Justice League Henry Cavill IS Clark Kent/Superman

[Wolfgangamadeus]

Eh, well let's not get all doom and gloom until we see it. Plus we've moved away from Cavill. Poor guy. Can't even be the lead in his own thread.

LMAO. Best post of this thread. If only we could vote for posts here.

 

[Rapunzel]

I'd get us back on topic with a list of things I'd like to Cavill....but I think only ISS and Loca, and Miss Lois would appreciate it.

 

[Lily Adler]

 

[Legendver2]

Superman's new power: telekinesis

 

[Rapunzel]

He is flippin' beautiful.

 

[Lily Adler]

 

[Cats]

*EDIT* Sorry last post on the subject.

You're always going to get property damag with these guys but no civilinas were getting killed, which was the main concern that made all those countries sign the Accords. And as far as I remember the entire airport wasn't destroyed. It was mostly cars, cargo and like 1-2 planes.

Right at the start we see billions of dollars of damage, some soot covered children huddling together in fear, and the Avengers can barely stomach it. Yet the film goes a 180 with the Avengers' next course of action... to create MORE destruction, this time with even less of a reason because it's gone from saving the earth from external threats to Avengers vs Avengers - as if that's going to give the general public more confidence in them. And btw, that airport might still be standing, but after all the hullabaloo of the chase in there, it's definitely not going to be safe for people to use. Fear perpetuated by destruction is the determining factor here, death is only the catalyst. If there was any logic in the conflict, the Avengers would've taken special care to avoid any other bad publicity in the wake of what happened before - or at least let CA/Bucky and IM/BP work it out among themselves, because the others obviously have no beef with each other - they're just there to destroy stuff for fun.

I don't see how listening to Bucky (the uncontrollable murder machine) would have changed everything.

He was completely in control when we first saw him, and spent more time being in control than out of control. The entire movie happened because [BLACKOUT]CA and Bucky failed to convey that, or the rest failed to listen. Didn't you see what happened in that final locale where BP and IM learnt the truth and decided to stop harassing Bucky? If anyone had listened to Bucky from the start and found him innocent; framed for a crime that he did not commit, there would not be a road rampage scene, there would not be an airport fight, there would not be a fight in the place where they held Bucky captive. Zemo would've been put into their radar much much sooner, and they would've been more careful not to place Bucky into a position where he could have his programming re-initiated.
[/BLACKOUT]
If BvS was faulted for Superman's delay in conveying the message of his mother's peril for 5 minutes, then CW had the WHOLE movie to convey the message of [BLACKOUT]Bucky's innocence[/BLACKOUT], and didn't right up to the end.

Yeah, Stark is definitely a little ruthless, but he is damn charming

The guy gets away with murder just by being "charming". I don't know how much more audiences are going to give him a pass for all the problems he's caused thus far.

even in comics Marvel heroes are constantly fighting each other so that's how it goes over there.

I don't read Marvel apart from Spidey comics, so that actually explains a lot. I guess fighting each other is the only entertaining thing they can do when their villains (apart from Loki) are as uninteresting as they are.

Here's an interesting thought, even if one side wins, how does that prove validity of their stand ? To hell with Avengers initiative, first we have to settle who wins, team Cap or Team Iron Man. Why can't Nick Fury mediate, is he even in this ?

He isn't. The entire battle felt like a kids' brawl with Spidey taking the time to admire Bucky's metal arm, Ant Man crackin' all kinds of jokes (at least he was entertaining), and Hawkeye/Black Widow reassuring themselves that they aren't enemies. Felt like they were trying too hard to reassure audiences that these people don't actually have a problem with each other. But then it begs the question; why even fight? The only thing that came out of that was millions of dollars of property damage, a high school kid with a [BLACKOUT]black eye (which he would have to lie to his aunt about), Rhody paralyzed from the waist down[/BLACKOUT] and an even more tarnished reputation for the entire team. Oh but nobody thinks about that, because of the way the fight is glorified above all else.

I'm glad that BvS handled the vs fight with more weight and consequence. Symbols of heroism beating each other up should never be taken lightly. What message are we sending to our children?

 

[I Am The Knight]

Since we've already derailed the thread into oblivion, let's just agree to disagree, Cats, especially not sure I want to engage you anymore with that last line...

