No, she's right: "Although Batman Begins ends with a scene in which Batman is presented with a joker playing card, teasing the introduction of his archenemy, the Joker, Christopher Nolan did not intend to make a sequel and was unsure Batman Begins would be successful enough to warrant one" - Wikipedia article, with citations. "I didn’t have any intention of making a sequel to Batman Begins" - C Nolan
@@AgentOccam The Joker is mentioned at the end. "He calls himself the Joker...." A sequel was definitely planned. .....also no one would ever consider making a Batman movie and not include The Joker at some point. He obviously planned it all along.
OK, the Rickman thing. No, Rowling did not tell him at the beginning, it was when he was considering walking away from the project because he was tired of Snape, at that point, the character wasn't enjoyable to play any more. That's when she basically told him he loved Lily. That's where "Always." came from. It didn't take a full outline of the situation for Alan Rickman to understand and run with it. I think that's where people get confused about this statement. Yes, he knew the secret, but it did not take more than a single line for him to understand the complexity of the character. This is pretty much why those of us who are fans, are fans. He was a great actor and didn't need a full script to lay out a hidden inspiration.
Snow White was touted at Disney's first full-length animated movie. Not the first animated movie ever... And OMG! Were you on a possessed merry-go-round when you recorded this? What's with the music?
Thank you! I couldn’t believe what she was saying here. Then I remembered this channel survives by rage-baiting movie fans for comments. It’s the only way they get engagement. They knew what they were doing when they wrote that segment.
Almost everyone of these lies are more of a technicality. Planet of the Apes was Earth, just not in the book or remake. Just because a lot of movies have different cuts does not mean Blade Runner does not. JK didn't tell Rickman, she hinted. Psycho has 1 frame of the scene. He didn't work on Avatar for 10 years he did other stuff too. Gimmie a break.
Nah. First, Planet of the Apes isn't even a technicality - it's just plain wrong to be on the list for the reason given here. Most of the others seem reasonable though. Blade Runner's lie, for example, was described as that it "Has lots of very different versions". She's right, there really isn't.
What I always found disturbing is that movie probably actually prevented it from happening in real life. You know at least a handful of crazy billionaires have thought about doing that, but someone told them "nah, haven't you seen The Truman Show? Thats a terrible idea".
I'm not even into superhero movies and even I know that Man of Steel is not only not the first time Superman has killed someone, it's not even the first time Superman killed Zod specifically. Superman II has been around since 1981.
The problem wasn't Superman killing Zod, the problem was Superman not caring about destroying half of Metropolis when fighting Zod. He struggles with the guilt of having to kill a mass-murderer, when minutes earlier he was throwing buildings at Zod without even blinking, killing thousands and thousands of thousands of civilians. Thanks to Zach "it doesn't make any sense, but hey, it loooks it really cool and it's sooooo edgy" Snyder.
@@PrinceIsot Also, I don't recall any scenes where Superman specifically threw whole buildings at Zod, personally killing "thousands and thousands and thousands" of civilians. And anyway, the controversy Ellie is referring to was around the killing ("Murder", as some have hysterically described it) of Zod by Superman.
They were trying to make it more realistic in a way, I mean is not like Zod was like "okay fine, lets go fight in an empty deserted place", but in a way the execution could have been better.
Back when "Blade Runner" first came out and people had read PKD's book, it made little sense to speculate if Deckard might have been a replicant since as a cop he would have seen clues he wasn't exactly human and his bigotted boss would have let something slip. The theories leaned a lot more towards "Could a human become so numb that they too would fail a Voight-Kampff test?" especially with all of the animals in the film were alleged to have been robots (like in the novel). Trivia: Zhora and her snake got along so well because that was actor Cassidy's own person pet.
I would argue that within the "universe" of the original movie, the ape planet being Earth is not a lie. And in-universe, it makes sense. It's been stated in couple of "making of..." documentaries that the whole concept arose out of the question "what if a spaceship launched from earth and travels at relativistic speeds or even close to the speed of light overtakes or is overtaken by earth (depending on the space ship's trajectory)?" Add in a bit of time dilation and a journey of a few years for the space ship becomes a thousand or more years' journey for planet Earth. They probably got the math way wrong, but hey, it's cinema. And be honest, Taylor realizing he's been home all along makes for the most epic plot twist in the history of cinema... That scene, the entire sequence, has been engraved in my memory ever since I first saw the movie as a kid.
