BvS All Things Batman v Superman: An Open Discussion (TAG SPOILERS) - - - - Part 305

[Sleiek]

You mean the film gets to define it's own reality? Just like every other film in history.
Unless they're saying something that is in absolute contradiction to what was shown (as opposed to clarifying it,) or we're dealing with an unreliable narrator, or other dramatic device or artistic approach, if the film says something happened, or did not happen, that's the reality.

Yes and I am fine with it. That's not the point I was making.
I am saying a little lip service keeps the blame away when:

No, no it does not. He easily could have killed countless (more) people in those films.

 

[gdw]

Yes and I am fine with it. That's not the point I was making.
I am saying a little lip service keeps the blame away when:

Except it's NOT lip service keeping the BLAME away. It's exposition clarifying FACTS.

We're not debating whether or not the things Batman did in BvS were good, or bad, regardless of people dying; We're discussing whether or not people died.

 

[Sleiek]

We are not arguing the same thing then.

Someone brought Batman Begins for comparison and I was saying how "exposition" stops people from debating whether Batman did the right thing in those movies.

 

[misslane38]

Because when we see the chase being reported on TV as Bruce returns to the Manor and Alfred is calling him out, it says there were no serious injuries.

I thought that was really weak myself, but they did address it.

But this is what I don't get. If film logic expects me to believe no one was seriously hurt in the cited police chase sequence, then why, in the absence of any concrete evidence onscreen in BvS, am I supposed to conclude that those men died? The absence of proof is not proof.

Now, I am actually okay with the idea of a more brutal and reckless Batman because I think having him come back from breaking his no kill code is a worthwhile story to tell, and it was a story told well in Snyder's film. Nonetheless, I see no reason why I should have any more cause to assume action sequences lead to deaths in BvS when similar sequences have not resulted in serious injury.

 

[misslane38]

Except it's NOT lip service keeping the BLAME away. It's exposition clarifying FACTS.

We're not debating whether or not the things Batman did in BvS were good, or bad, regardless of people dying; We're discussing whether or not people died.

Well, in that case, it is not a FACT that people died in BvS. It is a FACT that it is DEBATABLE that people died.

 

[Flint Marko]

You're being deliberately obtuse if you don't see the obvious differences between Nolans action sequences and Snyder's in regards to a body count.

 

[souperman]

You mean the film gets to define it's own reality? Just like every other film in history.
Unless they're saying something that is in absolute contradiction to what was shown (as opposed to clarifying it,) or we're dealing with an unreliable narrator, or other dramatic device or artistic approach, if the film says something happened, or did not happen, that's the reality.



Well, yeah, pretty much. If we assume Superman isn't lying, to the best of his knowledge, we can be pretty certain he would know. He'd be able to see the exact extent of any, and all injuries he caused someone. Side note, that would have been a nice touch in the post senate bomb scene, if Superman got a chance to speak, and told the EMS what injuries the person he was carrying had.

Back on track, Superman's comment, "I didn't kill those men", seems to be specifically referring to the men KGBeast and his men shot, and burned.
Superman is only seen dealing with on individual.
He doesn't say he did not kill anyone: He's responding to the blame for the massacre itself in this moment.
Obviously just nitpicking/semantics really, but the line remains at least partially ambiguous, as to whether or not Superman killed anyone.

We can reach, and assume it means the war lord survived being slammed through multiple brick walls, but we'd still be assuming, technically. But it's far LESS of a reach than assuming any of the occupants of any the cars Batman destroyed in the chase scene, survived.

All true.

The thing I note is that Snyder seems to want to put the GA in the same position as the movies character witnesses. He lets us decide what we saw and make judgments. He puts the belief in our hands and lets us choose what we believe depending on our POV.

If you believe Superman is good, than he does not kill "indiscriminately" .

Same goes for Batman. In his eyes, he is justified in his actions. He does not murder but allows people to die if necessary and does not cry over it. In comic character or not, this interpretation explores the what if scenario of what if.

 

[gdw]

We are not arguing the same thing then.

Someone brought Batman Begins for comparison and I was saying how "exposition" stops people from debating whether Batman did the right thing in those movies.

Ok, so, if I understand you now, you introduced a different comparison than the one being made, as a response the comparison that was being made?

If I'm not mistaken, the exposition was originally brought up to illustrate the "objective" reality the film was presenting, as THAT was what was being debated.

 

[Sleiek]

Ok, so, if I understand you now, you introduced a different comparison than the one being made, as a response the comparison that was being made?

