Batman killed Two-Face...

[Finlandman]

Then again Ra´s al Ghul is not crazy, he can make choices, and it doesn´t matter how hard you are going to try to save somebody, if he doesn´t want to be saved, he will never be. With other criminals is diferent, because most of them are crazy.

Ra's al Ghul is crazy, but I agree with the rest.

 

[Finlandman]

Sorry, douple post.

 

[MrSmith1114]

I've always looked at it like this: Batman threw the coins up in hopes that Two-Face would lose his coin, and would therefore not be able to use it. He was hoping he could help him.

Batman didn't murder Two-Face, he gave him a choice, and Two-Face made the wrong choice.

Yes, him or Robin could've saved him, but think of it from their point of view.

I know all of this "Oh, Batman doesn't kill" stuff that's in the comic books. I know about all that, but let's take that out of the equation. Because folks, this isn't the comic books, this is a film. It's a more epic scale.

In the first ten minutes of Batman Forever, you get the impression that Batman has already dealt with Two-Face, possibly many times before. At that point, Two-Face could've been more like the Joker in that sense. He's beyond saving, and from Batman's point of view, he knows saving him leaves Gotham City open for another possible crime wave.

From Robin's point of view, this is the man that murdered his family. Coming from someone who has a mother, a father, a brother and a sister, I would never forgive someone for taking them away from me. You think I'd try to save them if they fell? No, I would not. Why should I? They took everything away from me. And I dare anyone else to tell me that they would do any different.

It's one of the few moments in Schumacher's films that's realistic. From Batman's point of view, the man is a monster, and saving him would even be a crime. From Robin's point of view, this man killed his family and took everything away from him. To save him at that point would be unrealistic beyond belief.

 

[RobC]

Yeah that's true, we're differing over our own personal views of what constitutes murder, is it the single act of taking a persons life, or are you just as guilty by failing to act to save a persons life.

 

[Benstamania]

It could be argued that he killed in BATMAN. We know he uses lethal force, though we never really see anyone actually die, as I recall. Batman's actions did lead to The Joker's death, but Joker had every opportunity not to hang onto that ladder and buck the laws of physics.

He uses lethal force and likely kills in BATMAN RETURNS, though again, any deaths are offscreen.

But in BATMAN FOREVER, Batman did not kill Two-Face. Throwing a handful of coins into the air, even if you know the person will try to catch them, is not killing someone. Did he take advantage of Two-Face's compulsion? Sure, to distract him, but Two-Face is the idiot who reached out and stepped off the ledge.

I don't remember him killing in BATMAN & ROBIN.

In BATMAN BEGINS, he caused a series of explosions and a fire that likely led to deaths, but again, offscreen. And he refused to save Ra's Al Ghul after James Gordon blew out the tracks. I don't think you can argue he killed him, though not offering the chance for life is out of character for Batman.

The Batmobile in 89 drives into the chemical plant full of Joker thugs, drops a bomp and drives out, with the exploding plant behind him. He also tosses a guy down the "step shoot" before his fight with The Joker.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Keaton's Batman was definitly a killer, but a cold-blooded one? I think not!

 

[RobC]

I dunno, he blew up that chemical factory in pure revenge for Joker's actions...

 

[DocLathropBrown]

I dunno, he blew up that chemical factory in pure revenge for Joker's actions...

Not really. He blew up Axis Chemicals so that the Joker wouldn't be able to continue producing Smilex.

 

[The Guard]

The Batmobile in 89 drives into the chemical plant full of Joker thugs, drops a bomp and drives out, with the exploding plant behind him. He also tosses a guy down the "step shoot" before his fight with The Joker.

Right, but we never see the deaths onscreen. I'm not trying to justify it, I'm sure they DID die, we just never see it.

 

[RobC]

True, but we never see Two-Face actually die, but we're all accepting that he did.

 

[Two-Face]

True, but we never see Two-Face actually die, but we're all accepting that he did.

We see the coin falling on his hand so I see his pretty much dead.

 

[El Payaso]

I've always looked at it like this: Batman threw the coins up in hopes that Two-Face would lose his coin, and would therefore not be able to use it. He was hoping he could help him.

