusions without making any effort to verify his hypothesis, just to justify his worldview, then maybe the conflict created in the film is just poorly made.

We will not being coming to terms here. Bruce had the worst arc of anyone in that entire trilogy.

Heh, clearly not, as I consider it one of the best Batman arcs period.

The thing is, Superman in the Battle of Metropolis as well as the interrupted transmission by the Kryptonians was presented to the world and Bruce as an alien. Not as a guy brought up with a mother who cares for him.

Why is this brought up as an argument against investigation? I mean, I'm no tactician, and if anyone else is, feel free to call me out on my bullshit, but I think I can safely say that no strategist promotes LESS knowledge. There is no strategy that goes "If we know less about our enemy, we'll be better to counter him."

And if he had done so, he'd have been able to beat Lex to the punch with using his mother against him, if he didn't have a mental breakdown over her name being Martha before that.

 

[IconGrist]

How?

He went through this crazy journey of getting inside the criminal mind and training with the League of Shadows to become this ultimate weapon against the filth of Gotham only to try and throw it away at the mere prospect of being with a woman. Twice. Then he gives up being Batman after only being in action for, what, a couple of months? Why blame Dent's death on Batman? Is anyone going to believe Joker didn't do it? It's not like he didn't target Dent once before. So 8 years later he dons the costume once again because...

...someone took his money. Which he never got back and then Bane beat him near to death. Fell for another woman that got pretty cozy pretty fast (which also almost gets him killed) and once again gives up being Batman the second the opportunity arises AND HAS A NEW WOMAN who robbed him and then led him straight to Bane and also kills "Bruce Wayne" so he doesn't have to deal with that anymore. The whole thing was stupid.

They're entirely different scenes. For one, Bucky having access to his memories doesn't result in a change in character in anyone like the Martha line in BvS. It's merely to convey to Steve that he's regained control of himself. Secondly, Sam immediately questions Steve's ability to unquestioningly trust Bucky which is a common thread throughout the movie and one of the crucial reasons why Tony not only distrusts Steve's judgement throughout the film but also why he's so hurt by Steve prioritizing protecting Bucky's role in the murder of the Starks over what Tony thought was a relationship of mutual respect and friendship.

I think a more apt comparison to Batman is Black Panther. Panther basically goes off a photo that no one bothered to check the validity of as reason enough to try and kill Bucky.

 

[Veelk]

He went through this crazy journey of getting inside the criminal mind and training with the League of Shadows to become this ultimate weapon against the filth of Gotham only to try and throw it away at the mere prospect of being with a woman. Twice. Then he gives up being Batman after only being in action for, what, a couple of months?

....No he didn't. He stayed with being batman until he thought he was done. Also, you misunderstand his mission. He only wanted to be batman to pear away the corruption and then kickstart the police into action.

Why blame Dent's death on Batman? Is anyone going to believe Joker didn't do it? It's not like he didn't target Dent once before.

I don't quite remember the rationale for it when I looked up this very question online, but I remember being satisfied with the answer. However, this has little to do with his character arc. This is a plot quibble that is tangential to it. Either way, once the police were able to mobilize after having cleaned up Gotham, his job was done. He just thought he'd be able to walk away from it clean, but the plot decided to make it a harsher break. It might not be the best reasoned plot point, but it's not something that is vastly different from how his arc was going to turn out. It's more like it just cemented that he would really have to give up everything, even his good name, to fix this city once and for all.

So 8 years later he dons the costume once again because...

...someone took his money. Which he never got back and then Bane beat him near to death.

Pretty sure that he smelt trouble brewing with bane. The money being exhausted only tipped him off.

Fell for another woman that got pretty cozy pretty fast (which also almost gets him killed) and once again gives up being Batman the second the opportunity arises AND HAS A NEW WOMAN who robbed him and then led him straight to Bane and also kills "Bruce Wayne" so he doesn't have to deal with that anymore. The whole thing was stupid.