 

[Man_of_Tomorrow]

I already answered that in an earlier post. Go back and reread.

This?

.

What is Supes doing tossing Bats around? Well, he tries twice to reason with him, and the guy makes it clear he's not gonna listen. So Supes is giving him a fight, without hurting him, but trying to get him to stop. Likely by destroying the suit, cause he knows Bats can't continue without it. .

So he's basically trying to beat him into submission, lovely. That's a real superman like thing for him to do. His mom's got an hour, so after a couple minutes of "reasoning", he's just going to fling him around till bats gets tired. He could've torn the suit off him. Didn't part of the fist break off just from bats trying to punch him.

Edit: as it is, while I'm like wolfgang and would have preferred it be a fight based on their different ideologies, I can accept it for what it clearly was. And what it clearly was, from supes saying no one stays good to having no problem flinging a human being through a building and throwing him like a rag doll, (all of which was "in the film") is supes open the idea IN THAT MOMENT to killing him.

That is the simple most obvious interpretation of the fight. In order to not see it that way you:

- have to believe that superman simply says the line without believing it himself. What indication is there that he doesnt? None. Why would he say it if he didn't mean it? Who knows.

- have to believe that superman is fighting someone with no purpose other than to fight. A person he feels is beyond reason, and doesn't actually want to hurt. But he is fighting him anyway. That is nonsensical.

But heres the thing, it would be ok for superman to start it out not trying to kill him, but open to the idea. It would make sense for him to initially try to justify it to himself and say no one stays good. But only if supes wins the fight and CHOOSES NOT TO KILL HIM, even after Batman tried to. That would be superman passing the moral test. That would demonstrate to Batman that "men are still good", and could inspire him. But that's not the fight we got, instead its some meaningless brawl meant to build up Batman by having him win.

 

[SuperAl]

What ever happened to that military movie Henry was shooting? Didn't he shave his head and all that. Did that movie ever get released? Think it was called sandcastle or something.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

What ever happened to that military movie Henry was shooting? Didn't he shave his head and all that. Did that movie ever get released? Think it was called sandcastle or something.

He dropped out because of script issues. Wasn't a fan of what the studio was imposing and didn't care for the changes.

 

[SuperAl]

He dropped out because of script issues. Wasn't a fan of what the studio was imposing and didn't care for the changes.

Wasn't that a different flick. Sandcastle is still listed on his imdb page, looks like its in post production.

 

[KillerWolf]

He dropped out because of script issues. Wasn't a fan of what the studio was imposing and didn't care for the changes.

He dropped out of "Stratton", which was to be turned into a franchise.

SuperAl talks about this film:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582576/

It is in post-production. No idea when it's meant to be released.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

This?


So he's basically trying to beat him into submission, lovely. That's a real superman like thing for him to do. His mom's got an hour, so after a couple minutes of "reasoning", he's just going to fling him around till bats gets tired. He could've torn the suit off him. Didn't part of the fist break off just from bats trying to punch him.

Edit: as it is, while I'm like wolfgang and would have preferred it be a fight based on their different ideologies, I can accept it for what it clearly was. And what it clearly was, from supes saying no one stays good to having no problem flinging a human being through a building and throwing him like a rag doll, (all of which was "in the film") is supes open the idea IN THAT MOMENT to killing him.

That is the simple most obvious interpretation of the fight. In order to not see it that way you:

- have to believe that superman simply says the line without believing it himself. What indication is there that he doesnt? None. Why would he say it if he didn't mean it? Who knows.

- have to believe that superman is fighting someone with no purpose other than to fight. A person he feels is beyond reason, and doesn't actually want to hurt. But he is fighting him anyway. That is nonsensical.

But heres the thing, it would be ok for superman to start it out not trying to kill him, but open to the idea. It would make sense for him to initially try to justify it to himself and say no one stays good. But only if supes wins the fight and CHOOSES NOT TO KILL HIM, even after Batman tried to. That would be superman passing the moral test. That would demonstrate to Batman that "men are still good", and could inspire him. But that's not the fight we got, instead its some meaningless brawl meant to build up Batman by having him win.

It's a moment of self doubt. When posed with the scenario that Lex presented to Superman, either kill Batman or let his mother die, Superman is stating that no one can stay good in that kind of world when faced with those kinds of decisions. And he wonders if he himself can stay good. He is wrong though. One can find a way to stay good as he demonstrates.