I tend to agree with this. Nevertheless we cannot ignore the distracting and unbalancing effect of any bunch of little elements fluttering around you when you’re over a precipice. Not only was Two-face distracted by losing his coin but also was some unbalancing element.

I’m not saying that makes Batman a killer.

Batman didn't murder Two-Face, he gave him a choice, and Two-Face made the wrong choice.

Now this is for me quite complicated.

If we talk about the traditional Two-Face I’d say Batman knew that Harvey had no option since phychologically he’s attached to that coin. If we remember the two-parter episode of the Batman animated series, he used the same trick (he threw a bunch of coins around Two-Face, only he wasn’t over a precipice) and the results were devastating. Two-Face got a psychological breakdown.

If we’re talking about that Two-Face then making him having a breakdown over a precipice is to make sure he will fall. And then – if you’re Batman – your duty is to save him since he had NO choice but to try and recover his coin.

But ironically enough, Schumacher’s poor depiction of the character plays in his favour. This Two-Face seems to have the coin as a mere hobby. He flips it again and again when he doesn’t like the result and he forgets to flip it now and then.

So, when it’s about this totally flawed out-of-character version of Two-Face I guess it’s fair to say he could have a choice.

But still, batman should have saved him.

Yes, him or Robin could've saved him, but think of it from their point of view.

I know all of this "Oh, Batman doesn't kill" stuff that's in the comic books. I know about all that, but let's take that out of the equation. Because folks, this isn't the comic books, this is a film. It's a more epic scale.

I’m quite okay with it. I can totally dig a Bastman that kills when necessary. And the

My problem is the consistency within the movie.

In the first ten minutes of Batman Forever, you get the impression that Batman has already dealt with Two-Face, possibly many times before. At that point, Two-Face could've been more like the Joker in that sense. He's beyond saving, and from Batman's point of view, he knows saving him leaves Gotham City open for another possible crime wave.

From Robin's point of view, this is the man that murdered his family. Coming from someone who has a mother, a father, a brother and a sister, I would never forgive someone for taking them away from me. You think I'd try to save them if they fell? No, I would not. Why should I? They took everything away from me. And I dare anyone else to tell me that they would do any different.

It's one of the few moments in Schumacher's films that's realistic. From Batman's point of view, the man is a monster, and saving him would even be a crime. From Robin's point of view, this man killed his family and took everything away from him. To save him at that point would be unrealistic beyond belief.

I can agree with every aspect you mention.

Fact is that on the movie, Bruce Wayne clearly tells Dick that he has learned his lesson and killing the villiain doesn’t take the pain away and he recommends Dick not to kill Two-Face since he’s against it (even when Bruce let Dick to decide for himself).

That said, it’d be quite pertinent and consistent from Bruce/Batman not to set the circumstances for Two-Face to die and, if he HAS to, at least use his skills to save him.

 

[The Guard]

It's not inconsistent at all. Batman essentially says "If you seek revenge, you will become like me". He never says "I will never kill again or cause a situation that leads to someone's death". His actions at the end of FOREVER are partially to prevent Robin from having to do so. He doesn't want Robin to become what he has.

 

[RobC]

I always like to think, when i'm on my morality high horse, that i'd be willing to save someone even if they'd taken my family. In reality I highly doubt i'd do anything but watch.

I agree with El Payaso, Schumacher's poor characterization means that throwing coins in the air is ambiguous. Like it'd be just as imaginable to have Two-Face watch all the coins fall, shrug, and shoot everyone.

I stand by my previous statement, Batman didn't kill Two-Face, he manufactured the circumstances in which his death was invetible.

 

[El Payaso]

It's not inconsistent at all. Batman essentially says "If you seek revenge, you will become like me". He never says "I will never kill again or cause a situation that leads to someone's death".

For what I understand from your post - and please tell me if I'm wrong - you're implying that Batman IS a killer (or he considers himself such) but he just doesn't want Robin to become one too. And he does it by saying 'Kid, killing is wrong so don't do it. Now, knowing it's wrong and all I have kept and will keep indulging myself about it. I just don't want to learn my lesson'

His actions at the end of FOREVER are partially to prevent Robin from having to do so. He doesn't want Robin to become what he has.

Which sounds inconsistent again. About Robin's determination of killing Two-Face Batman tells him "A man's got to go his own way."