I'd argue you don't even need to specify "in universe". There's just no lie in the first place. The planet dominated by apes that they were on (being the "Planet of the Apes" of the title, which people *inferred* was a different planet) was in fact earth after all. That's it. That's what you find out at the end of the movie. To point that out is simply true. There's no lie.
@@AgentOccamThe 'lie' referred to in the video lies in one of the many differences between the original novel and the original movie. In the novel, the planet the astronauts travel to is explicitly stated not to be Earth, but an earthlike world orbiting Betelgeuse. In the movie, Taylor estimates they are somewhere in the Bellatrix system and would have been travelling for about 2600 years. With "in-universe" I meant within the context of the original movie series. The ship's chronometer tells the astronaut around 2600 years have passed, even though they themselves have aged less than a year. Those two cannot both be true. The ship's chronometer, being in the same reference frame as the astronauts themselves and travelling at the same velocity as they did, should have registered that less than a year has passed. So, either it failed completely or was somehow able to compensate for the time dilation they experienced while travelling. I suppose technically it would be wihtin the reach of science, if not technology even in 1972, to construct a device capable of performing the math that provides the input for the speed at which the chronometer would advance (or regress - but for that one hits another brick wall: according to relativity it is impossible for an object with mass to reach the speed of light, let alone surpass it). So, in-universe, there is no lie per sé, which is exaclty the point I was trying to make. The lie exists in the real world, in the adaptation to the white screen of the orginal novel.
Only available on the television cut of the movie. Audiences of the theatrical version would have been left with no doubt that a depowered Zod dropped into a freezing abyss was dead.
@@TimTE01 That's not what he said, nor the real point here anyway. Zod appeared to have been killed in Supers 2, and no one at the time seemed to think much of it.
titanic was still banned in Southampton, as many of the children and grandchildren of the crew complained. the last survivor died a while ago, but those that were bought up in the shadow of loss, well yes they exist. at infant school we were not permitted to play "the big ship sails"(a skipping game with a song about the sinking), because the headmistress father had died on it before she was born. though they showed it in a cinema for the centenary. just done some math, she had to be a going away gift, as her birthday was in the first week back after Christmas, so born Jan 1913, she couldn't have retired until she was well into her 90's, she retired in about 93 so she retired about at 80. she had never married and died within a very short time of retiring.
1:28...There will be no beating or punching Snow White. That is unacceptable. Also...I would be lying if I said the background music in this video isn't very distracting.
Superman also has a no killing rule. The reason that killing Zod is a travesty is because Superman in the comics would think of a better way of stopping him. Comics and comics tend to be more imaginative than film.
Superman killed 3 Kryptonians in the comics, in the '80's He had to kill them to save the planet. He will look for every option to not kill, unless he doesn't have another option, just like the time with Doomsday
I believe that was also a somber decision to execute his enemies formally, @@Geeknlonely2.0 Big difference from the Snyder version. Did it make any sense that Zod persisted? Did he want SuperCavill to snap his neck?
Creation was only 20 minutes long. There's no way to call that "feature length". What should have been mentioned was El Apostol, the 70 minute Argentine animated film from 1917, that arguably is the first feature length animated film.
2:26 _"It's Batman not Superman who has that no killing rule"_ Someone didn't watch Michael Keaton's "Batman Returns". He was dropping bad guys non stop. Dropped one guy into a sewer with a bomb so he exploded.
He murders someone in all those movies. In Batman he kills 3 of the Joker's goons and the Joker himself, in ...Returns he murders the stilt-walker by blowing him up and in ...Forever he kills Two face. I haven't seen Batman and Robin, so I don't know about that one.
It's amazing I just recently saw The Truman show one of the few times I actually thought Jim Carrey gave a good performance and the fact that Ed Harris has never been nominated for an academy award especially for The Truman show is a crime
Yep. It's a great movie. Director Peter Weir keeps Carrey on track for this dramatic (i.e. not comedic) role, while still making use of his natural comedic energy in many scenes. Harris is just brilliant.
