I got an impression that the Gotham City police were divided over Batman's brutal methods in BvS.
On one hand, it seemed the police were enabling Batman's excessive violence, despite some scrutiny from the media. Even Clark in the UE, noticed this as he saw a cartoon sketch of a cop armed with a "baseball bat" while investigating Santos' death at the GCPD, and later threatened Batman not to respond if they light the Batsignal in the sky next time.
On the other hand, some cops had issues with Batman. One freaked out and shot at Batman at the house where Santos was branded, nearly hitting his partner in the process. The other cop mentioned "try not to shoot the good guys", which might mean Batman is bordering on complete outlaw territory...or it might mean he's trying to warn his partner not to be a clumsy and dangerous idiot, haha. Both cops look on with shock as they saw the mark that Batman left behind on Santos.
Even the cop at the GCPD who nodded at Clark to speak to Santos' girlfriend appeared to have some reservations over what Batman is doing, implicitly encouraging Clark, as a reporter, to gain further insight into how Batman is thought of becoming of a symbol of impunity as he is becoming intense.
I got the impression the police are split on the Batman. Some want him arrested yesterday, some are totally willing to look the other way. If there's a bat signal, he has some level of acceptance with the police.
Agreed. Same for the public. The best example is when Clark visits the apartment in Gotham. One woman says the only people who fear Batman have reason to. The other man basically thinks everyone should take no chances. Stay indoors and be safe. It's split. I think it's important to remember Batfleck has been around for 20 years. For the 'branding is OK' crowd, there's a sense of trust in him. He's a mysterious element but he has kept the people safe for a long time, and for that, he has credits in the bank. For the 'branding is not OK' crowd, there's a point where people lose the plot and must be stopped. The past means nothing and it's all about today.
Personally, I liked the branding plotline. Making the contrasts between Batman and Superman even greater than what they were previously. Making Batman a hardliner pushed to the extreme. Someone who really would raise the attention of Superman and generate debate such as this on the street. Someone who could also be positively changed from interacting with Superman. I think that's where the film succeeded. They were inspired by certain comics, such as TDK Returns and Kingdom Come, but did something fresh with the concept.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 30 Sep 2016, 02:59
I got the impression the police are split on the Batman. Some want him arrested yesterday, some are totally willing to look the other way.
That might also explain why Batman was hiding up in the attic when the cop found Santos all tied up, branded and beaten. He'd have no way of knowing if the cop would co-operate with him or not.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 30 Sep 2016, 07:56
Personally, I liked the branding plotline. Making the contrasts between Batman and Superman even greater than what they were previously. Making Batman a hardliner pushed to the extreme. Someone who really would raise the attention of Superman and generate debate such as this on the street. Someone who could also be positively changed from interacting with Superman. I think that's where the film succeeded. They were inspired by certain comics, such as TDK Returns and Kingdom Come, but did something fresh with the concept.
I agree. It's too bad all of this gets ignored and misunderstood because some people genuinely thought the conflict between Superman and Batman was resolved thanks to their mothers sharing the same name. Between this and how some people thought Martha was encouraging Clark not to care about humanity back at the farm, I can't decide which is the biggest screw-up by the audience.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 30 Sep 2016, 07:56Personally, I liked the branding plotline. Making the contrasts between Batman and Superman even greater than what they were previously. Making Batman a hardliner pushed to the extreme. Someone who really would raise the attention of Superman and generate debate such as this on the street. Someone who could also be positively changed from interacting with Superman. I think that's where the film succeeded. They were inspired by certain comics, such as TDK Returns and Kingdom Come, but did something fresh with the concept.
Batman wasn't positively changed by interacting with Superman, because just interacting with a human person the way they do can't change people. Of course fighting and having something in common has nothing to do with interacting really. But it's funny that someone who brands people gains the attention of someone who smashes people through walls,
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 30 Sep 2016, 13:05I agree. It's too bad all of this gets ignored and misunderstood because some people genuinely thought the conflict between Superman and Batman was resolved thanks to their mothers sharing the same name. Between this and how some people thought Martha was encouraging Clark not to care about humanity back at the farm, I can't decide which is the biggest screw-up by the audience.
