Facebook
twitter

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Dagenspear

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
1
Ahhh, Semantics King, aka, Lord TattleTale. Yes, it would be most unwise, indeed. For he acts of that of a 12 year old, who tries to punish thee, with quips to higher ups, because he can't handle his own. Yes, I have run into him on multiple of forums.
If you don't want consequences, don't commit negative actions. I'm not hostile to you. You have no reason to be to me.
I view the matter in a pretty similar way. If Batman intended to pull Ra's off the train, he would've pulled Ra's off the train. Batman makes a philosophical distinction between actively taking Ghul's life vs. passively taking it... but either way, he's still taking Ghul's life.

It does show Batman learning from his mistakes. He saved Ra's earlier in the movie and that ended up not being such a good idea. So in similar circumstances, he opted not to save him... but the end result is Ghul is just as dead as he would've been if Batman had personally throttled the life from his body.

Batman killed Ra's in Batman Begins. And the hell of it is I think he was right to do it. But I don't see why we can't all acknowledge that's what happened in Batman Begins.
Batman wanted Ras Al Ghul dead. If someone is getting bashed up and you can do something to stop it, but willingly choose to do nothing, you're condoning the violence. That's how I see it. One of the messages of Batman Begins is "what chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Batman did nothing.

He wanted to save the murderer at the LOS base. So by that reasoning, he should have wanted to save Ras as well.
No, he didn't. He wanted to not execute him and get out of what he'd just discovered was a terrorist organization that he'd just learned was going to destroy Gotham. The good men statement was against corruption. Not that he could get him out.
While I don't like BB by any means, I consider it as the lesser of the three evils, in the sense that Batman's actions actually saved Gotham. Yes, he was a hypocrite and a reckless buffoon. But the ends justified the means. His justification to kill Ra's for trying to eradicate the city made sense, which is the reason why this thread exists in the first place.

What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

Let's face it, the only reason the whole fake moral dilemma was forced in that movie was because Nolan wanted Batman to take the fall for Two-Face. If Batman was more consistent and honest about himself, he would've ran the Joker over with his Batpod, and the second half of the movie would never have happened (shame, the movie actually would've been salvaged otherwise).

And to think people say Zack Snyder is such a worthless director, but claim Nolan films is so much better. Absolute fools, I say.
His issue was with execution, not killing. He's never in the same position with Joker as he was with Ra's.
And that's one reason why these movies are a bit irritating, at times. They keep contradicting themselves, and like you said, do so for plot conveniences. In BB he kills Ra's and a TON of LOS ninjas, but in TDK he keeps talking about his no-kill rule. Or in TDK, he wants to retire, and says Gotham needs a hero with a face, and then cut to TDKR, he tells Blake that he needs to wear a mask if he wants to be doing this hero stuff. In BB he says Gotham  needs to have a theatrical hero be a symbol, and then in TDK, he says that Harvey is more affective, cause he's the symbol he could never be(even though he could as Bruce Wayne). Or when he's talking about not using guns, but keeps using them on all of his vehicles, etc. And seriously, who trains for 7+ years, to then retiring in about a year?

And these are huge plot points for the character arcs, but they're constantly contradicting themselves with no explantation at all, other than to serve the plot of a particular movie.
He's against execution, not killing. He realized the hero with a face didn't work. That was a point of TDK. Another point of TDK is Bruce thinking that Batman does more harm than good. He says that. It's apart of his reflection of the events that occur in the movie. He tells Selina not to use guns to kill people. He never says he's against guns. No one ever said he trained for 7 years. What you call contradictions are just things some don't seem to want to look at.
It's not usually any of my business to be a Nolan apologist.

But I'll say that the Joker's situation was different from Ra's. It wasn't possible to arrest Ra's. He was on the train and the police were all trapped in the Narrows. Ra's would never allow himself to be taken alive anyway. Batman made the best choice he could under those circumstances.

With the Joker, the police were already on the scene. To Batman's thinking, locking the Joker securely enough in the right room might be enough to permanently end his threat.

