DC Cinematic Universe

[Senex Beast]

As long as Batfleck only kills parademons in JL and nobody at all in The Batman, I'll be good!

 

I was okay with Batman killing in the Tim Burton films because Batman originally killed in the comics in his first year but it was way too much in BvS. Other than that, I loved him in BvS and his cameo in Suicide Squad.

 

Snyder is gone now, so we shall see who directs JL 2(probably Whedon)and possibly MOS 2 and how that person portrays Supes differently.

[Mr. Moyd]

As long as Batfleck only kills parademons in JL and nobody at all in The Batman, I'll be good!

 

I was okay with Batman killing in the Tim Burton films because Batman originally killed in the comics in his first year but it was way too much in BvS. Other than that, I loved him in BvS and his cameo in Suicide Squad.

 

Snyder is gone now, so we shall see who directs JL 2(probably Whedon)and possibly MOS 2 and how that person portrays Supes differently.

What I can't fathom is, if Joker is the reason for Bats killing, since he killed Robin, why let Joker and Harley live? They'd be the first to go.

[Creepia]

I think Batman never killing is such an outdated concept for his character at this point.

[Senex Beast]

 

As long as Batfleck only kills parademons in JL and nobody at all in The Batman, I'll be good!

 

I was okay with Batman killing in the Tim Burton films because Batman originally killed in the comics in his first year but it was way too much in BvS. Other than that, I loved him in BvS and his cameo in Suicide Squad.

 

Snyder is gone now, so we shall see who directs JL 2(probably Whedon)and possibly MOS 2 and how that person portrays Supes differently.

What I can't fathom is, if Joker is the reason for Bats killing, since he killed Robin, why let Joker and Harley live? They'd be the first to go.

It seems Batman only went over the edge and started killing after the events of Man of Steel. The flashback scenes in Suicide Squad with Harley and Joker and then Deadshot probably happened before MOS or after BvS

[Beardd]

Never understood why it bothers people if he kills or not.

 

Man, I'm noticing that I'm really not bothered by a lot of things that bother people. Guess I'm not the normal one.

[Creepia]

If you think Batman doesn't kill in most of his adaptations then you're a fool, he almost certainly does they just don't make a big deal out it. He physically can't do some of the stuff he does to people without killing him either instantly of by injury in a hospital wing.

[Mr. Moyd]

I think we should specify. Batman not killing directly, straight up murdering his foe in cold blood, should be frowned upon because Batman himself teeters the morality line. I think taking a life would push him over the edge: why take the lives of only the Rogues? Why not smaller criminals? Then we have a Batman that has absolutely no limit, breaks whatever laws to complete the mission, and plays judge, jury, and executioner.

 

To me, that makes the character like a Punisher or Injustice-Superman. Wouldn't the League be against outright killing anyway? Unless they're on the path to becoming the Justice Lords.

 

Also, I heard a quote that said the differences between Marvel heroes and DC heroes. "DC heroes are Gods becoming men". So to a civilian, these capes are the people they trust to always do the morally right, albeit hard, choice.

 

I always like seeing the moral restraint Batman has that prevents himself from going over the edge. Which is why he saved Dick Grayson from the path of revenge and onto the path of Justice. Which is why his mission is never complete. Because he WONT allow himself to go over the edge.

 

Is it old and passe? So is wearing a cape, but its usually tied to who these characters are and why they're heroes.

 

And about the suicide Squad flashback, the way that it was edited, I assumed that after Batman saves Harley, the events after would be (Harleys torture in Belle Rieve) then the movie continues, post BVS. But whatever.

[Creepia]

I think we should specify. Batman not killing directly, straight up murdering his foe in cold blood, should be frowned upon because Batman himself teeters the morality line. I think taking a life would push him over the edge: why take the lives of only the Rogues? Why not smaller criminals? Then we have a Batman that has absolutely no limit, breaks whatever laws to complete the mission, and plays judge, jury, and executioner.

 

To me, that makes the character like a Punisher or Injustice-Superman. Wouldn't the League be against outright killing anyway? Unless they're on the path to becoming the Justice Lords.

 

Also, I heard a quote that said the differences between Marvel heroes and DC heroes. "DC heroes are Gods becoming men". So to a civilian, these capes are the people they trust to always do the morally right, albeit hard, choice.

 

I always like seeing the moral restraint Batman has that prevents himself from going over the edge. Which is why he saved Dick Grayson from the path of revenge and onto the path of Justice. Which is why his mission is never complete. Because he WONT allow himself to go over the edge.