It's not ignored. Because there's nothing there. They don't really have any interaction like that. The conflict was literally resolved because their mom's had the same name. That's it. Batman wasn't inspired by Superman or his interaction with him in any way, because they didn't have an interaction that had any meaning to them as people. Have a very great day!
God bless you all!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 30 Sep 2016, 13:05
I agree. It's too bad all of this gets ignored and misunderstood because some people genuinely thought the conflict between Superman and Batman was resolved thanks to their mothers sharing the same name. Between this and how some people thought Martha was encouraging Clark not to care about humanity back at the farm, I can't decide which is the biggest screw-up by the audience.
Indeed. I know the haters can't stand it, so I'm going to say it. They simply don't get the movie. Period.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 30 Sep 2016, 07:56Personally, I liked the branding plotline. Making the contrasts between Batman and Superman even greater than what they were previously. Making Batman a hardliner pushed to the extreme. Someone who really would raise the attention of Superman and generate debate such as this on the street. Someone who could also be positively changed from interacting with Superman. I think that's where the film succeeded. They were inspired by certain comics, such as TDK Returns and Kingdom Come, but did something fresh with the concept.
The bat-branding plays for me because it deepens Batman's connection to Zorro. It's a connection about which Bob Kane made no bones. A lot of Batman comes directly from Zorro. So a darker, TDKR-style Batman who brands his enemies in a very brutal way plays up the Zorro aspect and the TDKR aspect at the same time.
I wouldn't necessarily be as big a pain in the ass about the Zorro thing as I'm being right now... except
CLEARLY Snyder had his thinking cap on because he made a point of including the Waynes exiting the Mark of Zorro before Thomas and Martha fulfilled their literary mandate (eg, dying in the gutter for no reason at all). Had Snyder not included that Mark of Zorro detail, had it been
ANY other movie, I wouldn't mention the branding/Zorro thing. But since Snyder is mentioning it himself...
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 30 Sep 2016, 13:05That might also explain why Batman was hiding up in the attic when the cop found Santos all tied up, branded and beaten. He'd have no way of knowing if the cop would co-operate with him or not.
Heh, I originally typed this same point in my post but I deleted it because I thought it would be better if someone else mentioned it. :)
And here we are.
Also worthy of mention is the fact Lex has these brandees shanked in prison. It's likely these deaths wouldn't have happened in the first place without his interference. Bruce probably doesn't care either way given his apathetic attitude, but nonetheless, Lex uses this to his advantage by sending the photos to Clark.
The outrage over Batman's branding of criminals in BvS, as well as Clark trashing a creep's truck who was trying to harass that waitress in the bar in MOS, has made me question a lot of people's morality and priorities (which isn't the first time to be honest), because they seem to care more about fictional characters than real life controversies.
So, Batman branding Santos and a child predator as reported in a news bulletin in the theatrical cut is a touchy topic for some people, but a director like James Gunn repeatedly "joking" about wanting to rape women and children over a long period of time is nothing to get alarmed about? If I didn't know any better, it sounds like these critics are enabling this attitude in an industry that is rife with allegations and investigations over such abuse for years. The scary thing is I wouldn't be surprised if these Gunn defenders would still defend him even if he did abuse somebody.
Regardless, I'm not suggesting others should take matters into their own hands and seek retribution out there in the real world. Without due process, society would definitely be far worse off. All I'm saying is I'm annoyed people choose to ignore the narrative established Batman's actions and get bothered by a fictional story, while trying to excuse the behaviour of a man they don't even know in real life.
Over the years, I've seen willfully ignorant fanboy morons making up excuses to justify why Batman's kills in previous movies aren't as deplorable as BvS. The most common excuse I've seen is Batman didn't "actively kill" in previous incidents.
Well, going by their logic, you can easily make the argument that Batman didn't "actively kill" in BvS either. Let's go through it together:
-Branding the sexual predator Santos: Batman caught the man who had enslaved these women in a dungeon. He's not responsible if the deviants he brands get killed in prison.
-The Knightmare scene: Batman was double-crossed and saw his army violently gunned down in the middle of a war zone. Focusing only whatever he does next overlooks the fact he'd be taken in as a prisoner of war, or worse, become the next one to be eliminated.
-The Batmobile chase scene: the crooks were the ones who opened fire at Batman first. If you can say Batman kills in self-defence in other movies, you can easily apply that logic to see this scene too.
