Batman v Superman

[Talavar]

Off-topic,but I have to ask.Wasn't Steve Ditkos theory that there is only good and evil,black and white and nothing in between?Isn't that kinda un-Randian?

Also,that kinda reminds me:
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2011/10/20/meta-messages-the-question-thinks-rorschach-sucks/

Not exactly.  What Rand would have called 'good' would differ from many definitions, but Objectivism is about concrete values and properties that are unchanging (ie. A is A), which is what gives the school of thought its name: according to Objectivists, these properties are objectively true, rather than subjective.  Everything is black and white, no shades of grey.

[daglob]

This is getting a little off topic (unless Snyder is an objectivist), but...

What I was talking about is that in some of Ditko's stories (Spider-Man, The Question, and Static, for sure, and I can remember a similar situation in Dr. Strange) there is a primary antagonist, and a secondary antagonist. The secondary antagonist goes around saying that the hero (usually Vic Sage instead of The Question) should compromise his morals, or altruists are psychologically sick, or that great deeds demean the common man, or that breaking the laws a little is okay, or that beauty shows the inadequacy of the average man, that everything bad that happens to someone is not their fault, or all of the above. From what I read, the idea is that the hero is trying to do what is right and NOT compromise his ethic just to make it easier for himself. The secondary antagonist tries to set up a situation where he feels that the hero MUST give in, and then walks around smirking until the hero doesn't give up, after which he is furious. Justification varies, but he is basically shown up as a schnook (or something), and can't stand it. This happens in just about every Question story.

The three such antagonist I remember are the art critic in the last Blue Beetle story (the one that ran over into the Question story), the guy Static's girl friend idolized, and the Silver Age J. Jonah Jameson.

The absurdist peak of this are the villains who claim that Killjoy is unfairly denying them their right to commit crime.

[detourne_me]

Trying to tie it back in topic here... I think Frank Miller has always used 'The Media' as a kind of secondary antagonist in his comics, especially Dark Knight Returns. Think of all those talking head pieces discussing Batman, the psychologists that 'reform' Dent and Joker on live TV. They all questioned the sanity and actions of Batman, bringing enough public attention on him for Reagan-Bot Superman to come in to 'take him down'. Maybe theew is something to it?

[stumpy]

This is somewhat of a side point, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that Miller's TDKR Batman v. Superman dynamic is set against the backdrop of (and as a commentary on) a particular Superman incarnation. At the time, John Byrne's Superman had been introduced with great fanfare (and great retconning) and had begun its slide into what many would see as such a commercial failure that the whole "Death of Superman" story would be needed to revive it. Byrne's Superman had earned a bit of a reputation as an extreme "paint within the lines" boy scout archetype character that was an easy target for some sneers and jibes by those with a "grittier" world view. IMO, Miller took that Superman to the further extreme of supporting what was, in many way, a Superhero Registration Act. Whether anyone thinks Byrne's Superman got the character right or not or whether the critique of the character was fair, I would say that it was that incarnation of the character that Miller was tearing into (both directly in the story and metaphorically) in TDKR.

And, I have some respect for what Miller did in TDKR. But, Snyder makes a mistake in thinking that the Superman Miller presented as an ideological foe for Batman in TDKR is the Superman that Snyder presented in MoS or that Miller's TDKR Batman is the Batman Snyder presents in BvS. They are not the same pair of characters and the rationale for them as foes isn't nearly as believable, IMO. I mean, just scratching the surface, BvS starts out with Superman being the whipping boy of the government, not its ally against other vigilante types. And, Snyder's Batman doesn't see Superman as the behind-the-scenes lacky of an authoritarian regime, but as a reckless (and possibly malevolent) third party who had duped the public.

Argh! There is too much here to really dig into, because someone could easily do a term paper on how flawed the parallels between Snyder's characters and Miller's are. But, IMO, any notion that Snyder's BvS has anything in common with (or was even a spiritual homage to) TDKR starts to fall apart pretty much as soon as gets past the superficial "Batman fights Superman" splash page.

