Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Post-release)

Question? I hear a lot of people complain about Batman killing people. Was no one angered when Bale's Batman burned down the village containing the League of Assassins and most definitely killed a good amount of them/didn't save Ras Al Ghul/ran over tens of cars with the Tumbler which probably had people in it/shot and killed the driver of the truck/ inadvertently killed Harvey Dent. I feel like Bale's Batman killed at least 15 people on screen but no one said anything. This is a legit question because I wasn't on any type of forums when that trilogy came out so I'm not aware if people were pissed.

People spent years complaining about all of that stuff as well.
 
He didn't shoot thugs with machine-guns for starters, and while it was reckless driving nobody died by the tumbler (cf Alfred's line "it's a miracle no-one got killed"). Dent and Ra's are riding on the line, but the monastery stunt must have roasted some ninjas, even if technically he wasn't batman yet.

What people complain about is Batman, in the suit and with 20 years of career behind him, mowing down vehicles with .50 cals. Which was a bit strange indeed. I did notice that he never starts the shooting actually, but he reciprocates swiftly when shot at. Except for the Russian, but that was part of the DKR homages.

Whilst not the same for everyone, I think the general gist with these things goes a bit like this.

The film is widely received as good by the public, then things that might normally **** off a "normal" comics fan would be glossed over - they wouldn't impact the film experience so much. And I would also wager that the reach and tenacity of general opinion, especially negative opinion (whether accurate or not) is far, far wider and more prolific now, then it was 10 years ago (Batman Begins 2005 I think?)

However, since DoJ was so divisive, with a widely panned reception from the general public, things like Batman "breaking his rule" (despite the fact that it hasn't actually been established in the DCEU if he even has that rule) stick out like a sore thumb. If there had been a more straightforward story, less risk in the film, a different tone where humour is the main concept surrounded by less mythology etc then perhaps it would have been more overlooked than it has been. As it is, it is just one of many (inaccurate in cases) complaints and is therefore used as a staple argument. The wider reach of the general opinion is so immediate and gospel like nowadays, that the "general opinion" is becoming worth less and less, I think. People are so very ready to put things in two distinct, extreme categories. Apparently there is no middle ground.

Anyhow, I watched Begins the other day. Still a phenomenal film, I recognised even more influences from the comics than I did back then, but I noticed some very weird things, like the killing that you mentioned. I knew it was there before, but it was so...blatant this time.

The setup of Batmans gear seemed so shoehorned aswell?? Like the first case he opens contains a grappling gun. The second case has the armour almost fully formed. The reasons they give with exposition sort of fit but doesn't quite feel like it fits. The fact he chooses to dress as a Bat doesn't quite gel right within the story I don't think, even though on paper, it makes sense in the films context. Tiny little things that just started becoming more apparent. The movement in the suit seemed...weird. Especially compared to how Batman now moves in the DCEU. Totally different.

Still love those films though. The "grounded" take on the Batman was exactly what we needed at that point in time, which is probably why it resonates so well with people.
 
Set up of his gear seems shoehorned? The reason why he dresses up as a bat doesnt gel right within the story? That IS the story, ESPECIALLY in Begins! Yeah, the movement in the suit was hindered because that was his first design, he just learned to fight, and its his first stint as batman. Im no nolan fanboy or anything but the progression of the story of Batman through Begins and Dark Knight were superb. Dark Knight Rises was trash, but Im only talking about the first two movies. Batman Begins is probably the best comic book movie explaining a heroes origin and motivation for doing what he does.

I dont understand you Fawbish, you are obviously a smart guy, but man. Some of the stuff you say Im just like :confused
 
. Batman Begins is probably the best comic book movie explaining a heroes origin and motivation for doing what he does.


yep, I can agree with that.

Although I liked Rises better than Dark Knight.

Dark Knight felt like it didn't know what it wanted to be.

Harvey Dent was shoe horned in there for no reason and wasted.

And of course, my biggest problem was with how they ruined the joker with that horrible heath ledger version, who was just a generic mad man.
 
yep, I can agree with that.

Although I liked Rises better than Dark Knight.

Dark Knight felt like it didn't know what it wanted to be.

Harvey Dent was shoe horned in there for no reason and wasted.

And of course, my biggest problem was with how they ruined the joker with that horrible heath ledger version, who was just a generic mad man.

I hated Rises, there were just too many plot holes to ignore, Bane ending up being a lackey for Talia, I could go on forever.