-LexCorp raid: we only see people who were seriously injured or put in a coma after Batman stole the Kryptonite. Nobody died.
-The Warehouse scene: again, the crooks were the ones who opened fire at Batman first, and he retaliated by firing back while flying in the Batwing. Actually, if you have a look at how Batman first erupted from the floor during that warehouse scene, Batman could've been more brutal when he blew up some of the mercernaries' guns by getting them killed instantly. Instead, the bombs he set off disarmed those crooks and put them in a temporary state of shock.
Batman did indirectly cause a couple of them to die in a grenade explosion, but he wasn't the one who pulled the trigger. The idiot who unleashed that grenade was more responsible for endangering himself and his fellow gang members, let alone his own demise.
And yes, in the Ultimate Edition, Batman does kill that culprit when he threw that crate into that mercenary's face. But again, considering he was caught in a fight between life and death, you can still make an argument that he did it in self-defence.
-Killing Anatoli Knyazev: Batman had no choice but to stop Knyazev from burning Martha Kent alive. He had two options: either shoot Knyazev right in the head (as Zack Snyder was considering when he envisioned this scene), or shoot at the flamethrower tank. Batman chose the latter option, which would've given Knayzev a chance to survive if he had the sense to take his gear off immediately. If you look at that scene carefully, Knyazev looked as if he tried to pull trigger at Batman and Martha instead. Like the idiot unleashing the grenade, Knyazev was responsible for his own demise. Batman's goal was saving the hostage, not necessarily trying to kill the culprit.
The only moment where Batman comes close to actively killing anybody was his intention to kill Superman; which of course, he didn't go through with it. Other than that, I don't see how any of the kills would classify as "murder", as a lot of detractors claim. Despite how brutal his responses were, to call Batman in BvS "a pure cold-blooded murderer" is a stretch, in retrospect. Never mind the fact his decision to spare Lex from the branding in the end signals the end of his reactive approach to crime-fighting.
But I guess as long as a movie depicts Batman killing people either for laughs or have him paying lip service against taking lives but does it anyway, that gives the movie a pass, right? What a load of hypocritical, phony garbage.
To paraphrase the late Bill Hicks, I want these people to go and find a f***ing soul.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 6 Apr 2019, 03:30
Over the years, I've seen willfully ignorant fanboy morons making up excuses to justify why Batman's kills in previous movies aren't as deplorable as BvS. The most common excuse I've seen is Batman didn't "actively kill" in previous incidents.
Well, going by their logic, you can easily make the argument that Batman didn't "actively kill" in BvS either. Let's go through it together:
-Branding the sexual predator Santos: Batman caught the man who had enslaved these women in a dungeon. He's not responsible if the deviants he brands get killed in prison.
-The Knightmare scene: Batman was double-crossed and saw his army violently gunned down in the middle of a war zone. Focusing only whatever he does next overlooks the fact he'd be taken in as a prisoner of war, or worse, become the next one to be eliminated.
I haven't so much seen branding listed as him killing them by those who don't like the movie.
I've seen those who are against the Knightmare scene. But it's not something I think much about. It's a dark future dream or something.
Quote-The Batmobile chase scene: the crooks were the ones who opened fire at Batman first. If you can say Batman kills in self-defence in other movies, you can easily apply that logic to see this scene too.
-LexCorp raid: we only see people who were seriously injured or put in a coma after Batman stole the Kryptonite. Nobody died.
-The Warehouse scene: again, the crooks were the ones who opened fire at Batman first, and he retaliated by firing back while flying in the Batwing. Actually, if you have a look at how Batman first erupted from the floor during that warehouse scene, Batman could've been more brutal when he blew up some of the mercernaries' guns by getting them killed instantly. Instead, the bombs he set off disarmed those crooks and put them in a temporary state of shock.
I don't think that necessarily plays when Batman comes at them and I don't think we have much to say he needs defense in that.
I think we see paramedics seemingly trying to save someone's life. Though I can't be certain. Though I focus more on him just attacking and hurting what I guess are security guards enough for them to need that.
I think we don't have much to say he was in danger in the batwing. Though I think it's more needlessly reckless and violent than anything and puts Martha's life at risk in doing it.