[Shogunn2517]

This is somewhat of a side point, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that Miller's TDKR Batman v. Superman dynamic is set against the backdrop of (and as a commentary on) a particular Superman incarnation. At the time, John Byrne's Superman had been introduced with great fanfare (and great retconning) and had begun its slide into what many would see as such a commercial failure that the whole "Death of Superman" story would be needed to revive it. Byrne's Superman had earned a bit of a reputation as an extreme "paint within the lines" boy scout archetype character that was an easy target for some sneers and jibes by those with a "grittier" world view. IMO, Miller took that Superman to the further extreme of supporting what was, in many way, a Superhero Registration Act. Whether anyone thinks Byrne's Superman got the character right or not or whether the critique of the character was fair, I would say that it was that incarnation of the character that Miller was tearing into (both directly in the story and metaphorically) in TDKR.

And, I have some respect for what Miller did in TDKR. But, Snyder makes a mistake in thinking that the Superman Miller presented as an ideological foe for Batman in TDKR is the Superman that Snyder presented in MoS or that Miller's TDKR Batman is the Batman Snyder presents in BvS. They are not the same pair of characters and the rationale for them as foes isn't nearly as believable, IMO. I mean, just scratching the surface, BvS starts out with Superman being the whipping boy of the government, not its ally against other vigilante types. And, Snyder's Batman doesn't see Superman as the behind-the-scenes lacky of an authoritarian regime, but as a reckless (and possibly malevolent) third party who had duped the public.

Argh! There is too much here to really dig into, because someone could easily do a term paper on how flawed the parallels between Snyder's characters and Miller's are. But, IMO, any notion that Snyder's BvS has anything in common with (or was even a spiritual homage to) TDKR starts to fall apart pretty much as soon as gets past the superficial "Batman fights Superman" splash page.

That's completely right... and I think that might be the essential piece where the movie falls apart.  Aesthetically speaking, Ben Affleck didn't do a bad job as Batman.  In fact, if anything, this was not a bad Batman movie.  Wonder Woman was done well(if not terribly necessary).  And as a setup for more, for Justice League, I see the makings of it...

But you're right Stumpy.  The movie is Batman VS Superman.  Frank Miller did follow the model set by Byrne of what exactly Superman is: the ultimate do-gooder that will follow the rules to a fault.  And Miller followed the formula set by the archetype that Batman is, on the same page daglob was going with The Question, a vigilante that will be willing to break the rules to do right, so Miller took the ultimate extension of where those two paths would lead.  Someone who will ALWAYS follow the rules vs someone who will break the rules.  Authority vs chaos.

Snyder didn't do any of that.  He sets an excellent narrative of a Superman or a super power that's not restricted by the rule of democracy/majority in a utilitarian approach.  And Superman has been and is acting OUTSIDE of that approach.  Which is EXACTLY where Batman is.  There is no logical extension.  Why are they fighting again? 

[daglob]

Popcorn.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

A bit of language at this link, but it sums up the problems pretty well.

http://www.dorkly.com/post/77697/zack-snyder-batman-v-superman

[HarryTrotter]

Superdickery The Movie?

[stumpy]

A bit of language at this link, but it sums up the problems pretty well.

http://www.dorkly.com/post/77697/zack-snyder-batman-v-superman

That was a compelling critique. The article touched on several things we've discussed in this thread and a few others on which we haven't really focused.

BTW, I know that we live in an era where it's commonplace to use an article (or other media) to stitch together clips (or quotes or whatever) to prove a point that may or may not really be there. But, it's a little sad just how easily the article made Snyder look a bit silly with the whole "I rely on cannon" thing. (Apparently, the cannon of all trees and no forest.) And, it's kind of disturbing just how easily it made him look a bit sociopathic.

Once again, I don't have anything against Snyder, really. Sometimes, his movies' casual use of brutal violence works well to tell the story. It worked well with a movie like 300. I'd say it worked well in Watchmen. IMO, it really fails in a Superman movie.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Snyder apparently revealed a cut scene.  He had a scene in there that shows that Superman's senses allow him to hear plenty of crimes and people in need--which he routinely ignores since he can't help everyone after all.  Now that scene could have been cast in a better light, but Superman agonizing over the fact that there's all these people who need help and he can't help them all, but that is not the angle Snyder wanted to show.  His Superman is so pragmatic that he'll ignore people in need just because he can't help everyone.

I am reminded of a scene in a comic where Superman sits down to read his fan mail.  Lois (they were married at the time) the mentions how much she hates it when he reads his mail, because they are full of request for help and Superman will rush off and spend all his time trying to help people, then get home and feel guilty over all the people he couldn't get to in time or couldn't help.  That's the Superman I want to see.

[BentonGrey]

Wow Cat, every time I think I can't hate this movie any more....