No, she's right: "Nolan didn't have any plans for a sequel with Joker, or a sequel *at all* when he made Batman Begins. "Although Batman Begins ends with a scene in which Batman is presented with a joker playing card, teasing the introduction of his archenemy, the Joker, Christopher Nolan did not intend to make a sequel and was unsure Batman Begins would be successful enough to warrant one" - Wikipedia article, with citations. "I didn’t have any intention of making a sequel to Batman Begins" - C Nolan
The superman one is a bad argument. Its from a time when comic book adaptations weren't faithful. The same movie had superman throw the S off his chest at an enemy. We expect more today than that.
Watch the Director's cut of Superman 2... all three depowered Kryptonian Survived. Batman has a NO GUNS RULE, Not a No Killing Rule... Superman has a NO KILLING RULE.
I think you'll find it's no-kill for Batman, too. It's just that, like most enduring fiction, the premise is inconsistent. Even in the earliest run, there's some wiggle room in interpreting what happens to thugs he seemingly offs here and there. Alfred Stryker, for example, is a gangster he knocked into a chemical vat. (shrug) Mighta been non-toxic, and maybe A.S. could swim. And there's an oft-cited panel where someone very tall is strung up from the outside of the airborne Bat-plane. Ya just gotta understand that this foe had been turned subhuman. He practically hung himself in his mindless attempt to defeat Batman. So, even for Batman, it'd be expecting too much for him to get out of the plane he's flying to save a creature others would have mercy-killed anyway. Watchdog groups hassled the comic writers for stuff like this early on. Writers answered by adding in the occasional note assuring readers that this bat-tactic or that wasn't as lethal as it appeared. Above, I think, is all 50s and earlier. But I forget which editor it was in the 60s or 70s who scripted Batman to pull heat and shoot a foe at the end of the story. Consistency? Hardly. This editor admitted it was a mistake on his part, having not learned much about the character before taking on the job. Then; yeah. Burton & company seemed to want to run with their version, having Batman use mounted guns and other forms of deadly force. The tie-ins with the Arkham Asylum game all focus on nonlethal takedowns, but players can't help but notice how prone thugs are to falling, grievous injury, electrocution, etc., with no game penalty when it doesn't appear survivable. Batman doesn't kill and Batman doesn't use guns, but creative teams of all kinds are rarely consistent about keeping it that way.
Maybe so, but the point here is that where was all the fuss from the majority of the Superman 2 audience at time of release, who didn't know that? And the no killing rules are inconsistently depicted anyway. Also, having a No Guns rule but not a No Killing rule seems silly.
Superman also killed Zod (and the other Phantom Zone criminals) in the comics in 1988's Superman #22. It then leaves him with PTSD that results in a split personality.
Good list! I appreciate someone else getting the whole nonsense around the Superman killing Zod thing. And good review of the excessive hype around the different cuts of Blade Runner. However, not sure why Planet of the Apes makes number 3, when you then concede that it was, ultimately, just the earth all along in the original movie. The "lie" you purport is, well... exactly what actually happened in the movie!
Going wild (1930) was the first movie to show a flushing toilet (and the first time we hear one) I don't know why people think it's Psycho. It only came out in 1960.
Not true. Batman has killed multiple times in the comic going all the way back to the original issues of the 30s when he hanged a criminal from beneath the bat plane and flew him over the city or how about that time that he buried KGBeast alive and left him to die? Batman’s no killing rule is actually a fabrication that has evolved out of the movies and TV shows trying to be more family friendly. Batman definitely does have “one rule” in the comics, but it’s not about killing. Batman’s actual one rule is “NO GUNS”. And that rule was broken in the comics by Frank Miller and broken in the movies by Zack Snyder so really Batman doesn’t have any rules anymore.
I don't know where the "no killing rule" even came from. As far as I know, the only versions of Batman that hasn't committed (avoidable)murders is the '66 version and the Lego Batman. In all the movies (other than BTM'66 and Lego) he intentionally kills someone.
What a lame list! No. 1 is semantics, of course the emotions and thoughts outcome of watching each version is going to be different. Those especially who saw Kingdom of Heaven TC & DC know exactly the definition of different version… unlike this list make who has….. NO CULTURE!
