Ben Affleck is Batman

[The Dark Knight]

Bruce didn't have to know Superman well. They didn't have to be 'best buds'. But according to some nuclear physicists they did. It's about Bruce realising he lost his humanity. The man he wanted to kill was good, and he ended up dying anyway. Bruce is bound to feel deflated and a sense of guilt.

He's not just making it up to Superman's spirit of unabashed goodness. He's trying to become a better version of himself. Batman did have a moral code, but he abandoned it. He's now waking up from a rage induced haze. Joker was alive because of Batman's code. But if the two met during BvS, ol' Jokey would've had his neck snapped like Zod. But because Batman is now reclaiming that moral code - as shown by not branding Lex, Joker's life seems to be safe again for the subsequent films.

But again, people don't like the arc so they turn off their brain and disregard it.

Arguing the case for BvS is bizarre, because even when the character arc is stated, it's still not good enough . Snyder just does all this coz he thinks it's kool, man. You are the one dismissing Snyder's worth as a filmmaker. People don't want to see why Batman had to be this way because they are narrow minded. They lack imagination and  long-term vision. If the haters think the message is stupid, on the contrary, I think they are.

Batman had to be this type of person in BvS because it's the beginning of his arc. Superman has to have an influence on his life, and it has to represent a noticeable change. A dark and mean guy gradually softening over the course of the saga even though he remains efficient at what he does.

Have a serviceable day.

[Wayne49]

Bruce didn't have to know Superman well. They didn't have to be 'best buds'. But according to some nuclear physicists they did. It's about Bruce realising he lost his humanity. The man he wanted to kill was good, and he ended up dying anyway. Bruce is bound to feel deflated and a sense of guilt.

He's not just making it up to Superman's spirit of unabashed goodness. He's trying to become a better version of himself. Batman did have a moral code, but he abandoned it. He's now waking up from a rage induced haze. Joker was alive because of Batman's code. But if the two met during BvS, ol' Jokey would've had his neck snapped like Zod. But because Batman is now reclaiming that moral code - as shown by not branding Lex, Joker's life seems to be safe again for the subsequent films.

But again, people don't like the arc so they turn off their brain and disregard it.

Arguing the case for BvS is bizarre, because even when the character arc is stated, it's still not good enough . Snyder just does all this coz he thinks it's kool, man. You are the one dismissing Snyder's worth as a filmmaker. People don't want to see why Batman had to be this way because they are narrow minded. They lack imagination and  long-term vision. If the haters think the message is stupid, on the contrary, I think they are.

Batman had to be this type of person in BvS because it's the beginning of his arc. Superman has to have an influence on his life, and it has to represent a noticeable change. A dark and mean guy gradually softening over the course of the saga even though he remains efficient at what he does.

Have a serviceable day.

You're applying allot of context and rules of engagement to character building that are of your own making to justify this movie. I'm trying to step back and look at the story mechanics and understand why it widely failed with so many. I don't believe there is any hidden novel here that no one but yourself has figured out.  And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to calling anyone "stupid" because they are in disagreement with your assessment. Making it that personal is unhealthy and honestly deflates anyone taking you serious if you're that upset over a comic book movie. 

Movies are a subjective art form. Batman is a completely unrealistic, fictional character. Superman even more so. Whatever real or imagined psychological study you want to apply here will not bring anymore credibility to the simple fact he's guy in a rubber suit sorting out his demons while he grows paranoid of a guy from another planet  also wearing a suit manufactured by Rubbermaid. There's only so much I can drink from that Kool-aid factory before I have to step back and understand it was a movie intended to sell toys.

It's fun to break down the various story structures and see what was borrowed from comics to build this film if you're a fan of the character. That's the hobby at work here. But opinions on story treatment, costume design, and just a general sense of entertainment value is going to vary from person to person. And yes sometimes criticisms are garnered more from a mob mentality than someone just looking at the film and making their own assessment. Welcome to the internet age. It's loaded with that herd mentality if you let it. And we being fans will pull us a tad too tightly to the material at times, so I get your discourse with feeling some are not really assessing the film as you believe it was intended. But at some point you have to back up and just say, " It is what it is."