The other thing is that the Joker maybe doesn't WANT Batman to kill him... but would still regard it as a moral victory if Batman did kill him.

So in the short term, I can see where Batman might've thought allowing the Joker to live after TDK might've been the best idea. Not perfect but not terrible under the circumstances.
Exactly. Thank you. Batman is specific about his rule and his methods in TDKT. He doesn't straight up execute people. But he's willing to kill in situations where he's there's immediate danger otherwise. He never claims to have a no kill rule. His statement rule in BB is, "I will not become an executioner." Have a very great day! God bless you all!

2
Comic Film & TV / Re: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2 (2017)
« on: Wed, 10 May 2017, 00:10 »
There was one thing I found actually disturbing about this film: (***SPOILERS IN WHITE***) the way Yondu and Rocket massacre everybody on the pirate ship - gleefully, mind you - to the sound of a pop song in the background, reminded me of the repugnant Kick-Ass movie. And yet, because the whole scene is played for a cheap laugh, we're supposed to go along with it because it's "light-hearted fun"? That's quite inappropriate for a movie that's supposedly marketed for kids, especially that cutesy Baby Groot horsesh*t. Really, this movie has a lot of dark moments that get swept in the carpet in this manner.

Memo to Snyder: just play a catchy pop song in the background of your fight scene, and voila, the audience will be manipulated into thinking it's light-hearted fun. Quick, somebody edit the Batman warehouse scene in BvS with Toni! Tony! Toné's Feel's Good playing in the background. Or better yet, put Glenn Frey's The Heat is On as background music for the Batmobile chase scene! Certified Fresh Rotten Tomatoes score guaranteed!
Probably not. It wouldn't change the context of each scene or the tone of the movie. Where one is amoral space pirates, being amoral space pirates and killing psychopathic space pirates, as they escape. And the other is a main character who is supposed to be a hero needlessly, without point, killing people so he can get something to murder another hero character and then ignore it. I agree the scene isn't good morally and shouldn't be treated lightly. But the scene is still well crafted structurally and isn't out of character. GOTG 2 is rated PG-13. A character being marketed for kids doesn't make the movie for kids.
Quote
(***SPOILERS IN WHITE***)

That whole Yondu sacrifice was so forced. As far as I can remember in the first film, he was an utter scumbag. But now we're supposed to buy this idea that he's Peter Quill's surrogate son? Please.
For all intents and purposes the first highlighted specifically and had a character state that Yondu was always soft on Quill. Even to the point where when he discovers that he's been tricked by Quill and the orb has a troll doll and not the gem, he doesn't get angry, he laughs. This movie expands on him and adds more context to that concept. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

3
If Batman wanted Ras to live, he would've saved him. He didn't.
For all intents and purposes, he didn't want him alive.

4
lol, "he didn't kill Ra's"?

Batman: Hey Gordon, here's keys to the Batmobile, I need you to blow the tracks, so the train is derailed. Cool?

Ra's: ....and that's why you can't stop this train.
Batman: Who said anything about stopping?
<Batman flies out of the train, leaving Ra's to die in the death trap he created>

See, it's even easy for someone like you to understand. No amount of semantics can get you out of this. Hope that helps, and have a great day.

Satan bless you!
Ra's Al Ghul stabbed the console. He's the one who sealed his fate. But I never said in this particular conversation that Batman didn't kill Ra's. I said he didn't execute him, which is in accordance with his stated rule. Batman certainly had a hand in Ra's death, by it being his plan to blow out the tracks. For all intents and purposes, his plan was to stop the train and Ra's prevented that, which put him on a track to plan B. Bruce was apart of killing him, but he didn't execute him.
Here's two more definitions to add to your pile.

Incompetent: not competent; lacking qualification or ability; incapable.
Dumb: lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.