I though it one of their better lists. Quite interesting and she's spot on with Blade Runner. There aren't lots of "very different" versions of the movie. There's a much bigger difference, say, in the Director's Cut of Justice League. The (stupid) question of whether Deckard was a replicant arose from the first release, and has been left open ever since. (In the novel, there's no ambiguity - he's not.) The voiceover is a minor, unnecessary annoyance. The only significant difference is the unaquivicolly happy ending of the initial cut.
The first one is a myth that was spread by Disney itself, and those awarding Disney, especially annoying when literally all they'd have to do is add an "hand drawn/traditional" in there, which I've seen them do more recently at least, but yeah, Disney over hyped their own product, let people use the wrong terms, ect. And now they have to back peddle as numerous animated feature length films come out. Much like their numerous false claims of "inventing" technology they just stole from other people. (including people who made feature length animated films before Disney, Lotte Reiniger is my bias pick, but she's far from the only person Disney stole from.)
0:01 As opposed to the this channel that spreads misinformation? 1:00 Snow White was the first mainstream theatrical release of an animated feature film. No amount of desperation to take that title away from Disney and give it to some random nobody minority will change that.
“Random nobody minority.” You managed to make it racist, which is an impressive feat considering how many ways you had to mangle both the narrators statement and the assertion it’s linked to so massively. Disney/history has often claimed Snow White as the first feature length animated film; no one’s ever said “theatrical release animated blah blah blah.” You created a target just so you could beat it. That’s concerning.
Sure, if you want a super pro-killing Superman. Though, I have to say, a bloodthirsty, vengeful, insecure, man-child superhero is a fascinating and very entertaining concept. And incredibly relevant to the times we are living in. Kinda eerie when you think about it, really.
Bollocks. Nolan knew exactly what he was doing with the Joker card. As if he was just gonna leave Batman Begins as a solo film.
Maybe wasn’t planning on having Joker in the direct sequel at the time he filmed that part, BUT it absolutely was foreshadowing that Joker was coming.
Not only that, but it’s a direct callback to the ending of Batman: Year One, which the movie uses quite a bit as inspiration.
No, she's right: "Although Batman Begins ends with a scene in which Batman is presented with a joker playing card, teasing the introduction of his archenemy, the Joker, Christopher Nolan did not intend to make a sequel and was unsure Batman Begins would be successful enough to warrant one" - Wikipedia article, with citations.
"I didn’t have any intention of making a sequel to Batman Begins" - C Nolan
@@AgentOccam
The Joker is mentioned at the end.
"He calls himself the Joker...."
A sequel was definitely planned.
.....also no one would ever consider making a Batman movie and not include The Joker at some point.
He obviously planned it all along.
OK, the Rickman thing. No, Rowling did not tell him at the beginning, it was when he was considering walking away from the project because he was tired of Snape, at that point, the character wasn't enjoyable to play any more. That's when she basically told him he loved Lily. That's where "Always." came from. It didn't take a full outline of the situation for Alan Rickman to understand and run with it. I think that's where people get confused about this statement. Yes, he knew the secret, but it did not take more than a single line for him to understand the complexity of the character. This is pretty much why those of us who are fans, are fans. He was a great actor and didn't need a full script to lay out a hidden inspiration.
Snow White was touted at Disney's first full-length animated movie. Not the first animated movie ever...
And OMG! Were you on a possessed merry-go-round when you recorded this? What's with the music?
Thank you! I couldn’t believe what she was saying here. Then I remembered this channel survives by rage-baiting movie fans for comments. It’s the only way they get engagement. They knew what they were doing when they wrote that segment.
Almost everyone of these lies are more of a technicality. Planet of the Apes was Earth, just not in the book or remake. Just because a lot of movies have different cuts does not mean Blade Runner does not. JK didn't tell Rickman, she hinted. Psycho has 1 frame of the scene. He didn't work on Avatar for 10 years he did other stuff too. Gimmie a break.
She literally said he did other stuff too. The LIE is that people believe it’s the ONLY thing he worked on.
Nah. First, Planet of the Apes isn't even a technicality - it's just plain wrong to be on the list for the reason given here. Most of the others seem reasonable though. Blade Runner's lie, for example, was described as that it "Has lots of very different versions". She's right, there really isn't.
