Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_ixk3awb wrote

Reply to comment by Videowulff in I dont think some people understood the difference between Riddler and Edward in THE BATMAN by Videowulff

I used to be that way, I loved the idea of ‘real’ superheroes, but the more I watched the Nolan films the more I realised that’s a double edged sword. Seeing how you interpret a fantastical character is intriguing, like the Riddler (clearly the best way to do it), but you’re still left with a man who dresses as a bat to apparently scare grown men. Also, particularly in Nolan’s film, you have a guy that routinely tosses people down stairways and through crates, and flips cars, and fires rockets, but apparently never kills anyone. You can kill yourself tripping over a curb, but after all this violence he’s never accidentally killed anyone? How does he feel about life limiting brain damage? Burton and Affleck had the sense to avoid that conundrum. And even ignoring that, his philosophy in the Nolan films is inconsistent; he leaves Ras to die in BB but saves Joker in DK, apparently just to prove a point. And Dents decent into madness feels very rushed, that needed a much bigger arc.

1

Videowulff OP t1_ixk42bo wrote

That is omthe inherit problem with batman overall. When you really sit there and look at it, he is just a big guy in a silly bat costume. Nolan tried mixing the Armor with the Comic Look and for the most part, to me at least, it looks fine.

Batfleck's works better because we rarely see him surrounded by Normal people. He is usually in the shadows or fighting along others with just as silly costumes

I like Battinson's armor because it looks like it was cobbled together. Boots with belt buckles, chest armor, flight suit.. all random things he pieced together. I also like that its the first time we see him w actual makeup on around the eyes XD. I feel it is just Bat Enough to fit the character (without the mask its just body armor) but normal enough to not make you roll your eyes.

That said - 90s batmen movies were straight out of the cartoons and comics. Everything worked because everything qas ridculous and I love that. Like you said, it all fit well

1

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_ixk4ic2 wrote

That’s a fair point about the cobbled armour. But sometimes, when you’re desperate to change too much, you’re pretty far from the source material, sometimes too far? I feel like the ‘look’ was pretty cool, but it just didn’t feel like Batman. But I say that as a 40 year old whose probably jaded from seeing it all done so often.

2

Videowulff OP t1_ixk4pew wrote

As much as I love these movies; I feel like we are getting dangerously cloae to Batman Fatigue. It is why I am really enjoying Suicide Squad and Peacemaker - those shows seem to embrace the absurdity of the worlds they are in. Have you tried Peacemaker yet?

1

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_ixk53ha wrote

It’s on my to-do :) I also really liked the last Suicide Squad! There’s room for fresh ideas, it’s just so many of them, especially in the MCU, are a formula. It’s not a terrible formula, but after 15 years it’s getting stale.

1

Lemonpicker77 t1_ixk4wxb wrote

I think you are confusing using violence and doing everything to not kill someone, to all forms of violence can cause death.

He has had many opportunities to kill his main villains and chooses not too. But he won't kill himself in an attempt to save someone, he will risk his life to save people but you can see that in batman begins he allowed Ra's al Ghul to die, the same with his daughter in part 3.

It is a thin line he doesn't break consciously because otherwise he would feel like a criminal himself.

1

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_ixk5k08 wrote

Sorry I don’t fully agree. Joker was pushed off the building in a legitimate effort to save himself and diffuse the bomb. He didn’t have to save the Joker, no more than he could have saved Ras from the crashing train. He saved the Joker just to prove to him he wouldn’t take a life and that the city stood up to him. Like it says in the DK; he has one rule- Batman doesn’t kill. Ever. I guess the logic is he doesn’t have to save you either, but he does save the Joker regardless… Flipping someone’s car over is still a deliberate action that can claim a life. As is just punching someone in the head. While that’s easily ignored in a fantasy world, it’s harder to accept if you’re striving for realism.

1

Lemonpicker77 t1_ixk6hts wrote

Exactly what I said he chooses not to kill, he doesn't punch with the intention to kill, he doesn't flip a car with the intention to kill.

Do you keep up to date on all the comics?

1

Ashamed_Ladder6161 t1_ixlereg wrote

I’m not talking about the comics though, the films are very much their own thing. My point is, if you do what Batman does, you have to accept your actions will end lives. And the way he drives in the films, probably civilian lives. But you never see him wrestle with this in any credible way. The rational between letting Ras die and saving Joker is not consistent. And film Batman, honestly, Within Nolan’s world, would never kill anyone, and because it’s not realistic, he never has. In that world, it’s framed as his skill and his decision not to take lives, rather than blind luck.

0