I have an endless inventory of movies in my DVD collection that are not critical darlings or even fan favorites by many accounts. But I'm not watching them for mass approval. I watch them for my own personal enjoyment. If you love this film, that is terrific. I don't believe anyone is suggesting you can't. We're Batman fans here. Let's enjoy the fellowship of that bond and try not to split hairs over aspects we don't like. There are more films coming!

[The Dark Knight]

Edit:

I had a post here, but I've taken it down. We'll agree to disagree.

[Dagenspear]

Bruce didn't have to know Superman well. They didn't have to be 'best buds'. But according to some nuclear physicists they did. It's about Bruce realising he lost his humanity. The man he wanted to kill was good, and he ended up dying anyway. Bruce is bound to feel deflated and a sense of guilt.

He did have to know him for him to have any effect on him as a person. He knew he was already. That doesn't change.

He's not just making it up to Superman's spirit of unabashed goodness. He's trying to become a better version of himself. Batman did have a moral code, but he abandoned it. He's now waking up from a rage induced haze. Joker was alive because of Batman's code. But if the two met during BvS, ol' Jokey would've had his neck snapped like Zod. But because Batman is now reclaiming that moral code - as shown by not branding Lex, Joker's life seems to be safe again for the subsequent films.

The movie didn't develop that idea. It had him state verbatim his reason for the change. Bruce has already crossed that line here, with the situation that's happened, with what he's done, he has no right to be different with the Joker.

But again, people don't like the arc so they turn off their brain and disregard it.

The fact that people can understand it enough to dislike it, shows that there's no turning brains off.

Arguing the case for BvS is bizarre, because even when the character arc is stated, it's still not good enough . Snyder just does all this coz he thinks it's kool, man. You are the one dismissing Snyder's worth as a filmmaker. People don't want to see why Batman had to be this way because they are narrow minded. They lack imagination and  long-term vision. If the haters think the message is stupid, on the contrary, I think they are.

Long term vision has nothing to do with what this movie does or imagination. A movie shouldn't be made, nor a character developed to play into something that can be done in the future. The audience shouldn't have to imagine that. Batman didn't have to be this way. He was made to be this way with logic that doesn't add up. It's the same thought process as Superman can't have a no kill rule unless he knows what it feels like to kill someone. That's not the case. I don't know why you want to insult people about this. There's no reason for it.

Batman had to be this type of person in BvS because it's the beginning of his arc. Superman has to have an influence on his life, and it has to represent a noticeable change. A dark and mean guy gradually softening over the course of the saga even though he remains efficient at what he does.

Have a serviceable day.

It didn't have to be like that. That's the point. His character shouldn't have to be that in this. It doesn't even apply here, because his character has already been that, if want to go by the frivolous comics that have no real point. More than anything, it's him going back to the way he was before. Which makes him being there pointless, because he's never going to face consequences for what he's done. Thank you very much for anything at all! Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[The Laughing Fish]

I think when it comes to Batman, quality of script is a big player in how people react to each film. When I see the most successful films in the franchise, those stories are heavy on drama but seem to do a good job in explaining character motivations that thrust the hero and the villain into a face off. There's good tension and a build towards a finale that is galvanizing to the audience.

I completely disagree with this after watching the Nolan films. People talk about quality, but they ignore the flawed and inconsistent things about those movies, or worse, reinterpret them to suit their own convenience. I mean, these three films of his were more than seven hours long altogether, but none of them couldn't even spend one minute making sense of Batman's confusing motivationr? Really? Sorry, but when a trilogy has somebody else taking the mantle from the hero despite the whole moral of the story is supposed to be how a vigilante's crusade enabled social reform, or Batman refuses to kill the mass-murdering Joker but then justifies himself for killing another mass-murderer to save millions of innocent people (like he did to Talia in TDKR), it completely ruins it for me and I don't care about his journey at all. Never mind that framing himself to protect a killer was the worst thing the character has ever done on film, in my opinion. I don't know how that is seen as quality storytelling.