If I'm not mistaken, the exposition was originally brought up to illustrate the "objective" reality the film was presenting, as THAT was what was being debated.

Bingo. Just came to me as I was reading one of the responses.

 

[misslane38]

You're being deliberately obtuse if you don't see the obvious differences between Nolans action sequences and Snyder's in regards to a body count.

It seems to me the only difference is a throwaway line that creates certainty. Both action sequences show a degree of recklessness that appears to be enough cause to seriously injure or kill, but I am supposed to accept that one character is non-lethal and the other lethal because of a line of dialogue. If there is an obvious difference, then surely you could articulate this difference.

 

[gdw]

But this is what I don't get. If film logic expects me to believe no one was seriously hurt in the cited police chase sequence, then why, in the absence of any concrete evidence onscreen in BvS, am I supposed to conclude that those men died? The absence of proof is not proof.

Now, I am actually okay with the idea of a more brutal and reckless Batman because I think having him come back from breaking his no kill code is a worthwhile story to tell, and it was a story told well in Snyder's film. Nonetheless, I see no reason why I should have any more cause to assume action sequences lead to deaths in BvS when similar sequences have not resulted in serious injury.

SMH, the point is, you are comparing apples to oranges, then pointing at a painting of green and red skinned "apple shaped" fruit and saying "Those could be oranges."

 

[gdw]

Bingo. Just came to me as I was reading one of the responses.

Cool, just wanted to make sure I understood you.

 

[gdw]

All true.

The thing I note is that Snyder seems to want to put the GA in the same position as the movies character witnesses. He lets us decide what we saw and make judgments. He puts the belief in our hands and lets us choose what we believe depending on our POV.

If you believe Superman is good, than he does not kill "indiscriminately" .

Same goes for Batman. In his eyes, he is justified in his actions. He does not murder but allows people to die if necessary and does not cry over it. In comic character or not, this interpretation explores the what if scenario of what if.

Snyder definitely is not one to spell everything out. He has no problem letting the audience fill in the blanks themselves.

However, there's a difference between that, and deliberate ambiguity, and leaving something open to interpretation.

It seems to me the only difference is a throwaway line that creates certainty. Both action sequences show a degree of recklessness that appears to be enough cause to seriously injure or kill, but I am supposed to accept that one character is non-lethal and the other lethal because of a line of dialogue. If there is an obvious difference, then surely you could articulate this difference.

Now you're definitely being intentionally obtuse. There is SO much difference between the reckless actions in Begins, and BvS, well beyond a clarifying line of dialogue after the fact.

 

[misslane38]

SMH, the point is, you are comparing apples to oranges, then pointing at a painting of green and red skinned "apple shaped" fruit and saying "Those could be oranges."

What is the difference? We have two action sequences with images that one cannot help but assume the worst. The only difference between one scene resulting in no serious injuries and the other not resulting in serious injuries is a line of explanation in a later scene. One sequence results in no loss of life because of a line of dialogue. The consequences of the other scene are left ambiguous. The ambiguous scene, however, is being interpreted as absolute proof that men are dead. When action sequences like the Nolan Batman sequences exist and result in no serious injuries, why is the viewer of BvS supposed to assume that similar action sequences do more than just seriously injure, they can even kill?

 

[misslane38]

Now you're definitely being intentionally obtuse. There is SO much difference between the reckless actions in Begins, and BvS, well beyond a clarifying line of dialogue after the fact.

Then, please, tell me what the difference is. Spell it out to me. I watched both scenes and both scenes provide me with information that I could interpret as resulting in death. Why should I accept the Begins sequence caused no serious injury while the BvS caused multiple deaths?

 

[gdw]

What is the difference? We have two action sequences with images that one cannot help but assume the worst. The only difference between one scene resulting in no serious injuries and the other not resulting in serious injuries is a line of explanation in a later scene. One sequence results in no loss of life because of a line of dialogue. The consequences of the other scene are left ambiguous. The ambiguous scene, however, is being interpreted as absolute proof that men are dead. When action sequences like the Nolan Batman sequences exist and result in no serious injuries, why is the viewer of BvS supposed to assume that similar action sequences do more than just seriously injure, they can even kill?

You are unbelievable.

"We have two action sequences with images that one cannot help but assume the worst."

No, we don't. Only YOU seem to be unable to help assuming the worst.

-Begins had ambiguity, which was later clarified with dialogue.

-BvS explicitly showed Batman crush a guys head with the Batmobile, blow up another truck with guy standing on the back with a gun, and flip a car 20 feet, then drag it a block, and finally throw it on top of another car.

