Are DC films held to a different, higher standard?

[MadVillainy]

I never said murder. I said "Batman killing". Manslaughter/not intentionally killing someone is still killing.

And you really should watch the scene again because I think you're remembering it differently

Even taking out that scene, fine. 1) The whole Talia thing in TDKR. 2) The whole Joker truck driver thing 3) Different moments from Batman 89 and the rest of the Burton/Schumacher universe all had Batman killing.

And don't get me wrong it bothered me more in BvS then it did in the other movies.

 

[The Joker]

Technically, but I don't vilify Batman for "killing" a criminal in a desperate situation to save an innocent life or many lives. Like your Talia example. There was minutes left on a bomb that would nuke the whole city. What should Batman have done exactly there, ask Talia to tell her Tumblers to back off and pull her truck over so he can take the bomb away? She was on a suicide mission, and she was never going to stop. He had no choice but to use lethal force. As opposed to needlessly murdering criminals like in BvS. I mean its like a Cop going in and shooting a load of criminals when he could arrest them, and a Cop shooting a criminal who's threatening an innocent.

The Burton movies I fully agree with. Like with BvS they got a fan backlash for the killing back in the day, too, among other things;

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

3) Different moments from Batman 89 and the rest of the Burton/Schumacher universe all had Batman killing.

I don't remember him killing in the Schumacher films. I thought it was just Burton.

 

[The Joker]

I don't remember him killing in the Schumacher films. I thought it was just Burton.

I think throwing the coins at Two Face causing him to fall to his death is the one that irks people in those movies.

 

[MadVillainy]

What should Batman have done in BvS ask KGBeast to put the gun down?
When those guys were shooting at him during the car chase, what should he have done?
Or the guy with the grenade?
(I can't believe I'm defending BvS)

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think throwing the coins at Two Face causing him to fall to his death is the one that irks people in those movies.

Oh yeah, right. Sorry.

 

[The Joker]

What should Batman have done in BvS ask KGBeast to put the gun down?

That's the only one I have no problem with and think he was justified in doing.

When those guys were shooting at him during the car chase, what should he have done?
(I can't believe I'm defending BvS)

Nothing. Unless his Bat vehicles are not bullet proof, he was in no danger. I don't believe they were not, especially in 2016 when every live action version has been. Even the 60's Adam West Batmobile was bullet proof.

The day Batman can't handle some gun toting thugs shooting at him without slaughtering them is the day he needs to hang up his cowl.

 

[MadVillainy]

That's the only one I have no problem with and think he was justified in doing.



Nothing. Unless his Bat vehicles are not bullet proof, he was in no danger. I don't believe they were not, especially in 2016 when every live action version has been. Even the 60's Adam West Batmobile was bullet proof.

The day Batman can't handle some gun toting thugs shooting at him without slaughtering them is the day he needs to hang up his cowl.

Bullets couldve ricochet'd and hit someone

and what about the grenade guy though?

I mean if we're gonna go with justifiable homicide then Batman shouldve killed 75% of his rogue gallery years ago. The thing that has been set up for so long that it's not in his character.
One of my big problems with having Batman kill whether it's "but I don't have to save you", manslaughter, or especially murder is why doesn't he just let the Joker die?
And I dont necessarily mean he straight up murders him (although I am wondering why with the DCEU Batman established that he just doesn't murder The Joker) but there have been times where Joker has been falling or someone is trying to kill the JOker in the comics, movies, cartoons, whatever and Batman saves him which endangers so many lives. And it's not just the Joker. Black Mask, Killer Croc, or whatever sick villain

 

[The Joker]

Bullets couldve ricochet'd and hit someone

Not Batman's fault.

and what about the grenade guy though?

What about him?

I mean if we're gonna go with justifiable homicide then Batman shouldve killed 75% of his rogue gallery years ago. The thing that has been set up for so long that it's not in his character.
My big problem with having Batman kill is why doesn't he just let the Joker die? And I dont necessarily mean straight up murder (although I am wondering why with the DCEU Batman established that he just doesn't murder The Joker) but there have been times where Joker has been falling or someone is trying to kill the JOker in the comics, movies, cartoons, whatever and Batman saves him which endangers so many lives. Or even Black Mask or whatever sick villain.

We all know the answer to this one. They don't kill off the Joker or any of the big rogues gallery because they are too popular, and they want to keep bringing them back. I mean Batman is hardly the only one who would want to put a gun to Joker's head and blow his brains out. Realistically someone would have done it a long time ago. A disgruntled Cop or Arkham guard would have done it when he was in custody years ago for example.

 

[Marvin]

Ra's smashed the brakes on the train and sealed his own fate. You can argue Batman was morally wrong not to save him, but he wasn't responsible for Ra's' fate. It was the reverse of the monastery situation where this time Ra's was responsible for the dangerous situation, and Bruce chose not to save him because he was in his own self made death trap.

