It makes me sad that this is true.
[Movies] The DC Cinematic Universe - The David Zazlav Dumpster Fire.
I had a fourth grade teacher who resembled Linda Carter. I was so twitterpated by her. She also kept hermit crabs in class which made her even cooler.
Which is exactly why it will not be referenced in the DCsnyderverse.
Y'know, I was thinking... comics Batman doesn't use guns, everyone knows that. However, he has, on rare occasions when the severity of the situation called for it, picked up a gun. For example, he shot Darkseid with that special god-killing bullet once.
So, on the surface, you'd think Doomsday would qualify as an extreme situation, one where Batman would plausibly bend his no-gun rule. So, from a comics lore perspective, I'm actually okay with Batman holding a gun.
However, from a movie storytelling perspective, gun-wielding Batman is problematic, because the movies haven't established Batman's no-gun rule, and thus Batman holding a gun there does not feel like he's responding to an extreme threat by bending his personal principles. It just feels like he uses guns. This is kinda similar to Superman and Zod in the first movie. There's a case to be made for Superman killing Zod being a similar response to an extreme situation, where Superman would break his ultimate rule because that's how bad things are. The problem is that the movie hasn't established that Superman has a rule against killing. In a similar vein, we haven't seen Batman show a distaste for guns.
If it was me, I'd have Batman not use guns at all this movie, even if he's up against Doomsday. Establish that he doesn't use guns ever. And then in the inevitable sequel(s), when the Justice League go up against another big threat (let's say Darkseid, or Brainiac, or Mongul), you see Batman make the difficult decision to wield a gun. Imagine the "oh shit it's on now" reaction that'd get from the audience.
But no, Zach Snyder has to blow his gun load now, instead of later.
So, on the surface, you'd think Doomsday would qualify as an extreme situation, one where Batman would plausibly bend his no-gun rule. So, from a comics lore perspective, I'm actually okay with Batman holding a gun.
However, from a movie storytelling perspective, gun-wielding Batman is problematic, because the movies haven't established Batman's no-gun rule, and thus Batman holding a gun there does not feel like he's responding to an extreme threat by bending his personal principles. It just feels like he uses guns. This is kinda similar to Superman and Zod in the first movie. There's a case to be made for Superman killing Zod being a similar response to an extreme situation, where Superman would break his ultimate rule because that's how bad things are. The problem is that the movie hasn't established that Superman has a rule against killing. In a similar vein, we haven't seen Batman show a distaste for guns.
If it was me, I'd have Batman not use guns at all this movie, even if he's up against Doomsday. Establish that he doesn't use guns ever. And then in the inevitable sequel(s), when the Justice League go up against another big threat (let's say Darkseid, or Brainiac, or Mongul), you see Batman make the difficult decision to wield a gun. Imagine the "oh shit it's on now" reaction that'd get from the audience.
But no, Zach Snyder has to blow his gun load now, instead of later.
That was easily the worst thing about Final Crisis, and I'm including the horrible pacing and Grant Morrison's decision to have the real villain of the story come from and explained in a 2 part tie-in series sold on a 3D gimmick.
Video broken for anyone else?
For an example of how to do this right, try Wizards.
(Spoiler alert: Heavy doses of 70's vibes, man. Also probably the earliest example of Mark Hamill voicing a cartoon character.)
--Patrick
Just assume it's someone pretentiously replaying the trailer listing off different TV tropes pages, without any kind of understanding of how genre conventions and tropes aren't negatives just for existing, while adding nothing of value or entertainment.
You know, and I am not defending this movie, but I think a lot of us also forget how violent Batman was in the often fondly remembered Burton movies. He had machine guns built into the Batwing for petes sake. My version of Batman will always be from the Animated Series, so I will always go with the "No Guns" version of the caped crusader, but it's not like him using guns in movies is unprecedented. I will at least give this movie that much.
I don't think anyone who cares forgets. It's often cited as why they're terrible Batman movies.
So many I talk to still consider them the best of all the various movies, so I guess I just know a lot of people that like murderer Batman.
I think this fact makes it even more frustrating when it happens in Bat-movies, Burton included: They managed to make a (nearly) daily, 22-minute cartoon, that ran for years, where Batman doesn't need a gun*. You can't think of ANY other solution for a 2-hour, stand alone film?
(*It's been a while since I watched the series, so I can't be 100% certain he never used a gun, but if he did, it wasn't a normal occurrence.)
I have a hard time with the "sometimes guns" approach after the one scene in Gotham Knight where he keeps picking up the discarded handguns and you can practically see in his body language how his mind is replaying the night his parents were shot.
I'm just going to throw out that while he doesn't use guns, he does use an array of technologically advanced doodads, and that it's not totally unreasonable that one of them might be shaped like a gun, not unlike his grappling hook.
Also, we don't really know what's going on in this scene. The filmmakers have made it clear that we will meet a lot more characters from the DC universe, so it's entirely possible that they simply haven't announced Scrappy Doo as his sidekick.
Also, we don't really know what's going on in this scene. The filmmakers have made it clear that we will meet a lot more characters from the DC universe, so it's entirely possible that they simply haven't announced Scrappy Doo as his sidekick.
figmentPez
Staff member
Because why not.
That looks like a dream sequence. Which of course they probably only included for shots like that.
Because why not.
Maybe? Batman's wearing the duster from the desert scenes we've seen in the trailer.
Yeah, which is also the scenes that show Superman being evil. And the city in that poster is a destroyed wasteland. I'm betting that's a dream sequence, or possibly some sort of hallucination/manipulation, showing Batman exactly what he fears.
Or it's just a really, really shitty movie. Let's not discount that possibility.
Let's get Scarecrow up in here.
Well, those are not mutually exclusive.
Yes I am pretty sure a lot of that is a dream sequence by this point, they even show some weird bug aliens flying around attacking Batman and some soldiers. It would be too damn weird if it wasn't. It's going to be this movies "Why is Superman sinking into a mountain of skulls!?" moment.
You sure those weren't just some amazonian bees?
Forgot all about that. You and Raven are probably right then.
If this is a dream sequence, it seems like quite the time waster to be this involved and have so many details.
That, or just to make the movie seem more exciting in the trailers.
That, or just to make the movie seem more exciting in the trailers.