Snyder has his faults for sure, and has a lot in common with Nolan when it comes to using too many characters (i.e. the General and the assistant from MOS), and yes, BvS had its share of contrivances that I didn't care for e.g. Superman giving Batman a lenient warning in their first confrontation even though Bats had killed crooks during the car chase, the whole North Africa scene was underwhelming and I didn't get the gist of Superman being wrongfully accused of killing those terrorists, and I thought Superman telling Batman his mother was in dangerous could've been handled better. As you can tell, I have some issues with how Superman is used in a few number of plot points in this movie. But Superman sacrificing himself and how it inspired Batman and Wonder Woman a new found sense of purpose, and the world realising how truly selfless he was despite all his imperfections as it mourns for his death, is a massive mitigating factor I'm grateful for.

In the case of BVS, I think Snyder gave us a Batman morally flawed which gambled a bit on the perspective being universally understood and supported by the audience. I don't think Snyder spent enough time building some pathos into this Batman to garner some much needed understanding for his actions. I think audiences are motivated and engaged when they connect with them emotionally on some level. For this Batman to be that jaded, I don't think the audience had the benefit of seeing that journey so much as getting momentary references that were informational but did not necessarily carry the emotional register audiences need to get them to where he was at. So I think to the average viewer, people had to determine merit within his actions based on a cold slate of story points rather than an emotional one that would have serviced the material better.

I thought the story more than conveyed where Batman is coming from in this movie. Never mind the death of his parents that naturally scarred him, we could see that this Bruce was frustrated because of what he experienced over twenty years i.e. Robin's death, how the good guys are hard to find, or stay good, as he says to Alfred, and feeling useless as he watches the destruction of Metropolis despite his heroic efforts in rescuing Wallace Keefe and the little girl. Not to mention his anger at Superman's existence and worries what happens if he were to go rogue against humanity. All this experience pointed to a jaded Batman taking a very extreme approach and it made him feel very small in comparison, as he tells Alfred that stopping Superman would be the "only important thing he has ever done" (if I recall correctly). I'm not saying everybody must like this character arc, but I don't understand how this is hard to understand.

I think that point is further driven home when Snyder uses the "Martha" exchange as that moment of awakening. There's nothing difficult to understand in that moment in terms of intent, but for me it seriously devalues his life experience as Batman to suggest a moment of empathy makes him a changed man over the years of loss he has suffered. That is an impossible leap of rationalization to arrive at during a very irrational moment in the midst of a struggle to survive. When you consider this as being an older Batman nearing the end of his career that really discredits the possibility. It completely took me out of the story because it was too much of a staged plot point as opposed to a more logical unfolding of events which would lead to this discovery on an emotional level. You needed the audience to feel it with him and I think a more accomplished director could have crafted a better progression of events to get everyone there. I just don't think Snyder was the right person to direct this material.

We can debate how the scene was executed very well or very poorly, but it was showing how Batman realised he was becoming everything he fought against his whole life: by nearly murdering someone's son and indirectly causing the death of someone's mother. He had mistaken Superman as an uncaring and inhumane danger to the planet, but his cries for help made Batman realise he was wrong, and Martha's name triggered Batman's tragedy to reflect what he was about to do. His blind rage and hatred allowed Lex to manipulate him, and Batman ended his misdirected anger that had blinded him all this time, and he became a hero again onwards. He felt powerless to prevent his mother from dying as a child, but now he can save another Martha from suffering the same fate.

Again, I won't deny the pacing at the end of the fight and the heroes joining forces could've been handled better, but I believe there's a basis here for Batman redeeming himself. Like the ending was redemption for Superman's flaws earlier in the movie. In that sense, I personally thought it was quite effective.

In my opinion, the epitome of a completely irrational leap of logic for a character arc, is Two-Face's absurd rationale of "The Joker is a mad dog, I'm after those who let him off his leash". I don't care how crazy Two-Face is, that motivation is absolutely ridiculous. The guy spent the entire time trying to stop Joker, even taking matters into his own hands when Rachel's life is in danger...yet he lets his girlfriend's killer go because of some bullsh*t about chaos? In such a short period of time where Dent showed no signs of any real psychotic behavior? I don't buy it.

