Burton's Batman didn't kill anyone.

[The Joker]

I have to disagree with you my friend but only in this specific point. That flame-thrower could perfectly survive that, and in this case I see no evidence of him being killed. The last micresecond you see him it looks like he's throwing himself to the floor - which is a natural thing to do - and being the whole street with a thick layer of snow I'd say he made it.

Yeah, I agree with that.

 

[BigCityBoy]

This thread cannot possibly be serious. Batman bombed Axis Chemicals with a bunch of Joker's men inside. Batman deliberately gunned down a bunch of the Joker's thugs using the Batwing's weapons [and attempted to kill Joker as well]. He tossed one down the bell tower.

In Returns, he set one of the Red Triangle gang on fire using the Batmobile's turbine. He attached a bomb to the big strongman.

First of all, I've never saw Batman for the most part just murder criminals. Batman always kept the criminals alive in the movies by just punching and kicking them (like at the beginning of Batman '89, where Batman beats up those two thugs and dangles one over the ledge, but NEVER drops him). And the only time he killed a criminal was when his "back was against the wall" so-to-speak (I mean come on, in Returns, when he came up against the Tatooed Strongman, if he didn't have that bomb, the Strongman would've beat him to a pulp. Batman is a skillful fighter but it was pretty obvious that he would've been no match for the Strongman. The same thing in '89 when that big black guy was beating Batman up in the cathedral. That dude was killing Batman and had Batman not sent him tumbling down the belltower, Batman would've been dead). Secondly, Batman bombed Axis Chemicals because, for one thing, he was trying to kill the Joker (who was responsible for his parents' death and who wasn't in there of course) and because he was trying to cripple Joker's operation since his chemicals were killing the Gotham citizens and as crooked as Gotham was, those criminals would've got off.

Third of all, as much as I like Nolan's Batfilms, if you want to talk about how a Batman deliberately killed someone, then Nolan's Batman killed Ducard at the end of Begins (not to mention he blew up Ras' temple blowing up some of Ras' soldiers when he refused to "execute" the village robber) and he killed Two-Face at the end of TDK. I never bought the whole "I won't kill you but I won't save you" reasoning. I mean since Batman purposely didn't do anything to save Ducard when he could have, he's just as guilty as killing/murdering him; he might as well had stab Ducard with that object he was holding. And Two-Face in TDK, Batman KILLED him because he was basically threatening to kill Gordon's boy. Batman threw himself at Two-Face hoping to knock Two-Face off that ledge. He was also trying to save Gordon's son (which he did) but Batman knew that situation could've ended either one or two ways (and if it meant Two-Face's life then so be it).

 

[The Joker]

First of all, I've never saw Batman for the most part just murder criminals. Batman always kept the criminals alive in the movies by just punching and kicking them (like at the beginning of Batman '89, where Batman beats up those two thugs and dangles one over the ledge, but NEVER drops him).

I agree.

Nobody called him a cold blooded killer who kills for the hell of it. The point being disputed here is if he killed anyone at all, which he clearly did several times, a fact which is being disputed by the thread starter.

Note the thread is called 'Burton's Batman didn't kill anyone'.

And the only time he killed a criminal was when his "back was against the wall" so-to-speak (I mean come on, in Returns, when he came up against the Tatooed Strongman, if he didn't have that bomb, the Strongman would've beat him to a pulp. Batman is a skillful fighter but it was pretty obvious that he would've been no match for the Strongman. The same thing in '89 when that big black guy was beating Batman up in the cathedral. That dude was killing Batman and had Batman not sent him tumbling down the belltower, Batman would've been dead). Secondly, Batman bombed Axis Chemicals because, for one thing, he was trying to kill the Joker (who was responsible for his parents' death and who wasn't in there of course) and because he was trying to cripple Joker's operation since his chemicals were killing the Gotham citizens and as crooked as Gotham was, those criminals would've got off.

I'm not going to argue the ethics of whether each murder was justified or not, that's for another thread. But at least you're not foolishly denying that he didn't kill anyone

Burton's Batman certainly did murder criminals.

Third of all, as much as I like Nolan's Batfilms, if you want to talk about how a Batman deliberately killed someone, then Nolan's Batman killed Ducard at the end of Begins (not to mention he blew up Ras' temple blowing up some of Ras' soldiers when he refused to "execute" the village robber) and he killed Two-Face at the end of TDK. I never bought the whole "I won't kill you but I won't save you" reasoning. I mean since Batman purposely didn't do anything to save Ducard when he could have, he's just as guilty as killing/murdering him; he might as well have stab Ducard with that object he was holding. And Two-Face in TDK, Batman KILLED him because he was basically threatening to kill Gordon's boy. Batman threw himself at Two-Face hoping to knock Two-Face off that ledge. He was also trying to save Gordon's son (which he did) but Batman knew that situation could've ended either one or two ways (and if it meant Two-Face's life then so be it).

Again this is an arguement for another thread.

 

[blackkeno]

I think the Burton films intentially left some ambiguity about people dying at Batman's hand. I certainly wouldn't use the term "murder" to describe what Batman did in any of the movies. Killing in self defense or the defense of others is not murder. (Axis Chemical is admittedly a different case, but perhaps no one died, or the deaths were unintentional). And with regard to murder, there is a difference between killing someone and not saving them.

