Rewatching the Batman movies

[Eric V]

If that was the case, it was incredibly poorly telegraphed. There's also the bit about thousands of regular humans presumably being dead (as supported by the B v. S movie), but he only cried over Zod.

It was not incredibly poorly telegraphed.

 

[Ryujin]

It was not incredibly poorly telegraphed.

OK, perhaps "tone deaf" is a better description, given the afore-mentioned thousands of dead innocents.

 

[Morrus]

OK, perhaps "tone deaf" is a better description, given the afore-mentioned thousands of dead innocents.

I hereby declare this the most mind-numbingly repeated conversation on the internet.

 

[trappedslider]

Yup totally oout of character for sups to kill

 

[ART!]

I don't know what the context of those examples are, so I can't judge them,

Yes, given the content of all media for any and all audiences during Superman's 82-year history, he has killed.

The thing to remember is that older people grew up with a Superman who did not kill, or only under exceptionally weird or unusual circumstances, and in some of those cases the intent and/or outcome was questionable.

Because popular media is what it is, younger people have probably seen Superman kill more often than he used to.

Regardless of age, people naturally are exposed to a limited subset of all Superman stories ever told. Maybe they were only exposed to stories about a Superman who doesn't kill, or maybe they gravitate to that kind of Superman for whatever reason.

This is less true than it is for Batman but there is no one Superman. Early Golden-Age Superman is very different from Silver-Age Superman, for example.

Perhaps to get things back on topic, I find it really interesting how often Batman has been adapted into different takes and versions - much moreso than Superman. I think this is where some people are coming from when they react poorly to Superman killing. Superman is - for whatever reason - a less "flexible" character.

The success of so many different approaches to Batman says something about the concept, but I don't know what.

 

[Eric V]

It's weird to me when people get upset over Superman killing Zod, specifically.

In both the comics and across different generations of movies...Superman kills Zod. It's pretty much a constant.

 

[Morrus]

It's weird to me when people get upset over Superman killing Zod, specifically.

In both the comics and across different generations of movies...Superman kills Zod. It's pretty much a constant.

Yup. Superman always kills Zod. He killed all three of them with Kryptonite once. People wrap themselves in convoluted No True Scotsman arguments with this for some reason.

 

[Rikka66]

I don't know what the context of those examples are, so I can't judge them,

Video clip is from an alternate universe in which the Justice League rules the world as the tyrannical Justice Lords.

Picture is from the Injustice video game tie-in comic, in which the Joker tricked Superman into killing Lois Lane and setting off a nuke that destroyed Metropolis. He then ruled the world as the leader of the tyrannical Regime.

 

[trappedslider]

It's weird to me when people get upset over Superman killing Zod, specifically.

In both the comics and across different generations of movies...Superman kills Zod. It's pretty much a constant.

My favorite is all the times he's killed Lois

 

[cmad1977]

Man of steel wasn’t a bad movie because Superman kills Zod.
It was a bad movie because it told the audience his origin story, TWICE!! WHY??!?

 

[trappedslider]

This is less true than it is for Batman but there is no one Superman. Early Golden-Age Superman is very different from Silver-Age Superman, for example.

Perhaps to get things back on topic, I find it really interesting how often Batman has been adapted into different takes and versions - much moreso than Superman. I think this is where some people are coming from when they react poorly to Superman killing. Superman is - for whatever reason - a less "flexible" character.

The success of so many different approaches to Batman says something about the concept, but I don't know what.

Unless it's Batman and guns, then you get into fights over has he used guns (yes a number of times) or not and all that

 

[Bohandas]

Man of steel wasn’t a bad movie because Superman kills Zod.
It was a bad movie because it told the audience his origin story, TWICE!! WHY??!?

Maybe one of them was initially cut from the film and then got put back in (sort of like how, in Star Wars, Han solo has the exact same conversation twice in a row, first with Greedo and then with Jabba, due to the fact that the Jabba version was cut from the initial theateical release)

 

[ART!]

It's weird to me when people get upset over Superman killing Zod, specifically.

In both the comics and across different generations of movies...Superman kills Zod. It's pretty much a constant.

My problem with that scene is only partly that he chooses to kill someone. I think the that moment is not laid out well, such that him snapping Zod's neck seemed like just one of many options.

Video clip is from an alternate universe in which the Justice League rules the world as the tyrannical Justice Lords.

Picture is from the Injustice video game tie-in comic, in which the Joker tricked Superman into killing Lois Lane and setting off a nuke that destroyed Metropolis. He then ruled the world as the leader of the tyrannical Regime.

Right, so neither is an example of Superman in his right mind, so it doesn't seem arguing in bad faith to use them as examples of "Superman kills" - I think it goes without saying that the "Superman doesn't kill" claim excludes stories in which Superman isn't himself, i.e. is driven mad or mind-controlled or raised by Nazis or whatever.

 

[ART!]

Unless it's Batman and guns, then you get into fights over has he used guns (yes a number of times) or not and all that

Right - it's an interesting question: how much time has to pass before an earlier take on the character is not who the character is?