You keep mentioning 'fell for a woman' as if this is a bad thing. Bruce of the TDK saga craves intimacy and love, which he was never able to recouperate until he felt he honored his parents enough to fulfill their dream of a clean Gotham. Once he did that, he was open to persue what he always wanted, a life of love, but Rachel died. That's why he is broken down for years, he gets attached and doesn't let go. Narratively, this is a good thing, because if you are in a situation where you need to be a grizzled stoic badass to survive and you are a grizzled stoic badass, then you've nullified the conflict. Nolan's Bruce is a sap, and he leads with that as his thesis, so which makes how he deals with his situations more interesting because it's an actual transformative experience. He is a badass, but he's a big softie at heart. And I'll gladly take that over BvS's batman whose arc is composed of something a literal 5 year old could figure out.

Which makes his ultimate romance with Selena Kyle decent too. Yeah, she is a criminal, but he sees the good in people to a fault. This usually doesn't work out, but in Selena's case, it did and not only does he live a better life for it, so does she. They improve each other, having her open up to companionship where she is unable, while Bruce has someone to have his back and shoot people if he needs it. But then again, I am a sucker for opposites attract pairings, so feel free to disagree with me on that one.

I think a more apt comparison to Batman is Black Panther. Panther basically goes off a photo that no one bothered to check the validity of as reason enough to try and kill Bucky.

I mostly agree, but I have more sympathy towards momentary anger than a grudge going on for years. Batman had a year and a half to figure out all the shit he needs to about Superman. Black Panther literally just had his father die, a more intimate and personal connection than a boss with his employees and strangers on the ground floor, literally in his arms against an enemy wherein investigation may literally not be a realistic possibility due to the lethality of the Winter Soldier.

Batman had ages to figure out who superman was and is maintaining his anger based on an event that happened so long ago. Black Panther's wound is raw and new, and he could have very well been the only one able to stop him as far as he knew.

 

[Discotheque]

Oh you're one of those ppl. Nah gonna have to disagree big time with all that. He was willing to drop batman when Gothams police and DA was capable of handling the crime in the city. That's the main reason why he retires after tdk (the mourning of Rachel and becoming a recluse is a byproduct since he has nothing to obsess over now without batman). They explain it away with the last few years being peace time in Gotham due to the dent act and the police gaining more of a backbone. Going with Rachel was just gonna be an added bonus of dropping batman.

He becomes batman again because it's pretty obvious the resurgence of the league is way out of Gothams scope of control

Nolan and snyder both approached the character with some different perspective. I have nothing against either of them doing that. I just think snyder poorly explained his Bruce compared to Nolan

 

[guek]

I think a more apt comparison to Batman is Black Panther. Panther basically goes off a photo that no one bothered to check the validity of as reason enough to try and kill Bucky.

Yup. Though to be fair, anyone who isn't Steve Rogers would have ample reason to condemn the greatest known Hydra assassin in human history with even the smallest amount of evidence.

 

[IconGrist]

Bruce falling for a woman is not inherently bad. It seems bad that he seems so willing to drop his mission for it. What respect to his parent's name is he giving by making everyone that cares about him think he's dead and then abandoning Gotham? Does Bruce have some sort of guarantee no one will step up to be the next big villain of Gotham? I can't remember exactly but doesn't Joker imply that Batman is the reason there is someone like himself? That Batman has invited something worse to Gotham just by the very nature of his existence?

I just didn't buy it. If it worked for you, I respect it but it didn't work for me at all. I say this as someone who liked Begins and TDK. I did not like TDKR though. At all. Every bit of that movie irritated me in one way or another.

 

[Veelk]

Bruce falling for a woman is not inherently bad. It seems bad that he seems so willing to drop his mission for it. What respect to his parent's name is he giving by making everyone that cares about him think he's dead and then abandoning Gotham? Does Bruce have some sort of guarantee no one will step up to be the next big villain of Gotham? I can't remember exactly but doesn't Joker imply that Batman is the reason there is someone like himself? That Batman has invited something worse to Gotham just by the very nature of his existence?

I just didn't buy it. If it worked for you, I respect it but it didn't work for me at all.

His mission is not to maintain that everyone who cares about him is aware of his wellbeing or even perpetually watch over Gotham. His mission was to empower Gotham to maintain itself. That is it.

As far as that goes, his mission was done as of the Joker incident, where the police were empowered by Dent's death to clean up the city themselves, which they did until Bane came and rocked the boat. Other than being the only one who could stop him, you could argue that this was the remaining piece of the League of Shadows, which was in fact part of his original mission to stop. Once he did, then his mission was complete again, to the best of his knowledge.

