Fine.

So anyone know where the movie is going to be taking place? Is that supposed to be Gotham and that's why the Joker is there or what. Also why do you guys think the Joker looks so much younger than Batman when they're typically depicted to be around the same age.
He just looks young. I mean, if you assume the characters are the same age as their actors, The Joker is a year older than batman
 
Yes, it is possible to tell a good story with an atypical take on Batman, but you need a normal Batman first. Atypical takes are defined by their contrast to the norm.
There isn't one person on planet Earth who is unfamiliar with The Goddamn Batman. You can open up by saying that your Batman is different, nobody will be confused.

And let's be clear here: Snyder fails even in terms of delivering an aged Batman. He was very open about using The Dark Knight Returns as his source Material, and guess what? The Version of Batman portrayed in that book still fits all of Batman's Core Concepts. He doesn't kill even there.
This isn't a 'failure', this is 'not strictly adhering to the source material'. You're looking at this trying to see how faithful it is to a 30-year-old book; this isn't movies, this is dogma.

Disregarding that he totally does. I'm sorry, people can absolutely find instances in the book where Batman kills people. BvS takes it a step further, but only a step.
 
The Joker scenes are almost certainly taking place before the story. This is why you don't see him in the same shot as any of the actual characters in the film.
 
The Joker scenes are almost certainly taking place before the story. This is why you don't see him in the same shot as any of the actual characters in the film.
Pretty sure he's going to be involved in the plot of the film. Either that or the Harley Quinn origin involves dozens of scenes, several costume changes, and a totally different plot. Which fine might happen, but that seems odd given that there are like a dozen other characters in the film that need some focus too.
 
Fair enough, I was wrong about TDKR (I was going off summaries, I haven't actually read the book because I hate the art style.)

The broader point is still the same: For an adaptation to be faithful, certain points about the character need to be understood.

That doesn't mean there isn't room to play around with the characters.
 
How core is "doesn't kill" to Batman as a character? Sure, it's core, but some core concepts are greater than others. For instance... James T. Kirk commands a starship named the Enterprise in service of the Starfleet of the United Federation of Planets. Also, he kicks all the ass. If you find yourself in a fist fight with him, you've already lost. If his shirt is ripped, your entire side has already lost. Ripped Shirt Kirk is a meme on the same level as Redshirts dying in droves under his command...

But is it? How many fights has he won in the Reboot series? For that matter, how many times has he gotten the girl? That's pretty core to him as well, isn't it? What's core to Kirk, and what's really core to Kirk?

What's core to Batman, and what's really core to Batman? If "no killing" really is that core, why are the two Burton films never taken to task like this?
 
How core is "doesn't kill" to Batman as a character? Sure, it's core, but some core concepts are greater than others. For instance... James T. Kirk commands a starship named the Enterprise in service of the Starfleet of the United Federation of Planets. Also, he kicks all the ass. If you find yourself in a fist fight with him, you've already lost. If his shirt is ripped, your entire side has already lost. Ripped Shirt Kirk is a meme on the same level as Redshirts dying in droves under his command...

But is it? How many fights has he won in the Reboot series? For that matter, how many times has he gotten the girl? That's pretty core to him as well, isn't it? What's core to Kirk, and what's really core to Kirk?

What's core to Batman, and what's really core to Batman? If "no killing" really is that core, why are the two Burton films never taken to task like this?
I've never actually seen the Burton films, so I can't speak to their quality.

I've already stated what I believe to be Batman's core elements

-He doesn't have (Acknowledged) super powers
- He is motivated by the death of his parents
-He doesn't kill

For reference, here are Captain America's core concepts

- He is a man outside of time
- He was once weak and frail, and was made into something greater
 
Fair enough, I was wrong about TDKR (I was going off summaries, I haven't actually read the book because I hate the art style.)
I've never actually seen the Burton films, so I can't speak to their quality.
So, you repeat the 'core elements' of Batman like religious dogma, while in total ignorance of the character's actual portrayal over the years. Good to know.

If anyone ever wanted proof of the utter intellectual bankruptcy dominating Internet discourse, they just need to look at your posts.
 
So, you repeat the 'core elements' of Batman like religious dogma, while in total ignorance of the character's actual portrayal over the years. Good to know.

