Ben Affleck is Batman

[Catwoman]

It's funny because that's exactly how I feel about TDK's Joker, particularly on the daddy issues. Not only was he an unsympathetic, irredeemable pile of trash of a human being, he didn't even have the charm that previous screen versions had, and whose motives for committing crimes was to cause chaos for no reason. Yet this is considered to be compelling for some reason.

Still, don't you dare share that opinion elsewhere on the internet, otherwise you'll get attacked for not agreeing with the "majority".

I don't think that the Joker was necessarily supposed to be those things. Charm isn't really something I've seen in many versions of the character. I don't think being unsympathetic, irredeemable or a pile of trash of a human being is completely against the character. I don't see how him being those things makes him not compelling as a character. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

The good ones (Nicholson, Hamill, Romero) have had a charm. There's something magnetic about their versions that draws you in and makes you giggle even in their homicidal moments.

[johnnygobbs]

It's funny because that's exactly how I feel about TDK's Joker, particularly on the daddy issues. Not only was he an unsympathetic, irredeemable pile of trash of a human being, he didn't even have the charm that previous screen versions had, and whose motives for committing crimes was to cause chaos for no reason. Yet this is considered to be compelling for some reason.

Still, don't you dare share that opinion elsewhere on the internet, otherwise you'll get attacked for not agreeing with the "majority".

But I'm digressing.

Yes, with all due respect you are digressing because I was neither defending nor attacking TDK's Joker in my post, and I have no real opinion on your analysis of the character mainly because we never really learn anything concrete about the character's background (intentionally so).  Besides, The Joker is meant to be a psychopath; he's always been portrayed as one.  That's his very essence.  Luthor should be more charming and charismatic.  He's a character that is supposed to function in everyday society.

You're seriously going to take that unsubstantiated theory to attack Eisenberg's characterisation? Really? Don't even go there mate. And as for Superman and Batman "beating Lex up", guess what: Superman saved Lex's life from Doomsday (despite every awful thing Lex did to him), and Batman had a change of heart when he was about to brand Lex and decided to take mercy on him instead.

Firstly, I'm going by the words of a poster whose opinion I very much respect (and I suspect I am not the only one here who feels that way), although to be fair, it is a theory/conjecture rather than a solid, provable fact.

As for my point about Lex being a punch-bag for the alpha-male jocks, I was speaking figuratively.  I didn't literally mean they beat him up (if anything, I'd prefer it if they did as it might render him more sympathetic, and less of a two-dimensional hate-figure - as it stands he now seems to come across as an even bigger brat, who is allowed to effectively get away with his crimes, jail being the very least he deserves).  The point is, the film is treating Lex as a punch-bag; a whiny, pathetic character to despise and someone who is saved by the admirable, awesome alpha-male even when he doesn't deserve it (as your comment about 'every awful thing Lex did to [Superman]' suggests).

I've had my number of gripes of how Superman was written for the majority of the movie, but every moment in the last twenty minutes, particularly him saving Lex, made me think in my mind "Now that is SO Superman".

  This is a discussion about Lex not Superman.  Superman's portrayal is not the issue I particularly have with this film.

Besides, Max Landis is far from an angel. For someone who is quite opinionated on other people's work, he seems to be quite thin-skinned when the roles are reversed, as you can his tweet dismissing Red Letter Media's critique on his movies because they liked the Hobbit movies:

https://twitter.com/uptomyknees/status/638493083043262464

He also called someone "a revisionist ironic dickhead" because they said Limp Bizkit never made a good song (though he never tagged the name of the person. Still, I can't decide which is worse, calling someone names for having a different opinion or defending Limp Bizkit ):

https://twitter.com/uptomyknees/status/602547165748039680

Another example of his lack of humility is him having a Twitter rant after his movie flopped at the box office and complained "nobody appreciates originality anymore":

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/american-ultra-writer-goes-on-twitter-rant-after-m/1100-6430036/

I've only seen one of his movies he wrote, and it was called Chronicle. I really liked it, but I get the impression his ego is growing because of one successful movie, a little bit like that movie's director - Josh Trank. I don't think it's professional of him to talk smack of other people's work when he still hasn't proved himself as a screenwriter, and one who can cop criticism of his own stuff as well. At the moment, he comes across as a spoiled-rotten rich kid who got to be where he is thanks to his well known father.

Once again I'm afraid you've missed my point, The Laughing Fish.

I at no stage defended Max Landis.  I don't particularly care for the guy one way or another.  He may well indeed be all those awful things you suggest he is.  But if anything, that makes the possibility that Zack Snyder sought to use Lex Luthor as a proxy for the guy rather than actually using the comic-books as the source for his characterisation, even more petty.

Lex Luthor is meant to be one of the most iconic super-villains in comic-book history.  To reduce him to a bratty, spoiled-rotten rich kid (and something of an in-joke at that) simply as a means of getting back at a critic, no matter how unlikeable that critic may be, is a disgraceful and self-serving abuse of such a character, and strikes me as yet another reason why Zack Snyder was clearly not the right guy for Warner Bros to hand the reigns of the DCEU to.

What are you even talking about? Nobody here has attacked anyone who criticises the film if they've actually seen it, and simply didn't like it. And to be honest mate, I think it's a narrow-minded and totally unreasonable stance you're taking by refusing to see the film and condemning Eisenberg's performance without judging it under context, and still say it sucks. If I had your attitude, I'd be missing out on a lot of movies I would've liked, or appreciate more than I would've expected. That would be the equivalent of me saying "The Dredd 2012 movie totally sucked because Lena Headey underwhelmed as the main villain"...without actually seeing the whole damn thing.

Firstly, Lena Headey wasn't playing an iconic character in 'Dredd', although I appreciate that is besides the point of what you're essentially saying.

I have perpetually asked to be proven wrong about BvS's portrayal of Lex Luthor, and ironically the same people who keep urging me to see the film before I am allowed to have a say are the ones who keep confirming all my worst fears about the character.  If you, or Catwoman, or The Dark Knight, were to say to me 'actually Lex is a very complex, nuanced, sympathetic villain portrayed with a degree of pathos, and is far from the spoiled-rich odd-ball psychopath you have been led to fear' I might be inclined to give the film a chance.  But that has not been the case, has it?  And thus, I maintain that I am well within the realms of reasonability to choose to avoid this movie on the basis that I will almost certainly dislike it.

Unless, people here can give me a good reason to check the film out for myself instead of merely confirming all my prejudices, I maintain that I am entitled to deride it on the basis of everything I've read and heard (most of it overwhelmingly negative).

But the ball is in your court...

I thought it was clearly implied that a rape was possible, not only because the creep was gesturing as if he was about to unzip himself, but Catwoman's dialogue "I like a strong man who is not afraid to show it with someone half his size, be gentle it's my first time" made it too on-the-nose for it not to imply some sort of sexual assault was about to happen.

Please show me a screencap of the 'Mugger' getting ready to unzip himself.  I have seen this film countless times, and nothing definitely indicates this.

Here is a screencap of the part you're presumably referring to:



But it's just as likely that the character credited as a 'Mugger' is reaching for his 'Victim's' handbag.  It would certainly make more sense of the angle at which he's reaching down.

Besides, I'm not definitively ruling out rape being the character's motive.  I'm simply saying that Burton left things vague, as do the credits (i.e. 'Mugger').

As for Catwoman's dialogue, all that implies is that the 'Mugger' is bigger and stronger than his victim, and that he's using this to his advantage in subduing her and thus getting what he wants (which as I state, could just as likely be simply her handbag).

I'm not the only one who has perceived this. There are lots of analyses on the internet and in textbooks that share this description, particularly this excerpt from a book analysing feminist protagonists in rape and revenge-theme storytelling:

I've read a lot of feminist analyses of Batman Returns including ones which suggest that Max invading Selina's personal space just as he is about to push her out of her office window, and his subsequent attempted murder of her, is a figurative representation of rape.  That may indeed be a sound reading of the scene, but it doesn't mean that a literal rape takes place in this sequence, or any other for that matter.

And that's mostly because Burton and his collaborators had the good taste not to depict such horrific real-life abuses literally.

My guess if the actor was credited as a mugger, it's because WB tried to make it ambiguous as possible to avoid further backlash.

Like you say, it's a 'guess'.  And I don't know what you mean by 'further backlash'.  The 'backlash' occurred after the film was released, and Warner Bros with its potentially lucrative McDonalds Happy Meals deal, had no idea that any such thing was pending.  Thus, in this case I think when the character is credited as a 'Mugger' we're presumably meant to believe he is just that: a 'Mugger'.

As for the possibilities that Batman may not have killed the strongman and the fire breather? I'd be open to strongman (the fire breather is possible), but Daniel Waters was quoted justifying Batman's lethal attitude awhile ago (can't find the original link though): "We live in dark times. You can't just drop bad guys off in a spider web in front of city hall."

That's a decent quote but it doesn't offer de facto evidence that the Strongman and the Fire Breather were in fact killed.  And just to be clear, I'm not definitively saying they survived; far from it.  I'm simply arguing that the film leaves things vague enough that there is a possibility, particularly within the fantasy context this film is set in, that they survived.

I'm not really convinced that the bomb was harmless. If Burton wanted to, he could've shown Batman tampering with the bomb to turn it into a dud, and show the strongman had survived but hurt. He didn't. I don't quite care though, it's not like Batman had a moral code or anything.

I don't think Burton was concerned in exonerating Batman of such brutality (after all he killed several more goons in the supposedly 'lighter' 1989 Batman, and in all those cases, particularly firing several of them with Batwing missiles, there was next-to-no ambiguity in their fates).  I'm just saying that the film is open to interpretation, and that moreover many of the deaths are purposefully cartoonish, the Strong Man's in particular, befitting a fantastical world akin to a cross-between a Grimm Fairy-tale and a Looney Tunes cartoon.

[Dagenspear]

The good ones (Nicholson, Hamill, Romero) have had a charm. There's something magnetic about their versions that draws you in and makes you giggle even in their homicidal moments.

I've thought that they all were pretty good. I wouldn't even say that Nicholson's had charm really. No more than with Ledger anyway. But if giggling in their moments is what we're talking about, then I had that with Ledger too. I don't remember enough about Romero to know if he had that. But the only one I really think had charm, as I view it, was BTAS Hamill. Though I found Ledger, Nicholson, Hamill, Monaghan and others versions magnetic too. Have a very great day!

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[BatmAngelus]

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/feature/a790384/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-amazing-behind-the-scenes-secrets-from-the-tech-manual/

Robin apparently isn't holding his signature staff from the comics, but is actually carrying a halberd, which is a form of axe. So Robin was hacking at criminals??

[The Dark Knight]

Hopefully.

[Silver Nemesis]

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/feature/a790384/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-amazing-behind-the-scenes-secrets-from-the-tech-manual/

Robin apparently isn't holding his signature staff from the comics, but is actually carrying a halberd, which is a form of axe. So Robin was hacking at criminals??

I can't wait to hear Snyder's justification for this. I can imagine it now...

"I'm all about the comics, man. And there's this cool scene in The Dark Knight Returns where Robin's on a rollercoaster chasing some bad guy – I think it was Bane or something – and some dumb kid gets in the way. So he [sic] totally hacks this kid's head off with an axe. And I figured it'd be cool if Robin tested the boundaries of his moral code by hacking some mooks to death. Man, that'd be so cool. For me, The Dark Knight Returns totally defines what Jason Grayson's [sic] all about."

And here's the 'decapitation' scene Snyder's alluding to:

[The Dark Knight]

The splatter behind the mutant in the "I believe you" scene in TDK Returns makes the strong case Batman shot to kill. Miller knows what he intended, and I'm of the opinion he told Snyder during one of their meetings. Though I can appreciate the scene is ambiguous and open to interpretation, so in that sense I don't think Snyder is worthy of ridicule. Nor does he really have to justify himself. It's his interpretation of the comic, just as I think the goon in TDK Returns bought it, given the seriousness of the situation. I mean, the animated movie adaption cops out with the scene, doing a different scenario instead of what the comic presents. So believe what you want happened.

[Silver Nemesis]

The splatter behind the mutant in the "I believe you" scene in TDK Returns makes the strong case Batman shot to kill.

