Page 19 of 64 FirstFirst ... 915161718192021222329 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 285 of 957
  1. #271
    Spam Hunter Conn Seanery's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1997
    Location
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Posts
    5,833

    Default

    If people want to discuss the morality of heroes killing that's fine, but don't turn it into an MCU vs. DCU thing. Especially those of you with a long history of doing that.
    Conn Seanery
    CBR Forums Administrator ~ Ron Swansonite ~ Brock Samson will show us the way
    THE CBR COMMUNITY STANDARDS & RULES ~ Know them. Follow them. Love them.

    "Hnh. Could Bowie have been a mutant?" ~Dr. Doom (Hellfire Gala 2022)

  2. #272
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingaliencracker View Post
    I'm going to throw this out there also...

    Batman not killing Joker knowing that the Joker will eventually escape and I capable of killing hundreds or even thousands of people - and in all probability will - does not make Batman heroic. If anything it makes him as psychotic as Joker himself.
    Why does that burden fall to Batman as opposed to the actual justice system, which let's him off?

  3. #273
    Astonishing Member kingaliencracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    Why does that burden fall to Batman as opposed to the actual justice system, which let's him off?
    Because Batman has appointed himself as an agent of justice and vengeance...?

    I'm not absolving the system's role in it, mind you. But it's a fictional setting with a character in the joker who would havelong been executed, imprisoned, or otherwise killed in a real world setting.

    But Batman has set himself as the ultimate guardian of Gotham and his "one rule" makes absolutely no sense in that role especially with someone like the Joker who is a mass killer.

  4. #274
    The Kid 80sbaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    2,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingaliencracker View Post
    Because Batman has appointed himself as an agent of justice and vengeance...?

    I'm not absolving the system's role in it, mind you. But it's a fictional setting with a character in the joker who would havelong been executed, imprisoned, or otherwise killed in a real world setting.

    But Batman has set himself as the ultimate guardian of Gotham and his "one rule" makes absolutely no sense in that role especially with someone like the Joker who is a mass killer.
    Batman had never set himself up for judge, jury and executioner though. That's what you're asking him to do here.

  5. #275
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    With the Orishas
    Posts
    12,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingaliencracker View Post
    I'm going to throw this out there also...

    Batman not killing Joker knowing that the Joker will eventually escape and I capable of killing hundreds or even thousands of people - and in all probability will - does not make Batman heroic. If anything it makes him as psychotic as Joker himself.
    It’s a big, big problem even the comics.

    The escalation with the Joker has become so severe that simply punching him out and arresting him makes no sense. Heck, we even saw the Riddler kill a child during Tom King’s run (although that really isn’t something new for Riddler, he once shoved down a metal ball into a baby’s throat, Batman had to cut it out to save the child).

    Point is, the vlllains are getting more and more extreme and Batman’s no-kill policy is looking very ineffective. Seriously, how many times will these guys be arrested, break out kill hundreds of people only to get punched in the mouth and thrown back into prison? Only for it to happen all over again. The no-kill rule made more sense when the villains weren’t as extreme as they are depicted now. With these guys turning into mass murderers, they need to be put down permanently. Maybe not necessarily by Batman but the villains have to taken out of circulation.

  6. #276
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,472

    Default

    Had to watch it in parts. It's better than the theatrical version, but it's no masterpiece.

    The Cyborg material should never have been cut. That's the emotional heart of the entire story. Cutting it was like cutting the red book scene from Batman Forever.

    Flash was better, as was Steppenwolf. The threat made more sense and Darkside added to the tension. The story overall was better and had far fewer holes.

    That said, the pacing was terrible, as was the editing. Many of these scene could have and should have been cut down. The most obvious is the dream scene with Joker. It was an entirely unnecessary scene, but even if it needed to be included, it should never have gone on for even half as long as it did. At most it should have been 1/4 the length. Most of the slo-mo could have been done away with as well, and the movie did not need or deserve to go all Return of the King with the ending. This could easily have been a 3-hour film without cutting anything important.

    The action was better without the weird orange filter and more tense, but again the slo-mo was just unnecessary and it's a step down from the action in both MoS and BvS, which had much more spectacular moments and shots. Best action moment in both versions is Flash vs Superman at super-speed, which was an appropriate use of slo-mo. Slo-mo should only have been used in the super-speed scenes.