 

Is it old and passe? So is wearing a cape, but its usually tied to who these characters are and why they're heroes.

 

And about the suicide Squad flashback, the way that it was edited, I assumed that after Batman saves Harley, the events after would be (Harleys torture in Belle Rieve) then the movie continues, post BVS. But whatever.

Well Batman's cape provides him with practical uses. He can cover large distances because of his cape.

[Senex Beast]

Never understood why it bothers people if he kills or not.

 

Man, I'm noticing that I'm really not bothered by a lot of things that bother people. Guess I'm not the normal one.

Why wouldn't it bother Batman fans? He breaks bones but never directly crosses the line of taking a life no matter what. It's a huge part of his mythology.

If you think Batman doesn't kill in most of his adaptations then you're a fool, he almost certainly does they just don't make a big deal out it. He physically can't do some of the stuff he does to people without killing him either instantly of by injury in a hospital wing.

They don't make a big deal of it because he doesn't directly kill them. They aren't going to die because of a few broken bones or just getting beat up

[Creepia]

 

Never understood why it bothers people if he kills or not.

 

Man, I'm noticing that I'm really not bothered by a lot of things that bother people. Guess I'm not the normal one.

Why wouldn't it bother Batman fans? He breaks bones but never directly crosses the line of taking a life no matter what. It's a huge part of his mythology.

If you think Batman doesn't kill in most of his adaptations then you're a fool, he almost certainly does they just don't make a big deal out it. He physically can't do some of the stuff he does to people without killing him either instantly of by injury in a hospital wing.

They don't make a big deal of it because he doesn't directly kill them. They aren't going to die because of a few broken bones or just getting beat up

I'm sure Batman has had many victims of his die later in a hospital wing. That IS directly killing them, that's just not killing them instantly. The amount of people he's probably killed by whiplash I would say is in its triple figures. Him not killing people is incredibly vague and adaptations don't have time to go into it, but he almost certainly has killed many a thug in his time.

[Senex Beast]

I think Batman never killing is such an outdated concept for his character at this point.

It fits his character perfectly, Although I will say that if he were to go all Punisher, it would definetly need to be on Joker!

 

I respect him not taking any life but Joker has to be an exception. Batman really should have killed him after Jason Todd's death or Barbara getting paralysed

[Creepia]

Batman should be hanging people with his grapple hook like a noose left right and centre.

[Senex Beast]

Batman should be hanging people with his grapple hook like a noose left right and centre.

[Beardd]

 

Never understood why it bothers people if he kills or not.

 

Man, I'm noticing that I'm really not bothered by a lot of things that bother people. Guess I'm not the normal one.

Why wouldn't it bother Batman fans? He breaks bones but never directly crosses the line of taking a life no matter what. It's a huge part of his mythology.

You realize I'm a Batman fan, right? Doesn't bother me.

[Senex Beast]

It doesn't bother me either except the way it was done in BvS. It just didn't sit well with me for some reason but Killer Batman is who he started out as and so I accept it, however I'm used to his updated mythology.

 

I still mark out for Keaton killing in B'89 and Batman Returns and I love Batfleck but just something felt overboard or something. Maybe I wasn't ready for Dark Knight Returns Batman to start off the DC Cinematic Universe

[Mr. Moyd]

I didn't like the direction of BVS Batman because, in terms of character arc, he already has hit his peak. There's nowhere left for him to go than to start from where he was. He doesn't really LEARN anything, he just stops being as hard-core as the city made him to be. And its not even an earned arc. He gets told constantly throughout the film that Superman isn't the enemy and when he's about to kill him, he has a change of heart brought on by a weak macguffin (Martha), which doesn't translate well to the audience (who calls their mom by her first name? Does Bruce get like that when Martha Stewart comes on HGTV? Why would Bruce think Clark is talking about HIS Martha?)

 

** But even so, Flash told Bruce that he was right about Superman and Lois is his trigger. So, keep Lois safe otherwise that 1% certainty is reality. So, why wait till something happens to Lois? Just eliminate the big problem while you got the chance!!**

 

Batman feels like he's lost the war on crime. The Joker got to Batman. And that movie just relishes on how violently cool Bats is. Taking a machine gun and shooting people? That's not impressive. What's impressive is seeing Batman swoop in outnumbered and outgunned and uses his wit and skill to clear out the room, leaving criminals dangling, unconscious, or running in fear. He doesn't need to kill the cowards. The Rogues, the ones who draw Batman out and he may want to see dead, the struggle is both external and internal -- save the city from the Joker and try not to kill him, even if he paralyzed Barbara.