Yeah, what you described actually sounds like Superman.  I think Zack Snyder should be strapped to a chair and forced to watch All-Star Superman and Superman Vs. The Elite on an endless loop until it sinks in.

That article got a lot right, and they successfully illustrated just how completely and utterly wrong-headed Snyder is about these characters and this universe.  He shouldn't be allowed within a football-field length of any comic properties that aren't dystopian and awful already.  Yet the article also got something profoundly wrong.  They said that there is nothing wrong with a murderous Batman, but that just goes to show that they also don't get it.  Yeah, Michael Keaton's Batman may have killed some people in his first on-screen appearance in the modern day, but the thing is, bad stories do not justify more bad stories.  In that film, with just a little editing, that problem goes away entirely because it was never about Batman intentionally taking lives.  In fact, he goes out of his way to SAVE lives, even trying to save the Joker.  Even that film, as crazy as it was, got Batman better than Snyder.  Yet, more importantly, whatever stories have been told or will be told, the core concept of the character is one that does not sit comfortably with killing.  The man who has seen the most profound of losses, who has experienced the power of redemption, this is not a man who would consent to take a life.  A Batman who kills is no longer Batman.  He is the Punisher.

[kkhohoho]

A Batman who kills is no longer Batman.  He is the Punisher.

And yet, I don't doubt that there are people who'd be perfectly happy with that.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

A Batman who kills is no longer Batman.  He is the Punisher.

And yet, I don't doubt that there are people who'd be perfectly happy with that.

In fact, I have heard many people on the internet, who think that is great and that it isn't even going far enough.

[HarryTrotter]

Obviously people who missed Knightfall.Thou,even Azrael didnt kill.
Btw,I guess thats where the Bat-branding comes from.

[BentonGrey]

I have no doubt, and I've heard similar things.  That's because people are morons. 

There are also people that are happy to see Superman kill.  There are always those who want to tear down heroes because there is that within us that wants to see heroes fall.  We want our heroes to be worse than us so we can feel better about ourselves.  Yet, what we want and what we need are often different things.  We need heroes who are better than we are, and that is something that Batman and Superman both offer.  This becomes all the more true and necessary as our culture darkens.

That's one more thing that Snyder and people defending this film don't get.  I've heard about how characters need to evolve with the culture, and to a certain extent that's true.  The exact same portrayal used in 1950 obviously won't be accessible today, yet we shouldn't change art just because culture changes.  Art, literature specifically, is supposed to be edifying as well as entertaining, and not all cultural change is positive.  Just because something is does not make it good.  If we've become more violent, cynical, and callous, that's all the more reason to create stories that try to turn that tide backwards.

[HarryTrotter]

To be a devils advocate here...maybe they were going for that.Maybe they wanted to show that the world without Justice League would be really bleak.Maybe the next movies will be reconstructions of sort.All a big maybe...
On a different note,I really think DC and WB should make a Kingdom Come movie.

[Talavar]

Even within the context of the film series they're constructing, Batman killing doesn't really make sense.  If Batman feels justified to kill people extra-judiciously sometimes, how does anyone explain the Joker being alive?

To be a devils advocate here...maybe they were going for that.Maybe they wanted to show that the world without Justice League would be really bleak.Maybe the next movies will be reconstructions of sort.All a big maybe...
On a different note,I really think DC and WB should make a Kingdom Come movie.

Kingdom Come could only be done justice after a regime change at DC/Warner Bros.  Then they could adapt it to show what had been so wrong with the previous approach.  I wouldn't trust Zack Snyder or the current powers that be at Warners to understand the point of Kingdom Come at all.

[BentonGrey]

Spade, I think you're giving Snyder WAY more credit than he deserves.  I think it's clear he doesn't understand the concept of heroism.

I don't want anyone involved with WB  within a 1000 miles of Kingdom Come, but yes, a Kingdom Come movie should be made eventually.  It's one of the best comic stories of all time and one of my favorites.  I'd way rather that get an animated film than the Killing Joke.

:EDIT: 

[HarryTrotter]

Spade, I think you're giving Snyder WAY more credit than he deserves.  I think it's clear he doesn't understand the concept of heroism.

I don't want anyone involved with WB  within a 1000 miles of Kingdom Come, but yes, a Kingdom Come movie should be made eventually.  It's one of the best comic stories of all time and one of my favorites.  I'd way rather that get an animated film than the Killing Joke.

