As bad as the DCEU has been at times, it hasn't produced something as bad as

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Keaton and Burton Batman killed, hey, he killed in cold blood, and the first one was a hit, is just rhat there was not some cool trendy thing , like the MCU is, to cmpare it against , it was just judged as an alternate take on a character

Well, firstly, those kills were never confirmed. Secondly, the Burton Batman never picked up an AK47. And lastly, DCEU Batman's kill count is significantly higher.

also, i wish for the day people understand that the not kill rule literally exist to keep usin popular villains

Uh, we know that. Doesn't mean it hasn't been built into the character for decades now.

He wants to do good, in a flawed world, i find it relatable

And he apparently needs to be told that human beings are worth saving, despite being raised among human beings his whole life.

[The Darknight Detective]

Well, firstly, those kills were never confirmed.

Confirmed? There isn't any doubt Batman intentionally killed people in that film.

[SiegePerilous02]

Confirmed? There isn't any doubt Batman intentionally killed people in that film.

We even saw the bodies.

[ultrarider7]

Well, firstly, those kills were never confirmed. Secondly, the Burton Batman never picked up an AK47. And lastly, DCEU Batman's kill count is significantly higher.



Uh, we know that. Doesn't mean it hasn't been built into the character for decades now.



And he apparently needs to be told that human beings are worth saving, despite being raised among human beings his whole life.

Yup he picked up an AK47...in a DREAM SEQUENCE. Keaton Batman made a guy explode, that is as confirmed as it can gets, why are you claiming is not confirmed? Then Batfleck's kills should also have that status since it isn't "truly" shown unless you count the dream sequence which shouldn't even be part of the argument.

Clark having doubts in humanity does not insult nor disrespects his now almost 100 years of history, if he said "screw those puny humans lol" now that would be a different story. What's so wrong in Superman having doubts? The fact people think he is a perfect being is one of the things that have hurt the character, he is not perfect, not even in Reeve's films, he is a liar who claims to always say the truth, he becomes selfish (and rightfully so) when getting together with Lois, has a temper and can be a bit of a bully. I love Superman, he is my favorite but there just isn't a single version of him that is "PERFECT", he always does the right thing in the end. Hope prevails in the end but the journey can have failures and doubts, what is so wrong with that?

[The Darknight Detective]

We even saw the bodies.

It was one of the things that stood out to me back in '89 when I first saw it, because Batman never had killed anybody up to that point beyond monsters. The weird thing was nobody really made a big stink about it.

[regg215]

While I really liked Thor Ragnarok and think marvel is pretty much 18 for 18 so far in terms of making good movies, I do think that the MCU gets a ton of breaks from people that the DCEU does not get. Thor is my favorite marvel character and he is basically unrecognizable during that film. I think marvel figured out that asgard and all of thor's villains would land better with the general audience with a guardians of the galaxy style movie than a serious take on the character and based on the box office they were right. Despite it changing a lot about thor, I still enjoyed the movie a ton and think Hemsworth did a great job. However I think if DC did the same thing to a character the movie would get ripped to shreds for not being accurate by both critics and audiences. For example if you made the same exact movie with the same exact type of humor about Green Lantern, I feel like the movie would get ripped by critics as being too different than the source material and for undercutting any sense of emotional weight or stakes by making too many jokes, whereas marvel got a pass on that. I think the same is true for CGI, Thor ragnarok is pretty much all CGI and you really never heard a complaint about that but Justice League got ripped to shreds for having too much CGI ( although the whole mustache thing didn't help). All in all, I like both companies and root for all of their movies to be great but I think when Marvel makes changes people say they have evolved the character or reinvented the character but when DC does it they have destroyed the character and taken it too far away from their roots. Movies like Man of Steel and BVS got way too much grief over Batman and Superman Killing when in the Comics both of them have actually done that before (although Bats was a really long time ago). However marvel can take characters like spider-man and give him an AI and take thor and turn him into a jokester both of which have no comics precedent and nobody says a thing. I like Marvel's movies and DC's movies it just seems like DC gets graded on a different scale than marvel, almost like critics are walking into the DC film looking for errors whereas with marvel the are looking to have fun and forgive any mistakes.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Yup he picked up an AK47...in a DREAM SEQUENCE. Keaton Batman made a guy explode, that is as confirmed as it can gets, why are you claiming is not confirmed? Then Batfleck's kills should also have that status since it isn't "truly" shown unless you count the dream sequence which shouldn't even be part of the argument.