..pretty sure batman blew out the tracks on that train. Simply disabling the breaks isn't suicide, it doesn't even really contribute to the 'death trap' for even if the train had breaks that wouldn't have stopped it in time, especially after the culprit put the pedal to the metal just before. If anything it just get's the train though the central hub faster and he can depart it at his leisure. Knocking out train tracks is like blowing up a train bridge and keeping it a secret till the last minute. Sorry.

But yea having to kill to directly save human lives isn't so bad or out of character really..save when it's MOS. Character assassination.

 

[MadVillainy]

Not Batman's fault.



What about him?

Isn't that another instance of justifiable homicide on Batman's part?

And I'm not saying the bullet ricochet is Bats' fault. I'm saying if Batman has the ability to quickly stop the shooters from potentially hurting someone else through bullet ricochet why is it bad for Batman to kill the shooters?


My whole point initial point last page wasn't even meant to become a Batman killing debate. I'm just curious why does Batman seem to kill (whether it be justifiable homicide, murder, manslaughter, whatever) in all or at least most of his live action adaptations when it seems in the comics or in other media they have it under control better. I get that not everything is going to be like the comics, but it seems like a simple thing

 

[The Joker]

..pretty sure batman blew out the tracks on that train. Simply disabling the breaks isn't suicide, it doesn't even really contribute to the 'death trap' for even if the train had breaks that wouldn't have stopped it in time, especially after the culprit put the pedal to the metal just before. If anything it just get's the train though the central hub faster and he can depart it at his leisure. Knocking out train tracks is like blowing up a train bridge and keeping it a secret till the last minute. Sorry.

Blowing the tracks was his back up plan in case Ra's stopped or killed him and he failed to physically stop the train. Otherwise he had no reason to go up there and try and physically confront Ra's himself. He could have just blown the tracks himself and let Ra's plummet to his death rather than have Gordon do it. Ra's smashed the brakes with his broken sword. He turned the train into an unstoppable death trap. The tracks are not endless. The train would have eventually crashed, blown tracks or no blown tracks.

 

[The Joker]

Isn't that another instance of justifiable homicide on Batman's part?

Let me put it to you this way; was grenade guy directly threatening some innocent life?

And I'm not saying the bullet ricochet is Bats' fault. I'm saying if Batman has the ability to quickly stop the shooters from potentially hurting someone else through bullet ricochet why is it bad for Batman to kill the shooters?

You know the answer to this. Batman was safe and sound in his bulletproof Batwing. He didn't need to shoot those guys to stop them. Criminals carry guns. Its only smart to bullet proof his vehicles. That doesn't mean he needs to blow them away just because they're shooting at him.

My whole point initial point last page wasn't even meant to become a Batman killing debate. I'm just curious why does Batman seem to kill (whether it be justifiable homicide, murder, manslaughter, whatever) in all or at least most of his live action adaptations when it seems in the comics or in other media they have it under control better. I get that not everything is going to be like the comics, but it seems like a simple thing

Well I can't answer that one for you because I don't write the scripts. But I know there is a huge difference between Batman just blowing away criminals or mowing them down needlessly, and taking out a criminal when an innocent life or lives are in immediate danger in some desperate situation.

That's why the Burton movies and BvS got some backlash for the Batman killing. They did the former.

 

[MadVillainy]

Let me put it to you this way; was grenade guy directly threatening some innocent life?



You know the answer to this. Batman was safe and sound in his bulletproof Batwing. He didn't need to shoot those guys to stop them.



Well I can't answer that one for you because I don't write the scripts. But I know there is a huge difference between Batman just blowing away criminals or mowing them down needlessly, and taking out a criminal when an innocent life or lives are in immediate danger in some desperate situation.

That's why the Burton movies and BvS got some backlash for the Batman killing. They did the former.

I hate broken up posts so I'm just gonna reply by number to each paragraph
1) It was directly threatening Bats' own life. Batman couldve dodged it or thrown it down the hole he made in the floor.
2) I didn't say Batman was in danger. I'm saying that a bullet couldve hit someone else who is not tucked in a Batmobile so why is Batman wrong in killing them?
3) And I know you don't write the scripts, I'm asking people to speculate. Batman kills more often, justifiable or not, in the movies then in other media. Why do people think that filmmakers are more inclined to make Batman kill then in other media especially the comics

 

[The Joker]

I hate broken up posts so I'm just gonna reply by number to each paragraph
1) It was directly threatening Bats' own life. Batman couldve dodged it or thrown it down the hole he made in the floor.
2) I didn't say Batman was in danger. I'm saying that a bullet couldve hit someone else who is not tucked in a Batmobile so why is Batman wrong in killing them?

Blackman, no offense but this getting a tad silly. If Batman killed every criminal that threatened his life, his body count would be bigger than the Joker's. That goes for any hero.

If the bullet hit someone else that's not Batman's fault. Stray bullets, ricocheting bullets etc are always a danger of hitting someone in a gun fight. Where you make some connection to that and a justification of Batman killing criminals in his Batmobile is lost on me.

 

[MadVillainy]

Blaackman, no offense but this getting a tad silly. If Batman killed every criminal that threatened his life, his body count would be bigger than the Joker's.

If the bullet hit someone else that's not Batman's fault. Stray bullets, ricocheting bullets etc are always a danger of hitting someone in a gun fight. Where you make some connection to that and a justification of Batman killing criminals in his Batmobile is lost on me.

I agree I do think it's getting silly. And Im not advocating for Batman to kill everyone. Ive said many times and even in the last page that I think Batman killing is something I dont like when they write that into the scripts.

You keep putting words in my mouth, I never said Batman was at fault if bullets hit someone. I'm saying Batman tries to prevent danger yeah. People shooting is danger, right? Im not trying to make a justification for Batman killing because as Ive said multiple times, Batman killing is something i dont like. I'm saying I dont get why it's a big deal for Batman to kill guys that can be causing a danger to someone by firing automatic weapons but then if he shoots kills people in the warehouse it's fine.
MY whole original point was asking people: "Why do you guys think the live-action Batman films seem to have a problem with him not killing?" if someone is fine with Batman killing. Cool, that's their opinion but the bolded was the whole original point of my statement

I tried to turn the arguement back to another point at least 2 times. So I will ask this to anyone who wants to answer it.
Why do filmmakers seem more willing to make Batman kill than writers of other non-kid centric media

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Blackman, no offense but this getting a tad silly. If Batman killed every criminal that threatened his life, his body count would be bigger than the Joker's. That goes for any hero.

If the bullet hit someone else that's not Batman's fault. Stray bullets, ricocheting bullets etc are always a danger of hitting someone in a gun fight. Where you make some connection to that and a justification of Batman killing criminals in his Batmobile is lost on me.

Basically using lethal force should be an absolute last resort. In those cases, it wouldn't be.

 

[Timebomb]

I blame DC. In virtually all forms of media, Batman has a no kill rule that has shaped the character for dozens of years and has made for some very compelling stories but for some reason they allow the rule to be ignored in film. I don't understand it. To me it hurts the character and limits the type of great Batman stories you can on tell on film.

 

[The Joker]

I agree I do think it's getting silly. And Im not advocating for Batman to kill everyone. Ive said many times and even in the last page that I think Batman killing is something I dont like when they write that into the scripts.

You keep putting words in my mouth, I never said Batman was at fault. Im not trying to make a justification for Batman killing because as Ive said, Batman killing is something i dont like. I'm saying I dont get why it's a big deal for Batman to kill guys that can be causing a danger to someone by firing automatic weapons but then if he shoots kills people in the warehouse it's fine.

I apologize if I unintentionally put words in your mouth, but I couldn't wrap my head around what you were trying to say there. Every armed criminal is a potential danger to someone's life. You can't kill someone for what might or might not happen.

Its like saying Batman should never engage in a fisticuffs fight again because something like this could happen;

In a dangerous line of work like crime fighting, accidents can and will happen. Whether its with something like this, or a stray or ricocheting bullet hitting someone.

I tried to turn the arguement back to another point at least 2 times. So I will ask this to anyone who wants to answer it.
Why do filmmakers seem more willing to make Batman kill than writers of other non-kid centric media

Ok if you want my 2 cents; it looks flashier on the screen. Seeing people getting blown away or blown up etc. Its visual candy. In the case of Batman, at least with the TDK trilogy, lethal force was a last resort to save lives.

 

[MadVillainy]

Basically using lethal force should be an absolute last resort. In those cases, it wouldn't be.

Ok and I think that's reasonable

But I'm saying Im pretty sure in other media, Batman has been in situations where lethal force was the justifiable even as the last resort but writers have found a way around it why not filmmakers.

Of course no one knows for sure. I was just trying to hear some speculation for a discussion

I blame DC. In virtually all forms of media, Batman has a no kill rule that has shaped the character for dozens of years and has made for some very compelling stories but for some reason they allow the rule to be ignored in film. I don't understand it. To me it hurts the character and limits the type of great Batman stories you can on tell on film.

I agree.

I also think in the case of the DCEU it takes away from a potentially interesting story of the League being divided on lethal force.

 

[jmc]

Death has always followed Batman one way or another, the issue is always intent. The vast majority of the time death is part of the collateral damage. There are lots of grey areas and questionable decisions of course, but more often than not there was never the intent by Batman to murder someone. The Batman in BvS does want to murder Superman, there's no grey area there, it's flat out black and white. This is a huge reason why I feel that film turned a lot of people off. You had a Superman who looked uninterested in saving people, and a Batman willing to murder people. In hindsight I've got to wonder why WB ever thought this was a good idea, other than to not be Marvel, which in all honesty is a piss poor mentality.