As far as future villains, of course he has no guarentee. That's why he tries to empower others to be able to take care of themselves. First the Gotham PD, but when he realizes that supervillains might come around, he gives the job to the new guy, Robin. Now, let me say that I think that last bit is the worst thing to come out of TDK, since I find it completely unbelievable that the new guy can perform the job, but again, as far as his character arc goes, this is a tangential plot quibble, because the real message here is that Bruce is trying to empower everyone around him so they won't need him.

That is a uniquely powerful thing in a superhero movie because the fundamental premise of any superhero movie is that everyone is incapable of taking care of some problem that only this one guy, or this group of people, can do. Many mock the 'realism' promotion that TDK does, but atleast for the first two movies, it does feel more realistic in the sense that people ARE capable of taking care of themselves, and they were just locked down by criminal organizations. Without them, Gotham honestly doesn't need a batman, because they have effective police. TDKR fuddles that a bit, but even then, the fact that he is giving the job to someone else and believes they can make it work again emphasizes his belief that the world doesn't need him in particular to survive, which is something he celebrates.

And as far as the joker, it's more like "you started this craziness, it won't end now" but Joker is a bullshitter in this series, so....

 

[Discotheque]

Tdkr is disappointing for sure with a lot of frustrating stuff but honestly out of all the post tdk comic movies it's still pretty high up on the list for me. Over snyder's stuff too

 

[AlteredBeast]

You didn't like TDKR because it was a bad movie. Sad because the other two parts of the trilogy are still top 5 comic book superhero movies ever made.

 

[IconGrist]

His 'mission' is not to maintain that everyone who cares about him is aware of his wellbeing or even perpetually watch over Gotham. His mission was to empower Gotham to maintain itself. That is it.

As far as that goes, his mission was done as of the Joker incident, where the police were empowered by Dent's death to clean up the city themselves, which they did until Bane came and rocked the boat. Other than being the only one who could stop him, you could argue that this was the remaining piece of the League of Shadows, which was in fact part of his original mission to stop. Once he did, then his mission was complete again, to the best of his knowledge.

As far as future villains, of course he has no guarentee. That's why he tries to empower others to be able to take care of themselves. First the Gotham PD, but when he realizes that supervillains might come around, he gives the job to the new guy, Robin.

I was reading this part and was about to say...

Now, let me say that I think that last bit is the worst thing to come out of TDK, since I find it completely unbelievable that the new guy can perform the job...

But then you beat me to it so I really have nothing to add other than...

but again, as far as his character arc goes, this is a tangential plot quibble, because the real message here is that Bruce is trying to empower everyone around him so they won't need him.

It's just a quibble because there was no fourth movie where this could possibly turn into something extra stupid, lol.

 

[Veelk]

It's just a quibble because there was no fourth movie where this could possibly turn into something extra stupid, lol.

Nah. A good enough writer can turn anything around, so you could just have him take some kind of special training or whatever, find funds Bruce stashed away for him, etc.

But yeah, the way they did it, it was weak. Bruce wants to GTFO out of the superhero business, and that's awesome, but the movie didn't give a strong candidate for his successor.

 

[IconGrist]

Nah. A good enough writer can turn anything around, so you could just have him take some kind of special training or whatever, find funds Bruce stashed away for him, etc.

But yeah, the way they did it, it was weak. Bruce wants to GTFO out of the superhero business, and that's awesome, but the movie didn't give a strong candidate for his successor.

Well let's hope Terrio is worth the praise he was receiving that he's now free from Goyer's mess and JL isn't such an easy target to dismantle.

 

[MegaManTrigger]

He went through this crazy journey of getting inside the criminal mind and training with the League of Shadows to become this ultimate weapon against the filth of Gotham only to try and throw it away at the mere prospect of being with a woman. Twice. Then he gives up being Batman after only being in action for, what, a couple of months? Why blame Dent's death on Batman? Is anyone going to believe Joker didn't do it? It's not like he didn't target Dent once before. So 8 years later he dons the costume once again because...

