Forbes Article: "Zack Snyder Loves Superman, And 'Batman V Superman' Proves It"

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Vampires are sentient beings, albiet with different physiology than humans. Brainiac being able to revive himself is moot, as it is still intent to kill. Same as Swamp Thing. There's also the time he flat out told Gorilla Grodd his non-killing policy does not extend to apes.

That's on odd thing about Bruce's and other DC heroes' killings. They only seem to "not count" when the victim is non-human. This was even lampshaded in Rucka's run when one of Max's spies said the reason Diana killing Max caused such a ruckus was because he looked like everyone else.

I really don't understand how you can say there is intent to kill someone when Batman knows that what he is doing will not in fact kill them. It is pretty much knocking them out, because he knows they will not die. And vampires killing a vampire is not technically killing anyone either. A vampire come about when a human is killed ritually by an existing vampire. At that time the human soul passes on to the afterlife, and the body is possessed by a vampiric demon, who will often have some memories of the human host's life. In most vampire lore, slaying the vampire doesn't actually kill the demon, but simply banish it from this realm.

There's really no "not counting" going on here. There's just no killing occurring.

Batman killed in his very first comic book:

So does Bob Kane/Bill Finger the original creators does not get Batman either?

No, they don't, not the Batman that we're talking about. Reading those original stories, while fun, they in no way resemble the Batman we know and love. The only things they have in common is the guy dresses up like a bat. As the character was fine tuned and given an actual personality those older stories were retconned.

The thing is the Superheroes change with the times. For I truly think there is no one true portrayal of Batman for example. He has been portrayed as colorful and campy in the Silver Age and Adam West Batman cartoons, he is portrayed as Gothic and Dramatic in the Animated Series and Bronze Age, and he is been portrayed as a dark, gritty, in others.

And to some people that portrayal of Batman in the very first comic books could be how they view Batman as the true Batman.

Where as I, who's first exporsure to Batman was the Animated Series, thinks that Batman is the true Batman.

And there are people that thinks Adam West Batman is the true Batman.

 

[minkus_draconus]

The thing is the Superheroes change with the times. For I truly think there is no one true portrayal of Batman for example. He has been portrayed as colorful and campy in the Silver Age and Adam West Batman cartoons, he is portrayed as Gothic and Dramatic in the Animated Series and Bronze Age, and he is been portrayed as a dark, gritty, in others.

And to some people that portrayal of Batman in the very first comic books could be how they view Batman as the true Batman.

Where as I, who's first exporsure to Batman was the Animated Series, thinks that Batman is the true Batman.

And there are people that thinks Adam West Batman is the true Batman.

I agree there is no one true batman.
Batmen I like.
Adam West TV batman.
Batman the animated series.
Batman the brave and the bold.
Thinking about it pretty much all animated Batman.
Batman of the movies up through the overly silly one with Bane (it was silly in so many ways).

 

[Something Amyss]

Batman of the movies up through the overly silly one with Bane (it was silly in so many ways).

Which one? Both the movies with Bane were pretty silly.

 

[Cicada 5]

Vampires are sentient beings, albiet with different physiology than humans. Brainiac being able to revive himself is moot, as it is still intent to kill. Same as Swamp Thing. There's also the time he flat out told Gorilla Grodd his non-killing policy does not extend to apes.

That's on odd thing about Bruce's and other DC heroes' killings. They only seem to "not count" when the victim is non-human. This was even lampshaded in Rucka's run when one of Max's spies said the reason Diana killing Max caused such a ruckus was because he looked like everyone else.

I really don't understand how you can say there is intent to kill someone when Batman knows that what he is doing will not in fact kill them. It is pretty much knocking them out, because he knows they will not die. And vampires killing a vampire is not technically killing anyone either. A vampire come about when a human is killed ritually by an existing vampire. At that time the human soul passes on to the afterlife, and the body is possessed by a vampiric demon, who will often have some memories of the human host's life. In most vampire lore, slaying the vampire doesn't actually kill the demon, but simply banish it from this realm.