You're applying allot of context and rules of engagement to character building that are of your own making to justify this movie. I'm trying to step back and look at the story mechanics and understand why it widely failed with so many. I don't believe there is any hidden novel here that no one but yourself has figured out.  And I certainly wouldn't subscribe to calling anyone "stupid" because they are in disagreement with your assessment. Making it that personal is unhealthy and honestly deflates anyone taking you serious if you're that upset over a comic book movie. 

Maybe it's not my place to speak for TDK, but I see his frustration is aimed at people who completely ignore what the film is going for, or they simply go what the critics say without forming their own opinion. Not necessarily those who understood the plot, but simply didn't like it. As you say in another thread relating to Batman & Robin, there wasn't a huge outcry over the Batnipples or body close-up shots in BF, until B&R was released and outright panned by the critics. All because of a loud minority of haters. Similar to a loud minority influenced impressionable people over Batman's lethal approach in the Burton films, it seems.

When BvS was released more than a month ago, I saw people on another forum who were eager to see it suddenly becoming reluctant because somebody else they knew didn't like it. Worse, one commenter hadn't seen the film at the time, and yet, he still described Affleck's Batman "as an alcoholic shooting people" and compared him unfavourably to Bale's Batman who told Catwoman not to shoot or kill anyone. Now, if this guy actually watched BvS and TDKR, he would've figured out that A) Affleck's Bruce only drank one glass of bourbon from his bed in one scene without there hinting a drinking problem, and B) Bale's Bruce hypocritically armed his vehicles with guns, which resulting in causing Talia and her henchman's deaths.

[Dagenspear]

I completely disagree with this after watching the Nolan films. People talk about quality, but they ignore the flawed and inconsistent things about those movies, or worse, reinterpret them to suit their own convenience. I mean, these three films of his were more than seven hours long altogether, but none of them couldn't even spend one minute making sense of Batman's confusing motivationr? Really? Sorry, but when a trilogy has somebody else taking the mantle from the hero despite the whole moral of the story is supposed to be how a vigilante's crusade enabled social reform, or Batman refuses to kill the mass-murdering Joker but then justifies himself for killing another mass-murderer to save millions of innocent people (like he did to Talia in TDKR), it completely ruins it for me and I don't care about his journey at all. Never mind that framing himself to protect a killer was the worst thing the character has ever done on film, in my opinion. I don't know how that is seen as quality storytelling.

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Batman didn't kill Ra's. That's a fact, in film. TDKR even implying that he did is a lie and is a flaw on that movie. Why wouldn't someone take up the mantle of a superhero if the moral is that the vigilante's crusade enabled social reform? That would be a reason to do that, not a reason not to. But your statements don't have a lot of validity when you've ignored what happens in the movies.

I thought the story more than conveyed where Batman is coming from in this movie. Never mind the death of his parents that naturally scarred him, we could see that this Bruce was frustrated because of what he experienced over twenty years i.e. Robin's death, how the good guys are hard to find, or stay good, as he says to Alfred, and feeling useless as he watches the destruction of Metropolis despite his heroic efforts in rescuing Wallace Keefe and the little girl. Not to mention his anger at Superman's existence and worries what happens if he were to go rogue against humanity. All this experience pointed to a jaded Batman taking a very extreme approach and it made him feel very small in comparison, as he tells Alfred that stopping Superman would be the "only important thing he has ever done" (if I recall correctly). I'm not saying everybody must like this character arc, but I don't understand how this is hard to understand.

I can say that I've seen people who understand it and still don't think that it's appropriate to have a Batman who has had a no kill rule apparently, rejected it with malicious intent and goes back to it. They seem to think that under the circumstances he has no right to be against killing now that he's purposefully with malice of forethought.

In my opinion, the epitome of a completely irrational leap of logic for a character arc, is Two-Face's absurd rationale of "The Joker is a mad dog, I'm after those who let him off his leash". I don't care how crazy Two-Face is, that motivation is absolutely ridiculous. The guy spent the entire time trying to stop Joker, even taking matters into his own hands when Rachel's life is in danger...yet he lets his girlfriend's killer go because of some bullsh*t about chaos? In such a short period of time where Dent showed no signs of any real psychotic behavior? I don't buy it.

He didn't let him go. He flipped the coin. It landed on heads.