 

[Timebomb]

And there are some great solo stories you can't effectively tell, Red Hood, killing Joke, or even the confrontation he has with Joker in the same book that inspired parts of BVS. If they try to tell these stories, Batman doesn't have a moral leg to stand on.

I agree with you jmc on BvS.

 

[Marvin]

Blowing the tracks was his back up plan in case Ra's stopped or killed him and he failed to physically stop the train. Otherwise he had no reason to go up there and try and physically confront Ra's himself. He could have just blown the tracks himself and let Ra's plummet to his death rather than have Gordon do it. Ra's smashed the brakes with his broken sword. He turned the train into an unstoppable death trap. The tracks are not endless. The train would have eventually crashed, blown tracks or no blown tracks.

Actually if that train runs on a looping circuit it's technically an endless track. However the real question is that of if a trained ninja guy can get his person off of a moving train with no breaks, given ample time and the vehicle itself not about to crash. Can such a person survive the endeavor with min damage. Given what we see in comic books, the ability to roll into falls... in short given Black Widow doing that very thing in Avengers I'd say the circumstance isn't as suicidal as you are presenting.

His back up plan? First second or back up I wasn't aware bat plans could involve killing.
Working under that assumption though, the tracks were gonna be blown regardless given he wasn't in communication with Gordon. The plan that ends in a derailed train whether the breaks work or not that was the plan and it would have happened whether Ra's sipped tea or killed the bat himself. "Who said anything about stopping the train" to me seems like the long game from the start tbh. He hopped on, distracted Ra's and hit the gas, locking his actual plan in stone. In a movie about no kill rules, it's an odd direction imo.
To each his own.

 

[Marvin]

Death has always followed Batman one way or another, the issue is always intent. The vast majority of the time death is part of the collateral damage. There are lots of grey areas and questionable decisions of course, but more often than not there was never the intent by Batman to murder someone. The Batman in BvS does want to murder Superman, there's no grey area there, it's flat out black and white. This is a huge reason why I feel that film turned a lot of people off. You had a Superman who looked uninterested in saving people, and a Batman willing to murder people. In hindsight I've got to wonder why WB ever thought this was a good idea, other than to not be Marvel, which in all honesty is a piss poor mentality.

If they didn't want to be marvel then they would enforce no kill rules better. For the marvel heroes want to kill people and are often uninterested in saving people in their early careers. The whole stark wanting desperately to kill an innocent bucky is the most recent one.
WB probably thought people could approach this material with a clean slate, as clean as people do the murderous marvel stuff. However even people that don't know the material were signaled as to why this is 'wrong'. Or they maybe thought after a lot of movies they could present something different with the character(s), and even justify it ala an old batman one that has lost his code vs a young one without one. Either way, they know now to follow the rules with this stuff...well save for all the other movies but still.

And yes batman want's to but doesn't kill superman. The alien. His intent, which is what is to be judged is that he wants to kill an alien. Batman's rules on humans have been established in the comics, fine, his rules on other life forms not so much. From the beef he eats to sentient robots to planet eating aliens, white martians, re-animated owls, gods etc. The intention to kill an alien named darksied in cold blood for the greater good isn't so left field really. The irony is the whole thing comes to a head when the villain in this case is humanized..

Lastly I personally don't see an uninterested in saving people superman in this movie. That sort of characterization is explored in things like superman and spiderman2. Saving lives from childhood even without outright encouragement and going on to do so for 3 years in costume paint a different image to me. I see where people draw that for superman isn't out there doing it as he does in some of the source, gungho and excited about it. But there has to be something to be said for a character acting in character under the bridge of context. What happens to the excited nature of saving people with saving people comes at great cost. When it comes with idolatry? I've read books where superman shows concern over the churches/cults build for him. That notorious day of dead scene where he looks concerned is source accurate, especially for a young superman. With every act the world destabilizes and then you watch the broadcast with pundits arguing why the world doesn't need a superman, he can react to that with less than a smile. He can be burdened with these things, the material needs some flexibility, especially when the arc is he goes away, finds his path and dies fully embracing this very debate. However there is no room to do jack all even with that explanation showing it's all still there. Just do it as it's supposed to be. I do agree, they definitely gambled wrong.

 

[lordofthenerds]

I think whenever a movie tries to get "dark and serious", it gets held to a higher standard. It needs to justify that darkness with intelligence.

If a movie just aspires to be a popcorn flick, then stupidity is more likely to be forgiven. On the other hand, if it's both dark and stupid, then it becomes a miserable bore and the movie has failed at every level.