There's really no "not counting" going on here. There's just no killing occurring.

Except Bruce does so with the intent of killing Brainiac permanently. As does Superman. Hell, when he killed Doomsday he didn't even know he could be revived. And that was added on later because writers couldn't handle Superman killing. Which all made him and Batman giving Wonder Woman crap for killing Max all the more annoying.

 

[Cicada 5]

See, that's the problem with the conversation around the movie. Instead of making well-argued points, people are making the most inane arguments about the least important aspects of the film. Yes, the film is desaturated and "darker" visually than other superhero movies (and lets be honest, when we're referring to "other superhero movies" we're meaning Marvel movies), but is that a bad thing? Must everything be bright and light and colorful and peppy for it to be considered "good"? Absolutely not, and again this speaks through to my assertion that there is this mental image from a lot of people that the only way to do a comic book movie right is the Marvel way.

I would say that's absolutely not true.

No, there is no problem with making appropriately dark comic book movies. My personal favorite comic book movie is The Crow and it doesn't get much darker than that. The problem occurs when you're adapting a character like this

and you end up with this

Nobody says that comic book movies need to be made "the Marvel way" (faithfully?), but DC seems to be so intent on differentiating itself from Marvel that it is distancing itself from the source material altogether.

I think people greatly exaggerate the levels of darkness in the DCEU. The first thing we see Clark as an adult do is save people from the oil rig and him killing Zod has precedent not just in the comics but in Superman II. And even in the movies his reaction to killing is far better than in the comics which caused him to develop a split personality.

 

[minkus_draconus]

Batman of the movies up through the overly silly one with Bane (it was silly in so many ways).

Which one? Both the movies with Bane were pretty silly.

Sorry. Forgot about the first instance. I was thinking of "Rises" as Bane was kinda the major villain.

 

[Something Amyss]

Sorry. Forgot about the first instance. I was thinking of "Rises" as Bane was kinda the major villain.

I think a lot of us want to forget that first one. >.<

 

[Conner42]

Snip

I'm still not sure where the idea of hope is coming from. Sure, maybe Superman has an ideal of some sort, but his actions do not reflect that at all. Batman is pissed off at Superman because of the amount of destruction and death he has caused, showed in the beginning of the film, but, when we see Batman in action, he's just about as reckless. The only reason why he can't cause as much destruction as Superman is because he physically can't.

The scene where Superman comes to his mom because he's sad about how not many people like him because...he just can't seem to get why people should be legitimately scared of him, but his mom's reply is more along the lines of "you don't owe them anything."

...

Why the fuck would you tell someone with such a great power that? He's already demonstrated that if he's reckless, he can destroy an entire city. Whatever happened to with great power comes great responsibility? Yeah, I know that's Spider-Man, but that's the same attitude I want from a Superman movie because...well, that's how you'd make the superhero a good guy in the film.

Superman is hardly a good guy. A movie where nobody likes him even though he tries? Yeah, that could be interesting. But, the thing is, I'm siding with the people who are scared of him because Superman hardly does anything to actually protect anyone when he's in the midst of a big battle. Of course, this new movie took a bit side step to this issue by having the final take place on an unpopulated island but...well, yeah, that just avoids the issue that the beginning of the film presented, it doesn't address it.

Like I said, Darker? Grimmer? Grittier? Fine, I guess so. But you have to contextualize it better. There are a lot of dark stories, even ones that involve superheroes, that work. This movie just doesn't.

 

[mduncan50]

I think people greatly exaggerate the levels of darkness in the DCEU. The first thing we see Clark as an adult do is save people from the oil rig and him killing Zod has precedent not just in the comics but in Superman II. And even in the movies his reaction to killing is far better than in the comics which caused him to develop a split personality.

Actually, the first thing we see Clark do as an adult is impale a man's truck on a telephone pole for picking on him. So...breaking the law. He does kill Zod, in the comics, and as you say, it caused him such regret, though I would say he was in a much tougher situation than in Man of Steel, that it caused him mental issues. As opposed to screaming, and then going to find Lois to flirt with her. He doesn't kill Zod in Superman II. All of the Kryptonians survived, though depowered.

