Batman vs Superman Teaser Trailer released

**Knight of Heaven** · July 14, 2016, 05:06 PM

For gods sake , he is a dam vigilante.... Early on in the comics, back in the 40s batman used to kill.

It wasnt even a theme.

Hypocrasy at its best. honestly. Its ok for iron man to kill dudes, and blow up tanks with people inside and stuff, no one bats an eye. It isnt even an issue.

I think people overthink such matters to be honest.

what happens with the disenfranchised kids that get brought into the whole thing?

You realy didnt said that didnt you? Ridiculous.

**saxdude** · July 14, 2016, 05:54 PM

This isn't 40's batman, is he? Ironman is also an entirely different character, that incidently, is actually quite morally reprehensible, at least in his film form.

It wasnt even a theme.

He was also racist, but then Batman has come a long way from the golden age, hasn't he? Where it can treat murder and vigilantism with at least some level of gravity. The one-off comics at least.

I think people overthink such matters to be honest.
You realy didnt said that didnt you? Ridiculous.

The films trying hard to be clever and realistic, and under that pretense I can criticise as much as I damn well please how unclever and unrealistic it's being. Fact of the matter is that Batman wasn't "killing" Killer Croc or Joker in the movie, but mooks. Regular dudes.

There is something to be said about the kind of people that see Judge Dredd as a proper hero and solution to the world, rather than an over the top satire of the worst possible outcome.

**RedGuard** · July 15, 2016, 01:05 AM

It has been a theme that batman doesn't kill. I read a whole book about it and wrote a report for my psych class. Its been a while since I read it though so I can't recall the exact details, but Batman and even the Joker stopped killing at one point for almost a whole decade. When Joker went back to killing in the later 80s, Batman never really returned to it. In fact it sort of became a part of his persona...he saw his parents shot which cause him to develop into the man he is, so it makes sense that he would shun murder.

Why doesn't Batman kill? even to save lives? Ask Kant.

This was the book: https://www.amazon.com/Batman-Psychology-Dark-Stormy-Knight/dp/1118167651

I would highly recommend getting it on audiobook, if you don't have time to read it. Its a good book that goes very in depth but is also accessible to the casual fan like me.

**Knight of Heaven** · July 16, 2016, 02:34 PM

The films trying hard to be clever and realistic, and under that pretense I can criticise as much as I damn well please how unclever and unrealistic it's being.

That isnt the issue.
The film is a mess. Im not defending the film.

Im saying the film faults are not from what you are saying. But because the plot is a sum of ideias, instead of being a plot with great ideias.

There is something to be said about the kind of people that see Judge Dredd as a proper hero and solution to the world, rather than an over the top satire of the worst possible outcome.

Personaly i would be worried if people would see comic book heroes as role models. either be Dredd or Batman or anyother character.
I think this line of argument is ludicrous. Its irrelevant at the end of the day. Im up to see good films and good stories. I dont care what version of batman we get. I would watch a Red Son film ( The soviet superman), if the story and the film was good. I wouldnt have any problems with the suposed sacred tenets or characteristics of this characters. wich are ever changing in comic book history anyway.
They tend to be reflections of any given time.

It has been a theme that batman doesn't kill. I read a whole book about it and wrote a report for my psych class. Its been a while since I read it though so I can't recall the exact details, but Batman and even the Joker stopped killing at one point for almost a whole decade. When Joker went back to killing in the later 80s, Batman never really returned to it. In fact it sort of became a part of his persona...he saw his parents shot which cause him to develop into the man he is, so it makes sense that he would shun murder.

Why doesn't Batman kill? even to save lives? Ask Kant.

In the 40s it wasnt a theme. and as you said, it is more recently in comic book history that is a theme for batman. The 80s though changed alot for american c0mic books characters, and how they are viewed.

**RedGuard** · July 17, 2016, 11:29 AM

and yet we are living with the post 80s batman, not with the early 40s batman. The world has changed a lot since 1940, and the superheroes changed with it. To suddenly give him back a gun and have him kill people on purpose with it, is to change the character of Batman which has been slowly established over the years and in the three preceding films. Thats why I think this movie doesn't have any emotional punch to it, because we are seeing a much different version of the two principle characters. Superman at least has had a movie to introduce this new movie version to the audience, Batman did not. And yet somehow this feels like its should be Affleck's 2nd or 3rd film, consdering how they just throw him into the mess with little explanation for his new found ultra-violent motivations. I mean, in the movie he is literally an assassin for 90% of it.

**Knight of Heaven** · July 17, 2016, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by RedGuard

and yet we are living with the post 80s batman, not with the early 40s batman. The world has changed a lot since 1940, and the superheroes changed with it. To suddenly give him back a gun and have him kill people on purpose with it, is to change the character of Batman which has been slowly established over the years and in the three preceding films. Thats why I think this movie doesn't have any emotional punch to it, because we are seeing a much different version of the two principle characters. Superman at least has had a movie to introduce this new movie version to the audience, Batman did not. And yet somehow this feels like its should be Affleck's 2nd or 3rd film, consdering how they just throw him into the mess with little explanation for his new found ultra-violent motivations. I mean, in the movie he is literally an assassin for 90% of it.

What an exagerated notion..... The only rifle Batman uses its to trow a tracker, and to use the kryptonian grenades.
The only casualties i see are from self defense as well...

But that isnt the issue, the issue he is aiming to kill Superman.