How many things can you be wrong about in one TH-cam video. Quite a few, apparently.
None that you could identify, apparently.
After watching "The Truman Show" as a preteen, I became paranoid that my life was a TV show, and that everything was fabricated.
I knew that was never the case for me; my life is too boring.
What I always found disturbing is that movie probably actually prevented it from happening in real life. You know at least a handful of crazy billionaires have thought about doing that, but someone told them "nah, haven't you seen The Truman Show? Thats a terrible idea".
Seriously?
@@cappyjones Haven't you ever been young and irrational?
Have you seen The Matrix? 😅
I'm not even into superhero movies and even I know that Man of Steel is not only not the first time Superman has killed someone, it's not even the first time Superman killed Zod specifically. Superman II has been around since 1981.
The problem wasn't Superman killing Zod, the problem was Superman not caring about destroying half of Metropolis when fighting Zod. He struggles with the guilt of having to kill a mass-murderer, when minutes earlier he was throwing buildings at Zod without even blinking, killing thousands and thousands of thousands of civilians. Thanks to Zach "it doesn't make any sense, but hey, it loooks it really cool and it's sooooo edgy" Snyder.
He had already tried to get the fight away from Metropolis, it's almost like he was fighting someone who had training while he had none. 🤷🏻♂️
@@PrinceIsot Also, I don't recall any scenes where Superman specifically threw whole buildings at Zod, personally killing "thousands and thousands and thousands" of civilians.
And anyway, the controversy Ellie is referring to was around the killing ("Murder", as some have hysterically described it) of Zod by Superman.
They were trying to make it more realistic in a way, I mean is not like Zod was like "okay fine, lets go fight in an empty deserted place", but in a way the execution could have been better.
This list is WhatCulture's version of the "Well Actually" guy on the interwebs...
god damn what culture, did you shove enough ads in there?
Incredibly I didn't get one ad.
Usually I'll get about 3
but not this time.
Back when "Blade Runner" first came out and people had read PKD's book, it made little sense to speculate if Deckard might have been a replicant since as a cop he would have seen clues he wasn't exactly human and his bigotted boss would have let something slip. The theories leaned a lot more towards "Could a human become so numb that they too would fail a Voight-Kampff test?" especially with all of the animals in the film were alleged to have been robots (like in the novel). Trivia: Zhora and her snake got along so well because that was actor Cassidy's own person pet.
I would argue that within the "universe" of the original movie, the ape planet being Earth is not a lie. And in-universe, it makes sense. It's been stated in couple of "making of..." documentaries that the whole concept arose out of the question "what if a spaceship launched from earth and travels at relativistic speeds or even close to the speed of light overtakes or is overtaken by earth (depending on the space ship's trajectory)?" Add in a bit of time dilation and a journey of a few years for the space ship becomes a thousand or more years' journey for planet Earth. They probably got the math way wrong, but hey, it's cinema.
And be honest, Taylor realizing he's been home all along makes for the most epic plot twist in the history of cinema... That scene, the entire sequence, has been engraved in my memory ever since I first saw the movie as a kid.
I'd argue you don't even need to specify "in universe". There's just no lie in the first place. The planet dominated by apes that they were on (being the "Planet of the Apes" of the title, which people *inferred* was a different planet) was in fact earth after all. That's it. That's what you find out at the end of the movie. To point that out is simply true. There's no lie.
@@AgentOccamThe 'lie' referred to in the video lies in one of the many differences between the original novel and the original movie. In the novel, the planet the astronauts travel to is explicitly stated not to be Earth, but an earthlike world orbiting Betelgeuse. In the movie, Taylor estimates they are somewhere in the Bellatrix system and would have been travelling for about 2600 years.
With "in-universe" I meant within the context of the original movie series. The ship's chronometer tells the astronaut around 2600 years have passed, even though they themselves have aged less than a year. Those two cannot both be true. The ship's chronometer, being in the same reference frame as the astronauts themselves and travelling at the same velocity as they did, should have registered that less than a year has passed. So, either it failed completely or was somehow able to compensate for the time dilation they experienced while travelling. I suppose technically it would be wihtin the reach of science, if not technology even in 1972, to construct a device capable of performing the math that provides the input for the speed at which the chronometer would advance (or regress - but for that one hits another brick wall: according to relativity it is impossible for an object with mass to reach the speed of light, let alone surpass it).
So, in-universe, there is no lie per sé, which is exaclty the point I was trying to make. The lie exists in the real world, in the adaptation to the white screen of the orginal novel.
2:34 there was a deleted scene where officers arrest zod after Superman de-powers them.
Only available on the television cut of the movie. Audiences of the theatrical version would have been left with no doubt that a depowered Zod dropped into a freezing abyss was dead.
@@RictusHolloweyeFalling into the pit is not death.
@@TimTE01 That's not what he said, nor the real point here anyway. Zod appeared to have been killed in Supers 2, and no one at the time seemed to think much of it.
@@TimTE01
It definitely is.
You don't even hear him
hit the ground,
that's how far of a drop it was.
It's certain death.
titanic was still banned in Southampton, as many of the children and grandchildren of the crew complained. the last survivor died a while ago, but those that were bought up in the shadow of loss, well yes they exist. at infant school we were not permitted to play "the big ship sails"(a skipping game with a song about the sinking), because the headmistress father had died on it before she was born. though they showed it in a cinema for the centenary. just done some math, she had to be a going away gift, as her birthday was in the first week back after Christmas, so born Jan 1913, she couldn't have retired until she was well into her 90's, she retired in about 93 so she retired about at 80. she had never married and died within a very short time of retiring.
1:28...There will be no beating or punching Snow White. That is unacceptable. Also...I would be lying if I said the background music in this video isn't very distracting.
Superman also has a no killing rule. The reason that killing Zod is a travesty is because Superman in the comics would think of a better way of stopping him. Comics and comics tend to be more imaginative than film.
Superman killed 3 Kryptonians in the comics, in the '80's He had to kill them to save the planet. He will look for every option to not kill, unless he doesn't have another option, just like the time with Doomsday
I believe that was also a somber decision to execute his enemies formally, @@Geeknlonely2.0
Big difference from the Snyder version. Did it make any sense that Zod persisted? Did he want SuperCavill to snap his neck?
Creation was only 20 minutes long. There's no way to call that "feature length". What should have been mentioned was El Apostol, the 70 minute Argentine animated film from 1917, that arguably is the first feature length animated film.
0:14 let's be real that marketing rumor, that it was real, was the only good point in Blair witch.
2:26 _"It's Batman not Superman who has that no killing rule"_
Someone didn't watch Michael Keaton's "Batman Returns". He was dropping bad guys non stop. Dropped one guy into a sewer with a bomb so he exploded.
He murders someone in all those movies.
In Batman
he kills 3 of the Joker's goons
and the Joker himself,
in ...Returns he murders the stilt-walker by blowing him up
and in ...Forever
he kills Two face.
I haven't seen Batman and Robin,
so I don't know about that one.
I've never even heard anybody say any of these things, let alone believing them.
I always wondered on The Truman Show.... How'd they handle those ummmm adult moments that happen from time to time?
It's amazing I just recently saw The Truman show one of the few times I actually thought Jim Carrey gave a good performance and the fact that Ed Harris has never been nominated for an academy award especially for The Truman show is a crime
Yep. It's a great movie. Director Peter Weir keeps Carrey on track for this dramatic (i.e. not comedic) role, while still making use of his natural comedic energy in many scenes. Harris is just brilliant.
So why is the Status of Liberty at the end of the film if it's not earth? What planet is it on?!
Snow White is Disney’s first animated feature.
Are you really that starving for a list filler?
The Batman Begins entry here is dumb. They literally dropped the joker card and the next movie the joker popped up….like, what? 😂
No, she's right: "Nolan didn't have any plans for a sequel with Joker, or a sequel *at all* when he made Batman Begins.
"Although Batman Begins ends with a scene in which Batman is presented with a joker playing card, teasing the introduction of his archenemy, the Joker, Christopher Nolan did not intend to make a sequel and was unsure Batman Begins would be successful enough to warrant one" - Wikipedia article, with citations.
"I didn’t have any intention of making a sequel to Batman Begins" - C Nolan
Very true Superman man of steel had too much fighty/fighty.