He walks the road of being good, with first trying to rationalize with Batman but of course Batman wanted nothing to do with it. So they fight. Superman still doesn't want to kill him, "if I wanted it, you'd be dead already". He passes the test here. Superman rather than kill him is still trying to neutralize and get through to him. Now at this point, this will require some physical harm to submit Batman and then explain the situation. However, Batman gets the upper hand and we know how it plays out from there.

It is a complicated situation for Superman because of the threat put forth by Lex, Superman's best chance of finding Martha(held captive in Gotham) being through Batman and using his knowledge but needing to get through to Batman first.

"Men are still good" because Superman, in his dying breath, was not asking for himself to be spared but to have someone else, a human be spared. And Superman took the risk of killing Doomsday himself, not putting WW or Batman in harm's way, who could have been been killed themselves in trying to spear it, but taking the task of killing DD himself, selflessly protecting others and in the process sacrificing himself for humanity.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

It's a moment of self doubt. When posed with the scenario that Lex presented to Superman, either kill Batman or let his mother die, Superman is stating that no one can stay good in that kind of world when faced with those kinds of decisions. And he wonders if he himself can stay good. He is wrong though. One can find a way to stay good as he demonstrates.

He walks the road of being good, with first trying to rationalize with Batman but of course Batman wanted nothing to do with it. So they fight. Superman still doesn't want to kill him, "if I wanted it, you'd be dead already". He passes the test here. Superman rather than kill him is still trying to neutralize and get through to him. Now at this point, this will require some physical harm to submit Batman and then explain the situation. However, Batman gets the upper hand and we know how it plays out from there.

It is a complicated situation for Superman because of the threat put forth by Lex, Superman's best chance of finding Martha(held captive in Gotham) being through Batman and using his knowledge but needing to get through to Batman first.

"Men are still good" because Superman, in his dying breath, was not asking for himself to be spared but to have someone else, a human be spared. And Superman took the risk of killing Doomsday himself, not putting WW or Batman in harm's way, who could have been been killed themselves in trying to spear it, but taking the task of killing DD himself, selflessly protecting others and in the process sacrificing himself for humanity.

But instead of that why couldn't he just blurt out "Lex has my mom and wants me to kill you in exchange?" There really is no reason for him to fight Batman IMO. He could've just explained to him after he took down the machine guns instead of ramming him through the building. That's my point. I don't think this Superman passes the test of being good because he continues to engage in a fight that could've ended easily. There was no reason to push Batman when they first got up close. But perhaps one could make that argument that he sacrifices himself while killing Doomsday and thus redeems himself.

 

[Da-Scribe]

All I care to say is that Batman was not built up in that fight. I'm a diehard Batfan, whatever that might be worth here, and he absolutely came out looking like a maniac. He won the physical brawl, but that was ultimately worthless, because he still lost the ideological battle. Superman won that. Because while Batman was trying to protect his ego and Wonder Woman was trying to protect her privacy, Superman was just trying to protect his mom.

It sucked to see Batman depicted that way honestly, but it served the story well. So it's easy for me to look past it. Batman, in a world of gods, was the embodiment of human frailty. Batman has to overcompensate, shattering windows to make an entrance and branding bad guys to mark his territory. Meanwhile, Superman with all of his might, will open the door to a Senate hearing and take a walk to clear his head.

Supes just felt like a normal guy having a tough time at work. Bats felt like a rich dude having a midlife crisis. When you scale that up to a mythic level and throw it into a revenge tragedy framework, BvS is what that sorta pathos looks like.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

All I care to say is that Batman was not built up in that fight. I'm a diehard Batfan, whatever that might be worth here, and he absolutely came out looking like a maniac. He won the physical brawl, but that was ultimately worthless, because he still lost the ideological battle. Superman won that. Because while Batman was trying to protect his ego and Wonder Woman was trying to protect her privacy, Superman was just trying to protect his mom.

It sucked to see Batman depicted that way honestly, but it served the story well. So it's easy for me to look past it. Batman, in a world of gods, was the embodiment of human frailty. Batman has to overcompensate, shattering windows to make an entrance and branding bad guys to mark his territory. Meanwhile, Superman with all of his might, will open the door to a Senate hearing and take a walk to clear his head.