Still can't agree with you about Batman and Supes "trying to kill" Brainiac. Beyond the fact that they knew he wasn't going to die, the part of him they were dealing with was basically a computer virus that was trying to corrupt the Metal Men.

 

[Cicada 5]

I think people greatly exaggerate the levels of darkness in the DCEU. The first thing we see Clark as an adult do is save people from the oil rig and him killing Zod has precedent not just in the comics but in Superman II. And even in the movies his reaction to killing is far better than in the comics which caused him to develop a split personality.

Actually, the first thing we see Clark do as an adult is impale a man's truck on a telephone pole for picking on him. So...breaking the law. He does kill Zod, in the comics, and as you say, it caused him such regret, though I would say he was in a much tougher situation than in Man of Steel, that it caused him mental issues. As opposed to screaming, and then going to find Lois to flirt with her. He doesn't kill Zod in Superman II. All of the Kryptonians survived, though depowered.

Still can't agree with you about Batman and Supes "trying to kill" Brainiac. Beyond the fact that they knew he wasn't going to die, the part of him they were dealing with was basically a computer virus that was trying to corrupt the Metal Men.

Um, the impaling the truck was after the oil rig incedent. And yeah, it's breaking the law, but superheroes do that regularly.

How was the comic version a tougher situation? Zod and his people were depowered, MoS Zod was fully powered. ANd no he did not find Lois to flirt with her afterwards.

 

[mduncan50]

How was the comic version a tougher situation? Zod and his people were depowered, MoS Zod was fully powered. ANd no he did not find Lois to flirt with her afterwards.

They were temporarily de-powered, and they had already murdered every single living thing in their dimension other than the Supergirl equivalent. Knowing that they would get their powers back, and that if he found his was into their dimension then they could find their way out to another (or others), he was weighing the lives of the Kryptonians against the lives of the billions of innocents that they would in all likelihood kill. I'm not saying what he did was the right thing, if he had given it more time and thought he could probably have come up with a better solution eventually, which is why it so deeply affected him.

 

[Cicada 5]

How was the comic version a tougher situation? Zod and his people were depowered, MoS Zod was fully powered. ANd no he did not find Lois to flirt with her afterwards.

They were temporarily de-powered, and they had already murdered every single living thing in their dimension other than the Supergirl equivalent. Knowing that they would get their powers back, and that if he found his was into their dimension then they could find their way out to another (or others), he was weighing the lives of the Kryptonians against the lives of the billions of innocents that they would in all likelihood kill. I'm not saying what he did was the right thing, if he had given it more time and thought he could probably have come up with a better solution eventually, which is why it so deeply affected him.

They weren't temporarily depowered. The CLAIMED they could get their powers back but that claim is hard to take seriously. They stranded on a desolate world with no means of getting away let alone regaining their powers.

By contrast, MoS Superman not only dealt with a fully powered Zod but had no Kryptonite, no Red Sun radiation machines, no way of imprisoning Zod

 

[mduncan50]

How was the comic version a tougher situation? Zod and his people were depowered, MoS Zod was fully powered. ANd no he did not find Lois to flirt with her afterwards.

They were temporarily de-powered, and they had already murdered every single living thing in their dimension other than the Supergirl equivalent. Knowing that they would get their powers back, and that if he found his was into their dimension then they could find their way out to another (or others), he was weighing the lives of the Kryptonians against the lives of the billions of innocents that they would in all likelihood kill. I'm not saying what he did was the right thing, if he had given it more time and thought he could probably have come up with a better solution eventually, which is why it so deeply affected him.

They weren't temporarily depowered. The CLAIMED they could get their powers back but that claim is hard to take seriously. They stranded on a desolate world with no means of getting away let alone regaining their powers.

By contrast, MoS Superman not only dealt with a fully powered Zod but had no Kryptonite, no Red Sun radiation machines, no way of imprisoning Zod

If the effects of Kryptonite were permanent then Supes would have been put out of business a long time ago. Zod had brought with him a Kryptonian ship that had holding cells in it. So I'm not sure why you think there was no way of imprisoning Zod.