Harvey Dent wasnt shoe horned, Two Face was... I didnt like how they had to blame Batman on the killings to make him seem like a martyr, just blame it on the joker! He was more of a primal joker than the previous version. While I liked it, I see what youre saying.
 
I hated Rises, there were just too many plot holes to ignore, Bane ending up being a lackey for Talia, I could go on forever.

Harvey Dent wasnt shoe horned, Two Face was... I didnt like how they had to blame Batman on the killings to make him seem like a martyr, just blame it on the joker! He was more of a primal joker than the previous version. While I liked it, I see what youre saying.

the lackey thing i might buy if it was her army that was going to rule gotham. he could be the general. better to be in with the head guys than against them.


well, yeah, but you know what i meant ;o). that whole harvey/two face killing just seemed to come in at the 11th hour. i've only seen the movie once, maybe twice, so my memory isn't good, but as i recall there was nothing leading up to wanting to frame batman. i can't even remember why it had to be done.

even in the nolan trilogy, dc seems to have it out for their heroes . they can't just be happy and publicly accepted. it's all grim, gritty and dark.

That's one reason why i liked the end of rises. he was the ONLY bruce who said 'screw it, i'm living with catwoman, we'll have cat/bat babies and live happily ever after'. it was a nice resolve after seeing how bruce timms batman became bitter beyond reason.
 
So extended cut was slightly better. Was still messy in some scenes and I found Luthors plan laughable to expect the Bat to go into kill mode. And even more laughable that his safe word was "Martha"!?

Good thing was some things were better explained. Apparently I missed the part were the wheelchair was coated with lead to hide explosives l, so whatever.

And the end piece with Luthor going to Arkham just seemed so lame. Why? You are Supes arch nemesis, you stay in Metropolis. You're ducking Lex Luthor Jr., I guess you like to spill the beans about your plans and get yourself arrested instead of being the mastermind we expected you to be!
 
Set up of his gear seems shoehorned? The reason why he dresses up as a bat doesnt gel right within the story? That IS the story, ESPECIALLY in Begins! Yeah, the movement in the suit was hindered because that was his first design, he just learned to fight, and its his first stint as batman. Im no nolan fanboy or anything but the progression of the story of Batman through Begins and Dark Knight were superb. Dark Knight Rises was trash, but Im only talking about the first two movies. Batman Begins is probably the best comic book movie explaining a heroes origin and motivation for doing what he does.

I dont understand you Fawbish, you are obviously a smart guy, but man. Some of the stuff you say Im just like :confused


Ah yes. I am douchey in other threads... or I'm smart and wrong here. How complimentary, thanks.

I quite clearly state that this is my current opinion of the movie, now that there is retrospect of a few years, and other influences like DoJ on Batman media. It is not a negative opinion. It is highly positive. And yet, I found a few things that previously didn't concern me, bothered me this time...SLIGHTLY. Right now, I am more experienced in analysis of film then I was when I first saw it. My opinion has altered based upon what I like and dislike now. I was merely pointing out some thoughts I had. I literally put it in writing that what I was even remotely criticizing lightly, makes sense on paper, specifically so that it wouldn't cause people to insinuate that I was attacking the film. *****.

I see your Batman Begins (and I had to think a long time about it) and I raise you Iron Man. That film is I think almost the perfect hero origin story. Begins is pretty much on par with it, but I think IM just edges it.
 
I see your Batman Begins (and I had to think a long time about it) and I raise you Iron Man. That film is I think almost the perfect hero origin story. Begins is pretty much on par with it, but I think IM just edges it.

I found IM one to be rather boring frankly. I may have to rewatch all three though. maybe it's better on second viewing.
 
Ah yes. I am douchey in other threads... or I'm smart and wrong here. How complimentary, thanks.

I quite clearly state that this is my current opinion of the movie, now that there is retrospect of a few years, and other influences like DoJ on Batman media. It is not a negative opinion. It is highly positive. And yet, I found a few things that previously didn't concern me, bothered me this time...SLIGHTLY. Right now, I am more experienced in analysis of film then I was when I first saw it. My opinion has altered based upon what I like and dislike now. I was merely pointing out some thoughts I had. I literally put it in writing that what I was even remotely criticizing lightly, makes sense on paper, specifically so that it wouldn't cause people to insinuate that I was attacking the film. *****.

I see your Batman Begins (and I had to think a long time about it) and I raise you Iron Man. That film is I think almost the perfect hero origin story. Begins is pretty much on par with it, but I think IM just edges it.