 

[trappedslider]

I think it goes without saying that the "Superman doesn't kill" claim excludes stories in which Superman isn't himself, i.e. is driven mad or mind-controlled or raised by Nazis or whatever.

issue #2 of "Action Comics", Clark Kent is sent on an assignment to the war-torn South American country of San Monte. While there, he finds a man torturing prisoners, and throws him like a javelin over a forest clearing, seemingly to his death. Later that same issue, a San Monte army camp is under attack by an enemy aircraft, so Superman jumps into the propeller of the plane, causing it to crash without the pilot being able to escape by parachute.

And that's not counting the number of covers in which he kills Lois,cuz he's a jerk. All from the main superman in his right mind,and not totally in rage mode.

 

[trappedslider]

Right - it's an interesting question: how much time has to pass before an earlier take on the character is not who the character is?

He most recently used a gun in Final Crisis, it's more of "what character trait is part intrinsically part of the character for you?"

 

[ART!]

issue #2 of "Action Comics", Clark Kent is sent on an assignment to the war-torn South American country of San Monte. While there, he finds a man torturing prisoners, and throws him like a javelin over a forest clearing, seemingly to his death. Later that same issue, a San Monte army camp is under attack by an enemy aircraft, so Superman jumps into the propeller of the plane, causing it to crash without the pilot being able to escape by parachute.

And that's not counting the number of covers in which he kills Lois,cuz he's a jerk. All from the main superman in his right mind,and not totally in rage mode.

See my point about how much time has to pass before an earlier take on the character is not who the character is.

 

[Ryujin]

I don't know what the context of those examples are, so I can't judge them,

Yes, given the content of all media for any and all audiences during Superman's 82-year history, he has killed.

The thing to remember is that older people grew up with a Superman who did not kill, or only under exceptionally weird or unusual circumstances, and in some of those cases the intent and/or outcome was questionable.

Because popular media is what it is, younger people have probably seen Superman kill more often than he used to.

Regardless of age, people naturally are exposed to a limited subset of all Superman stories ever told. Maybe they were only exposed to stories about a Superman who doesn't kill, or maybe they gravitate to that kind of Superman for whatever reason.

This is less true than it is for Batman but there is no one Superman. Early Golden-Age Superman is very different from Silver-Age Superman, for example.

Perhaps to get things back on topic, I find it really interesting how often Batman has been adapted into different takes and versions - much moreso than Superman. I think this is where some people are coming from when they react poorly to Superman killing. Superman is - for whatever reason - a less "flexible" character.

The success of so many different approaches to Batman says something about the concept, but I don't know what.

I haven't seen that particular cartoon, but the second image is from the alternate reality series "Injustice." Joker poisons Superman with a hallucinogen, laced with Kryptonite, that results in him killing Lois Lane (thinking that she's Doomsday). He snaps and starts going full vigilante.

EDIT Forgot to add the little point that Joker had wired Lois' heartbeat to a nuke. When her heart stopped, Metropolis was destroyed.

Injustice: Gods Among Us (comics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Imaculata]

EDIT Forgot to add the little point that Joker had wired Lois' heartbeat to a nuke. When her heart stopped, Metropolis was destroyed.

What an absurd edgy plot. Got to admire the Joker's creativity though.

Yup totally oout of character for sups to kill

Batman also seems surpringly cool with it.

 

[WayneLigon]

This last couple of weeks I’ve rewatched the Burtonverse Batman movies

It’s pretty much what I remember. Same pattern as most movie series — Alien, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon. Starts strong then descends into farce.

Batman (1989). Still a great film. The atmosphere, the way Gotham has character, the supporting characters, Jack. It has flaws, but it’s a great film.

Batman Returns. Very different in look and feel to Batman, but still good.

Batman Forever. Not as much of a departure as I remember. Mainly it’s set design and vehicles. Brooding is exchanged for camp. Val Kilmer is doing a decent Keaton impersonation. The villains are a pair of annoying cackling clowns trying to out-cackle each other. Not a good film, but not as awful as....

Batman & Robin. My goodness. There isn’t a single good thing to say about this film. Camp dialled up another notch. It’s utterly awful.

What did you guys think?

I have not liked a live-action Batman interpretation yet, save perhaps the 1966 film which exists apart from everything else due to the nostalgia factor The murdering-psychopath-Batman of the Nolan films is something best forgotten. About the only thing I could say good about them was the first half of Batman Begins, which is at least an era we've never seen before. Save for Rachel 'I've been shoe-horned into this movie to provide a sub-plot for people who don't know who this 'batman' person is' Dawes.

In fact, at this point, I'd almost rather NOT have a Batman movie. I'd rather it be done as a high-end cable TV series. We've seen now that if you scale back some of the more ostentatious aspects of the Bat-universe you could easily have a mystery-detection series with Batman and Robin solving crimes and such in Gotham. Save the actual supervillains for special occasions. Use them like strong spices - a light hand is best. I have vague hopes for the new movie, but the 'we're already opening up with multiple villains' seems just like jumping right to Raimi-Spider-Man-3 territory. At least they're not going directly to The Joker.