The ONLY, debatably, ambiguous deaths there would be the car dragging, and the people said car is thrown on top of.

While you'd be hard pressed to find any sane person who would maintain that people could survive being flipped, dragged, slammed, and thrown, around in a car, for a block, in a high-speed chase, where the car ends up a wrangled mess, you MAYBE could argue that the car did not land directly on top of the guys in the other car. Given that the car lands slanted to the side opposite of where the windows they were shooting from, they MIGHT have survived.
But that's SERIOUSLY stretching "ambiguity" here.

 

[gdw]

Then, please, tell me what the difference is. Spell it out to me. I watched both scenes and both scenes provide me with information that I could interpret as resulting in death. Why should I accept the Begins sequence caused no serious injury while the BvS caused multiple deaths?

Because they SHOW IT TO YOU. Or do you really think people can survive a batmobile to the head?

Also, we HAVE spelled it out for you, repeatedly.

[YT]1byycwl8qgc[/YT]

 

[misslane38]

You are unbelievable.

"We have two action sequences with images that one cannot help but assume the worst."

No, we don't. Only YOU seem to be unable to help assuming the worst.

-Begins had ambiguity, which was later clarified with dialogue.

-BvS explicitly showed Batman crush a guys head with the Batmobile, blow up another truck with guy standing on the back with a gun, and flip a car 20 feet, then drag it a block, and finally throw it on top of another car.

The ONLY, debatably, ambiguous deaths there would be the car dragging, and the people said car is thrown on top of.

While you'd be hard pressed to find any sane person who would maintain that people could survive being flipped, dragged, slammed, and thrown, around in a car, for a block, in a high-speed chase, where the car ends up a wrangled mess, you MAYBE could argue that the car did not land directly on top of the guys in the other car. Given that the car lands slanted to the side opposite of where the windows they were shooting from, they MIGHT have survived.
But that's SERIOUSLY stretching "ambiguity" here.

If it's debatable and not made explicit, then it's not a fact. I have seen pictures of Olympic divers who have split their heads open banging them on a hard diving board and surviving. Even if one scene is more brutal than another, and I'm not disputing that Snyder shows brutality, the only thing that provides clarification is dialogue. Thus, it's still not a fact that people died as a result of Batman's action in BvS, and that's what I'm interested in here: facts, not opinions or guesses. But thanks for calling me insane. It's nice to see your habit of resorting to insulting the people with whom you disagree endures.

 

[gdw]

 

[misslane38]

Because they SHOW IT TO YOU. Or do you really think people can survive a batmobile to the head?

Also, we HAVE spelled it out for you, repeatedly.

[YT]1byycwl8qgc[/YT]

Your video proves MY point. It is parodying the fact that when superheroes like Batman fight in films, it always looks lethal and brutal, but the audience is supposed to accept those "kills" aren't kills because the heroes are heroes and heroes are good. And, since this is how comic book film logic works, regardless of how silly and insane it is, why am I suddenly supposed to believe that only Snyder's film breaks the rules?

 

[souperman]

Correct.

Also correct.

At most Batman would be charged with reckless negligent homicide or manslaughter due to his state of mind. Intent is the key.

 

[The Joker]

At most Batman would be charged with reckless negligent homicide or manslaughter due to his state of mind. Intent is the key.

Incorrect.

 

[souperman]

Snyder definitely is not one to spell everything out. He has no problem letting the audience fill in the blanks themselves.

However, there's a difference between that, and deliberate ambiguity, and leaving something open to interpretation.

I guess the real issue comes down to who and what you believe.

If someone in the film says "I didn't kill, or killed because of a good reason" but the shown scenes contradict that, we have to decide what is true, just like in a mystery movie. Characters lie to us all the time. That's part of the fun of the entertainment. Verbal said he never did nothin...

Of course all this discussion illustrates the varied POVs of people witnessing the very same thing...not very clean cut, is it?

 

[Infinity9999x]

That's convenient, isn't it? You just have to say there were no serious injuries for Batman to get away from his actions which COULD have killed/hurt those cops.
Like the scenes in BvS where they say "this is inhabited" "that is inhabited" and people just believe it.

It's very convenient. And it's long been one of my main criticisms of the scene.

And Bats is even more blatant in BvS, which is why I disliked that even more.

 

[souperman]

Incorrect.

So sure are you. You must be a district attorney?

Fact is he never "intends to kill" and that is the key to any charges in prosecution. Don't you watch Law and Order?

I didn't see the Gotham police charging him with spitting on the side walk...even after attempting to kill Superman!

Even in the comics, he beats people half to death and is never charged.