:EDIT: 

Well maybe the next one.But yeah,as of current date,I would rather have it as an animated movie.
I did say maybe,but again,I doubt they had so much foresight. Thou,Flash and Shazam are supposed to be lighter in tone,but those are years away.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

Even within the context of the film series they're constructing, Batman killing doesn't really make sense.  If Batman feels justified to kill people extra-judiciously sometimes, how does anyone explain the Joker being alive?

Or half the cast of Suicide Squad for that matter.  That thought came to me yesterday that this basically implies that Batman only slaughters regular criminals but spares supervillains.  Which makes no sense whatsoever.

[BentonGrey]

Good points.  If Batman does decide to start killing, Gotham's supervillain population would be the very first on the chopping block!

[HarryTrotter]

Good points.  If Batman does decide to start killing, Gotham's supervillain population would be the very first on the chopping block!

Wait,wasnt there a What if/Elseworld story with that premise?Im only 40% sure at that...
It would be weirder if nobody explored that idea.

[bat1987]

I viewed it as a fan film, with an odd perspective, and was able to really enjoy it. It's simply an elseworld.

That's how I viewed it as well, and the reason I liked it (mixed positive as someone mentioned, would pretty much sum up my opinion of the movie), and can overlook some of the flaws. Same way I watched the Nolan trilogy.

They said that there is nothing wrong with a murderous Batman, but that just goes to show that they also don't get it.  Yeah, Michael Keaton's Batman may have killed some people in his first on-screen appearance in the modern day, but the thing is, bad stories do not justify more bad stories.  In that film, with just a little editing, that problem goes away entirely because it was never about Batman intentionally taking lives.  In fact, he goes out of his way to SAVE lives, even trying to save the Joker.  Even that film, as crazy as it was, got Batman better than Snyder.  Yet, more importantly, whatever stories have been told or will be told, the core concept of the character is one that does not sit comfortably with killing.  The man who has seen the most profound of losses, who has experienced the power of redemption, this is not a man who would consent to take a life.  A Batman who kills is no longer Batman.  He is the Punisher.

He killed the guy who gave him a hard time during the battle in the Belltower. He did try to save the Joker, but he also killed him by strapping his leg to the gargoyle. He dropped the bomb from his Batmobile and killed Joker's thugs in front of Ace Chemicals etc. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but that's how I remember it. That being said I liked the first Keaton film and I agree with you Benton that bad stories don't justify more bad stories.

I really think this movie has a lot of issues, but I also don't think is as bad as people make it out to be. Really want to see them readjust the tone for the Justice league movie. Also would like to see Batman's brutality explained in
his solo film. How it wasn't his usual MO, but that something happened that made him change his ways (already mentioned this in my previous response in this thread). That would make feel a bit easier about the way he acts in BvS.

[thalaw2]

I'm going to go on record as saying this was a bad movie.  The bad was so bad that it can't be saved.  The story had good concepts but the execution was terrible.  Absolutely terrible.  Bats killing people was far and a way not the problem with this movie IMO.  It was plagued with bad acting and bad story telling and that's what made it bad.  Wonder Woman was a terrible actress.  I've seen better acting from Tough Actin Tinactin.  There was no chemistry between Afflac and Cavill.  These guys probably hung together for maybe half a minute before the shoot.  The best performance I saw was Lex Luthor.  In fact, his performance was the only thing making the movie worth watching.  It just sucks that Synder or whomever doesn't know the difference b/t Lex and the Joker. 

[daglob]

I wonder if the "cannon" Snyder is talking about is the very early Golden Age versions of Batman and Superman, when they were more bloodthirsty. I don't think they were ever THAT bloodthirsty, though. I can't remember when it was exactly, sometime like the '70s, the idea was proposed that Robin was a moderating influence on Batman. Thus, no Robin, Batman becomes a dark and edgy character, even brutal and uncaring. So, perhaps Snyder is using parts of comics he liked as a basis for the movie, or he is just making them more "adult". You know, if you make something more adult, you adulterate it.

[BentonGrey]

I'm sure you're right, Bat.  It's been some years since I saw the movie.  Apparently it had more issues than I thought, but yeah, it still feels better to me.  The bomb was the part I was talking about, which at least is less direct than straight up shooting a guy.  You could no-prize it (which indicates a failure in the film, I know) that he dropped the bombs and gave them time to scram.  Still, either way, Batman shouldn't be killing, regardless of what has happened in the past.  The no-kill code for superheroes is a good thing, an important counter-point to the violence in our culture.

