Burton's Batman didn't kill anyone.

[Brother Jack]

Now the same happened with Two-Face and he didn't even have as much screentime as Jack's Joker. He ended up dead by Batman's actions after their first confrontation. But what a great story it was.

That was a different situation though. Batman flat-out says he's going to kill the Joker in '89 (out of revenge, mind you) and, well, he does. That was his goal in that situation. With Two-Face Batman was trying to save Gordon's son and felt that the only way he could was by pushing Harvey off the ledge causing his death. The goal was saving Jim Jr. and in that scenario it was either him or Dent.

 

[El Payaso]

That was a different situation though. Batman flat-out says he's going to kill the Joker in '89 (out of revenge, mind you) and, well, he does. That was his goal in that situation. With Two-Face Batman was trying to save Gordon's son and felt that the only way he could was by pushing Harvey off the ledge causing his death. The goal was saving Jim Jr. and in that scenario it was either him or Dent.

I was talking only in terms of what the writers/director were thinking when killing a major villain off. Which was the point of the post I quoted.

From both movies' POV's both killings were completely justified.

 

[Brother Jack]

Oh, okay then.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Accept it man. They weren't going to pay Nicholson so much money again.

Now the same happened with Two-Face and he didn't even have as much screentime as Jack's Joker. He ended up dead by Batman's actions after their first confrontation. But what a great story it was.

In many good stories villiains are killed at the end. There's no rule about it. But as I said, in comics they simply acn't do that. B89 was thought by Burton as a self-contained story, not a first part of something bigger. It was much later than Burton even considered to make a second one.

Even if they weren't going to use Mr. J again, still set it up so there's the possibility he could return. They pretty much axed that in B89.

And I didn't like Two-Face either. Now, while it was a good story, there was so, so much more they could have done with his character. They barely tipped the ice burg of his potential. If anything, I was more frustrated with how they offed Two-Face then Jack's Joker. At least he got the full treatment. Two-Face still had a lot more he could have done.

 

[Rick Random]

What I'm saying is that the movie didn't in any way shape or form indicate that anyone was actually killed, and that the un-reality of Burton's universe can be used to explain why. Traditionally, when you're dealing with this sort of fantasy reality, you need an on-screen death for it to matter.

I do see what you are saying, and I like your thinking, but Batman does deliberately kill in those movies. Take the thug Batman hurls down the bell tower with his feet; even given the 'un'reality' of the Burton movies, as you call it, for the thug to survive that would be ridiculous.

The reason we don't see the bodies is because a) they are mostly minor characters and b) it's too graphic to actually see them.

Killing the bad guys is standard practise in 80's action movies.

Besides, we do see the bodies of the Penguin and the Joker. Batman killed them indirectly of course, but nonetheless they died due to his actions and intent.

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

. With Two-Face Batman was trying to save Gordon's son and felt that the only way he could was by pushing Harvey off the ledge causing his death. The goal was saving Jim Jr. and in that scenario it was either him or Dent.

Unless he used a Batarang, why wasn't any of them used in TDK? I don't get it!

As for Burton's films, they weren't even that surreal, they were dark and gothic yes, but watch a David Lynch film and then try to call this pretty surreal. So I'd say Batman definitely killed. And it was awesome.

I have no problem with the character not killing anyone, but when people (writers or fans) give the excuse that it will lead him down a dark path of more killing and eventually villainy I have to laugh. I look at the comics and it makes no sense whatsoever that Batman hasn't killed someone accidentally. A guy might have a deadly reaction to smoke pellets, someone might just get hit a little too hard in one place etc. Not gonna make Batman go all Punisher on everyone.

 

[Brother Jack]

Unless he used a Batarang, why wasn't any of them used in TDK? I don't get it!

You're right he could have went in there and used a batarang to disarm Harvey but he didn't because he wanted to reason with him. He still believed in the good in him and chose to try and talk him down rather than forcefully taken him down. But of course that doesn't work and he ends up getting shot then being put in the position where (in his mind anyway) he had no other choice than to push Two-Face off the ledge and rescue the kid.

 

[BrollySupersj]

Quite the thread I must say...

 

[MrQuinn]

this thread is still going on?

Whether or not batman is "supposed" to kill people, it's apparent he did in the Burton films.

I'm not sure what there is to discuss about this anymore.
Or why I'm posting this.


Just bored I guess.

Apples and bananas.

 

[Milu]

Yeah, that fat clown survived the bomb on his stomache, and The Joker will be just okay...

I'm pretty sure the fat clown did survive the bomb, if that "Oof!" as the bomb went off is anything to go by . . .

 

[El Payaso]

this thread is still going on?

This thread must live forever...


unless Burton's Batman kills it, which I'd agree with.

 

[mothy]

This thread must live forever...


unless Burton's Batman kills it, which I'd agree with.