 

I see Batman: War on Crime or the Arkham Batman as how dedicated he is to the mission and his one rule. For movie purposes, I can suspend my disbelief that the guy Barman punched may have a concussion, for the same reason that people can't tell apart Clark Kent and Superman (when Henry Cavill does nothing in his acting in terms of speech or body alignment to differentiate Clark and Superman. Reeves was a nerd when he wasn't in cape).

 

And what was up with the branding? Knowing full well they'll die in prison? How is Gordon OK with an unlicensed vigilante going from apprehending criminals to murdering them? And why in the JL trailer are they STILL calling him the "Gotham Bat" like his existence is still up in the air? Batman. Call him Batman.

 

/Rant

[sam the d00d]

That's my issue with Zack Snyder. He molds his characters in his own image, and Batman and Superman are no exception. Tons of filmmakers do this, but it's clear that the type of stuff Snyder values are rather boneheaded. His Batman and Superman are hypermasculine, cold, and violent. And the villain is of course a scawny, somewhat effeminate nerd.

 

I can just picture Snyder reading Batman and just wanting him to murder people so bad. I think the thing that's most interesting about Batman is that he doesn't kill. The impression I get from Snyder is that he thinks the most interesting thing about Batman is "he strong he punch bad guy he badass".

[Mr. Moyd]

^ I saw the interview where Zack says that "This is a guy dressed as a Bat..." being flippant on this beloved, iconic, cash cow. Zack does great with the visuals, but the story and characters are sorely lacking. You're right -- everything is hypermasculine and dreary. Superman is always moody and conflicted and there's no motivation on why he does the things he do. He doesn't even look like he wants to help.

 

The more video essays I watch and the more I see talk to people dissect this film, it just sours it even more for me. I watched it two and a half times, first time for the Buzz, second time after seeing reviews and essays, third time I couldn't finish it. Sooo many bad and odd choices, from Eisenberg's weird performance of Lex to the most minuscule thing.

 

It is what it is and we can only accept what we're given and see how they develop, but I say this now, if you put the three movies together (Batman's case, BVS, Justice League, and The Batman) you will see no arc. Depending on if the solo Batman is before or after the events of BVS. Which, I feel, is gonna be as much of a burden to follow as the X-Men timeline Fox messed up.

 

Would love to do an overall comparisons on my definitive Batman, Bale's Batman, Ben's, Keaton, Conroy, etc. See what's similar and what's changed.

[Senex Beast]

Using the Dark Knight Returns as the inspired template for Batman was a huge mistake. Affleck's performance, the batsuit and ass kicking scene at the warehouse by the docks to rescue Martha Kent made him a good Batman

 

How and why he changed wasn't well executed but the important thing is he changed. Previews and stuff for JL already shows that change developing into how he should be.

 

This Batman past his prime can still greatly be used by other filmmakers. Batman's cameos in Suicide Squad may actually be better than anything in BvS. I have a lot of faith in The Batman because of Affleck and the director

[Mr. Moyd]

 

Basically sums up what I have to say about Batman killing. The comments are a good read too.

[Senex Beast]

YouTube comments are never G's good read

[Guest Shades of Cool]

I saw Suicide Sqaud and I liked Harley.

I liked the movie fine and I didn't like Deadshot, he was annoying. Just dropping in to say that because I saw it last month.

[Mr.Dreadful]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48wGUdUOvUc

 

1 - wanted to hear him say a Keaton line so bad

 

2 - damn Jessica Chobot is freakin hot!

[Senex Beast]

Ha that was cool

[Mr. Moyd]

EXCLUSIVE: "Warner Bros and DC are in the early stages of another Batman Universe spinoff movie, this one telling the origin story of the signature villain The Joker. The studio has set The Hangovers Todd Phillips to co-write a script with 8 Mile scribe Scott Silver. Phillips will direct the movie, and Martin Scorsese will produce it with Phillips. This will be the first film under a new banner that has yet to be named in which WB can expand the canon of DC properties and create unique storylines with different actors playing the iconic characters." -- Deadline.

 

Think this news is a week old, but it's pretty big. Also, Leonardo DiCaprio is in talks to play the Clown prince in the origin. Kinda shakes on Joker having an origin story (just like a lot of fans) unless they do what TDK did or following 2008 Joker novel.

 

In my opinion, the killing of Jason Todd should be in Joker and Harley, if that spin off has any ties to the main DCEU.

 

Thoughts? The nerds have won!