I wonder if the "cannon" Snyder is talking about is the very early Golden Age versions of Batman and Superman, when they were more bloodthirsty. I don't think they were ever THAT bloodthirsty, though. I can't remember when it was exactly, sometime like the '70s, the idea was proposed that Robin was a moderating influence on Batman. Thus, no Robin, Batman becomes a dark and edgy character, even brutal and uncaring. So, perhaps Snyder is using parts of comics he liked as a basis for the movie, or he is just making them more "adult". You know, if you make something more adult, you adulterate it.

Nice.  I love that, DG.

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

The no-kill code for superheroes is a good thing, an important counter-point to the violence in our culture.

Believe it not, I'm going to disagree with you here.  The no-kill rule is not one that makes sense in real life and not one that I would hold all superheroes too.  I'm a fan of both the Red Panda audio stories and the Wearing the Cape book series and in both the heroes try to avoid killing anyone but will if it's the only way to protect people.  They take basically the same route as real law enforcement, although in Red Panda's case he's does so an unrealistically low amount of times.

However, when we are talking specific heroes, the matter changes.  Superman never kills.  Batman has his one rule.  I consider those essential parts of those characters.  Anyone that doesn't get that doesn't get those characters.

[BentonGrey]

I LOVE the Red Panda series, and will happily defend it as some of the best superhero fiction of the 20th and 21st Centuries combined.  He only kills one person, outside of war conditions, if I recall, and he regretted that deeply, for multiple reasons.

Those are good points, Cat, but two responses: 

First, superheroes aren't real life, and if you're dealing with a universe that has a flying, death-ray shooting sungod on the same team as a guy who fights crime by shrinking to six inches tall (for example), realism, as a genre, goes out the window.  As long as you've got logical consistency WITHIN the setting, that's enough to make it work.  These are, essentially, fantasy settings, and that's something important to keep in mind.  These are stories about exceptional people, in more ways than one, and that is an important element in the success and impact of American superheroes.  They inhabit worlds that are and should be better than ours, in regards to Marvel and DC. 

Second, I don't think the no-kill code applies or SHOULD apply to all superheroes.  For example, it makes perfect sense that Captain America is willing to kill in certain situations.  He is, after all, a soldier.  In the same vein, Thor, Black Widow, and many of the other Avengers have similar backgrounds that account for a different attitude.  They should still highly value life, but their perspective is naturally going to be different.  I actually had this conversation recently with someone was complaining that people were holding the DC characters up to a higher standard than Marvel, which is true if you don't consider context and craft.  There is room for characters like the Punisher and Captain America, and those differences have been and can continue to be the fodder for great stories that wrestle with these questions. 

[catwhowalksbyhimself]

I won't disagree with you there.  You just said no-kill rule and left it out there as if it was an absolute thing.  That was apparently not your intention.

But I agree that one thing that a lot of people just don't seem to get about superheroes is that they are fantasies.  Yes, in real life, Superman would be justified in killing Zod in that situation he was in in Man of Steel--but it isn't real life, it's a fantasy.  Part of that fantasy is that Superman is a better man than we ourselves could ever really be.  It's a fantasy on what we wish the good guys could be like.  Deconstructions and reconstructions of the genre are fine and good.  There are several that I really enjoy, in fact, but those should not be done as the flagship movies for the flagship characters.

As for the Red Panda, they show willingness to kill on multiple occasions--they just usually find a way to avoid it.

Spoiler

I can recall one direct Red Panda attempted death, although the bad guy in question lived, the Flying Squirrel orders her agents to kill a villain for her.  The Red Panda is also perfectly willing to throw a villain into the death trap Harry's in knowing he might die, although he picks the one most likely to survive it. (which he does)  The Red Panda, Flying Squirrel, and their agents also slaughter thousands of invading Draxites at one point.

[BentonGrey]

Right Cat, your response was perfectly appropriate given what I said.  I was happy to expand on it.

Precisely.  Well said.

Red Panda:

Spoiler

Von Schlitz, the first one, is who I was talking about.  I'm not sure I remember the next two.  As for the Draxites, there is always a fuzzy line with non-human, demonic types.  The Flying Squirrel is also generally less merciful than Gus (which is one of the many reasons the two remind me of me and my wife  ).