Maybe it's not my place to speak for TDK, but I see his frustration is aimed at people who completely ignore what the film is going for, or they simply go what the critics say without forming their own opinion. Not necessarily those who understood the plot, but simply didn't like it. As you say in another thread relating to Batman & Robin, there wasn't a huge outcry over the Batnipples or body close-up shots in BF, until B&R was released and outright panned by the critics. All because of a loud minority of haters. Similar to a loud minority influenced impressionable people over Batman's lethal approach in the Burton films, it seems.

That wasn't hated because of that. It was hated because some people don't like fun. Please don't try and blame others for how people react. People choose how they react to something.

A) Affleck's Bruce only drank one glass of bourbon from his bed in one scene without there hinting a drinking problem, and B) Bale's Bruce hypocritically armed his vehicles with guns, which resulting in causing Talia and her henchman's deaths.

Even just now hearing that statement, I can say that it seems that the person was being comically hyperbolic by calling him an alcoholic. Bale's Bruce arming himself with guns isn't hypocritical, because he's never once had an issue with using guns in regards to others. It was a statement against Selina specifically using the guns to kill. And those deaths being caused by his weapons isn't based on a purposeful action of trying to kill them, which is the difference between what he tells Selina and what he does later on. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[Travesty]

I'm sorry, but this isn't true. Batman didn't kill Ra's. That's a fact, in film. TDKR even implying that he did is a lie and is a flaw on that movie.

[The Laughing Fish]

I found this video explaining making comparisons between Affleck and Bale, while explaining why Affleck is the best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeAdCsAnoEs

Apart from a couple of points I completely disagree with (Bale's ugly Batsuit better in terms of Keaton's? Get out of here! And the little dig at Michael Gough's Alfred for only serving soup is lame), I agree with the other points made in regards to how downtrodden Snyder's Gotham looked, the action, the acting, costume and characterization.

[riddler]

If we want to compare Alfred's, one classic trait is that Alfred stays in the batcave and helps Batman while he's out in the field. Gough did this with Keaton in the final act of Returns (helping him save gotham from the penguin attacks), Caine NEVER did this. The extent of him interacting with Batman was usually criticizing the way he handled things. And don't tell me Lucious fox helping Batman catch the Joker through sonar in the dark knight is the same thing, it wasn't the batcave and it wasn't Alfred. Morgan Freeman played his role well but there's a special bond between Batman and Alfred that just wasn't there in that series partially due to Fox. I'm not saying Alfred and Bruce need to always be on the same page but they were at odds far too much in those movies especially the third one (Alfred should not be abandoning Bruce ever). I think people gave Caines's character a pass because he was great in the third act of the first film. 

[Silver Nemesis]

I'm not saying Alfred and Bruce need to always be on the same page but they were at odds far too much in those movies especially the third one (Alfred should not be abandoning Bruce ever).

One of the primary influences on The Dark Knight Rises was the Knightfall/Knightquest arc, in which Bruce and Alfred's relationship underwent a similar strain. The scene where Alfred walks out on Bruce was adapted directly from that story arc; specifically from Knightquest: The Search (May 1994).

In both the comic and the film, Alfred tenders his resignation in an attempt to dissuade Bruce from resuming his crime fighting career. But in both stories Bruce calls his bluff and the two part ways. This aspect of the Bruce-Alfred relationship, where Alfred tries to steer Bruce away from his self-destructive lifestyle, was barely touched upon in Burton's films. There's one line in Batman 89 where Alfred says he doesn't want to mourn old friends, and that's it. But in Nolan's films, and in particular in The Dark Knight Rises, Alfred's concern for Bruce was the foundation of his entire character arc. He couldn't bear to stand by and watch Bruce kill himself, so he used the only leverage he had - their friendship - to try and deter him. The exact same thing happened in the comics.

Ultimately I thought Gough's Alfred captured the character's sarcastic, reserved personality better than Caine's. But Cain and Bale captured the characters' familial relationship more effectively than Gough and Keaton did. In many ways Schumacher struck the happy medium, conveying the warmth and love between them while preserving Alfred's sarcastic stiff-upper-lip veneer.