Quote-Killing Anatoli Knyazev: Batman had no choice but to stop Knyazev from burning Martha Kent alive. He had two options: either shoot Knyazev right in the head (as Zack Snyder was considering when he envisioned this scene), or shoot at the flamethrower tank. Batman chose the latter option, which would've given Knayzev a chance to survive if he had the sense to take his gear off immediately. If you look at that scene carefully, Knyazev looked as if he tried to pull trigger at Batman and Martha instead. Like the idiot unleashing the grenade, Knyazev was responsible for his own demise. Batman's goal was saving the hostage, not necessarily trying to kill the culprit.
I'm not even sure he died.
QuoteThe only moment where Batman comes close to actively killing anybody was his intention to kill Superman; which of course, he didn't go through with it. Other than that, I don't see how any of the kills would classify as "murder", as a lot of detractors claim. Despite how brutal his responses were, to call Batman in BvS "a pure cold-blooded murderer" is a stretch, in retrospect. Never mind the fact his decision to spare Lex from the branding in the end signals the end of his reactive approach to crime-fighting.
I think him planning it like he did and even nearly doing it, only to be stopped by seeing Clark as a person, could be an issue. I don't know if this is brought up much though, but I don't think having a character that I'm supposed to see as a heroic figure at some point be trying to kill another heroic character based on his existence is something some want and asks questions about whether he can be trusted.
QuoteBut I guess as long as a movie depicts Batman killing people either for laughs or have him paying lip service against taking lives but does it anyway, that gives the movie a pass, right? What a load of hypocritical, phony garbage.
I think it's more to show that it's something he struggles with and doesn't want to do. Maybe he'll break it (Nolan), or maybe it'll never say something either way for the most part (Burton). But I think having it and showing the character struggle with it works more for me, than the character just being that way due to events that we haven't seen and the movie not showing people react to killing, but to the branding.
I found this great rebuttal by a fan in response to the clickbait hack media taking Zack Snyder's words out of context on the subject of Batman killing recently at a fan convention, even going so far to post the full transcript of what he said.
Source: https://www.hypable.com/zack-snyder-does-not-think-killing-makes-batman-cool-or-heroic/
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 24 Apr 2019, 15:17
I found this great rebuttal by a fan in response to the clickbait hack media taking Zack Snyder's words out of context on the subject of Batman killing recently at a fan convention, even going so far to post the full transcript of what he said.
Source: https://www.hypable.com/zack-snyder-does-not-think-killing-makes-batman-cool-or-heroic/
I don't get why him doing that with Watchman means he should do it with other characters.
I get it. Batman is supposed to go through a situation. But I think, and this guy seems to think so too, Batman's made to be a villain. And I think doing that asks questions the movie doesn't answer. The situation isn't dealt with to me. It's bears that idea, but doesn't resolve it to me. Does this mean this Batman can go back to that? Why should others trust his judgement if he can? The movie paints over those questions to me about how men are good. Men aren't good. That shouldn't be the point. Why does believing in humanity mean you don't kill? What are the consequences for this? Not just for Bruce personally, but also for others? Would Gordon have turned him away or tried to arrest him him? Would he have turned himself over to the cops? Truly repented and found God? Would Alfred have been angry and hurt by his fall? Other batfamily members be unwilling to trust him? I don't think all these questions would be answered because they weren't or at least personally explored for Clark in MOS or BvS in regards to the destruction of Metropolis and to killing Zod to me.
Realistically, I get it, Batman would fall short, but what else? I don't think the movie showcases those consequences. I think the situations feel to me like Batman's put in them for the sake of it, not dealing with it.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 28 May 2019, 07:08
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 24 Apr 2019, 15:17
I found this great rebuttal by a fan in response to the clickbait hack media taking Zack Snyder's words out of context on the subject of Batman killing recently at a fan convention, even going so far to post the full transcript of what he said.
Source: https://www.hypable.com/zack-snyder-does-not-think-killing-makes-batman-cool-or-heroic/
I don't get why him doing that with Watchman means he should do it with other characters.
