David Ayer's original cut probably sucks too. In fact, having seen some of the deleted scenes with Joker and Harley, it might be even worse, just in different ways.
I've noticed a pattern with the DCEU movies. They have choppy editing, all the super-heroes have "fallen" in some way (even WW!), they have terrible villains, they are tone deaf about how the public will react to them, and they love flashbacks. Sometimes they're perfectly ok with repeating the same flashback over again assuming you've forget about it*, and they are obsessed with comics from the 80's and 90's.
David Ayer's original cut probably sucks too. In fact, having seen some of the deleted scenes with Joker and Harley, it might be even worse, just in different ways.
Yea, video dudes says that. He doesn't think SS was a lost classic due to studio meddling just that the meddling hurt it even more than the poor story. He makes some great points about it being edited like it's a trailer in many ways.
I've noticed a pattern with the DCEU movies. They have choppy editing, all the super-heroes have "fallen" in some way (even WW!), they have terrible villains, they are tone deaf about how the public will react to them, and they love flashbacks. Sometimes they're perfectly ok with repeating the same flashback over again assuming you've forget about it*, and they are obsessed with comics from the 80's and 90's.
* B vs S in particular
DC movies have absolutely zero faith in their audience. Video dude does a very good job of establishing that.
Which is just as well anyways because they don't have anything to reward that faith with.
I've noticed a pattern with the DCEU movies. They have choppy editing, all the super-heroes have "fallen" in some way (even WW!), they have terrible villains, they are tone deaf about how the public will react to them, and they love flashbacks. Sometimes they're perfectly ok with repeating the same flashback over again assuming you've forget about it*, and they are obsessed with comics from the 80's and 90's.
* B vs S in particular
It's very weird that the DC Cinematic Murderverse tries so hard to be "realistic" (read: grim n' gritty) yet they seem to fetishize comic continuity.
Meanwhile Marvel jettisoned everything from Civil War other than "Cap and Iron Man disagree about politics and it leads to punching."
Switch: 3947-4890-9293
+1
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
I've noticed a pattern with the DCEU movies. They have choppy editing, all the super-heroes have "fallen" in some way (even WW!), they have terrible villains, they are tone deaf about how the public will react to them, and they love flashbacks. Sometimes they're perfectly ok with repeating the same flashback over again assuming you've forget about it*, and they are obsessed with comics from the 80's and 90's.
* B vs S in particular
It's very weird that the DC Cinematic Murderverse tries so hard to be "realistic" (read: grim n' gritty) yet they seem to fetishize comic continuity.
Meanwhile Marvel jettisoned everything from Civil War other than "Cap and Iron Man disagree about politics and it leads to punching."
And to be honest, the MCU sticking to the comic stories only very, VERY loosely is one of the best things they do, considering the extremes of story quality found in comics. Hell, the motivations for the MCU Civil War stuff actually make some real damn sense, and the characters have motivations that actually fit the characters instead of suddenly becoming overbearing bad guys for Reasons.
Adhering to comic contuinity would've been one of the worst mistakes they could've made.
He kills because we have Clark to fill the doesn't kill quota. And because it was awesome. The reason it matters is, as he says, it really doesn't. Just whether you liked it or not, same as everything else to do with movies.
Which, incidentally, fits Suicide Squad as well. OK movie. Minus Waller's flying off the handle for some reason that's not explained...
But the Batman in BvS is 50 years old. This is a Batman who has seen some shit and has changed his non-lethal ways.
Except the movie never really told us that killing was a recent development, that was the branding. Despite Alfred's snark he could care less who Batman puts in the ground when they're human. We don't know enough about this Batman to know where he started from, and there's absolutely nothing there directly or implied he started off as not killing! Batman. He wouldn't be the first Batman on film to start off his career by killing people, either.
He kills because we have Clark to fill the doesn't kill quota. And because it was awesome. The reason it matters is, as he says, it really doesn't. Just whether you liked it or not, same as everything else to do with movies.
Killing can be a bad thing when it's actually people, as well. Batman breaking the code to off Superman, because he's "the biggest threat to mankind," would have been an interesting plot line to put through rather than what we got. It could have made more sense, while providing a contrast to a Superman.
But the Batman in BvS is 50 years old. This is a Batman who has seen some shit and has changed his non-lethal ways.
Except the movie never really told us that killing was a recent development, that was the branding. Despite Alfred's snark he could care less who Batman puts in the ground when they're human. We don't know enough about this Batman to know where he started from, and there's absolutely nothing there directly or implied he started off as not killing! Batman. He wouldn't be the first Batman on film to start off his career by killing people, either.