...someone took his money. Which he never got back and then Bane beat him near to death. Fell for another woman that got pretty cozy pretty fast (which also almost gets him killed) and once again gives up being Batman the second the opportunity arises AND HAS A NEW WOMAN who robbed him and then led him straight to Bane and also kills "Bruce Wayne" so he doesn't have to deal with that anymore. The whole thing was stupid.

Nolan designed the Batman arc to start from beginning to end, so when Bruce trains with the League of Shadows, it's with the intention of using himself as a temporary solution, at least until corruption in the legal system and police departments were rectified. Until Gotham could stand on its own two feet and solve its crime problems without relying on a vigilante. In fact, Batman was never meant to be a permanent solution to Gotham's crime problem as you see in various comic book issues and standalone stories. That being said, Bruce was aiming to retire and continue living his life once Gotham was restored to its glory.

Which then takes us to the middle of Bruce's arc. In TDK, he sees that he's making a positive impact, though he's not viewed favourably and as such, he relies on Harvey Dent as the figure of the visible White Knight to be able to do the things that he couldn't do (for instance, singlehandedly destroying the Mob's influence ). He starts considering retirement because his goal of Batman being the temporary solution appears to have been fulfilled, so he starts thinking about starting a normal life again, and that's why he makes an effort to reconcile and connect with Rachel. It's not so much throwing it away for "a woman" as much as it is the possibility of living a normal life, which as we see, is much harder for Bruce than he expected. The Batman persona was an addiction for him and something that was much harder for him to let go of, which is why Rachel was going to dump him. As long as Gotham was in need of a hero, Batman was there.

Don't forget, Jim Gordon made an active effort to make sure no one knew what happened to Dent, so no one could conclusively say it was the Joker. Furthermore, if you blame the Joker, he wins because his whole point was to corrupt a central figure and cause people of Gotham to be hopeless and apathetic in regards to their crime situation. Batman and Gordon created a lie in order to galvanize people into demonizing the Batman and continuing on with their everyday actions without the apathetic/hopeless attitude. It's also at this point that Batman is extremely redundant now that the Dent Act was put into place. With the Dent Act, the Mob is no longer even a concern, and crime/corruption has plummeted to the point of being much more comfortable to live with. When Bruce retires, it's because he views himself as redundant now that Gotham is at peace (regardless of the fact that this peace was unearned and lied for), and Gotham can at least maintain itself without devolving back to its putrid self in Batman Begins.

Which then takes us to TDKR, where we see a grizzled Bruce Wayne who appears to live a purposeless life. The entire point of the conclusion of Bruce's arc is to move him from being addicted to the Batman persona to realizing that there's more to him than being Batman. That's why Alfred tries to get him to realize that there's more he can do, and that he doesn't need to be Batman to make an impact. The problem is Bruce is largely apathetic and cynical of how people will take advantage of his positive contributions. When he dons the costume again, he feels a duty to because of how much of a threat Bane is. When he gets his ass kicked and sent to the hole, he re-learns much of what he desensitized: he was unafraid of dying, so he acted apathetic because of his death wish attitude. So when he returns to Gotham to finish Bane's war, and leave behind Bruce Wayne, he's not doing it to "not deal with it anymore", he's doing it because he realizes that he's done enough, is proud of his legacy (and maybe he feels his parents will be proud of him) and finally transitions into living a normal life.

 

[Veelk]

Well let's hope Terrio is worth the praise he was receiving that he's now free from Goyer's mess and JL isn't such an easy target to dismantle.

I highly fucking doubt it, man. Especially when I hear things like "JL is going to be more lighthearted".

MoS and BvS have issues with varying up the tone, but when they tried, they sucked at it.

The problem of BvS was an incoherent character arcs and characters being dumb as bricks to artificially generate conflict. It also had bad action, baring the Batman warehouse scene (which I almost don't count because of how much it was lifted from the arkham games), poor pacing (even the UC has a lot of plodding from the reports I've seen), less than stellar acting from anyone whose not Affleck, etc..

There's nothing to suggest a shift in tone will help alleviate any of these issues. There's nothing to suggest that the DCCU will crawl out of the rut it's in. I'm hoping that the WW will be decent, and that's pretty much the extent of my optimism.