Baleman was a joke. In his apparent effort not to kill anybody he killed plenty of people.
Batfleck intends to kill and he does. Baleman doesn't intend to kill and he does. And Batfleck is meant to be the danger?
Those two children sitting in the backseat of the car in TDK are alive by the grace of God.
If Baleman told me 'don't worry, I won't hurt you', I'd be sweating bullets.

When Baleman wasn't getting people killed like a clueless buffoon, he had his mouth open like a sedated senior citizen. And when he spoke it was like gargling marbles. His fighting style was underwhelming at best.

Have a very great day! God bless you!
Batman never said that he wouldn't kill people. Yes, Batfleck is the danger, because Baleman never tried to murder in cold blood a for all intents and purposes innocent man. Like it or not, our world has structures of rules that dictate guilt. Intention to kill is dictated as worse than unintentional killing. In truth the only people Baleman did kill, intentionally or unintentionally, was a man who was about to murder a child and a number of admitted terrorists. He never set out, with malice of forethought, to murder someone had done nothing directly wrong by legal standards. Batfleck set out to murder someone who'd helped prevent the deaths of billions of people and did directly with malice of forethought kill many others to achieve this goal, needlessly. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

5
But once again, they're kidding themselves if they keep holding this Batman on a high moral pedestal. Just because he says "I have one rule" and "I'm no executioner", it doesn't absolve him from any responsibility for the deaths he causes. Actions speak louder than words. Which is something some people have seemed to have forgotten, or never understood to begin with.

Of course, this is made even more messy when Batman justifies his decision to kill Ra's al Ghul, which makes his actions even more confusing and meaningless. But my point stands.
"I'm no executioner, therefore, I shall kill you all!!!!"
But you hit upon a legitimate flaw of the trilogy. And honestly, it's so obviously ripe for character development. Had Batman said to Blake at some point during TDKRises something like "I didn't kill Dent. I never kill. Or I try to never kill anyway. But truth is there's no way around it sometimes. I'm not proud of it but" blah blah blah, so on and so forth.

For a guy who's basically ready to die, Bruce is alarmingly dishonest with himself through a fair bit of TDKRises. One moment of sober, honest introspection on his part would've gone a long way for me.
ex·e·cu·tion
ˌeksəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: execution
2.
the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person.

kill1
kil/
verb
1.
cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

They aren't the same thing. Bruce never said he'd never kill. He said that he won't become an executioner. And Bruce didn't execute Ra's. Ra's stabbed the train console and was apart of getting himself killed. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

6
I agree, Superman knew he'd survive. You're totally right about that.
He didn't. He couldn't.
Quote
The sonar attack didn't look like it tickled.
It didn't incapicate him or keep him from speaking, so he has no excuse is my point.

Quote
When the other guy demonstrates his refusal to listen, what more was Superman supposed to do? Looks to me like Superman thought he needed to kick Batman's @$$ a little and then maybe they could both start being reasonable.

By the by, I love how you're ignoring Superman's conversation with Lois prior to his showdown with Batman where he voices aloud the need to recruit Batman to rescue Martha.
Hold Batman down and tell him that Lex Luthor kidnapped his mom and is forcing him to kill him.

If he was intent on saving his mom, then kicking Batman around would be the absolute last thing he would do.

I'd believe that if his entire attitude towards the situation didn't contradict that. Even when Batman's down, after being thrown through the building, Superman still doesn't say anything about what's really happening. Fighting Batman runs contrary to his goals, unless he'd decided to not even try convincing him and just do what Lex wanted.
Quote
It's the start of it. And if Batman had let Superman get a word in edgewise, more would have followed.
Batman doesn't have to let him. It's Superman. He can just hold him down and tell him, if he wanted to. But even when Batman's down, after being thrown through the building, Superman still doesn't say anything about what's really happening.

Quote
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Nobody would care that Superman killed Batman.

Quote
Bernie Goetz is a controversial figure even to this day. Certainly a lot of ink was spilled about him at the time that he did what he did. It's not too much of a stretch to see a journalistic angle here considering the real world counterparts to this sort of thing.
The journalistic angle isn't what I'm talking about.