The Gotham cops semi-trusted Batman except for the one rookie who wanted to follow the book and apprehend him. That trust implies Batman was a non-lethal vigilante at some point. Maybe. Kind of.
emnmnme on
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
But the Batman in BvS is 50 years old. This is a Batman who has seen some shit and has changed his non-lethal ways.
Except the movie never really told us that killing was a recent development, that was the branding. Despite Alfred's snark he could care less who Batman puts in the ground when they're human. We don't know enough about this Batman to know where he started from, and there's absolutely nothing there directly or implied he started off as not killing! Batman. He wouldn't be the first Batman on film to start off his career by killing people, either.
The Gotham cops semi-trusted Batman except for the one rookie who wanted to follow the book and apprehend him. That trust implies Batman was a non-lethal vigilante at some point. Maybe. Kind of.
They're lead by Commissioner Jameson, though.
All their trust proves is that at some point he promised to kill Spider-Man.
But the Batman in BvS is 50 years old. This is a Batman who has seen some shit and has changed his non-lethal ways.
Except the movie never really told us that killing was a recent development, that was the branding. Despite Alfred's snark he could care less who Batman puts in the ground when they're human. We don't know enough about this Batman to know where he started from, and there's absolutely nothing there directly or implied he started off as not killing! Batman. He wouldn't be the first Batman on film to start off his career by killing people, either.
The Gotham cops semi-trusted Batman except for the one rookie who wanted to follow the book and apprehend him. That trust implies Batman was a non-lethal vigilante at some point. Maybe. Kind of.
Or they're full of crooked cops who liked how he dealt with criminals. Which would be perfectly in character for Gotham, especially in the DCEU. Being trusted by the cops isn't proof he was non-lethal in the past. Then again, say your correct - when he did cross that line that trust never truly evaporated either.
edit: In lighter settings, like the DCAU, when he was suspected/framed of murdering people the GCPD didn't hold back in trying to shut him down. RE: Phantasm.
Every live action batman except the Adam West one has killed someone onscreen.
True, but at least one live action Batman actually tried his best not to make it his first and last choice. He was nearer to a Captain America (comic) than Punisher. Too bad the follow up reversed that trend, while trying to ape that series success.
The reasons matter. As far as I remember the entire harbor car smashy "I'm gonna drive my tank off a building and through somebodies head" scene was about Batman wanting to keep the Kryptonite out of Luthor's hands because he might do something like kill Superman with it and Batman really wants to murder Superman himself with it.
If we filed off the bat-branding from his toys, painted his ass white and dyed his hair green it'd be indistinguishable from a Joker plot.
Did Clooney kill anyone?
Was... was George Clooney the best movie Batman?
Yes, sort of. He regretted his past, it's implied he's the same Batman as Keaton's (along with Kilmer's*) and doesn't let his vengeance drive him anymore** -- of course this falls apart when he kills Two Face when Robin isn't there.
It's possible he might have killed people, but nothing stands out to me right now and it's been years since I saw the films.
* that's what I assumed
** it comes though at times, thus making him a hypocrite when he scolds Robin over wanting to murder Two Face for revenge
edit: From continuity and prior casting Clooney and Kilmer played the same characters no question. There's less proof that Keaton was the first incarnation, which would make Forever a reboot.
Poison Ivy and Freeze were alive at the end of Batman and Robin --- how did plant Bane die again?
He didn't die, his connection to Venom was cut off and he became a scrawny weakling laying on the ground.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Clooney's Batman is by far the most human portrayal on screen. He's very much the wise, benevolent paternal figure, as befits a film emphasizing the Bat-family he's surrounded himself with. None of the psychotic, driven, unhappy Batman at all. It's rather a good match for Mr. Freeze, one of Batman's most sympathetic villains, and I always liked the way that conflict ends with an act of empathy.
+5
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
Clooney's Batman is by far the most human portrayal on screen. He's very much the wise, benevolent paternal figure, as befits a film emphasizing the Bat-family he's surrounded himself with. None of the psychotic, driven, unhappy Batman at all. It's rather a good match for Mr. Freeze, one of Batman's most sympathetic villains, and I always liked the way that conflict ends with an act of empathy.
Still doesn't match the Batman: TAS Freeze episode
Nolanverse Batman was pretty relatable. Sure, some folks only didn't die due to luck (the whole "pancaking cop cars" thing in Begins), but he was clearly very principled and worked pretty well with others. He was unrealistic about his expectations with Rachel, but he seemed to know as much, and merely wish that things might have been different. Burton-bat was mildly insane like many Burton protagonists, while Battfleck is obviously a broken man (i'm curious if his more reserved conduct in Justice League comes with an explicit admission that he had gone off the rails).