 

[Cicada 5]

How was the comic version a tougher situation? Zod and his people were depowered, MoS Zod was fully powered. ANd no he did not find Lois to flirt with her afterwards.

They were temporarily de-powered, and they had already murdered every single living thing in their dimension other than the Supergirl equivalent. Knowing that they would get their powers back, and that if he found his was into their dimension then they could find their way out to another (or others), he was weighing the lives of the Kryptonians against the lives of the billions of innocents that they would in all likelihood kill. I'm not saying what he did was the right thing, if he had given it more time and thought he could probably have come up with a better solution eventually, which is why it so deeply affected him.

They weren't temporarily depowered. The CLAIMED they could get their powers back but that claim is hard to take seriously. They stranded on a desolate world with no means of getting away let alone regaining their powers.

By contrast, MoS Superman not only dealt with a fully powered Zod but had no Kryptonite, no Red Sun radiation machines, no way of imprisoning Zod

If the effects of Kryptonite were permanent then Supes would have been put out of business a long time ago. Zod had brought with him a Kryptonian ship that had holding cells in it. So I'm not sure why you think there was no way of imprisoning Zod.

He used gold kryptonite on them which removes Kryptonian powers permanently. And as I stated they were stranded on a desolate world with no place to go and no one to harm.

Oh you mean the ship that had been destroyed and sent to the phantom zone?

 

[omega 616]

I have just watched BVS and I am left underwhelmed ...

There are just too many "wait what?" moments, (spoilers ahead!) like who the fuck was that dude with the red visor in batman's dream thing (was it red hood?)? Why at the start did batman take out the dude with the gun pointed at Louis in a split second but later on Batman is about noob tube his ass and he runs like a normal person, then glides to Batman? He knew what was in the nade 'cos it was the second time Batman went for it. Why did doomsday look like Michael bay TMNT? Why did they cast Jesse Eisenberg as Lex? Why wasn't he bald the whole film? Why did he play the character a twitchy loon? Why did Batman start treating criminals as cattle? Why does a Batman mark mean criminals target those with the mark? Why did wonder woman only hit doomsday in the leg and not take it off like she did with his hand? Why did Louis dive into the water (to avoid being crushed by the building but you can still be crushed under water)? Why did superman have to be the one to stab doomsday, couldn't he throw the spear? Couldn't he palm it off to wonder woman to throw/use it? How did Batman survive the first hit from superman, that was some serious blunt force trauma that would stop a heart! Why did Lex kill that skinny Asian lady? How didn't Laurence Fishburne realize superman and Clark are the same person? Superman dies and the exact same day Clark dies and doesn't think "boy they look similar, I wonder if ..." I mean it's not like the glasses are a great disguise anyway! (then again I don't recognise Zooey Deschanel without bangs..!)

Spoiler: Seriously!

Besides all those things, the film didn't exactly blow me away, it was just kind of run of the mill. The fight scenes weren't that good, it felt long, I wasn't sure why superman had a problem with batman (was it the killing thing?), I wasn't sure why Laurence Fishburne gave Louis everything she wanted (like the helicopter at the end) but gave Clark shit through out.

 

[mduncan50]

Besides all those things, the film didn't exactly blow me away, it was just kind of run of the mill. The fight scenes weren't that good, it felt long, I wasn't sure why superman had a problem with batman (was it the killing thing?), I wasn't sure why Laurence Fishburne gave Louis everything she wanted (like the helicopter at the end) but gave Clark shit through out.

Okay, first thing I have to point out before the spelling-nazi/ubergeek in my brain freaks the f%#$ out is that it's Lois, not Louis. Unless Louis CK had a cameo that I missed. (Not outside of the realm of possibility.) I'm only teasing... mostly.

But Superman made it very clear what his problem with Batman was. He is a vigilante who works outside of the law... like Superman. Well I didn't say it was a reason that makes sense, but it is one of the few things that was made clear in the movie.