Supes just felt like a normal guy having a tough time at work. Bats felt like a rich dude having a midlife crisis. When you scale that up to a mythic level and throw it into a revenge tragedy framework, BvS is what that sorta pathos looks like.

You make an interesting case! I haven't really heard this angle before. I guess that works with Batman being so broken and paranoid after all these years. Yeah I agree with you in a way the way Batman was built up. Which is why I would've like a more ideological confrontation where there was legitimate concern for Batman to fear Superman would become a dictator while Superman fears Batman enacting an archaic form of justice which doesn't afford criminals or innocents due process and he must be removed from society. That way when the rain starts pouring, Batman clicks on the bat signal and Superman hovers above as lightening strikes, you can really get behind and excited for this fight which can last a good half an hour through bits and pieces of great dialogue sprinkled in between. While the fight we had, I liked it visually but didn't like the events leading up to it one bit.

 

[Da-Scribe]

But instead of that why couldn't he just blurt out "Lex has my mom and wants me to kill you in exchange?" There really is no reason for him to fight Batman IMO. He could've just explained to him after he took down the machine guns instead of ramming him through the building. That's my point. I don't think this Superman passes the test of being good because he continues to engage in a fight that could've ended easily. There was no reason to push Batman when they first got up close. But perhaps one could make that argument that he sacrifices himself while killing Doomsday and thus redeems himself.

I talked about this in another post, but this film is a revenge tragedy. Terrio confirmed that before it was even released. So looking at it in that way, that helps to frame some of the other things in this film.

The Senator is the face of public justice in this film. She's the face of democracy. To paraphrase her own words, democracy works when people talk to each other. So talking is essentially another way of representing public justice. In the structure of revenge tragedies, we often seen a failure of public justice in the face of private vengeance. Our heroes operate outside of the law, outside of democracy. So what they enact is vengeance, rather than justice...rather than talking. And vengeance in this film is depicted more as the physical battle.

Lex enacts vengeance when he blows up the Senate hearing. Batman's entire arc is about enacting vengeance via the murder of Superman. Superman's struggle comes from the fact that he wants to enact vengeance, but he's trying to do it within the framework of public justice. Lex keeps manipulating his actions to seem completely outside of justice, however.

But as the film tells us, public justice, or democracy, only works with talking. So what does Superman do to ultimately figure himself out? He talks to himself (visually represented with the Pa Kent scene). But even that's not enough, because democracy only works when we talk to each other.

The final battle basically represents that overall battle. Which wins out? Public justice and private vengeance? Talking or fighting? The answer is both, in a way. Talking wins out, because Superman tells Batman exactly what's happening. His mother needs to be saved. From that point, we see private vengeance, the saving of Martha Kent and the ass whipping of those criminals, operating within a public justice framework. The heroes talk to each other to decide what needs to be done.

So, "Dawn of Justice" isn't just an on the nose way of alluding to JL. It's literally the story of the film. It's the beginning of the heroes understanding that they have to enact vengeance via justice. They need to talk to each other in order to fight for the people. They can't do it alone. Teams talk to each other afterall. What greater team is there than the Justice League?

So yeah, at face value, Superman not simply talking to Batman seems silly. But when you look at the fight as the visual representation of a fight over justice and vengeance, it starts to look very different. To me at least.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

But instead of that why couldn't he just blurt out "Lex has my mom and wants me to kill you in exchange?" There really is no reason for him to fight Batman IMO. He could've just explained to him after he took down the machine guns instead of ramming him through the building. That's my point. I don't think this Superman passes the test of being good because he continues to engage in a fight that could've ended easily. There was no reason to push Batman when they first got up close. But perhaps one could make that argument that he sacrifices himself while killing Doomsday and thus redeems himself.

Most likely after Superman tried explaining the situation the first time and getting shut out so quickly, he wasn't even gonna go there again until he had Batman in a more docile state. Because even blurting out what you suggested, with the state Batman was in, he would have most likely just ignored it and continued to fight right back without Superman even being able to get into Lex's plan and have it sink into Batman's head. Batman isn't shaken out of his state until he sees Superman on death's door, uttering the name of a person, and then Batman seeing what he had become, the same type of monster he had sworn to protect people from.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

I talked about this in another post, but this film is a revenge tragedy. Terrio confirmed that before it was even released. So looking at it in that way, that helps to frame some of the other things in this film.

The Senator is the face of public justice in this film. She's the face of democracy. To paraphrase her own words, democracy works when people talk to each other. So talking is essentially another way of representing public justice. In the structure of revenge tragedies, we often seen a failure of public justice in the face of private vengeance. Our heroes operate outside of the law, outside of democracy. So what they enact is vengeance, rather than justice...rather than talking. And vengeance in this film is depicted more as the physical battle.

Lex enacts vengeance when he blows up the Senate hearing. Batman's entire arc is about enacting vengeance via the murder of Superman. Superman's struggle comes from the fact that he wants to enact vengeance, but he's trying to do it within the framework of public justice. Lex keeps manipulating his actions to seem completely outside of justice, however.

But as the film tells us, public justice, or democracy, only works with talking. So what does Superman do to ultimately figure himself out? He talks to himself (visually represented with the Pa Kent scene). But even that's not enough, because democracy only works when we talk to each other.

The final battle basically represents that overall battle. Which wins out? Public justice and private vengeance? Talking or fighting? The answer is both, in a way. Talking wins out, because Superman tells Batman exactly what's happening. His mother needs to be saved. From that point, we see private vengeance, the saving of Martha Kent and the ass whipping of those criminals, operating within a public justice framework. The heroes talk to each other to decide what needs to be done.

So, "Dawn of Justice" isn't just an on the nose way of alluding to JL. It's literally the story of the film. It's the beginning of the heroes understanding that they have to enact vengeance via justice. They need to talk to each other in order to fight for the people. They can't do it alone. Teams talk to each other afterall. What greater team is there than the Justice League?

So yeah, at face value, Superman not simply talking to Batman seems silly. But when you look at the fight as the visual representation of a fight over justice and vengeance, it starts to look very different. To me at least.

I think this is a very strong argument and I actually agree with most of it which is why I liked the film in parts. But my contention would be again, in the context of the film, Superman is on a running clock because his mom is kidnapped, so it would make sense within the narrative (not necessarily thematically) to blurt out that Lex has his mom to Batman rather than ramming him through a building.

But you bring up the element of public justice vs private vengeance which is a very good thematic construct IMO. Which is why I think the fight would've worked better if it focused on that construct rather than the kidnapping of Ma Kent. In essence, Superman on the side of public justice and Batman on the side of private vengeance while perhaps sprinkling in a few other elements such the ideological battle of idealism vs. cynicism through both the ultilitarian and deontological perspectives.

That way, as you said when Superman and Batman actually have a genuine conversation after the battle where they both have bloodied each other up (much like Daredevil and Punisher) then Democracy wins. Senator Finch was not allowed to talk because Lex essentially stopped democracy by blowing up the senate. This would've upheld that fundamental ideal and made both heroes realize why society needs both of them. One to inspire the innocents and one to strike fear in the hearts of the guilty. Public elation and street justice. The Man of Steel and the Dark Knight.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

Most likely after Superman tried explaining the situation the first time and getting shut out so quickly, he wasn't even gonna go there again until he had Batman in a more docile state. Because even blurting out what you suggested, with the state Batman was in, he would have most likely just ignored it and continued to fight right back without Superman even being able to get into Lex's plan and have it sink into Batman's head. Batman isn't shaken out of his state until he sees Superman on death's door, uttering the name of a person, and then Batman seeing what he had become, the same type of monster he had sworn to protect people from.

See I really want to buy this argument. i really do! But my issue is Superman continues to fight hoping to either subdue Batman or kill him. But my issue is, since Batman is just so angry, he'll get even more angry through kicking and punching. So the best way for Superman to approach this would be through compassion where he pleads with Batman for his mom and appeals to his humanity, what little he has left. And even if he is ignored, it's worth a shot. I would've been slightly ok if he blurted out and Batman didn't give a damn but Superman only tells him when he's about to die, when he could've done it much earlier. Which is why I never liked the premise this fight was based on i.e. Ma Kent. But that's just me.