Quote
How many of those unofficially operate under the imprimatur of their local police and law enforcement?

Of those, how many are literally across the bay from Metropolis?

Whether you like it or not, stories about Batman are a completely valid thing for Clark to advocate with Perry.
This doesn't justify Superman getting involved with him over real bad guys that are a threat to innocent.

Quote
Not sure what you're referring to here.
The guy that Batman branded who was part of that human trafficking ring.

Quote
Were laws broken? Was anybody killed? Was United States foreign policy somehow compromised or hindered? Did the terrorist kill Lois?

Looks to me like the answers are all "no". So I'm not sure I see the problem there.
Laws being broken aren't the point. Superman justifying his actions are.

7
"Stay down! If I wanted it, you'd be dead already."

Sounds pretty definitive to me.
Too bad throwing him through a building came first.
Quote
Not sure if I'm parsing this correctly or not. But Superman did try reasoning with Batman. He called him "Bruce", he admitted he'd been wrong and tried to explain Lex's scam. But Batman was having none of it. So he wasn't "unwilling" to tell Batman what's going on. Batman simply refused to listen to him.
He was unwilling because Batman couldn't hurt him and Superman didn't say anything anyway. Him calling him by name and telliing him he doesn't understand isn't reasoning with him. Telling him what's actually happening is. To anyone with no information you're just saying things that have no meaning.
Quote
That's the point. There was controversy over Superman but it wasn't a matter of widespread consensus that Superman is dangerous. Some people thought so, others didn't.

Lex saw the blood on Superman's hands and wanted the rest of the world to see it too. So maybe Superman killing Batman would do the job.
By Lex's own words Superman going to kill Batman was an admission of his dirtiness, but by this same logic him killing Zod is the admission too, so he's already admitted it. Lex's plan means nothing. Superman killing an insane murderous vigilante who even the people he saves are afraid whose been absent for years apparently and only just recently restarted wouldn't mean much of anything to anyone.
Quote
If you mean going after Batman as Clark Kent, that's legit news. And, from Clark's standpoint, a serious cause for concern.
Clark's standpoint of going after a guy who brands people who get shanked and is scary to people is ridiculously silly and nonsensical. Why is Batman more important than every warlord, terrorist, crime boss in the world? It's nonsense to put the vigilante loon as top priority from either side. Why isn't Superman going after the guys who were in charge of trafficking those people, instead of the person who beat up the lackeys of those that were trafficking those people.
Quote
And he told the truth. He didn't kill them. Lex's minions did that.
I know. I wasn't saying that he was. I'm saying that he justifies his actions as saying that it's cool because he didn't kill them. I agree with him there, but it's still a justification. Have avery great day!

God bless you all!

8
I know this is sort of going back to the "Superman is just as dark as Batman" complaint which I addressed in my first post in this thread, but another common complaint I've seen aimed at Superman are accusations of how he's being hypocritical for questioning Batman's brutal brand of vigilantism and how he is scaring the common man, when the same can be said of Supes himself.

Personally, I'm not convinced by this notion. One can criticise Superman's recklessness in MOS or feel disappointed at how he's not this omnipotent being who can prevent every disaster possible, but at no point was Clark Kent trying to impose his strength to intimidate others like Batman did. That was why Clark made a point of civil liberties were being interfered when meeting Bruce at Lex's party.