Forgot about that part. I was thinking about him blowing up the factory and him dropping that guy off the church roof. But, still, DCEU Batman is so much more violent and seemingly uncaring.



In the course of one movie, he kills over 20 people.

Clark having doubts in humanity does not insult nor disrespects his now almost 100 years of history, if he said "screw those puny humans lol" now that would be a different story. What's so wrong in Superman having doubts? The fact people think he is a perfect being is one of the things that have hurt the character, he is not perfect, not even in Reeve's films, he is a liar who claims to always say the truth, he becomes selfish (and rightfully so) when getting together with Lois, has a temper and can be a bit of a bully. I love Superman, he is my favorite but there just isn't a single version of him that is "PERFECT", he always does the right thing in the end. Hope prevails in the end but the journey can have failures and doubts, what is so wrong with that?

He literally says that he's not sure that the people of Earth can be trusted. That goes against EVERYTHING Superman is supposed to stand for. And if people think that that's the equivalent of showing a human character with doubts, then that's all kinds of wrongheaded. Its one thing to show a character with doubts that they're doing the good or right thing by being a superhero. If Clark had expressed doubts that he'd only be making things worse by being Superman, then that'd be a different story. Its another thing altogether to have Clark doubting whether the people of Earth deserve his protection at all. THAT makes him unrelatable. That is what makes him seem inhuman. A "human" character would no doubt believe that Earth is worth protecting. And it makes no sense that this Clark, still having been raised on Earth, should look at Earth as if its not worth his trouble.

[dan12456]

While I really liked Thor Ragnarok and think marvel is pretty much 18 for 18 so far in terms of making good movies, I do think that the MCU gets a ton of breaks from people that the DCEU does not get. Thor is my favorite marvel character and he is basically unrecognizable during that film. I think marvel figured out that asgard and all of thor's villains would land better with the general audience with a guardians of the galaxy style movie than a serious take on the character and based on the box office they were right. Despite it changing a lot about thor, I still enjoyed the movie a ton and think Hemsworth did a great job. However I think if DC did the same thing to a character the movie would get ripped to shreds for not being accurate by both critics and audiences. For example if you made the same exact movie with the same exact type of humor about Green Lantern, I feel like the movie would get ripped by critics as being too different than the source material and for undercutting any sense of emotional weight or stakes by making too many jokes, whereas marvel got a pass on that. I think the same is true for CGI, Thor ragnarok is pretty much all CGI and you really never heard a complaint about that but Justice League got ripped to shreds for having too much CGI ( although the whole mustache thing didn't help). All in all, I like both companies and root for all of their movies to be great but I think when Marvel makes changes people say they have evolved the character or reinvented the character but when DC does it they have destroyed the character and taken it too far away from their roots. Movies like Man of Steel and BVS got way too much grief over Batman and Superman Killing when in the Comics both of them have actually done that before (although Bats was a really long time ago). However marvel can take characters like spider-man and give him an AI and take thor and turn him into a jokester both of which have no comics precedent and nobody says a thing. I like Marvel's movies and DC's movies it just seems like DC gets graded on a different scale than marvel, almost like critics are walking into the DC film looking for errors whereas with marvel the are looking to have fun and forgive any mistakes.

I'm not even sure if they thought the characters would land better with the general audience as a comedy, so much as they realized Hemsworth is a brilliant comedic actor, and a mediocre dramatic actor. For me Hemsworth was always the weak acting link in every Avengers movie. But as a comedic lead improvising half his lines, he was brilliant.

[The Darknight Detective]

I'm not even sure if they thought the characters would land better with the general audience as a comedy, so much as they realized Hemsworth is a brilliant comedic actor, and a mediocre dramatic actor. For me Hemsworth was always the weak acting link in every Avengers movie. But as a comedic lead improvising half his lines, he was brilliant.

He is far better with comedy than drama and is why Ragnarok was fun. The problem for me is Thor is a very different character now. It's like having Christian Bale imitating Adam West in The Dark Knight Rises.

[Frontier]

Now that I think about it, isn't Batman technically guilty of killing Two-Face across two film continuities ?

[ultrarider7]

Forgot about that part. I was thinking about him blowing up the factory and him dropping that guy off the church roof. But, still, DCEU Batman is so much more violent and seemingly uncaring.



In the course of one movie, he kills over 20 people.



He literally says that he's not sure that the people of Earth can be trusted. That goes against EVERYTHING Superman is supposed to stand for. And if people think that that's the equivalent of showing a human character with doubts, then that's all kinds of wrongheaded. Its one thing to show a character with doubts that they're doing the good or right thing by being a superhero. If Clark had expressed doubts that he'd only be making things worse by being Superman, then that'd be a different story. Its another thing altogether to have Clark doubting whether the people of Earth deserve his protection at all. THAT makes him unrelatable. That is what makes him seem inhuman. A "human" character would no doubt believe that Earth is worth protecting. And it makes no sense that this Clark, still having been raised on Earth, should look at Earth as if its not worth his trouble.

Don't need to watch that, I know Batfleck is violent as crap and I for one, don't care. I dislike Batman and oddly enough BvS made me care about him for once.

Yup. He did say that, so what? Did he left humanity to be destroyed by Zod? Nope, regardless of how that battle resulted (which is another never ending topic) Clark chose the right thing. He saved the planet, the movie didn't end with Clark still with his hippie beard being happy go lucky despite Earth being transformed into a New Krypton. Point was, in his position, others would not risk their skin for a group of people they don't personally know, few really do and Clark still chose to confront Zod and his army anyway. It's like you are mad about something that never truly happened which is Clark giving Earth the finger. Did that happen?

[Daniel22]

I loved it. Favorite superhero movie besides Black Panther and maybe Dark Knight.

Ragnarok is at 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, ahead of every DC movie except Dark Knight, which is at 94%. I knew people loved the movie but I didn't realize they loved it that much.

[Green Goblin of Sector 2814]

Don't need to watch that, I know Batfleck is violent as crap and I for one, don't care. I dislike Batman and oddly enough BvS made me care about him for once.

But do you at least understand how fans of the character would be bothered by that? DCEU Batman is not who Batman is supposed to be. Batman is supposed to be a hero. DCEU Batman is a Punisher-style antihero.

Yup. He did say that, so what? Did he left humanity to be destroyed by Zod? Nope, regardless of how that battle resulted (which is another never ending topic) Clark chose the right thing. He saved the planet, the movie didn't end with Clark still with his hippie beard being happy go lucky despite Earth being transformed into a New Krypton. Point was, in his position, others would not risk their skin for a group of people they don't personally know, few really do and Clark still chose to confront Zod and his army anyway. It's like you are mad about something that never truly happened which is Clark giving Earth the finger. Did that happen?

The point is that Superman should have some sort of value instilled in him to do the right thing. Every incarnation of the character has known what the right thing to do is. He's never needed help in that department. He's had issues in other areas of his life. He's doubted himself in other aspects. But he never needed to be told what values to have or that people were worth protecting. If we go down that route with the character, then that is what makes him seem out of touch and inhuman.

Clark should want to help humans because he genuinely cares about the people and sees Earth as his home. Because it is. Plain and simple.

[TooFlyToFail]

All of the Thor movies are head and shoulders above BvS.

Except they're not. Most the MCU is low common denominator stuff. Only GotG1, Cap 2, BP, and IM1 are worth watching, with IM1 still being the best MCU.

[TooFlyToFail]

BTW, the director's exact reasoning was:“We just did it as this little aside because we had been tracking where we thought the movies were gonna go, and we don’t have room for Jimmy Olsen in our big pantheon of characters, but we can have fun with him, right?”

http://ew.com/article/2016/03/25/bat...n-jimmy-olsen/

Jimmy was killed off because the director thought it would be fun. Is this your idea of respect for the characters? Is the MCU really worse than this?

Are seriously standing on a soapbox for Jimmy Olsen? Seriously?

As if the MCU hasn't done worst, with far more relevant characters. Odin, Ultron, The Collector, The Grandmaster, Surtur, Laufey, Maliketh, etc.