    There were a few things Whedon added that I missed. Diana's opposition to bringing back Superman and Bruce's pushing her to be more of a leader and a symbol for one. I also preferred the way Lois, Martha Kent, and the whole aftermath of Superman's death were handled in the Whedon cut.

    In conclusion, the Snyder cut has a level of heart and coherence that was missing in the theatrical release, but it's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination and still inferior to the likes of Wonder Woman 2017 and Shazam in the DCEU and to most of the MCU. It's better than the likes of Thor the Dark World and Captain Marvel, but that's scraping the bottom of the barrel, and it has nothing on the 3 good Avengers movies, the Captain America films, Iron Man 1, the Guardians of the Galaxy films ect. If I'm being really generous it is at best around the same level as Age of Ultron.

  7. #277
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    With the Orishas
    Posts
    12,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunofdarkchild View Post
    Had to watch it in parts. It's better than the theatrical version, but it's no masterpiece.

    The Cyborg material should never have been cut. That's the emotional heart of the entire story. Cutting it was like cutting the red book scene from Batman Forever.

    Flash was better, as was Steppenwolf. The threat made more sense and Darkside added to the tension. The story overall was better and had far fewer holes.

    That said, the pacing was terrible, as was the editing. Many of these scene could have and should have been cut down. The most obvious is the dream scene with Joker. It was an entirely unnecessary scene, but even if it needed to be included, it should never have gone on for even half as long as it did. At most it should have been 1/4 the length. Most of the slo-mo could have been done away with as well, and the movie did not need or deserve to go all Return of the King with the ending. This could easily have been a 3-hour film without cutting anything important.

    The action was better without the weird orange filter and more tense, but again the slo-mo was just unnecessary and it's a step down from the action in both MoS and BvS, which had much more spectacular moments and shots. Best action moment in both versions is Flash vs Superman at super-speed, which was an appropriate use of slo-mo. Slo-mo should only have been used in the super-speed scenes.

    There were a few things Whedon added that I missed. Diana's opposition to bringing back Superman and Bruce's pushing her to be more of a leader and a symbol for one. I also preferred the way Lois, Martha Kent, and the whole aftermath of Superman's death were handled in the Whedon cut.

    In conclusion, the Snyder cut has a level of heart and coherence that was missing in the theatrical release, but it's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination and still inferior to the likes of Wonder Woman 2017 and Shazam in the DCEU and to most of the MCU. It's better than the likes of Thor the Dark World and Captain Marvel, but that's scraping the bottom of the barrel, and it has nothing on the 3 good Avengers movies, the Captain America films, Iron Man 1, the Guardians of the Galaxy films ect. If I'm being really generous it is at best around the same level as Age of Ultron.
    I largely agree with this but I think it's a bit better than Age of Ultron.

    But that could be chalked up to the very,very extended runtime that allowed the characters to breathe and action sequences play out longer.

  8. #278
    Astonishing Member Soubhagya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    3,470

    Default

    I think the real reason the 'no killing rule' exists in the comics because these stories intend to run forever. If Batman kills Joker who would he be fighting next? Over time you would be getting into the likes of Condiment King or something. Stories would suck as you would have run out of good villains.

    I enjoy that because it indicates that the heroes aren't a bunch of thugs. That they have a sense of morality. But depending on the medium and story its not a big issue for me.

    In this particular case, i think killing that terrorist was right. You have to be real cold blooded to kill a bunch of school kids. First by a bomb. On failing, next by bullets. That guy had the audacity to keep trying even after he found she stopped all those bullets. Like if i keep trying i could hit one kid. Disgusting.

    If he was surrendering, it would have been uncomfortable. But clearly the guy was remorseless.

  9. #279
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    They didn't say anything about "attacking" cops. That's you putting your spin on the post and doing what you're accusing The Cool That Guy of doing.

    However, what else in that headline would be incorrect? Did the terrorist need to be killed? Was there public property destroyed? Were there other, obvious options that would result in the terrorist being alive and no additional property damage? I think that's more to the point.
    Yeah I meant to do that. It was obviously a joke you missed. I'm so surprised. But please continue to Cape for terrorists. They don't have enough advocates. Insert sarcasm.
    Last edited by CliffHanger2; 03-21-2021 at 04:43 AM.