*post*

While I don't entirely agree that he was as addicted to being batman as all that, this is a better written interpretation to the same general idea that I had.

Bruce is unique in the superhero genre in that he actually means it when he says he doesn't want to be Batman, and stops as soon as he sees it as feasible to do so.

TDK saga isn't a perfect collection of films by any measure, but I do feel they have some of the best character arcs in the Superhero genre. Their faults are generally how logic falls apart in many places, but often ignored is that they break that logic to cater to specific narrative needs. If they've been surpassed, it's only recently by Civil War, which is easily on the same level as them.

 

[Ahasverus]

The problem of BvS was an incoherent character arcs and characters being dumb as bricks to artificially generate conflict. It also had bad action, baring the Batman warehouse scene (which I almost don't count because of how much it was lifted from the arkham games), poor pacing (even the UC has a lot of plodding from the reports I've seen), less than stellar acting from anyone whose not Affleck, etc..

What? Everybody acted the fuck out of the movie (except maybe Cavill and Gadot, because, you know, they're paid to look pretty, like Scarlett Johanson)

 

[MegaManTrigger]

I highly fucking doubt it, man. Especially when I hear things like "JL is going to be more lighthearted".

MoS and BvS have issues with varying up the tone, but when they tried, they sucked at it.

The problem of BvS was an incoherent character arcs and characters being dumb as bricks to artificially generate conflict. It also had bad action, baring the Batman warehouse scene (which I almost don't count because of how much it was lifted from the arkham games), poor pacing (even the UC has a lot of plodding from the reports I've seen), less than stellar acting from anyone whose not Affleck, etc..

There's nothing to suggest a shift in tone will help alleviate any of these issues. There's nothing to suggest that the DCCU will crawl out of the rut it's in. I'm hoping that the WW will be decent, and that's pretty much the extent of my optimism.

I think that's how you know WB is chasing the superficial crap, without actually understanding why certain comic book movies are beloved. They've effectively fallen trap to the internet fanboy mentality that says "Marvel is better because it's light-hearted and has more humour!!!!"

 

[IconGrist]

Nolan designed the Batman arc to start from beginning to end, so when Bruce trains with the League of Shadows, it's with the intention of using himself as a temporary solution, at least until corruption in the legal system and police departments were rectified. In fact, Batman was never meant to be a permanent solution to Gotham's crime problem as you see in various comic book issues and standalone stories. That being said, Bruce was aiming to retire and continue living his life once Gotham was restored to its glory.

Which then takes us to the middle of Bruce's arc. In TDK, he sees that he's making a positive impact, though he's not viewed favourably and as such, he relies on Harvey Dent as the figure of the visible White Knight to be able to do the things that he couldn't do (for instance, singlehandedly destroying the Mob's influence ). He starts considering retirement because his goal of Batman being the temporary solution appears to have been fulfilled, so he starts thinking about starting a normal life again, and that's why he makes an effort to reconcile and connect with Rachel. It's not so much throwing it away for "a woman" as much as it is the possibility of living a normal life, which as we see, is much harder for Bruce than he expected. The Batman persona was an addiction for him and something that was much harder for him to let go of, which is why Rachel was going to dump him. As long as Gotham was in need of a hero, Batman was there.

Don't forget, Jim Gordon made an active effort to make sure no one knew what happened to Dent, so no one could conclusively say it was the Joker. Furthermore, if you blame the Joker, he wins because his whole point was to corrupt a central figure and cause people of Gotham to be hopeless and apathetic in regards to their crime situation. Batman and Gordon created a lie in order to galvanize people into demonizing the Batman, who at this point is extremely redundant now that the Dent Act was put into place. With the Dent Act, the Mob is no longer even a concern, and crime/corruption has plummeted to the point of being much more comfortable to live with. When Bruce retires, it's because he views himself as redundant now that Gotham is at peace (regardless of the fact that this peace was unearned and lied for).

Which then takes us to TDKR, where we see a grizzled Bruce Wayne who appears to live a purposeless life. The entire point of the conclusion of Bruce's arc is to move him from being addicted to the Batman persona to realizing that there's more to him than being Batman. That's why Alfred tries to get him to realize that there's more he can do, and that he doesn't need to be Batman to make an impact. The problem is Bruce is largely apathetic and cynical of how people will take advantage of his positive contributions. When he dons the costume again, he feels a duty to because of how much of a threat Bane is. When he gets his ass kicked and sent to the hole, he re-learns much of what he desensitized: he was unafraid of dying, so he acted apathetic because of his death wish attitude. So when he returns to Gotham to finish Bane's war, and leave behind Bruce Wayne, he's not doing it to "not deal with it anymore", he's doing it because he realizes that he's done enough and finally transitions into living a normal life.

I appreciate this. I do. I don't want to take away from this. My only counter (not because I don't have more than this but because this is a BvS thread and we are kind of derailing it so raincheck?) is that I disagree Batman was an addiction. It never came off that way to me. It's not so easy to give up an addiction and he seemed to break away from it pretty easily.

I highly fucking doubt it, man.

...

There's nothing to suggest a shift in tone will help alleviate any of these issues. There's nothing to suggest that the DCCU will crawl out of the rut it's in. I'm hoping that the WW will be decent, and that's pretty much the extent of my optimism.

I'm a bit more optimistic I guess. We'll see.

I think that's how you know WB is chasing the superficial crap, without actually understanding why certain comic book movies are beloved. They've effectively fallen trap to the internet fanboy mentality that says "Marvel is better because it's light-hearted and has more humour!!!!"

I've mentioned this before but I think when they say they listened to the fans that was untrue. They listened to the critics and the critics really pushed "tone is the problem". Even after the JL set visits everybody came back with "the tone is much lighter I was very pleased with what I saw". The fans had varying degrees of complaints ranging from small to massive but a lot of them had problems articulating it so it came off as "this shit is dark, man, where's my fun?"

 

[JB1981]

Ugh here we go again with Veelk completely dominating the discussion in this thread with fucking novels for every response. Peace !

 

[atr0cious]

Isn't it? The film seems to agree that Superman wasn't held culpable for the Metropolis fight. The only one who explicitly blamed him was the wheelchair guy. But Batman himself had the motivation based primarily in fear and insecurity.

There was even the line "If there is even a 1% chance that he is our enemy". Meaning that, when it comes down to it, even he is unsure what to make of superman's character. He just doesn't care, because the risk of someone with powers that great is too much to bare. That was his thesis, not "He fucked up metropolis, he has to answer for his crime". That line makes absolutely no sense if we suppose that Batman already deemed Superman to be evil. And it makes the martha moment even more nonsensical.

How do you get to this conclusion? Of course he's unsure, the mainstream media is loving the dude for his heroism. But Bruce will never forget 9/11. He doesn't believe any good person stays good, so the movie is about him being pushed to the edge by lex. Jeremy irons monologue is specifically about Batman changing since the superman showed up.

The Martha scene is a specific scenario Batman dreams all the time, which is literally what the opening is. Then when he reenacts it, Clark plays his father's part and triggers him. The last 20 years of his life he's been dreaming of his failures, and what he would be come to rectify, but he's horrified to see he's become his target. Being an awesome fucking dude, he rejects his old self(repents) and immediately seeks to right his wrongs.

He has a great character arc, but the movie didn't have some dude literally spelling out plot points like Nolan does.

 

[Gallbaro]

Just saw it, movie was not that bad and honestly much better than something like Avengers 2.

Only real plot hole I can think of is Amy Adams knowing to dive into the water.

Really just tried to make the movie seem like Lex was a grand chess master. Even blamed him for the letters.

Edit: The area is clear of civilians was annoying.

 

[shoreu]

Anyone got a link for a brother

 

[#1 defender]

Anyone got a link for a brother

Link.

 

[DeathyBoy]

Bruce falling for a woman is not inherently bad. It seems bad that he seems so willing to drop his mission for it. What respect to his parent's name is he giving by making everyone that cares about him think he's dead and then abandoning Gotham? Does Bruce have some sort of guarantee no one will step up to be the next big villain of Gotham? I can't remember exactly but doesn't Joker imply that Batman is the reason there is someone like himself? That Batman has invited something worse to Gotham just by the very nature of his existence?

I just didn't buy it. If it worked for you, I respect it but it didn't work for me at all. I say this as someone who liked Begins and TDK. I did not like TDKR though. At all. Every bit of that movie irritated me in one way or another.