Batman Vs Superman had too little fighty/fighty.
A good balance is so important.
I’d have said first feature length from Disney rather than first ever.
Psycho was not the first movie with a toilet shown - as you have pointed out in many many many of your other lists.... this movie was Peeping Tom.
Secret agent
(another Hitchcock movie)
from 1936
had a flushing toilet
but the first was Going wild,
from 1930.
Except Rowling told him he would be
I want to hear more about the Raiders of the Lost Ark thing she mentioned in the intro.
Completely butchered the Superman section. The quality of these lists are getting worse.
The superman one is a bad argument. Its from a time when comic book adaptations weren't faithful. The same movie had superman throw the S off his chest at an enemy. We expect more today than that.
Superman Killed in the comics
Superman killed Zod in 1981's Superman II
Watch the Director's cut of Superman 2... all three depowered Kryptonian Survived.
Batman has a NO GUNS RULE, Not a No Killing Rule... Superman has a NO KILLING RULE.
I think you'll find it's no-kill for Batman, too. It's just that, like most enduring fiction, the premise is inconsistent.
Even in the earliest run, there's some wiggle room in interpreting what happens to thugs he seemingly offs here and there. Alfred Stryker, for example, is a gangster he knocked into a chemical vat. (shrug) Mighta been non-toxic, and maybe A.S. could swim.
And there's an oft-cited panel where someone very tall is strung up from the outside of the airborne Bat-plane. Ya just gotta understand that this foe had been turned subhuman. He practically hung himself in his mindless attempt to defeat Batman. So, even for Batman, it'd be expecting too much for him to get out of the plane he's flying to save a creature others would have mercy-killed anyway.
Watchdog groups hassled the comic writers for stuff like this early on. Writers answered by adding in the occasional note assuring readers that this bat-tactic or that wasn't as lethal as it appeared.
Above, I think, is all 50s and earlier. But I forget which editor it was in the 60s or 70s who scripted Batman to pull heat and shoot a foe at the end of the story.
Consistency? Hardly. This editor admitted it was a mistake on his part, having not learned much about the character before taking on the job.
Then; yeah. Burton & company seemed to want to run with their version, having Batman use mounted guns and other forms of deadly force.
The tie-ins with the Arkham Asylum game all focus on nonlethal takedowns, but players can't help but notice how prone thugs are to falling, grievous injury, electrocution, etc., with no game penalty when it doesn't appear survivable.
Batman doesn't kill and Batman doesn't use guns, but creative teams of all kinds are rarely consistent about keeping it that way.
Batman 100% used to use a gun, both in the comics, and serials. This is easy to verify The no guns was added later.
Maybe so, but the point here is that where was all the fuss from the majority of the Superman 2 audience at time of release, who didn't know that?
And the no killing rules are inconsistently depicted anyway. Also, having a No Guns rule but not a No Killing rule seems silly.
@@alm2187
Nearly every version of Batman is a straight up murderer.
Seems plausible, @@abegarfield7031
Hard to quantify, though.
How many versions have you counted?
It was amazing watching the Harry Potter movies not knowing that Snape was actually a good guy and was looking out for Harry
In the book planet of the apes it actually was on an alien planet and he came back to Earth oh it's wasn't Taylor it was a character called Ulysses
2:46 Um... Yes, it is! Superman doesn't kill in the comics, yet you showed an example from the MOVIES.
Also in the Richard Donner cut they are arrested
Superman also killed Zod (and the other Phantom Zone criminals) in the comics in 1988's Superman #22. It then leaves him with PTSD that results in a split personality.
@@bbwibb02 If it left him with PTSD then he shouldn't do it
@@martinlubbe9104 that doesn't make any sense. don't do something that already happened?
@@onionbubs386 I meant he shouldn't have done it in the first place
Good list! I appreciate someone else getting the whole nonsense around the Superman killing Zod thing. And good review of the excessive hype around the different cuts of Blade Runner.
However, not sure why Planet of the Apes makes number 3, when you then concede that it was, ultimately, just the earth all along in the original movie. The "lie" you purport is, well... exactly what actually happened in the movie!
09:44 I wouldn't call 12 years ago "a couple of years back"
Nitpicking- The List
Nah. She's spot on with most of them. The silly fuss over the killing of Zod in MoS is something that should be called out, for example.