How is it Batman letting Robin go his own way if he's interfering with it so intrusively?

I always like to think, when i'm on my morality high horse, that i'd be willing to save someone even if they'd taken my family. In reality I highly doubt i'd do anything but watch.

I agree with El Payaso, Schumacher's poor characterization means that throwing coins in the air is ambiguous. Like it'd be just as imaginable to have Two-Face watch all the coins fall, shrug, and shoot everyone.

I stand by my previous statement, Batman didn't kill Two-Face, he manufactured the circumstances in which his death was invetible.

His actions to me are still quite questionable. A normal man without any kind of psychologial dependence on a coin could easily lose balance if someone throws surprisingly coins around him. At the very least, Batman should have thrown his bat-rope to save him, considering he - as you said- manufactured the circumstances of such fallen.

 

[RobC]

My point to counter that is, do we know he had any ropes left? He already used two. We don't know if he had any left. It seems to me logical that he would have saved him if he could.

 

[BigCityBoy]

The thing about the Ra's thing is that Batman had to get out of there and he did smash the window giving Ra's ample oppurtunity to save himself. And with Two-face he didn't take advantage of his compluse out of malice but, to save himself, Robin and Chase. The man was going to shoot them for god sake.

Thats exactly how I felt about when Batman strapped the bomb on the tatooed strongman in Batman Returns. Had Batman not done that he would've been beat to death because it was clearly obvious that the strongman was stronger than Batman so Batman had to do what he had to do to protect himself.

 

[El Payaso]

My point to counter that is, do we know he had any ropes left? He already used two. We don't know if he had any left. It seems to me logical that he would have saved him if he could.

And it seems logical to me that Two-Face is a traumatized man, not a clown. But Schumacher made him a baffoon, so logics can be pretty pointless here.

I think the point you make should have been addressed properly, like showing Batman shooting a batarang and realize he ran out of therm. That way we get it's not that he didn't want to save Two-Face.

But he didn't, he stood there, still, watching him falling.

 

[RobC]

Yeah that'd work, if he made an effort, he seemed shocked, which is kinda strange being as he just threw all those coins in the air, what did he think was gonna happen?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Did Adam West ever kill?

 

[Matt.S99]

Did Adam West ever kill?

Just robins innocence

 

[El Payaso]

Did Adam West ever kill?

Yes. And how.

But gladly his Batman never did. In fact for nwhat I know the only person ever dying in a 1960's Batman TV series' episode is Riddler's assistant girl in the pilot.

EDIT: Oh and those re-hydrated henchmen on the movie.

 

[The Guard]

For what I understand from your post - and please tell me if I'm wrong - you're implying that Batman IS a killer (or he considers himself such) but he just doesn't want Robin to become one too. And he does it by saying 'Kid, killing is wrong so don't do it. Now, knowing it's wrong and all I have kept and will keep indulging myself about it. I just don't want to learn my lesson'

Batman himself implies that this is exactly what happened to him when he began his crusade:

"But your pain doesn't die with him it grows. An dyou go out into the night, looking for another face. And another. And another. Until one terrible morning you wake up...and revenge has become your whole life. And then you'll be alone. Like me."

Which sounds inconsistent again. About Robin's determination of killing Two-Face Batman tells him "A man's got to go his own way."

It's not inconsistent. It doesn't fly in the face of anything Batman says. He never says "I will stop this cycle of darkness and violence in my own life", he says "It's not too late for you".

How is it Batman letting Robin go his own way if he's interfering with it so intrusively?

In terms of structure of the story, Dick already had a chance to kill Two-Face. And didn't. Batman gave him the chance to go his own way when they were seperated. Or...something.

My point to counter that is, do we know he had any ropes left? He already used two. We don't know if he had any left. It seems to me logical that he would have saved him if he could.

I already mentioned that. They ignored it, because why argue the situation logically?

But then, what's logical about risking your own neck to save a madman if your character has been proven to kill in his pursuit of justice?

 

[Vile]

Of course theres also the Begins argument. "I wont kill you, but I dont have to save you". WTF?!

I always thought ol' Bats figured, "Hey...the guy trained ME, he should be fine!"


...Guess not.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Did Adam West ever kill?

Always.