  10. #280
    Incredible Member beatboks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    569

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 80sbaby View Post
    Actually, I'd say morality plays a big factor into it for most fans that complain. Nobody expects Tony Stark to behave like Diana. But you know that, which is why you used him instead of Captain America, whom I actually compared. More intellectual dishonesty smh.
    I Dont know where you get the idea that Stark has lower morals when it comes to being brutal in combat than Diana.
    Diana hasn't been in the same moral realm as Superman or Batman for decades.

    https://ibb.co/M7sQ4pb
    https://ibb.co/M7sQ4pb
    https://ibb.co/GJ0N0cP
    https://ibb.co/Y3vP911
    https://ibb.co/M7P5P07

  11. #281
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Username taken View Post
    It’s a big, big problem even the comics.

    The escalation with the Joker has become so severe that simply punching him out and arresting him makes no sense. Heck, we even saw the Riddler kill a child during Tom King’s run (although that really isn’t something new for Riddler, he once shoved down a metal ball into a baby’s throat, Batman had to cut it out to save the child).

    Point is, the vlllains are getting more and more extreme and Batman’s no-kill policy is looking very ineffective. Seriously, how many times will these guys be arrested, break out kill hundreds of people only to get punched in the mouth and thrown back into prison? Only for it to happen all over again. The no-kill rule made more sense when the villains weren’t as extreme as they are depicted now. With these guys turning into mass murderers, they need to be put down permanently. Maybe not necessarily by Batman but the villains have to taken out of circulation.
    I agree and it is bad writing to a certain extent. There are no stakes or real consequences for villains in these stories. And the heroes are written into ineffectiveness.

  12. #282
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soubhagya View Post
    I think the real reason the 'no killing rule' exists in the comics because these stories intend to run forever. If Batman kills Joker who would he be fighting next? Over time you would be getting into the likes of Condiment King or something. Stories would suck as you would have run out of good villains.

    I enjoy that because it indicates that the heroes aren't a bunch of thugs. That they have a sense of morality. But depending on the medium and story its not a big issue for me.

    In this particular case, i think killing that terrorist was right. You have to be real cold blooded to kill a bunch of school kids. First by a bomb. On failing, next by bullets. That guy had the audacity to keep trying even after he found she stopped all those bullets. Like if i keep trying i could hit one kid. Disgusting.

    If he was surrendering, it would have been uncomfortable. But clearly the guy was remorseless.
    The no kill rule was more about comics still wanting to keep a morality code with their heroes, that was the main reason more than not running out of good villains because let's be honest comics always bring people back to life.

    In the movie, for the style Snyder was going for, especially giving the R rating. Diana was not in the wrong for what she did.

  13. #283
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    7,325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soubhagya View Post
    I think the real reason the 'no killing rule' exists in the comics because these stories intend to run forever. If Batman kills Joker who would he be fighting next? Over time you would be getting into the likes of Condiment King or something. Stories would suck as you would have run out of good villains.

    I enjoy that because it indicates that the heroes aren't a bunch of thugs. That they have a sense of morality. But depending on the medium and story its not a big issue for me.

    In this particular case, i think killing that terrorist was right. You have to be real cold blooded to kill a bunch of school kids. First by a bomb. On failing, next by bullets. That guy had the audacity to keep trying even after he found she stopped all those bullets. Like if i keep trying i could hit one kid. Disgusting.

    If he was surrendering, it would have been uncomfortable. But clearly the guy was remorseless.
    Agree with the last part. If he would have surrendered that would have looked bad. But he is reloaded ready to fire again and Diana is supposed to take a chance of him killing someone else.

  14. #284
    Ultimate Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    12,558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CliffHanger2 View Post
    Lol no you're not describing the situation. You're spinning it like a villain journo lol. " Picture the headlines...Wonder Woman needlessy kills terrorist, destroys public property and attacks cops..." Wait. What???? That's not how it happened. Lol have a good night man.
    If I'm not describing the situation correctly, then explain what I've gotten wrong.

    You keep saying that, but refuse to explain it. So put up

  15. #285
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Posts
    3,052

    Default

    Anyone following the Snyder and Geeks and Gamers put down?

    Snyder directly called out and distanced himself from some ALT-RIGHT youtubers geeks + gamers by saying Justice League was about love and hate will not be tolerated

    https://www.themarysue.com/zack-snyd...room-for-hate/
    Zack Snyder Calls Out Bigoted Fans: “There’s No Room for Hate”

    Well done Zack.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •