Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[RandomCat]

Just now, Napoleon said:

Yes, maybe it's realistic to expect a vigilante like Batman to exist in our world and to do what he does without touching anyone.

 

So not wanting him to murder people is the same as not wanting him to touch anyone? There is a wide gulp in between, and if you're only recourse is to purposefully misinterpret what I say to prove your point, you've lost.

 

I won't even argue how MoS and BvS aren't even realistic anyway, only leave the parting wisdom that in the real world, you couldn't leave a jar of human urine in the chambers of congress and have no one notice it for so long. (The smell would give it away as soon as you stepped in.)

[DMan7]

Why did they have a Jar of Piss in BvS btw? The message they were trying to convey was piss poor anyways, they should've just left it out entirely or done some other alternative.

[RandomCat]

7 minutes ago, DMan7 said:

Why did they have a Jar of Piss in BvS btw? The message they were trying to convey was piss poor anyways, they should've just left it out entirely or done some other alternative.

 

Better question, why did it take the Democrat (*snicker*) senator from Kentucky so long to notice the jar, and how did Luthor manage to time the bomb to go off at the exact time she realized it was there.

[Napoleon]

That's called nitpicking.

[boomboom234]

12 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Incorrect it has a video game, theme park and comic book. This constitutes as a franchise!

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_franchise

Every movie back then had a video game, fucking ET has a video game is it a franchise and neither the comic book nor the theme park is enough nor are even out yet. When we refer to a franchise it's usually a series of movies with extended universe content not a single movie with upcoming content that doesn't go beyond the events of that movie

[RandomCat]

Just now, Napoleon said:

That's called nitpicking.

 

Is it? How about how it's impossible to get a bomb into the capitol building? Or how someone can fall away from a gravity sink-well that is attracting objects of far greater mass towards it? Note, none of these are the reasons I dislike MoS or BvS, they're just examples of the world not being realistic just because everything is dark and gritty. I mean, by the fact that there is no one who is optimistic is proof enough it isn't realistic, since the world isn't full of 100% down and dour people.

 

Having a moral code that you won't kill anyone isn't unrealistic. Most people have that personal code.

[IronJimbo]

7 minutes ago, boomboom234 said:

Every movie back then had a video game, fucking ET has a video game is it a franchise and neither the comic book nor the theme park is enough nor are even out yet. When we refer to a franchise it's usually a series of movies with extended universe content not a single movie with upcoming content that doesn't go beyond the events of that movie

 

Correct ET is a franchise.

[DMan7]

Avatar isn't a franchise. #DealWithIt

[IronJimbo]

5 minutes ago, DMan7 said:

Avatar isn't a franchise. #DealWithIt

 

SOURCE:MY ASS

[Barnack]

3 hours ago, RandomJC said:

Having a moral code that you won't kill anyone isn't unrealistic. Most people have that personal code.

 

I don't know about that, lot of people will not care much if a violent person endangering others can kill to protect them, being a violent vigilantly and a total mental case like Batman and not killing the Joker (with all the consequence and good family men that will die because of Jokers future actions) because of some moral code can be questionable in term of realism.

 

But I would say than talking about realism for a grown men that has bat ear on is costume and Aliens looking 100% like humans that are throwing lazer's from their eyes is being a bit strange and not where the movie should be evaluated. Does the character is consistent with is made up unrealistic rules is much more what matter and if the movie decide that Batman has that moral code to create a challenge and because it is a movie made for 10 year's old in mind that they should be able to enjoy it too ?, so be it, if the movie decide that he kill people, why not ?

 

None of the 2 option is inherently better than the other one imo and both are a bit ridicule and certainly not aiming for realism.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Barnack

[RandomCat]

4 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

I don't know about that, lot of people will not care much if a violent person endangering others can kill to protect them, being a violent vigilantly and a total mental case like Batman and not killing the Joker (with all the consequence and good family men that will die because of Jokers future actions) because of some moral code can be questionable in term of realism.

 

 

I'll argue the former since I completely disagree. One, his moral code on not killing has nothing to do with public perception, so that I'm going to toss aside is irrelevant. Why would it be questionable in realism for Batman not to kill the Joker? In reality the Joker would never escape, time and time again. Our society has that moral code right now, that killing someone is wrong, even deranged madmen aren't killed because of this moral stance. Batman is a vigilante to protect the people of Gotham. And part of that is to prove and show that the rule of law is still something, and means something. It's why he works closely with men like Gordon, and Harvey Dent before his accident. If he were to kill people that's a break in the trust of the law.

 

Now let's take this to a look at the world these movies have created. In this world were batman is perfectly okay killing, who has he killed? Thugs of Lex luthor whose crimes were kidnapping (a crime not punishable with the death sentence) and theft (another crime not punishable with death). But he doesn't kill Deadshot, a well known assassin, and the Joker, a psychotic killer. This is a world where Batman who is willing to kill Superman before Superman commits a crime just to be sure, but doesn't kill Deadshot or the Joker. Sure, it's realistic.

