One thing I'll say right now.

Remember all the "bat brand = death" stuff in the theatrical?

Do you read comics? Nolan got closer to the spirit than Snyder ever could. Bale was way more selfless, smarter and had more heart. Bale's Batman never murdered. He wasn't selfish and lazy like Affleck's. Ben's version goes against the core of the character that has been established for 70 plus years, even if the odd shitty writer made the mistake of having Batman kill sadistically. For 70 plus years it has been the essence of who he is, to basically not be The Punisher in a batsuit. That's what separates him. Nolan understood that. Snyder doesn't. And doesn't even understand what happened in his favorite graphic novel of all time.

- Yes, I do.
- In what way is Bale exactly more selfless and smarter? Dude got played by pretty much all of his villains. Including Talia…Talia fucking Al Ghul was too smart for him. And thanks to the movies deus ex machina he ended up ‘winning’. Barely did any detective work (left it mostly to Fox) and when he did it wasn’t much. No way is Bale’s Batman smarter than Batfleck. Who figures shit out and only got played by Lex (the smartest person in the DCU) and it was done way more convincing.
- Snyder and Nolan both understood that. Snyder even uses that. About how this Batman used to not kill but lost his way, his character arc ends with Batman going back to how he was. Inspired by Superman.
- Bull fucking shit, Baleman killed plenty of times. Might want to rewatch the movies. Same exact thing, but Snyder gets shit for it. Get out of the way or die. But whatever fits your agenda.

The trilogy are great Batman movies. Not just great movies. Watch the character dynamic between Joker and Batman. Harvey and Bruce. What Batman stands for as a dark hero, not just a violent creeper. Watch the Prewitt Building scene, that's the most Batman thing on film yet. How he takes down the swat, clowns, all without killing anyone. Great strategy and timing. I personally find Rises to be truer to Millers vision than BvS. A cool suit and a grumpy Bruce who fights Superman doesn't mean it's closer to Returns. The character is completely off. About as intelligent as Clooneys version, maybe less. In fact Millers version was just an else worlds tale. Nolans Batman was more true to the source material than Frank Millers novel was back in 86.

Once again, Ben Affleck Batman is way more like the Frank Miller Batman than Baleman ever was. Baleman gave up because of the dumbest reason, THAT is going against the core of the character. Batfleck is active for 20 years, lost a Robin at one point and who knows what else. But still keeps going. All of those character interactions we were able to have because he had a full movie prior, something Batfleck does not have. But even in not his own movie Batfleck acted, looked, moved, sounds etc. more like the Batman than Baleman ever does.

The league of shadows had time to get out and Bruce knew that. He was also in his 20s and not fully Batman. He saves Ras. With the train, Ras put himself in that situation. It's a suicide mission. Its basically saying "I saved you once, you're not going to stop. You want to die? Go ahead but you're not going to take anyone with you." It's not 100 percent Batman of the comics but it's still the closest thing to the source material on film.

See, this is what I mean. Stop forcing it, he killed him. Whether you like it or not. That is the thing with Bale’s Batman: keeps saying he won’t, but does it anyway. That way you loose the audience. Why should I take the characters word for it? At that point it’s just white noise, character telling lies to the audience. Rember how he saved Rachel and just runs through that cop car with twose two police men getting stuck? Such a smart Batman! Almost killed two cops because he was so reckless/not caring. And if you look at that shot, they should have died either way. But deus ex machina to the rescue once again.

Minst wrote:

Master Virgo wrote:

Minst wrote:Ehh, I mean opinions and all of that. I like those movies as much as the next guy, but they were hardly good Batman movies (great movies on their own). Snyder got way closer to the source material than Nolan ever did. Sure thing if you did not like this interpretation of this Batman, but to hold killing against him and then suggest the Nolan movies where it is done right according to you? If anything Batfleck isn't a a hypocrite about the no killing policy unlike Bale Batman. More than that, he sees his own errors and redeems himself by the end of the movie. Nolan Batman killed in all three movies without it ever being paid attention too by the characters.

You people really don't get this, do you? Every time Batbale killed it was something any righteous sane man would and should have done. There was nothing to pay attention to.£

Jep.

''I can't kill this farmer.''
*blows up entire compound, killing dozens of LoS members and ironically probably the farmer as well*

Such a righteous sane man.

''I put you into this situation that will certainly kill you, even though I am at the beginning of my Batman career and could save you and have you locked up, I'd rather have you dead. But I did not kill you though, I really did not!''

What's your solution in the first case, will you enlighten us please? Should he have executed the farmer or maybe just stood by and let them kill him? Those people were all committed to destroy Gotham, it wasn't about saving one farmer's life and they were going to kill him right at that moment. He made a call to create a distraction, it wasn't his fault that the place was so carelessly packed with explosives that a single spark caused even by someone's mistake could've blown it all to hell. Maybe some of them could have saved their own skins if they weren't so busy trying to kill Bruce.

He couldn't save Ras, there was no time to make sure he's unable to harm him or distract his balance while he was trying to escape. At the end he simply didn't care to risk his own life one more time for a murderer.

Of course he created the situation that lead to Ras' death. It was either that or thousands of civilians' lives being destroyed. Maybe he should have said, fuck it, poor Ducard might die. It's not worth it. Let him kill as many people as he wants.

There is no part in the three films where Bruce Wayne would claim that he's committed to an idiotic rule according to which he has to die before endangering the life of someone at the edge of carrying out an act of murder.£

No, 4K also confirmed to be fixed 2.40. STID was re released a year later on 1080p with the expanding aspect ratio due to fan demand, hence the 4K having it.

What's your solution in the first case, will you enlighten us please? Should he have executed the farmer or maybe just stood by and let them kill him? Those people were all committed to destroy Gotham, it wasn't about saving one farmer's life and they were going to kill him right at that moment. He made a call to create a distraction, it wasn't his fault that the place was so carelessly packed with explosives that a single spark caused even by someone's mistake could've blown it all to hell. Maybe some of them could have saved their own skins if they weren't so busy trying to kill Bruce.

I'm not Batman, but NOT killing dozens of people seems like a good way to start off. He created that distraction KNOWING what could happen, lol. So it's not his fault the place is packed with explosives (something he KNEW) but it's also not his fault to decide to blow it all up? Ha, sure. Keep sugarcoating it. And it just really lessens the impact of I will not kill this man when 5 seconds later his actions are responsible for his death.

He couldn't save Ras, there was no time to make sure he's unable to harm him or distract his balance while he was trying to escape. At the end he simply didn't care to risk his own life one more time for a murderer.

Lol, yeah he could. He had him pinned down and had enough time to blow up the wall behind him. This is Batman we are talking about. Wait, you know what. With how incompetent Baleman was portrayed you are right. This idiot could not save Ra. Certainly could not choke him out or something like that. I'm surprised he got out himself.

Of course he created the situation that lead to Ras' death. It was either that or thousands of civilians' lives being destroyed. Maybe he should have said, fuck it, poor Ducard might die. It's not worth it. Let him kill as many people as he wants.

The point being he was able to save human life, but choose not to because logic.

There is no part in the three films where Bruce Wayne would claim that he's committed to an idiotic rule according to which he has to die before endangering the life of someone at the edge of carrying out an act of murder.£

Remember that chase scene in TDK? With the driver of that truck? The truck that gets slammed into the ceiling....yeah that driver is so dead. While he did not need to be. The Nolan rule makes no sense and goes out the window first sight of any trouble. You could try and sugarcoat it all you want, but Baleman was a fucking hypocrite and his rule means jack shit. Nolan fucked up there.

Just finished it. 8.5/10 (TC for reference was 7/10)

It's not a different movie - it's the same film, same story (but expanded and improved upon).

But it's definitely a more complete movie. The entire film gets lots more room to breathe, while the theatrical was cramped - it's not just added scenes - pretty much every scene apart from the stretch from the BvS fight to the epilogue after Trinity v Doomsday (which only had a few shot and a couple dialogue additions) is expanded or changed, or in a couple of cases early on, re ordered in some way.

More detailed thoughts coming up in a bit.

BTW - Flixster and CinemaNow nixed both their early uploads. So have to wait until the 28th now. or torrents. So glad to have got it in time. Still have the SD copy from CinemaNow downloaded.

Minst wrote:

LelekPL wrote:Sorry, you keep repeating yourself, and yet I still don't see any logic in your description or Batman's action other than poor writing and underdevelopment. We definitely don't know anything about this Batman because I cannot relate this murdering idiot to any other Batman I have seen in comics or films. This is not the Batman I've ever known so he requires some background. All this time you couldn't tell me why Batman deems Superman a threat, other than he has superpowers. "The reason for killing Superman was that he was simply too dangerous and like I said, if he'd ever turn evil millions of people would die" You keep saying that but my point is what makes Batman think Superman would turn evil. There's absolutely no indication of that in the film. Underdevelopment. Also, trying to kill him and in the process pissing him off feels counterproductive and again, stupid. Yes, he learned about his powers, how to kill him but didn't learn about his mother, learning how he is why does he do what he does, reaching out to him? That's some weak sauce investigation. Again, stupidity. And you keep mentioning UC like you've seen it (we're discussing the theatrical cut since neither one of us has seen UC and you don't know what's going to be explained or further developed).

I'm not in the mood of having a repetetive conversation though, especially about a movie I didn't even like. Unfortunately, it has my favorite comic book character in this but he was a dumb brute in it. I am pissed, I am disappointed, especially with Batman... but I can't loose any more time on this shit.

If you want to see a good, well-developed Batman, I recommend watching TDK trilogy again and then seeing what's the difference.