Nolanverse Batman was pretty relatable. Sure, some folks only didn't die due to luck (the whole "pancaking cop cars" thing in Begins), but he was clearly very principled and worked pretty well with others. He was unrealistic about his expectations with Rachel, but he seemed to know as much, and merely wish that things might have been different. Burton-bat was mildly insane like many Burton protagonists, while Battfleck is obviously a broken man (i'm curious if his more reserved conduct in Justice League comes with an explicit admission that he had gone off the rails).
If he's anything like his performance in Suicide Squad
that's been completely dropped. He's a nicer, friendlier Batman who doesn't use guns or kill people anymore*. And for some reason hides his secret identity worse than Ultimate Spider-man.
* excluding the dark future/hallucination/dream sequence/bad acid trip Batman had in the Knightmare sequence
He was still an irresponsible asshole for attacking Deadshot while he was with his daughter.
For this Batman, this makes him look like a saint to how he was in B vs S - that's how far he far he fell in that movie.
My guess is now the DCEU is going to completely ignore his time as being a Punisher fanboy and no one is ever, ever going to bring up his kill count or how the people he branded were murdered in prison.
What perplexing is that WW either is uninterested in truly researching her allies, and she should have no excuses after what she went through when they met or she simply doesn't care. Welp.
+1
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
Want to live? Don't smuggle goods into Gotham Harbor.
And don't hold an aging mother hostage.
A duh.
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Nolanverse Batman was pretty relatable. Sure, some folks only didn't die due to luck (the whole "pancaking cop cars" thing in Begins), but he was clearly very principled and worked pretty well with others. He was unrealistic about his expectations with Rachel, but he seemed to know as much, and merely wish that things might have been different. Burton-bat was mildly insane like many Burton protagonists, while Battfleck is obviously a broken man (i'm curious if his more reserved conduct in Justice League comes with an explicit admission that he had gone off the rails).
If the DCU was competently done, The Batman would be an excellent place to not only establish that Batman has gone too far, but his quest for redemption. Deathstroke as the villain/ foil would work exceedingly well as it would force Batman to confront what he's become.
But DCU isn't competent, and The Batman likely won't accomplish that in any real way shape or form.
"You're a monstrous assassin Deathstroke!"
"Well, I'm amoral at best, but at least my for-profit motives are completely reasonable. You; on the other hand, are just a revenge-obsessed serial sadist with better than average gear."
Want to live? Don't smuggle goods into Gotham Harbor.
And don't hold an aging mother hostage.
A duh.
So, like, how do you think that first one went down?
Do you think he got his private security forces together and said "Hey, I forged some paperwork to bring in this super secret item so I'd like all of you to consider escorting it morally akin to murder/kidnapping/rape/what have you. To be clear, this is highly illegal and I'm informing you all explicitly of that fact so when a murderous asshole in spandex shows up he'll be morally in the clear for ramming his car through your head. Everybody good?"
Like, I'm theoretically okay with a Batman who kills. Shit, that last set up with Superman's mother that Batman just made a connection with Clark over? Where he was saving her in a way he would never ever be able to save his own mother? Sure, cool, he stops at nothing to do that and is SUPER pissed at the goons threatening to kill his mother stand in figure and just loses it and decimates them.
Random security guards because he wants the rock to use as a murder weapon?
Posts
also a very good breakdown on why you shouldn't let a trailer house edit an entire movie.
* B vs S in particular
Yea, video dudes says that. He doesn't think SS was a lost classic due to studio meddling just that the meddling hurt it even more than the poor story. He makes some great points about it being edited like it's a trailer in many ways.
DC movies have absolutely zero faith in their audience. Video dude does a very good job of establishing that.
Which is just as well anyways because they don't have anything to reward that faith with.
It's very weird that the DC Cinematic Murderverse tries so hard to be "realistic" (read: grim n' gritty) yet they seem to fetishize comic continuity.
Meanwhile Marvel jettisoned everything from Civil War other than "Cap and Iron Man disagree about politics and it leads to punching."
And to be honest, the MCU sticking to the comic stories only very, VERY loosely is one of the best things they do, considering the extremes of story quality found in comics. Hell, the motivations for the MCU Civil War stuff actually make some real damn sense, and the characters have motivations that actually fit the characters instead of suddenly becoming overbearing bad guys for Reasons.
Adhering to comic contuinity would've been one of the worst mistakes they could've made.
