Post by Tristan's Journal on Aug 17, 2017 10:34:18 GMT
traditional Bats isn't angry you say? Well "obviously" Batman seems like the archetypal example of an angry comic book super hero. This is because his entire motivation to hunt criminals is fueled by his parents being murdered and the natural, ensuing anger. You might have noticed this back story in one or two Bats movies (sans the goofy Schumacher and 60s ones).
In the most famous source materials and lore Bats is even more angry and brutal than we saw in BvS (eg in Miller where he kills and beats up Supes), thus giving him titles like The Dark Knight. The point being:
(i) Speaking of a "traditional" Batman without any indication and definition which parts of the lore should define the tradtion is uninformed, lazy BS, especially with a character so diversely depicted in the past, ranging from from dancing buffoon to fascist. I primarily see the Dark (angry, brutal) Knight as traditional Bats, which however may depend on the personal POV.
(ii) Thus stating that "BvS" departed a "little bit from the traditional Batman" may be lazy, but arguable. However, responing to that "understatement of the fucking millennium" in view of the Bats history is as clumsy as it is stupid.
Apart of this, only a fool would not notice that these characters go through arcs (ie character development): e.g., loner Bats stops maiming people because of his experience with Supes and wants to found a league. Clark is angry but ends MoS with a big smile. The raptor was always too stupid to understand the concept of arcs.
QED. You were saing, Clark?