Sup Forums can any among you help me find a specific comic book page where Superman is explaining to someone that while Batman has a no-kill rule Superman just generally doesn't kill? It's for a Sup Forums argument.
Sorry I have no Sup Forums-related memepics
...
Yeah, nice work my man, thanks a bundle
The movies offhandedly butcher their characterization, it's not a discussion worth having.
just because it's not a good adaptation of the original source doesn't mean it's a bad character. Just think of it as an Elseworlds story.
Also I don't think it's canon.
So before you blow your load, know that.
>Antje Traue promising to give sexual favors in return for her life
Too bad that didn't make the movie.
I think movies have different expectations. Especially one starting off the character for the universe.
And it was a pretty bad movie. Not as bad as most make it out to be though.
That is the most horseshit rationalization I've heard the entire day.
Good job.
This one?
>Using John Byrne as a justification for anything.
...
Explain your reasoning.
Care to bring up the context of the book? Or are you going to be a faggot and let people assume Batman and Superman were doing this of their own free will?
The mental gymnastics people have to do to enjoy BvS lmao
>suffer as I have suffered, scoffed at by all the world's beautiful women.
By your rationalization, I could make a Robin Hood movie where he violently rapes noblewomen he robs, and uses half the money to fund a Church of Satan, but if it's "well done" I could justify it as an Elseworld.
There's a point where you've just abandoned the the entire point of the character to begin with. You feel that the core of Superman is "a powerful alien who flies around wrecking shit".
It was the other way around in Silver Age, see:
Batman thought he was a 30's mobster, Superman was humoring him until he snapped out of it.
A cover would never mislead you.
>I could make a Robin Hood movie where he violently rapes noblewomen he robs, and uses half the money to fund a Church of Satan
This is not an analogy because Superman never raped anyone.
Try making a food analogy next. That seems to be more your speed.
Superman throttles a man deeply disturbed at the loss of his homeworld and everything he loved.
It sure works as an analogy for me.
Terrible comparison, considering that your example is nothing like the original, while MoS superman is still "a powerful alien flying around saving people". Collateral damage or not, without him, Zod would have destroyed the Earth. As many mistakes as Clark made, he was doing it out of the best intentions, and managed not only to save the world, but become a better hero in the sequel.
Fuck, even killing Zod was in the comics, and specifically in the comic era that Snyder have probably read. Other than the bleak color pallete of Snyder's films and his love for melodramatic dialogues instead of super-brand optimism, there is nothing wrong with his portrayal of Superman.
The true betrayal happened with Bats, whose first appearance has us meet him in a "worse than TDKR" stage of his life, yet that's supposed to be the main Batman of the universe.
Take Disney's Robin Hood. then take Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Both solid, enjoyable Robin Hood films, while being very different takes on the character,
Yeah, like in the comics.
>Terrible comparison, considering that your example is nothing like the original,
He's an outlaw in Sherwood Green robbing the rich, thwarting the Sheriff's men, opposing the Prince and a master shot with a bow.
He passes the sniff test just as easily as Autocannon Batman and Man of Autism.
Sometimes you just don't have time to fuck around
Why are you teamed up with "Autocannon Batman"?
that's not really wrong. They'd just have to play it right.
It's not as though tons of fiction doesn't already completely change the tone, meaning, and characterization of preexisting fiction and even fact.
But Batman's story in BvS is one of redemption. He's on his way back to being what he should be, like a reverse origin story, I don't have a problem with that.
The problem with doing a redemption story on a characters introduction and leaving most his past shrouded in mystery and implication is most moviegoers won't fucking get that.
We came in on Punished Bruce, we have no context for Naked Bruce past "I used to be nice, and now everything sucks. So FUCK that"
Byrne and Snyder are the Superman interpreters full-spectrum autists deserve.
When the autism rate climbs high enough, both will be recognized as geniuses.
It't not really the Violence of Snyder Batman, it's the childish, retarded rationalizations he spouts.
Movies had already stripped him of the Greatest Detective mantle, Nolan had excised the inventive mind, and by Rises even the skillful fighter and cunning master of stealth was gone.
At this point, even the indefatigable warrior against injustice is gone, the unbreakable will.
All that's left by BvS is an outraged billionaire with a ton of military prototypes. Batman is gone.
why does superman think "what" in the last panel
He does detective work in BvS though.Cosying up to Knyazev, finding out about the White Portuguese, stealing the data from Lex, tracking & stealing the shipment. That's all sleuth work, it's about as much as he does in the comics.
>finding out about the White Portuguese
>detective work
Bruce literally thought the WP was a person until Alfred told him to look it up on google. Can't make this shit up
>stealing the data from Lex
Ah yes, the good old magical USB key. Your whole post is bait
He didn't know things, and then he conducted activities to find out about things, and as a result did know about things. How is this not detective work?
I look up things on google all the time. Am I a detective yet? Or should I say, The World's Greatest Detective™?
Are you compiling information from multiple sources with the ultimate aim of achieving some concrete goal?
Superman had his body stolen by a crippled scientist.
>It's for a Sup Forums argument.
Before you try and use as an excuse as to why it's perfectly fine for that hack Snyder to have Superman kill people you should understand that it's from an Elseworlds (meaning it's not canon) written by Max Landis.
>it's ok for Batman to have recklessly killed a bunch of people cos he feels real sorry about it now
The movies aren't in the comic canon either
Using that logic why not just use Injustice as an example where Superman kills?
Yeah, I don't know what your point is. That's generally how redemption stories work. You have to have done something that requires you to be redeemed.
It was really about the matter of having a specific rule against killing.
But that's an Elseworlds, you can have an Elseworlds where Superman has a specific rule that he must rape everyone he saves. To then try and use that rape rule in an argument is fucking stupid and pointless.
Because Batman can't come back from killing. It's so completely against the core of the character that there's no being "redeemed" form it.
Especially if it's not a Superman killing Zodd in MoS type case either. Batman was recklessly, brutally and carelessly killing a whole heap of normal humans just so he could murder someone else. There is no coming back for that as a character.
You're stupid and pointless.
imagine having arguments based around random out of context comic book pages from comics you've never read
people like you need to shut the fuck up lol
Imagine having arguments about comic books you HAVE read.
B-but this totally proves that Snyder is right about everything and that he definitely reads comics.
Both Superman and Batman have been shown to kill when existence is on the line (Darkseid).
The mentality is different though. I don't think Superman actively has to think about not killing in the same way as Batman. Like it's simply a choice for him that he'd try to find another way while for Batman it's more of a compulsion. And "rule" has that strict connotation of compulsion to me.
This was written by Max Landis who is a fucking moron and doesn't know what he's talking about.