Ehh, I mean opinions and all of that. I like those movies as much as the next guy, but they were hardly good Batman movies (great movies on their own). Snyder got way closer to the source material than Nolan ever did. Sure thing if you did not like this interpretation of this Batman, but to hold killing against him and then suggest the Nolan movies where it is done right according to you? If anything Batfleck isn't a a hypocrite about the no killing policy unlike Bale Batman. More than that, he sees his own errors and redeems himself by the end of the movie. Nolan Batman killed in all three movies without it ever being paid attention too by the characters.

I always said, I don't have a problem with Batman killing when it's necessary. I even HATED the ending to both, Arkham City and Arkham Origins, because they made his "one rule" into a joke. City with him not wanting to let Joker die due to Joker's own actions and Origins for that ridiculous overreaction by James Gordon when Batman killed Bane when it was the only logical thing to do. I mean at some point "motherfuckers just got to go".

But it's one thing to kill some people because you want to save a city from a looming massive explosion or kill some ninjas with anintent to save a man's life and/or your own... but it's a whole different story to plot to MURDER an INNOCENT person.

I have NO problems with Batman killing the pseudo-KGBeast (because his intent was to save Martha and it was the only real option he had). I have problems with him killing people in the chase scene for a whole different reason (because of how pointless that whole scene was). But killing a guy just because he's from a different world and "his kind" is a possible threat, smells of Islamophobia and racism is something that Bale-Bat never stood for, as well as Batman from the comics. It's just deplorable for a "hero" to be racist and a calculating murderer.

Okay....I'll try keep this as story spoiler free when it comes to the new content as I can. Possible spoilers for those yet to even see the film - and I 1000% encourage the extended version to be your first viewing if so.

The TL;DR version - best way to describe this is that it's not a completely different movie. It's a more complete, and definitely improved film. From the word go - so much more room to let the story breathe, and even by the extension everything that the story goes for is done justice better here.

The improvements: the thing about this is that it isn't just the theatrical cut with a bunch of extra scenes added on. Aside from the whole 3rd act (from end of BvS fight to epilogue - which, while being the weaker part of the film in this cut, oddly in the theatrical cut was the best paced part of the film), everything including existing theatrical cut scenes is expanded, changed up, in some cases early on even re-ordered. Most importantly, everything gets a whole lot more room to breathe, the pacing is much more even (which helps even moments like the infamous email scene which is in the same place as in the TC), and the editing and intercutting is miles better, scenes intercut and transition much more naturally and smoothly. You won't even care that there aren't that many more establishing shots even (a notable one was a nice one of Gotham early on). I was at first a bit unsure on how the wheels are spinning quite a bit but overall the very graceful build up to the conflicts is very much appreciated.

It's the same story - but it feels really quite differently executed, and for the better. There are expansions to story elements that really help make sense of a lot of the existing beats. Don't really wanna say more because spoilers, but yes, the additions help immensely.

Clark/Supes and Lois benefit the most from the new content. The balance between Bats and Supes is much more even as we get more to do, and both their storylines are really quite improved upon. There is more Supes as well, with moments that should quieten down the hate, and Bats gets a few more characterisation shades (including a, to me, very notable improvement as well, retconning a point that many at first considered to be a big problem). The new characters introduced, including Jena Malone's, while not really that big on screentime and as such easily expendable in the theatrical, are great to see and they help out overall with affecting expanded subplots. Lex is improved upon also, adding a touch of Frank Underwood as well (one of two Fincher homages, may be uninitentional) to his first-act arc with Senator Finch, and the other additions are very interesting too, but may not be for everyone due to the divisive reaction. I liked Eisenberg's take on Lex so to see more of it here was very welcome.

That third act is, for better or worse, weaker than the rest but still enjoyable to watch - probably a case of everything coming before that and the epilogue after being so good. One thing that peeves me, like in the theatrical cut, is how they tried to introduce a third act element in the build up to the big fight, but I guess all of this is something I can live with.

If you liked the theatrical cut on the first go, you'll love this. If you were on the fence/mixed on the theatrical cut primarily because of the execution issues (except runtime - because there are people for whom a 3 hour superhero blockbuster is too much), you'll likely come out enjoying this. If you didn't like the film the first time for more fundamental reasons like Snyder's vision for these characters and the places he's taking them and the overall story? You probably still come out disliking it.

EDIT: one more thing - there was something someone said about the theatrical cut being far too preoccupied with setting up a universe than it own story. Thankfully this cut does the film's own story justice for good (pun may or may not be intended).

8.5/10

Bring on the questions.

Batbale's rule was not to kill anyone who's not an immediate threat to anyone else's life and he followed that rule very consistently. Ra's, league members, Harvey Dent, truck drivers or Thalia were all immediate threats. There wasn't even a single time that he broke that rule. It's one of the most basic commonly acceptable aspects of morality. He wasn't perfect. He committed many morally questionable acts, he was careless many times but he was never a murderer in contrast to Batfleck. If you are not able to understand the clear difference between the two then you are lost.£

Some guy is uploading select scenes from the UC. Spoilers obviously:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLqB_G ... Y82L9curtA