[Barnack]

16 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

 Our society has that moral code right now, that killing someone is wrong, even deranged madmen aren't killed because of this moral stance

 

Killing is seen as wrong but certainly using the best tool and force to stop a dangerous person to hurt people is not, regardless if it mean that it has great chance of killing them (say a cop in function), putting at risk the fate of a large portion of a population just because you don't want to simply shoot the bad guy and stop him the best as you can possibly do it is certainly strange, when the stake are put high enough it become unrealistic.

 

i didn't meant public perception (English is a second language, I'm probably been unclear)

 

Quote

This is a world where Batman who is willing to kill Superman before Superman commits a crime just to be sure, but doesn't kill Deadshot or the Joker. Sure, it's realistic.

 

It sure isn't, is branding that make people killed in prison for example, what was that ? Why other criminal would see being branded by a vigilante some deathly offense....

Edited March 24, 2017 by Barnack

[RandomCat]

11 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Killing is seen as wrong but certainly using the best tool and force to stop a dangerous person to hurt people is not, regardless if it mean that it has great chance of killing them (say a cop in function), putting at risk the fate of a large portion of a population just because you don't want to simply shoot the bad guy and stop him the best as you can possibly do it is certainly strange, when the stake are put high enough it become unrealistic.

 

A cop can't just kill a bad guy though. It's actually a last resort and is in general frowned upon as an action taken. And even then, you'd have to shoot him when he is causing that threat, you can't shoot and kill him on the perceived threat he may cause in the future.

 

11 minutes ago, Barnack said:

It sure isn't, is branding that make people killed in prison for example, what was that ? Why other criminal would see being branded by a vigilante some deathly offense....

 

Because he didn't brand him to be killed. Luther had the man killed to make it seem that's why he was branded.

[Nosferatu Zodd]

5 hours ago, TalismanRing said:

 

Not even close.  CW is a well movie - well structured & populated with appealing compelling characters.   BvS is a narrative mess with unlikable poorly rendered characters (who I love and like in other movies and formats).

 

The Top 25 just means there were more die hard DC and Batman fervently fans voting - the usual around. 

 

Reviews here (like elsewhere) weren't even close

 

Pretty much this
 

 

[robertman2]

Even though I support the death penalty for people like pedophiles, murderers, rapists and people who use their phones in theaters, Batman shouldn't kill since that's a big part of his character. Other wise you just any generic 90s antihero.

[YM!]

I honestly would have liked BVS TC better if it gave me a valid reason why Superman hates Batman or why does Luthor hates Superman, both reasons are handled piss poor to me not to mention "Martha!" and bad writing. However it's excels at acting for the most part (Supes and Luthor sucked), action and visuals. I do have to say while I liked Affleck's Batman he wasn't that realistic. As @Napoleon said BvS will be remembered but not as a "masterpiece" but more of a mixed vibe among people. There'll be groups that loves it and groups that hates, unfortunately I'm with the latter. 

Edited March 24, 2017 by YourMother

[RandomCat]

1 minute ago, robertman2 said:

Even though I support the death penalty for people like pedophiles, murderers, rapists and people who use their phones in theaters, Batman shouldn't kill since that's a big part of his character. Other wise you just any generic 90s antihero.

 

Or the Punisher. What we have with BvS is the best Punisher movie ever made.

[Nosferatu Zodd]

1 hour ago, Napoleon said:

That's called nitpicking.

 

 

Apologists need to stop thinking everything is a nitpick. And the UC changes nothing.

Edited March 24, 2017 by Nosferatu Zodd

[rukaio101]

To be honest, I don't really care whether or not Batman 'should' kill people in comics/movies/whatever. There are reasonable arguments both for and against it. Ultimately it just comes down to how well it's actually done in-story. And it was not done well in BvS

 

Basically, there are two big reasons Batman killing people in BvS does not work from a narrative and audience standpoint. First of all, this is the first major Batman movie following the massively popular and successful Nolan Trilogy. In said Trilogy, one of the biggest and most obvious themes was Batman's rule against killing, which was very heavily emphasised in the first two movies and directly tied to Batman's ideology. BvS may be a reboot of the character, but that doesn't mean people are going to magically forget his other portrayals in popular culture. And when the Nolan Trilogy spent so long making the 'No-Killing' rule a central core of the Batman character, you have to take it into account when doing later iterations. You can't just flip 180 to Batman offhandedly killing people with barely any care and then act surprised when people have an issue with it. Sure, they probably could've gotten away with it in BvS if they provided reasons, directly called it out and made it clear that it was a sign Batman was going off the rails more and more, but that would require some level of actual competent characterisation.

 

Secondly though, it's a problem because the second scene Batman clearly kills people (the warehouse) is supposed to be after his big character change, post-Supes fight, where he's supposed to have softened and realised his mistakes and that he's going too far. All of which is then immediately thrown out the window when he clearly kills several of the thugs he was fighting without any apprehension or remorse, showing he hasn't softened at all. It completely undermined his own character arc. Which is bad. Obviously.

 

So yeah. It's not Batman killing people which is dumb, just the way they did it. Same goes for Superman killing Zod in MoS. You're welcome to guess which inappropriate character they'll mishandle in JL to fill the quota.

[robertman2]

2 minutes ago, RandomJC said:

 

Or the Punisher. What we have with BvS is the best Punisher movie ever made.

Yep