I get it. Batman is supposed to go through a situation. But I think, and this guy seems to think so too, Batman's made to be a villain. And I think doing that asks questions the movie doesn't answer. The situation isn't dealt with to me. It's bears that idea, but doesn't resolve it to me. Does this mean this Batman can go back to that? Why should others trust his judgement if he can? The movie paints over those questions to me about how men are good. Men aren't good. That shouldn't be the point. Why does believing in humanity mean you don't kill? What are the consequences for this? Not just for Bruce personally, but also for others? Would Gordon have turned him away or tried to arrest him him? Would he have turned himself over to the cops? Truly repented and found God? Would Alfred have been angry and hurt by his fall? Other batfamily members be unwilling to trust him? I don't think all these questions would be answered because they weren't or at least personally explored for Clark in MOS or BvS in regards to the destruction of Metropolis and to killing Zod to me.
Realistically, I get it, Batman would fall short, but what else? I don't think the movie showcases those consequences. I think the situations feel to me like Batman's put in them for the sake of it, not dealing with it.
Putting aside the completeness of Batman's character arc in BVS, sometimes I wonder if you grasp the difference between writing for television and writing for film.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 28 May 2019, 13:46Putting aside the completeness of Batman's character arc in BVS, sometimes I wonder if you grasp the difference between writing for television and writing for film.
My perspective on something like that is that if a movie is trying to present a story, I think that it shouldn't expect me to trust it when when I think it doesn't complete that story. I don't think MOS or BvS really dealt with the consequences of the destruction of metropolis in a strong way. Why should I trust it to do something other than that with Batman from movie to movie? I want the movie to give me an idea in where we're headed. Maybe Bruce's line at the end instead is: " You were right. Men aren't good. But that's not the point. Fighting in spite of that is. I lost sight of it. He showed me that." I remember hearing how Batman was going die or something in Snyder's ideas, which while it does put it into perspective what Snyder did with him, I think is more going there to try and get an easy out for the character. A speech about men being good I came to the impression that the story's not gonna hold Batman's actions against him and have him have consequences for those, outside his guilt anyway and what he does to himself.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 28 May 2019, 07:08
I get it. Batman is supposed to go through a situation. But I think, and this guy seems to think so too, Batman's made to be a villain.
I mostly see it as a good guy using rougher methods on bad guys. I think that's the way Gordon and other members of the Bat family would look at it, too. Batman's rage made him a more effective crimefighter at the detriment of his humanity. That was the trade off.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 28 May 2019, 07:08
Does this mean this Batman can go back to that? Why should others trust his judgement if he can?
Yes, under the right circumstances. Batman is a control freak and that component needs to be satisfied for him to be of a sound mind. The arrival of Superman pushed Batman's buttons.
He can be referred to as the most dangerous man alive for good reason. Doubting his judgement only makes him more interesting as a tortured loner, so I don't see much of a downside there.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 29 May 2019, 09:20I don't think MOS or BvS really dealt with the consequences of the destruction of metropolis in a strong way.
Yep, okay, we're done here, thanks.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 29 May 2019, 10:56Yes, under the right circumstances. Batman is a control freak and that component needs to be satisfied for him to be of a sound mind. The arrival of Superman pushed Batman's buttons.
He can be referred to as the most dangerous man alive for good reason. Doubting his judgement only makes him more interesting as a tortured loner, so I don't see much of a downside there.
I think the movies weren't going to deal with that idea. And that the end of BvS didn't deal with it. Maybe they would've, but I thought the end of BvS was painting it as he's reformed and trusted now.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Wed, 29 May 2019, 23:01Yep, okay, we're done here, thanks.
Batman dislikes Superman for it and there's that guy. The government and society doesn't seem to have an issue with it. Clark I think doesn't express any guilt or issues about it, or about killing Zod. And I think MOS doesn't do that either. Clark yells out and cries and is fine in the next scene.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Thu, 30 May 2019, 07:06
I think the movies weren't going to deal with that idea. And that the end of BvS didn't deal with it. Maybe they would've, but I thought the end of BvS was painting it as he's reformed and trusted now.
I think SnyderLeague would've had a more psychologically tormented Bruce than what we were given. Being trusted but having functional depression, with it culminating in the finale.
Attracting the parademons being his good death, ala burning up his race car at the beginning of TDK Returns. Whereas in the released version Batman seems overly ambitious to the point of being stupid.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 1 Jun 2019, 00:25I think SnyderLeague would’ve had a more psychologically tormented Bruce than what we were given. Being trusted but having functional depression, with it culminating in the finale.