If anyone ever wanted proof of the utter intellectual bankruptcy dominating Internet discourse, they just need to look at your posts.
Meanwhile you represent total disrespect for the character. By your logic they could slap bat ears on Tony Stark and call it a Batman movie.
 
Meanwhile you represent total disrespect for the character. By your logic they could slap bat ears on Tony Stark and call it a Batman movie.

This reasoning is interesting to me. What makes your interpretation of the character so valuable that to veer from it is 'disrepectful'? Is it because you privilege your reading of Batman over all others? Have you become hugely attached to one particular portrayal or story which has shaped your understanding of the character edit2: in a particular way, or even become the lens through which you view edit: all subsequent portrayals?

I'd be really interested to find out, assuming you can/want to frame things in the same way.
 
Last edited:
This reasoning is interesting to me. What makes your interpretation of the character so valuable that to veer from it is 'disrepectful'? Is it because you privilege your reading of Batman over all others? Have you become hugely attached to one particular portrayal or story which has shaped your understanding of the character edit2: in a particular way, or even become the lens through which you view edit: all subsequent portrayals?

I'd be really interested to find out, assuming you can/want to frame things in the same way.
I'm not saying my interpretation is the best one, I'm saying that there are certain elements of the character that any adaptation needs to understand.

Tell me, how would you react if the film had removed the death of Batman's parents, or given him explicit, over the top superpowers like Laser vision or intangibility?
 
Meanwhile you represent total disrespect for the character. By your logic they could slap bat ears on Tony Stark and call it a Batman movie.
"Stop disrespecting the character by disagreeing with me!"

See? That's what I mean. Faced with proof of your ignorance, you decide to fling accusations of -essentially- blasphemy. You cannot back up your arguments, so you shoot the messenger.

This is why fanboyism is bad; it is equivalent to religious zealotry.
 
"Stop disrespecting the character by disagreeing with me!"

See? That's what I mean. Faced with proof of your ignorance, you decide to fling accusations of -essentially- blasphemy. You cannot back up your arguments, so you shoot the messenger.

This is why fanboyism is bad; it is equivalent to religious zealotry.
Wanting adaptations to get basic facts about the character they're adapting right is not fanboyism.
 
Meanwhile you represent total disrespect for the character. By your logic they could slap bat ears on Tony Stark and call it a Batman movie.

One could very well argue, as Sufficient Juice has, that claiming authoritative knowledge of "the character" despite not having read key portrayals of them is far more "disrespectable" (kek) than simply holding alternative views of that character.
 
This would be correct if you knew anything about the character, but...


...that's not true.
1. those posts are completely unrelated to my point.
2. Just because I haven't seen to specific stories doesn't make me unfamiliar with Batman. I've seen most episodes of Batman the Animated Series, All episodes of The Batman, All episodes of Beware the Batman, and all but one or two episodes of Batman the Brave and the Bold, I've seen all of Batman's appearances on Justice League, Superman TAS, Static Shock, all of Batman Beyond, Played two Lego Batman games, watched several of the Lego DC movies (Not to be confused with The LEGO Movie, which is a parody of Batman. But I've seen that too), All the currently released Batman Unlimited movies, I've seen the entire Nolan Trilogy (Multiple viewings each of Begins and The Dark Knight, one viewing of Rises in the theater), I've seen several of the new animated batman movies and the Justice League movies, Several episodes of The Adam West Batman show, Several episodes of the Superfriends, All the times Batman teamed up with Scooby Doo and watched a walkthrough of Batman Arkham City.

I'm not unfamiliar with Batman. I've seen several different interpretations of the character and liked most of them

As for Burton's batman, He's got more of an impact on Batman's public perception than he does on Batman's character. He made the wider public be able to see Batman seriously, but Batman as a character had been doing serious stories in the comics for a while at that point.

For the Dark Knight, that's an iconic story but it still doesn't speak about the average portrayal of Batman, because it's specifically not a normal Batman. It's one that's been changed by time. So while it's worth reading, it's not critical to understanding Batman


One of the most beloved depictions of him in recent times had him as a Lego toy.
"Not a lego minifig" is not one of the Core elements of Batman that I listed. Also, That was a parody of Batman
 
I'm not unfamiliar with Batman. I've seen several different interpretations of the character and liked most of them
What you liked and what you didn't is entirely immaterial. You have been claiming for the last two pages that Batman v Superman goes entirely against what has been shown before, and you've argued this with ever increasing obstinacy and fervor.