Going wild (1930)
was the first movie to show a flushing toilet
(and the first time we hear one)
I don't know why people think it's Psycho.
It only came out in 1960.
Not true. Batman has killed multiple times in the comic going all the way back to the original issues of the 30s when he hanged a criminal from beneath the bat plane and flew him over the city or how about that time that he buried KGBeast alive and left him to die? Batman’s no killing rule is actually a fabrication that has evolved out of the movies and TV shows trying to be more family friendly. Batman definitely does have “one rule” in the comics, but it’s not about killing. Batman’s actual one rule is “NO GUNS”. And that rule was broken in the comics by Frank Miller and broken in the movies by Zack Snyder so really Batman doesn’t have any rules anymore.
Don’t forget when Joker killed Robin so Batman decided that was the last straw and he was going to kill Joker until Superman intervened.
I don't know where the
"no killing rule" even came from.
As far as I know,
the only versions of Batman
that hasn't committed
(avoidable)murders
is the '66 version and
the Lego Batman.
In all the movies
(other than BTM'66 and Lego)
he intentionally kills someone.
Does 7:20 mean that Janet Leigh was actually cut?
There's the fib about Mellish being atabbed by the German soldier who was let go in Saving Private Ryan.
Less a lie than a case of mistaken identity. Two blond guys of the same height and build wearing the same uniform? They all look alike.
@thatboybear Yeah im kinda reaching actually lol
Batman has killed a lot of people.
Erm if the Harry Potter films are based on the books then there should be no twists
What a lame list! No. 1 is semantics, of course the emotions and thoughts outcome of watching each version is going to be different.
Those especially who saw Kingdom of Heaven TC & DC know exactly the definition of different version… unlike this list make who has….. NO CULTURE!
I though it one of their better lists. Quite interesting and she's spot on with Blade Runner. There aren't lots of "very different" versions of the movie. There's a much bigger difference, say, in the Director's Cut of Justice League.
The (stupid) question of whether Deckard was a replicant arose from the first release, and has been left open ever since. (In the novel, there's no ambiguity - he's not.) The voiceover is a minor, unnecessary annoyance. The only significant difference is the unaquivicolly happy ending of the initial cut.
The first one is a myth that was spread by Disney itself, and those awarding Disney, especially annoying when literally all they'd have to do is add an "hand drawn/traditional" in there, which I've seen them do more recently at least, but yeah, Disney over hyped their own product, let people use the wrong terms, ect. And now they have to back peddle as numerous animated feature length films come out.
Much like their numerous false claims of "inventing" technology they just stole from other people. (including people who made feature length animated films before Disney, Lotte Reiniger is my bias pick, but she's far from the only person Disney stole from.)
0:01
As opposed to the this channel that spreads misinformation?
1:00
Snow White was the first mainstream theatrical release of an animated feature film.
No amount of desperation to take that title away from Disney and give it to some random nobody minority will change that.
“Random nobody minority.” You managed to make it racist, which is an impressive feat considering how many ways you had to mangle both the narrators statement and the assertion it’s linked to so massively. Disney/history has often claimed Snow White as the first feature length animated film; no one’s ever said “theatrical release animated blah blah blah.” You created a target just so you could beat it. That’s concerning.
This video gets a thumbs-up because it addresses the contrast between the Planet of the Apes book and the original movie.
That sore throat is back!
Have a locket!Tunes!
(Hope you feel better soon).
The Movie 🎥 called “ Bad Precedent “ is about Trump, and it’s 100% true.
Cry more
That awful background music, couldn’t watch this video
Any astronaut would be able to tell whether they were on earth or some other planet in pota. Just wait for night.
Snape was not a hero.
These are all well known / not factual
What?😂
🎬🍿🎞🎥🧙♂
Only real superhero is homelander. That is a man you can worship.
Sure, if you want a super pro-killing Superman. Though, I have to say, a bloodthirsty, vengeful, insecure, man-child superhero is a fascinating and very entertaining concept. And incredibly relevant to the times we are living in. Kinda eerie when you think about it, really.
@joshpetzoldt6344 He is mature and adult. Superman irl would be superior and see everyone as below him.