 

[FlawlessVictory]

See I really want to buy this argument. i really do! But my issue is Superman continues to fight hoping to either subdue Batman or kill him. But my issue is, since Batman is just so angry, he'll get even more angry through kicking and punching. So the best way for Superman to approach this would be through compassion where he pleads with Batman for his mom and appeals to his humanity, what little he has left. And even if he is ignored, it's worth a shot. I would've been slightly ok if he blurted out and Batman didn't give a damn but Superman only tells him when he's about to die, when he could've done it much earlier. Which is why I never liked the premise this fight was based on i.e. Ma Kent. But that's just me.

I always took it as Superman trying to subdue Batman, not kill him. And Superman, making Batman more angry or not, could have gotten Batman to a point where his anger, not matter how much was there would not have mattered, because he was subdued. I believe this is what Superman thought, that Superman could subdue Batman, he is just a human after all, but Superman underestimated him and the tables were turned. You're right, he could have said it again, instead of the "if I wanted it, you would be dead already" but I think Superman wasn't gonna go there again after getting shut out so quickly and instead, thought to just subdue him but he underestimated Batman.

 

[Da-Scribe]

I think this is a very strong argument and I actually agree with most of it which is why I liked the film in parts. But my contention would be again, in the context of the film, Superman is on a running clock because his mom is kidnapped, so it would make sense within the narrative (not necessarily thematically) to blurt out that Lex has his mom to Batman rather than ramming him through a building.

But you bring up the element of public justice vs private vengeance which is a very good thematic construct IMO. Which is why I think the fight would've worked better if it focused on that construct rather than the kidnapping of Ma Kent. In essence, Superman on the side of public justice and Batman on the side of private vengeance while perhaps sprinkling in a few other elements such the ideological battle of idealism vs. cynicism through both the ultilitarian and deontological perspectives.

That way, as you said when Superman and Batman actually have a genuine conversation after the battle where they both have bloodied each other up (much like Daredevil and Punisher) then Democracy wins. Senator Finch was not allowed to talk because Lex essentially stopped democracy by blowing up the senate. This would've upheld that fundamental ideal and made both heroes realize why society needs both of them. One to inspire the innocents and one to strike fear in the hearts of the guilty. Public elation and street justice. The Man of Steel and the Dark Knight.

I get what you're saying for sure. I think that could've worked really well honestly. The only thing for me is that it loses the edge of the Machiavellian villain, another important part of revenge tragedies. You lose Lex as this sinister string puller, manipulating things from the behind the scenes all along in order to dismantle the entire philosophy of a Superman, of a god.

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

I get what you're saying for sure. I think that could've worked really well honestly. The only thing for me is that it loses the edge of the Machiavellian villain, another important part of revenge tragedies. You lose Lex as this sinister string puller, manipulating things from the behind the scenes all along in order to dismantle the entire philosophy of a Superman, of a god.

What if Lex was influencing Batman and Superman to fight each other but not in such an overt way? For example he was manipulating both characters through conversation and social manipulation rather than strong arming one of them? Like he manipulated Batman through the use of newspaper clippings and Wally his employee. Maybe he could've manipulated Superman as well that way and have two separate conversations convincing each of them privately to fight the other? In kind of a Frank Underwood House of Cards fashion, using their paranoia against them?
Just like Bruce has a convo with Alfred about why Superman has to be destroyed. Superman then has a convo with Lois about why Batman should be removed or taken in.

That way when both characters meet to fight, they both have in built rage and genuinely believe both are a menace to society and after they bloody each other up for a bit and discuss things, they realize how far they've been manipulated as a result of their insecurities?

 

[Wolfgangamadeus]

I always took it as Superman trying to subdue Batman, not kill him. And Superman, making Batman more angry or not, could have gotten Batman to a point where his anger, not matter how much was there would not have mattered, because he was subdued. I believe this is what Superman thought, that Superman could subdue Batman, he is just a human after all, but Superman underestimated him and the tables were turned. You're right, he could have said it again, instead of the "if I wanted it, you would be dead already" but I think Superman wasn't gonna go there again after getting shut out so quickly and instead, thought to just subdue him but he underestimated Batman.

Alright I guess I can see that. Not an ideal choice as there were different solutions but you know somethings have to work out that way I suppose so we could have the fight. I still think Superman could've just blurted it out, to try because he essentially did that at the end to convince Batman but maybe it's just one of those things that works for some people and doesn't for others.