What the Hell is this? In no continuity or universe would Thomas and Martha want Bruce to be Batman. They'd want him to settle down.

And he inspired change, he made the police better, he set up an orphanage, he created anew protector for Gotham.

 

[Discotheque]

What the Hell is this? In no continuity or universe would Thomas and Martha want Bruce to be Batman. They'd want him to settle down.

And he inspired change, he made the police better, he set up an orphanage, he created anew protector for Gotham.

yeah that was a great ending to his batman. turning his manor into an orphanage especially was the most "Bruce Wayne" thing to do and I liked how he named it in memoriam to his parents.

 

[BassForever]

Batman should have killed Superman and then went to save Martha since nothing about them having mom's with the same name redeemed that 1% chance that Superman could be a threat that destroys the whole planet which was literally the entire movie. Had the Kent parents jumped in front of Batman (assuming papa Kent hadn't died in mos) and actually made that scene a reenactment then maybe the scene might have worked, but Batman wouldn't suddenly become best friends with Superman just realize he's starting to become like the bad guys that drove him in the first place, he certainly wouldn't turn around and fight a cave troll after reenacting such a traumatic moment with A guy he views as such a big threat.

 

[Bleepey]

Just saw it, movie was not that bad and honestly much better than something like Avengers 2.

Only real plot hole I can think of is Amy Adams knowing to dive into the water.

Really just tried to make the movie seem like Lex was a grand chess master. Even blamed him for the letters.

Edit: The area is clear of civilians was annoying.

I bet if Snyder had his way there'd be collateral damage all over that bitch but people would crucify him for it.

 

[Discotheque]

too much crap in that third act of the film, lex heel reveal aside.

what about anderson cooper reassuring the audience that nobody is getting hurt. "The area is clear of civilians, everybody's off work. Please don't complain online about collateral damage" lol. hopefully they are more subtle about it next time if it needs to be done.

 

[DeathyBoy]

Batman should have killed Superman and then went to save Martha since nothing about them having mom's with the same name redeemed that 1% chance that Superman could be a threat that destroys the whole planet which was literally the entire movie. Had the Kent parents jumped in front of Batman (assuming papa Kent hadn't died in mos) and actually made that scene a reenactment then maybe the scene might have worked, but Batman wouldn't suddenly become best friends with Superman just realize he's starting to become like the bad guys that drove him in the first place, he certainly wouldn't turn around and fight a cave troll after reenacting such a traumatic moment with A guy he views as such a big threat.

In the context of the film it's worth noting that Batman doesn't view Superman as a criminal so much as believe there's a 1% chance he's a monster. One fuelled by Lex's misdirection. So a combination of Clark asking Bats to save his mother, Lois running into scene to beg for Clark's life, the name Martha, and Bruce likely connecting the Luthor dots there and then are his impetus.

And he becomes so friendly because he's overcompensating for nearly killing an innocent man. That's a very Batman thing to do.

 

[IconGrist]

What the Hell is this? In no continuity or universe would Thomas and Martha want Bruce to be Batman. They'd want him to settle down.

And he inspired change, he made the police better, he set up an orphanage, he created anew protector for Gotham.

You misunderstand what I meant. I'm not saying Martha and Thomas wanted him to be Batman. I'm talking about Bruce being "dead" to everyone who cares for him when he's really not and abandoning Gotham.

 

[Discotheque]

You misunderstand what I meant. I'm not saying Martha and Thomas wanted him to be Batman. I'm talking about Bruce being "dead" to everyone who cares for him when he's really not and abandoning Gotham.

everybody he cares about more or less knows he's alive during that ending montage in TDKR. or at the least Fox and Alfred do.

and he didn't abandon gotham, he left it to the next gen.

 

[JB1981]

Link.

Lol

 

[Bluth54]

MoS and BvS have issues with varying up the tone, but when they tried, they sucked at it.

I love it how BvS tried to lighten the tone a bit by having Martha Kent tell Batman how she knows he's a friend of her son because of the cape but they put it right after she sees Batman kill a bunch of people by causing them to burn to death. I just can't see how anyone could think that was an appropriate place for the one joke in the movie.