It's not a metaphor for islamaphobia or racism exactly... Batman hates Superman because he first hand witnessed him playing a huge role in the destruction of Metropolis and echoed the complaints of massive collateral damage in the ending of MoS. Maybe you don't mind the damage, but most people do. It's meta.

As for whether or not that's "truly" Batman, you're all boring. Characters can and do have more than one interpretation and finding creative interesting angles on who or what a character is, that type of deconstructionism, is key to keeping characters feeling fresh. Batman's arc in this movie is to start out as the Batman we know and love and slowly descend to being close to a psychopath... only for Superman to seemingly inspire him to get "back" on his old path of righteousness. It's a pretty novel, neat idea. Sadly the whole thing is botched due to the sheer level of poor filmmaking AND the fact that I'm not sure making the definitive DC Batman a murderer is a good idea in the first place.

This is what I mean when I say it would've been a far more appropriate idea for a self enclosed graphic novel or One Shot. OR, what they really should have done, is to have already done a Batman movie by this point where he IS the classic Batman so we can feel and see him pushed to this point. It would've made it easier to swallow and a lot more dynamic.

I give BVS like a 2/10 though so don't mistake what I'm saying for defending the movie. I just think this is one part of it that's actually okay in theory (but NOT in execution) (pun intended).


-Vader

Minst wrote:

ChristNolan wrote:Vader, that goes against the very essence of what makes Batman who he is as a character though. His only super power aside from being super rich is his absurdly, almost superhuman, will power. He is tested on such an extreme level over and over again, sometimes coming close to the point of no return, but he never does. Having a Batman who gave in after battling for so long and just said "fuck it" only makes Nolan's Batman look even more incredible. Nolan and his team simply understood the character to the absolute while Snyder's entire basis is "Well, wouldn't THIS be cool?"

Which in turn makes the idea not cool.

Having a different interpretation of a character means he doesn't understand the character? Nolan Batman was active for 2 years at most and then gave up because his sort of girlfriend dies. So much for his will power. What does that say about Nolan's understanding of Batman? A dude who turned the anger and sadness of the most horrible moment in his life into the Batman. Now says fuck it, gives up on life as it is. For 8 years!

He didn't give up because his girlfriend died, lol. Have you even watched the films? He realised how his presence might bring more chaos if he interferes in every low stake problem. He was waiting for the time that his participation would be really necessary, because with Gordon in charge and Dent's Act the level of corruption and mob's influence have become significantly lower. In the meantime he was trying to keep dangerous weapons out of the wrong hands, so it wasn't like that he didn't care anymore.£

Exactly. I've said it before on other forums, and I'll say it again. If you think he retired because Rachel died you weren't paying attention at all. He retired because the Dent Act made it possible for clean streets. Batman targeted organized crime because it was the root of the problem.

Not only that...in a few years Bruce accomplished more than Batfleck in 20. It's not about quantity. It's easy to stretch things out for decades in the comics or a more fantastical universe when you're trying to build a lasting movie universe with 10+ movies but Nolan wanted to show a more realistic consequence to his fighting every night. Which he was able to do in a closed off universe without too many sequels.

Vader182 wrote:As for whether or not that's "truly" Batman, you're all boring. Characters can and do have more than one interpretation and finding creative interesting angles on who or what a character is, that type of deconstructionism, is key to keeping characters feeling fresh. Batman's arc in this movie is to start out as the Batman we know and love and slowly descend to being close to a psychopath... only for Superman to seemingly inspire him to get "back" on his old path of righteousness. It's a pretty novel, neat idea. Sadly the whole thing is botched due to the sheer level of poor filmmaking AND the fact that I'm not sure making the definitive DC Batman a murderer is a good idea in the first place.

I totally agree about sculpting the character in different ways to keep it fresh. But aren't we introduced to the pscyho Batman at the beginning? His first scene suited up in the film involves a branding.

Bruce's craziness would have to be the result of something else; either something we haven't been shown or wasn't made clear enough in BvS. Otherwise, sure he loses people he cares about during the Zod attack, but I don't see why that or Superman's reveal to the public would make him basically sign the death warrants of others.

I've seen UE. Messy. And I'm one of those crazy people who kinda liked MoS. Have low expectation for JL.

Cilogy wrote:

Vader182 wrote:As for whether or not that's "truly" Batman, you're all boring. Characters can and do have more than one interpretation and finding creative interesting angles on who or what a character is, that type of deconstructionism, is key to keeping characters feeling fresh. Batman's arc in this movie is to start out as the Batman we know and love and slowly descend to being close to a psychopath... only for Superman to seemingly inspire him to get "back" on his old path of righteousness. It's a pretty novel, neat idea. Sadly the whole thing is botched due to the sheer level of poor filmmaking AND the fact that I'm not sure making the definitive DC Batman a murderer is a good idea in the first place.

I totally agree about sculpting the character in different ways to keep it fresh. But aren't we introduced to the pscyho Batman at the beginning? His first scene suited up in the film involves a branding.

Bruce's craziness would have to be the result of something else; either something we haven't been shown or wasn't made clear enough in BvS. Otherwise, sure he loses people he cares about during the Zod attack, but I don't see why that or Superman's reveal to the public would make him basically sign the death warrants of others.

nah Cil, it's nothing we see in the movie it's the decades of crime fighting that's made him so jaded not the opening


-Vader

Right, but somethings off about it.

Idk, maybe it just comes down to Snyder like you said

Friends were watching the director's cut yesterday so I gave it another chance.

I still hate the film and it's now even more painful to watch in some ways because it's sooo long. But it's much more coherent and way better edited. Fans of the film are definitely going to be delighted with this. It feels like the true version of the film

Cilogy wrote:Right, but somethings off about it.

Idk, maybe it just comes down to Snyder like you said

We'll see more of that probably in the next Batman solo film and more hints in Suicide Squad.

So I just watched the UC and is a definite improvement to the paving and overall storytelling. I really don't mind if it's too long. This cut made Lois cool again.
I don't think I mentioned it before, I adore this Alfred (sorry Sir Caine). And I still stand by Eisenberg's Lex being a stimulating villain.

I'm still confused about the whole bat branding? So batman initiated the trend, but when it gets to prison then it's Lex and KGB guy doing executions right? All to get Supes worked up against the bat?

Can we get to the other DC films already? Please.