Well considering I dont actually know you, just based on what you have said on here, you can be smart and still come off as douchey, some of the smartest people I know are the biggest douches! :lol I just find it interesting how you can see something SO different than what I see. Its cool, I just dont get it.

Dude, you need to calm down, I dont care if youre attacking the film or praising it, no need to bring ***** in on this. I havent seen the extended cut, and I probably never will unless its on some sort of platform for free, and then I would really have to think to waste that much time on a movie that I thought was REALLY bad. Like, no redeeming qualities bad.

Iron man is a good comparison for sure. But I think IM lacks the motivation that Batman has, and the vision for the long run. I have to see it again, I havent seen it in years. Im probably bias cause I like/know Batman more than I know Iron Man. I didnt know that much about IM before I saw the movie. I know he is an alcholic, the armor sustains him, and his main bad guy is the mandarin. Thats about it.

- - - Updated - - -

I found IM one to be rather boring frankly. I may have to rewatch all three though. maybe it's better on second viewing.

No man, dont even bother with 2, you dont need to see it. IM3 was pretty bad in my opinion too, but hey, it made over a billion dollars so I guess some people liked it.
 
No man, dont even bother with 2, you dont need to see it. IM3 was pretty bad in my opinion too, but hey, it made over a billion dollars so I guess some people liked it.

Avengers had alot to do with that + the fact that the general public wasnt as offended to the fact that the mandarin was a fake unlike the people who are actually fans of the comics.
 
Avengers had alot to do with that + the fact that the general public wasnt as offended to the fact that the mandarin was a fake unlike the people who are actually fans of the comics.


IM2 is the weakest of the three, definitely, but it still has moments of excellence. If it weren't for IM2 we wouldn't have the expansive universe of the MCU - everyone sees "set up" as a bad thing, when in fact it is necessary...it builds the background of Tony's relationship with his father, which in turn makes Civil War even more emotionally engaging. It introduces Black Widow (however shoehorned) who is a fan favourite. etc. It develops Tony and Pepper, it shows us the defining Tony and Rhodey relationship - strained but genuine, we get the first proper IM v IM fight which is brilliant ("Goldstein! Give me a fat beat to beat my buddy's ass to.") - it fully brings Warmachine into the MCU, with an amazing looking suit. Finding out afterwards that the MkII would have only worked because Tony allowed Rhodey to take it. Says a lot about the character etc.

IM3 isn't quite as bad as people make out either, IMO, especially on a rewatch now. It's definitely IM1, IM3 and then IM2, but the score in IM3 is more memorable for me. The story is a little weak, and I don't quite buy the stuff at the end - it felt a bit too on the nose. It was important in his character arc - that he is "seperate" from the IM persona a bit more, he no longer needs the arc reactor etc. but they did indeed seemingly reverse that significantly in Civil War. Which was a tad strange - the Pepper stuff off screen I thought was v weak. But IM3 does have some great moments too, and it does have a few "hero moments" that I absolutely love - sending the mk42 (43?) after Pepper in the middle of the explosion was amazing - the music etc was great. Him getting over the Avengers ordeal was a nice little sub plot, but was perhaps resolved too quickly overall.

However, totally not ignorant to the flaws of either. But I think a lot of people would benefit from 2nd watches of films sometimes, as you can never take in everything even a simple film has to offer in one sitting.

And yeah, the Mandarin thing never bothered me. You expect a little more comedy with Marvel, so I didn't mind that it was a ruse and used as a bit of a gag. It was a relatively well done "fooled ya" by the MCU but perhaps they didn't consider fully the wrath of the fan, as I can see how it might upset comic purists.
 
Avengers had alot to do with that + the fact that the general public wasnt as offended to the fact that the mandarin was a fake unlike the people who are actually fans of the comics.
I'm a comics fan way back when Gene Colan was drawing IM and the Mandarin and I wasn't offended by the fake Mandarin. I guess it's because I never thought he'd translate well to the big screen. Plus he was never one of my favorite villains.
 
But that is literally never going to amount to anything on screen.

They're kind of inching ever so slightly towards it. There was a scene that got cut out of Ant-Man where one guy getting a tour of the facility had the 10 rings tattoo on his lower neck.
 
I gotta say, I'm glad I have no idea what some of these comic characters were meant to be... cuz I quite enjoyed the weirdness of the Mandarin... but I 100% get it if they ruined it.
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top