Now, don't get me wrong: it didn't have to come to this. If you had said that you hadn't seen such an interpretation before, that would have been okay with me. If you had said that you disliked the movie because you weren't used to this Batman, I'd be somewhat miffed but wouldn't have said anything. All of these are subjective. But you said that they failed to "get it right", and used it as an actual criticism of the movie; that is what I object to, because it is demonstrably wrong.

You are -somewhat- right that the portrayal of Batman as a violent thug is uncommon. It is also uncommon, statistically speaking, to have a Batman who has no problem with "accidentally" killing his enemies. But that kind of Batman provably exists, and he exists in immensely popular, acclaimed and enduring stories, that still inform public perception of him. Stories which absolutely form part of the character and, let's repeat, you haven't seen. It isn't the movie's fault that you are criticizing it from a place of ignorance. Nobody is obligated to take you seriously if you do shit like this.

You are self-admittedly blasting the movie for taking after singular, unique, good stories, because you would prefer it if it showed an average version of Batman. Another word for 'average' is 'mediocre'. I know we'll disagree on this, but I actually really appreciate that Snyder didn't aim for mediocrity even if the end result is lacking. If you don't, if you had wanted a mediocre Batman, you are free to rewatch the literal ton of Batman stuff you've seen already. The children's cartoon is that way, sir.
 
I think there is a conflict here between what a character is and what a good character is.

Technically speaking, any version of Batman licensed by DC Comics is an authentic Batman.

That doesn't make every version good or interesting. Batman of The Brave and the Bold cartoon is about the same level of authentic as the Batman of Frank Miller's All Star Batman and Robin. I just could not care less about the latter and Batmans that are closer to the latter than the former on the line are ones I think are terrible takes on Batman. I have no problem declaring they are bad Batmen.
 
What you liked and what you didn't is entirely immaterial. You have been claiming for the last two pages that Batman v Superman goes entirely against what has been shown before, and you've argued this with ever increasing obstinacy and fervor.

Now, don't get me wrong: it didn't have to come to this. If you had said that you hadn't seen such an interpretation before, that would have been okay with me. If you had said that you disliked the movie because you weren't used to this Batman, I'd be somewhat miffed but wouldn't have said anything. All of these are subjective. But you said that they failed to "get it right", and used it as an actual criticism of the movie; that is what I object to, because it is demonstrably wrong.

You are -somewhat- right that the portrayal of Batman as a violent thug is uncommon. It is also uncommon, statistically speaking, to have a Batman who has no problem with "accidentally" killing his enemies. But that kind of Batman provably exists, and he exists in immensely popular, acclaimed and enduring stories, that still inform public perception of him. Stories which absolutely form part of the character and, let's repeat, you haven't seen. It isn't the movie's fault that you are criticizing it from a place of ignorance. Nobody is obligated to take you seriously if you do shit like this.

You are self-admittedly blasting the movie for taking after singular, unique, good stories, because you would prefer it if it showed an average version of Batman. Another word for 'average' is 'mediocre'. I know we'll disagree on this, but I actually really appreciate that Snyder didn't aim for mediocrity even if the end result is lacking. If you don't, if you had wanted a mediocre Batman, you are free to rewatch the literal ton of Batman stuff you've seen already. The children's cartoon is that way, sir.


My original claim was that Suicide Squad would be good because it understands it's source material and is respectful to it, whereas Zach Snyder neither understood nor respected it's source material.

I used the world average because it's unrealistic to expect every iteration of Batman to be an absolute masterpiece. I just want it to meet the bare minimum of competence, and it failed to do so. Zack Snyder aimed for a masterpiece and failed to even achieve Mediocrity. Ben Affleck did well in the role, and if he gets creative control over the character going forward, then there's a chance that the character can be redeemed, but he'll need to dig himself out of Zack Snyder's shithole first.

And by the by, AVERAGE DOES NOT MEAN MEDIOCRE. Mediocre means low quality, Average means of neither high quality nor low quality.
 
Back
Top