Which, incidentally, fits Suicide Squad as well. OK movie. Minus Waller's flying off the handle for some reason that's not explained...
Except the movie never really told us that killing was a recent development, that was the branding. Despite Alfred's snark he could care less who Batman puts in the ground when they're human. We don't know enough about this Batman to know where he started from, and there's absolutely nothing there directly or implied he started off as not killing! Batman. He wouldn't be the first Batman on film to start off his career by killing people, either.
Killing can be a bad thing when it's actually people, as well. Batman breaking the code to off Superman, because he's "the biggest threat to mankind," would have been an interesting plot line to put through rather than what we got. It could have made more sense, while providing a contrast to a Superman.
The Gotham cops semi-trusted Batman except for the one rookie who wanted to follow the book and apprehend him. That trust implies Batman was a non-lethal vigilante at some point. Maybe. Kind of.
They're lead by Commissioner Jameson, though.
All their trust proves is that at some point he promised to kill Spider-Man.
Why I fear the ocean.
Or they're full of crooked cops who liked how he dealt with criminals. Which would be perfectly in character for Gotham, especially in the DCEU. Being trusted by the cops isn't proof he was non-lethal in the past. Then again, say your correct - when he did cross that line that trust never truly evaporated either.
edit: In lighter settings, like the DCAU, when he was suspected/framed of murdering people the GCPD didn't hold back in trying to shut him down. RE: Phantasm.
True, but at least one live action Batman actually tried his best not to make it his first and last choice. He was nearer to a Captain America (comic) than Punisher. Too bad the follow up reversed that trend, while trying to ape that series success.
and it was hilarious every time
The look on Batman's face there, he really loves his job.
If we filed off the bat-branding from his toys, painted his ass white and dyed his hair green it'd be indistinguishable from a Joker plot.
Was... was George Clooney the best movie Batman?
He killed Batman and our souls...
does that count?
Yes, sort of. He regretted his past, it's implied he's the same Batman as Keaton's (along with Kilmer's*) and doesn't let his vengeance drive him anymore** -- of course this falls apart when he kills Two Face when Robin isn't there.
It's possible he might have killed people, but nothing stands out to me right now and it's been years since I saw the films.
* that's what I assumed
** it comes though at times, thus making him a hypocrite when he scolds Robin over wanting to murder Two Face for revenge
Yes.
edit: From continuity and prior casting Clooney and Kilmer played the same characters no question. There's less proof that Keaton was the first incarnation, which would make Forever a reboot.
Still doesn't match the Batman: TAS Freeze episode
If he's anything like his performance in Suicide Squad
* excluding the dark future/hallucination/dream sequence/bad acid trip Batman had in the Knightmare sequence
For this Batman, this makes him look like a saint to how he was in B vs S - that's how far he far he fell in that movie.
My guess is now the DCEU is going to completely ignore his time as being a Punisher fanboy and no one is ever, ever going to bring up his kill count or how the people he branded were murdered in prison.
What perplexing is that WW either is uninterested in truly researching her allies, and she should have no excuses after what she went through when they met or she simply doesn't care. Welp.
And don't hold an aging mother hostage.
A duh.
If the DCU was competently done, The Batman would be an excellent place to not only establish that Batman has gone too far, but his quest for redemption. Deathstroke as the villain/ foil would work exceedingly well as it would force Batman to confront what he's become.
But DCU isn't competent, and The Batman likely won't accomplish that in any real way shape or form.
"You're a monstrous assassin Deathstroke!"
"Well, I'm amoral at best, but at least my for-profit motives are completely reasonable. You; on the other hand, are just a revenge-obsessed serial sadist with better than average gear."
And don't live on that island between Gotham and Metropolis since everyone will think it's uninhabited for some reason and lead alien monsters to it.
So, like, how do you think that first one went down?
Do you think he got his private security forces together and said "Hey, I forged some paperwork to bring in this super secret item so I'd like all of you to consider escorting it morally akin to murder/kidnapping/rape/what have you. To be clear, this is highly illegal and I'm informing you all explicitly of that fact so when a murderous asshole in spandex shows up he'll be morally in the clear for ramming his car through your head. Everybody good?"
Like, I'm theoretically okay with a Batman who kills. Shit, that last set up with Superman's mother that Batman just made a connection with Clark over? Where he was saving her in a way he would never ever be able to save his own mother? Sure, cool, he stops at nothing to do that and is SUPER pissed at the goons threatening to kill his mother stand in figure and just loses it and decimates them.
Random security guards because he wants the rock to use as a murder weapon?
Hackery.