Batman in the 80s to now, it isnt what you are trying to paint them to be either. Nor Superman for that matter. Pick up the new 52, comics.
Actualy 80s comics, had also some deviations on the characters. Or the super hero genre for that matter.

I think this Batman is more close to Frank Miller Batman, then the one you are talking about.. That is also a 80s batman btw.

The fact that DC isnt folowing Marvel formula of setting up Character movies first before the essemble ones isnt the issue. We wouldnt even have this talk if the movie was actualy very good. Marvel actualy had guardians of the galaxy, before a setting up character movies, and it worked quite allright. It is irrelevant.

I just dont buy that DC needs to have batman, and Superman movies, first in order to have their justice league films. It is a poor argument, when you look at it.
But i understand why people go for it, it is to be expected at this point because marvel did it.

A movie doesnt need to have a setup film in order to be good.

Thats why I think this movie doesn't have any emotional punch to it, because we are seeing a much different version of the two principle characters.

I realy dont agree with it.
I think the movie lacks emotional punch , because Snyder sucks at storytelling.

If you look at the film the plotline is all over the place, he chose to present us with things that are cool looking and neet on the eye ( alot of fanservice, and the non necessary dream sequences for instance), instead of focusing on the actual arguments this characters might have with each other. There is missing a valid Philosophical debate between Superman, and Batman, that is why it ultimatly lacks emotional punch.
Basicaly he brought alot of cool ideias ( not his, but actual stuff from comic books) and put it on the screen. The actual plot feels like an after tought to all this fan service and future setting up. Imo.

When you look at it every character motivation on this film or either is no clear, or is very under a tick skin, in order to be noticed or relevant to the conversation.
And you see what im talkking about is true, when we look at Lex Luthor character. Dont get me wrong his motivations are there, but they feel like they might not be. Same thing for Superman or Batman.
That is a bioproduct of bad storytelling.

It is strongly implied that this Batman , is as Snyder put it "Moraly banckrupt", it is borderlining on the extremes, i dont see why it is so hard for people to accept that, i personaly have no issue with this premise. If that is where he is coming from. I have however issue how he goes from there in this movie.

Superman regardless of having a setup movie, was badly written in this film too. Actualy he has gringe worthy dialogue with Lous before he goes to fight batman. It realy isnt a matter of setting up movies. It is a matter of bad storytelling.

The rest? Morals, and what not? Imo is basicaly up to grabs, It depends what you are going for. It all can work out, if it is nicely done.
But this film wasnt nicely done. Even if it has its moments, and some positive things.

**RedGuard** · July 17, 2016, 03:21 PM

Nor did I say there HAS to be a setup film for Batman, I merely said this doesn't feel like a real introduction to Batfleck, or at least a very good one. It seems like we should already know all about him, what drives him, why he has gone down the almost punisher-like path he has, but we don't know that from this movie. Im sure the blanks will be filled in the subsequent films, but its not a good formula to radically change( and batman killing people in self defense is a radical change, considering we just had three films where Batman does everything in his power to not kill people) a character and then fill in the backstory that led to him acting this way LATER. That was my point.

And I don't think the spottiness of the plot really has anything to do with snyder or at least not all of the blame should be laid at his door. The movie was visually stunning, but a director can only do so much with a bad script and a studio thats pushing all these plots into the movie so they can make a justice league film within two years to compete with those other films. Honestly the editor should get a oscar for turning this movie into a semi-coherent story.

**gastovski** · July 24, 2016, 08:25 AM

Heh, humor now is it... more like Avengers 3.

**Gaidin** · July 24, 2016, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by RedGuard

Nor did I say there HAS to be a setup film for Batman, I merely said this doesn't feel like a real introduction to Batfleck, or at least a very good one. It seems like we should already know all about him, what drives him, why he has gone down the almost punisher-like path he has, but we don't know that from this movie. Im sure the blanks will be filled in the subsequent films, but its not a good formula to radically change( and batman killing people in self defense is a radical change, considering we just had three films where Batman does everything in his power to not kill people) a character and then fill in the backstory that led to him acting this way LATER. That was my point.

And I don't think the spottiness of the plot really has anything to do with snyder or at least not all of the blame should be laid at his door. The movie was visually stunning, but a director can only do so much with a bad script and a studio thats pushing all these plots into the movie so they can make a justice league film within two years to compete with those other films. Honestly the editor should get a oscar for turning this movie into a semi-coherent story.

That's them finally being honest about what happens when you get hit in the head. What I want you to do is google "Talk and die". Read the story of Natasha Richardson. Every person that has googled that has pretty much decided "yup, I'd rather have Batman either full out break my back if not kill me because I'm probably dead anyway." Because like it or not, melee combat ain't pretty. Screw the fiction of the comics. These movies are just being honest now. Much more honest than the comics ever were. Every time Batman left a legitimately unconscious criminal on the floor they were probably dead. In fact every time he left someone able to talk to the police for an hour or two they were probably dead. So don't be deceiving yourself.

As for what drives him. What drove him was simple. The Supermen brought down a building with his people in it. And Superman scared him. And everybody always knew Batman always had an ace in the hole for every hero out there. Superman included in the comics. But after Wayne Financial, the idea of them not establishing that he could actually do that in DCCU is not exactly out of this world. He believed something had to be figured out about Superman. That was legitimately his drive in BvS. Hell, you could catch that from the title alone. I'm not sure why anybody couldn't.