Attracting the parademons being his good death, ala burning up his race car at the beginning of TDK Returns. Whereas in the released version Batman seems overly ambitious to the point of being stupid.
From what I've heard/read, that basically matches up, but it seems like an easier way out in the story to me than I'd have preferred.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 1 Jun 2019, 23:43
From what I've heard/read, that basically matches up, but it seems like an easier way out in the story to me than I'd have preferred.
I think it would've worked, considering Bruce still had to be a functional human being in recruiting various League members. Batman keeps secrets and burdens, such as the Knightmare vision. Having a death wish wouldn't be out of character.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 2 Jun 2019, 07:55I think it would've worked, considering Bruce still had to be a functional human being in recruiting various League members. Batman keeps secrets and burdens, such as the Knightmare vision. Having a death wish wouldn't be out of character.
I think they could've had Bruce not be able to recruit them, because they don't like him for what he's done and/or don't trust him, and they come together out of necessity. I wouldn't argue it's out of character, more an easy out for Bruce's character having consequences for his actions, in that he feels guilty enough to try and get himself killed. Instead of dealing with the outward consequences more directly. I think that's more structuring the story to fit around Bruce's character.
I want Gordon to be against him. The league members to be untrusting of him and what he says. Diana to be apprehensive about his issues and his goals. Alfred to be angry about Bruce thinking he can just go back to the way things were without strong consequences for his actions. I think that's a realistic set of consequences for Bruce's actions. Maybe even Bruce can truly find God and get some help in his issues.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 3 Jun 2019, 03:08
I want Gordon to be against him. The league members to be untrusting of him and what he says. Diana to be apprehensive about his issues and his goals. Alfred to be angry about Bruce thinking he can just go back to the way things were without strong consequences for his actions. I think that's a realistic set of consequences for Bruce's actions.
I don't think SnyderLeague would've gone down this direction (not that it matters anymore), but I don't dislike your ideas here. Lots of good material to flesh out in a hypothetical continuation of BvS.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 3 Jun 2019, 03:08
Maybe even Bruce can truly find God and get some help in his issues.
How do you feel about vigilantism without killing in terms of being a follower of God? Do you think violence against criminals is still a disqualification, or is it tolerated from a good versus evil perspective?
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Jun 2019, 03:31
How do you feel about vigilantism without killing in terms of being a follower of God? Do you think violence against criminals is still a disqualification, or is it tolerated from a good versus evil perspective?
I'll take a swing at that after Dagen answers.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Jun 2019, 03:31I don't think SnyderLeague would've gone down this direction (not that it matters anymore), but I don't dislike your ideas here. Lots of good material to flesh out in a hypothetical continuation of BvS.
I think that by taking Batman into a darker place, stuff like that has weight for the story. In the movies I think it's too easy.
QuoteHow do you feel about vigilantism without killing in terms of being a follower of God? Do you think violence against criminals is still a disqualification, or is it tolerated from a good versus evil perspective?
An important thing to always keep in mind as a Christian id forgiveness. The Holy Bible's Old Testament speaks of punishment for crimes, in some cases being put to death, depending on the severity of the crime. The New Testament, as I understand it, speaks toward the forgiveness of everyone, and for us as Christians to treat people as if they've been saved, because Jesus has died for sins, I think whether they've accepted it or not. Jesus Himself forgave a woman of apparent adultery when men brought her to Him for her to be stoned.
As far as it relates to Batman, as a fan, I like the idea of Batman being unofficially deputized in a lot of ways. I think Batman has a push and pull to where he seeks to help people but drives himself into pain and anger. Batman, irregardless of my liking of him, is a fictional character. But in this context, it's not justified, but it can happen. Redemption at that stage isn't impossible for him, even in BvS.
In a way, that's one of the things I like about the Martha scene. Bruce gives this big thing where he talks about the lesson his parents taught him, dying in the gutter for no reason at all, only to, by sheer if this were real life I'd call it divine intervention, the person he saw as an alien monster's mom has the same name as his mom that's had such a big impact on his life and I think of it as a wakeup call for his cynicism, the lie that he's believed that his parent's death had no reason, he sees that that's not true and he realizes redemption for himself is possible. Whether all this was planned in film, I don't know, but I like it.