We  see Clark in both Snyder films always doing good and helping people whenever he could, and no matter how much he began to reconsider whether it was worth it, he never backed away from these intentions.  Not once, regardless how many detractors will try to argue otherwise, did he stoop down to a level and delude himself into thinking he is doing something for the greater good like Batman did. In fact, despite telling Lois about nobody could stay good in this world before facing Batman, this proves to be only a momentary lapse by Superman because he still held back and refused to kill Batman throughout the fight. In spite of Lex trying to deconstruct and taint him in every way possible.
He didn't refuse to kill him because he threw him through a building, knowing that he was a human being. He also didn't care about anything in that fight. As shown by his unwillingness to not only fight Batman to save his mom, but also to tell Batman what's going on. It's such a weird nonsensical situation. Not to mention that, by Lex's standards Superman had already been tainted by his killing of Zod and his framing of him for the deaths of those men at the beginning of the movie. In all honesty, it doesn't matter, because Superman is still causing people to live in fear, so his claims against Batman are still hypocritical. Whether he intends to or not. And he still is brutal, like his slamming of that man through the wall. Yes, to him it's for the greater good, the way he justified going after Batman needlessly and him telling Lois that he didn't kill those men. His recklessness and the intention of it aren't the point. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

9
Yes, I saw that the first time.

And yet they are what I'm talking about. You're attempting to force a macro-story into a micro-sample. Apart from being nonsensical, I refuse to accept that premise. If you want to view MOS independently of everything else (in spite of the filmmakers' and movie studio's avowed intent), your interpretive framework is objectively wrong.
I don't why you replied to my comment then if it's not what the same thing I'm talking about. But they're wrong. Stories are told with forward momentum. If it's to be viewed interconnectedly, it has to be immediate. This story is separate from BvS. It doesn't even matter if it was planned, it has no effect on this film. This film is it's own. MOS can enhance BvS with it's interconnection, but not the other way around. Forward momentum doesn't work backwards. You have to slant the angle to make that happen, ala a prequel.

Quote
I guess he shouted in pain like that because he stubbed his toe, eh?
He might as well. It lasted about as long as that. What you describe is an immediate reaction. Not an effect. He's not effected in any scene after that by it. It means nothing. And it's inconsistent about meaning nothing, because it pretends it means something.
Quote
These movies are stories. These stories are based on comics. Comics frequently tell a serialized story. As episodic as film inherently is, there is nevertheless a macro-story going on. Your refusal to acknowledge that doesn't change the fact that a serialized story has been (and is being) told.
Serialization doesn't matter. It's not a comic. Even a TV series paying off something a year later only works if the seeds of that payoff were planted in the year before or have been slowly building ever since. BvS by it's very nature as a film doesn't have that. Just like TDK can't enhance BB, intention or not, BvS can't enhance MOS. If they had showed Lex taking the body, maybe it could've worked, but they didn't. So, the plot payoff means nothing to MOS. But that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. I'm talking about character. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

10
TDK doesn't have that mitigating factor to me (frankly, nor does the rest of the trilogy). Some fans try to defend the ending by arguing Batman taking the fall proves that the Joker won from an ideological point of view, which I don't buy one bit. But even if that were true, then how in the hell can anybody call that ending uplifting and heroic? That's much darker than what we saw in BvS.
Word.
The uplifting part is that Batman refuses to let the Joker win and is willing to take the heat. I don't see how it isn't. But it still isn't completely. It's bittersweet. And it fits with Batman's self destructive tendencies. It isn't darker than BvS, because with Batman that's the point. Also, Batman's actively alive. But a majority of the movie is spent talking about how Batman isn't a hero. That's in the end speech. Alfred says it to Rachel. Batman says it. So, I don't know why that's an expectation.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
    
Not a member? Click here to register now!
Latest Forum Post
Re: Justice League Part One....filming underway!
by Paul (ral)
Total Members: 671 | Total Posts: 47,803 | Total Topics: 3,101

SMF 2.0.13 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder
| Design based on the Reference theme by Crip XHTML RSS WAP2 iPhone Theme Scrolling News Ticker by Mioplanet
"BATMAN" all related characters indicia are copyrighted by D.C. COMICS, a TIME-WARNER company. Batman created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger.
All features, articles and blogs are © of Batman-Online.com's staff & members (unless otherwise indicated) and may NOT be copied without the author's permission. All artwork is © of respective owners.
This is NOT an official Batman website. Conceived, designed and edited by Paul Rodgers since 1st June 2002. Facebook and twitter feeds maintained by Rick Francis and Azrael.