Not to sound condescending, but if Snyder had bothered to actually read TDKR instead of simply looking at the pictures then he would have seen the list of charges levelled against Batman after he resumed his crime fighting career:

•   Breaking and entering
•   Assault and battery
•   Creating a public menace

This scene occurs after the incident where Batman shoots the Mutant gang member, and yet there's no mention of a murder charge. Wouldn't Yindel of all people have held Batman accountable if one of the gang members had died during that scene?

In point of fact, Batman isn't charged with murder until after the Joker frames him.

"Murder is added to the charges against the Batman..."

Prior to that, in another scene occurring after the incident with the gang member, Lana Lang clearly states that Batman has never killed anyone.

And when Batman first confronts the Mutant gang leader, he reflects how easy it would be to simply kill him using the Batmobile's armaments: "Though that means crossing a line I drew for myself thirty years ago." This quote is taken from Batman's internal monologue, so he has absolutely no incentive to lie to himself. And once again, this occurs after the scene where he shoots the gang member.

The artwork in the shooting scene might be ambiguous, but the text itself isn't. Batman did not kill anyone in The Dark Knight Returns. All Batman comic fans know this, and if Snyder was as big a fan of TDKR as he claims he is then he would've known it too.

Miller knows what he intended, and I'm of the opinion he told Snyder during one of their meetings.

Possibly. But that wouldn't change the fact that Snyder tried to defend a controversial aspect of his film by citing a comic book panel that doesn't exist. Nowhere in TDKR or any other Batman comic does Batman shoot someone between the eyes with a gun. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't happen.

I don't think Snyder is worthy of ridicule.

Schumacher and Nolan have been ridiculed mercilessly on these boards. I see no reason whatsoever why Snyder should be exempt from criticism. Why is it ok to say eff-you to the critics and call them out for doing their jobs, but we can't call out the one man who many fans feel is endangering the DCEU in the first place?

Nor does he really have to justify himself.

Evidently he feels the need to do so.

So believe what you want happened.

Well I've read the book – many times – so I know what happened.

[BatmAngelus]

"I'm all about the comics, man. And there's this cool scene in The Dark Knight Returns where Robin's on a rollercoaster chasing some bad guy – I think it was Bane or something – and some dumb kid gets in the way. So he [sic] totally hacks this kid's head off with an axe. And I figured it'd be cool if Robin tested the boundaries of his moral code by hacking some mooks to death. Man, that'd be so cool. For me, The Dark Knight Returns totally defines what Jason Grayson's [sic] all about."

And here's the 'decapitation' scene Snyder's alluding to:

Nowhere in TDKR or any other Batman comic does Batman shoot someone between the eyes with a gun. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't happen.

I always interpreted that the Mutant thug got shot in the shoulder instead, due to the blood splatter on the wall, but definitely wasn't killed, due to everything mentioned after that SN cited. Anatoli getting burned to death in the film is more violent than what actually happened in the panel.

Miller's Batman doesn't kill until The Dark Knight Strikes Again. There, he runs over Lex Luthor's staff with the Batmobile, slices a guy in half with his "new cape," and hacks off Dick Grayson's head in an attempt to kill him (and gets disappointed when Grayson catches/reattaches the head). He also maims Luthor by carving a Z in his head and has Hawkman's son execute Luthor. Perhaps Snyder should've cited that as the "comic where Batman kills a lot" instead.

[Catwoman]

http://www.digitalspy.com/movies/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice/feature/a790384/batman-v-superman-dawn-of-justice-amazing-behind-the-scenes-secrets-from-the-tech-manual/

Robin apparently isn't holding his signature staff from the comics, but is actually carrying a halberd, which is a form of axe. So Robin was hacking at criminals??

I can't wait to hear Snyder's justification for this. I can imagine it now...

"I'm all about the comics, man. And there's this cool scene in The Dark Knight Returns where Robin's on a rollercoaster chasing some bad guy – I think it was Bane or something – and some dumb kid gets in the way. So he [sic] totally hacks this kid's head off with an axe. And I figured it'd be cool if Robin tested the boundaries of his moral code by hacking some mooks to death. Man, that'd be so cool. For me, The Dark Knight Returns totally defines what Jason Grayson's [sic] all about."

And here's the 'decapitation' scene Snyder's alluding to:

lmfao this is like the post of all eternity. The "sics" and everything, just perfect, hahaha.