So I think, in particular for Batman, there's an idea of potential redemption. I think Batman himself isn't against the idea either. I think back to BTAS/TNBA and there being a few episodes where Bruce showed kindness to criminals and/or maybe supervillains.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not religious but I see Batman pretty much in the way Harvey describes in TDK - someone fighting crime and his deeds being a necessity, even if it's also an ongoing psychological need for Bruce. "When their enemies were at the gates, the Romans would suspend democracy and appoint one man to protect the city. It wasn't considered an honor, it was considered a public service." Which also happens to play into your unofficial deputization idea for the character.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 3 Jun 2019, 19:02
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Jun 2019, 03:31
How do you feel about vigilantism without killing in terms of being a follower of God? Do you think violence against criminals is still a disqualification, or is it tolerated from a good versus evil perspective?
I'll take a swing at that after Dagen answers.
Over to you.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 3 Jun 2019, 19:02
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 3 Jun 2019, 03:31
How do you feel about vigilantism without killing in terms of being a follower of God? Do you think violence against criminals is still a disqualification, or is it tolerated from a good versus evil perspective?
I'll take a swing at that after Dagen answers.
I believe that God has given the state broad authority to maintain law and order, promote the common welfare and otherwise create conditions whereby citizens can grow and reach their potential.
Thus, while God probably doesn't like the idea of, say, the death penalty as a concept, I think He understands what's necessary to maintain civil authority and public safety. I believe this falls within the legitimate authority of the state which was given by God.
If the state abdicates its responsibilities in this matter, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that in my opinion while God may dislike vigilantism, He dislikes chaos, corruption and wholesale destablization even more than vigilantism. While I don't think that vigilantes would or should expect to receive the same latitude from God that the legitimate state has received, I also don't necessarily think that God would condemn acts of vigilantism which are done as honestly, humanely, fairly and with as pure-of-heart motives as possible.
In the end, human justice will always have very strict limitations to it. But just because our justice is limited does not mean we should not continue to pursue justice. To do so would be, I think, a denial of God's established order and possibly tantamount to an insult to the Lord Himself.
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 4 Jun 2019, 08:23
The Holy Bible's Old Testament speaks of punishment for crimes, in some cases being put to death, depending on the severity of the crime.
Back to this. As I'm not a Bible Blieven' Christian my knowledge isn't as extensive as yours. But nonetheless, my favorite fable is the crossing of the Red Sea. Why? Because it demonstrates a God who is absolutely willing to kill evildoers - in this instance washing away the Egyptians. It also shows the vital importance of timing. When all seems lost justice is dealt onto unsuspecting foes, granting the forces of good victory. Death isn't attractive but it can be necessary.
Zack Snyder was interviewed by Joe Rogan the other day. Among a lot of things, Snyder touched upon the reaction towards Batman's killing in BvS, and spoke how he was inspired by deconstructionism and Miller's Dark Knight Returns.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3suBldl7WOo&ab_channel=JREClips
I did chuckle when Rogan said he didn't know Batman doesn't normally kill in the comics, and he finds it ridiculous given the stakes.
Hypocritical Batman fans can make up excuses to give their favourite interpretations a pass all they want while trying to justify their condemnation for what happened in BvS. But at least BvS doesn't shy away from Batman's actions and state of mind throughout the film. The only other film that came close to that was Batman Forever.
As for Snyder's description of the "I believe you" scene in DKR in comparison to his version in BvS, some fanboys will insist Snyder misunderstood the scene. Not only was that scene ambiguous at best, even DKR animated director Jay Oliva believed Batman killed in that scene:
Quote from: Jay OlivaMy interpretation was that he shot the thug in the head. I noticed the times Batman loses his s*** is when children are involved. He won't break his rule but if it would mean a child would be killed then I think he'd make an exception. Remember his parents died when he was a kid
We changed it in the movie to the hand to keep it simpler and to drive the narrative forward. That sequence needs a lot more exploration and deep dive into what Batman is willing to do or not to do for justice. I didn't have that luxury in the film to explore.
We barely had enough time to fit everything into 2 films as it was!
But I do find that concept fascinating. Especially in the context of a DKR Batman.
https://twitter.com/jayoliva1/status/1197982683608993792