 

[Spidey Snooch]

To paraphrase another poster, this "ambiguity" you speak of is simply Burton giving you the benefit of the doubt. He assumed that if the audience sees someone falling from an extremely high tower, they're going to make the connection that that person died. Same goes for the other deaths in the film(s). No, Batman is not some crazed serial killer, murdering for fun. Nor is he The Punisher, dispensing deadly justice. Things just tend to get a little dirty in his line of work. If some thug bites it along the way, that's the breaks.

 

[blackkeno]

I guess I've watched so many Batman cartoons in which nobody dies despite horrific falls etc., that my assumption was different. I guess most of the audience that watched less than a couple hundred hours of Batman cartoons would assume you fall down a 20 story shaft from a Cathdral bell tower and you probably die!

To paraphrase another poster, this "ambiguity" you speak of is simply Burton giving you the benefit of the doubt. He assumed that if the audience sees someone falling from an extremely high tower, they're going to make the connection that that person died. Same goes for the other deaths in the film(s). No, Batman is not some crazed serial killer, murdering for fun. Nor is he The Punisher, dispensing deadly justice. Things just tend to get a little dirty in his line of work. If some thug bites it along the way, that's the breaks.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

To paraphrase another poster, this "ambiguity" you speak of is simply Burton giving you the benefit of the doubt. He assumed that if the audience sees someone falling from an extremely high tower, they're going to make the connection that that person died. Same goes for the other deaths in the film(s). No, Batman is not some crazed serial killer, murdering for fun. Nor is he The Punisher, dispensing deadly justice. Things just tend to get a little dirty in his line of work. If some thug bites it along the way, that's the breaks.

As good an explanation as any I've heard...

 

[Matt.S99]

No way, man. We didn't even see the body.

We didnt see much bodies in Max Payne, doesnt mean they werent dead.

Just because Burtons movies werent all that realistic, doesnt mean every single point of realism was thrown out the window.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Burton's Batman certainly did murder criminals.

What he said.

Seriously, how can you think the dude Batman threw off the bell tower lived? Or the Joker?

 

[El Payaso]

What he said.

Seriously, how can you think the dude Batman threw off the bell tower lived? Or the Joker?

I agree with the big guy from the belltower. But he was about to kill Batman, it was necessary to kill him.

And the Joker died. But even when Batman had the intention of killing him ('I'm gonna kill you!') he did not threw him off the cathedral. He just tied him to that gargoyle to prevent him from escaping. It was the gargoyle cracking what caused Joker's death and of course the fact that Joker didn't jump back to the cathedral when he noticed he was unable to go.

 

[Fresh Prince]

Burton's Batman was based of Miller's I heard, and Miller's Batman was really aggressive and cruel. So him killing people was okay, plus he did it in self defense.

 

[Two-Face]

The surreal and perhaps supernatural nature of Burton's Batman leads me to believe that Batman didn't kill anyone. If the Burton films were striving to for realism like Nolan's films were, then I would agree that he killed people. But it was striving for a more fantastical setting, so I'm going to assume that he didn't kill anyone.

You're serious right?

 

[MrQuinn]

I haven't read all of this thread, but I did read the first 5 or 6 posts and I have to say that I totally understand what Numez is saying. I'm not saying I particularly agree, but I can see his point of view and I think some people are being a little hard on him for it. Even though it does seem kinda obvious that Batman was killing (intentionally or not), I think there is some truth in what he was saying in regards to it being a fantasy type. My only argument is that Returns was may more fantasy-appealing than 89, which I felt had a more "realistic" approach, and I believe the body count was higher in 89. If we were just talking about Returns, I might even be willing to agree with Numez.

 

[lzzy]

When you tie a guy to a stone gargoyle and he's hanging from a helicopter, I think you do that with the clear knowledge that you're going to kill them. Batman deliberately killed in Burton's movies. The strongman blew up, you see parts of his clothing flying out of the shaft. It was meant to be a gag, not a brutal slaying, hence no flesh flying outta there too. Plus, the many Joker goons we see being riddled with bullets. Not handgun bullets - an airplane's machine guns. Those guys are dead and Batman pulled the trigger.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I agree with the big guy from the belltower. But he was about to kill Batman, it was necessary to kill him.

And the Joker died. But even when Batman had the intention of killing him ('I'm gonna kill you!') he did not threw him off the cathedral. He just tied him to that gargoyle to prevent him from escaping. It was the gargoyle cracking what caused Joker's death and of course the fact that Joker didn't jump back to the cathedral when he noticed he was unable to go.

I'm not saying I disapprove of the killing, I'm just making the point that Batman certainly killed. That's unarguable.

And it doesn't really matter what Batman's intention was when he shot the grappling hook around the Joker, his action resulted in his death. He still killed him. If I trip while holding a knife and accidentally stab someone, and they die, I still killed them, regardless of intention.

Going off that, you could also say that Nolan's Batman has killed as well. (Though I don't really want to turn this into a "Did Two Face die" thread.)

 

[blackkeno]

The movies are based on a comic book character. Unless I see the body or a credible reference to the death, I don't think the deaths are "undeniable." I think the movies were designed to leave at least a little ambiguity. Even the guy in the Bell tower could have had his fall broken by the remains of the wooden staircase and survived (though just barely).

There is also a big difference between 1) intending to kill someone without justification (murder), 2) intending to kill someone in self defense or the defense of others, (intentional manslaughter, I think) 3) "killing" someone without there death being the intended result, while defending oneself or others (unintentional manslaghter). It seems to me that Batman only was involved with the third scenario and certainly wasn't involved with the first.

 

[lzzy]

There is also a big difference between 1) intending to kill someone without justification (murder), 2) intending to kill someone in self defense or the defense of others, (intentional manslaughter, I think) 3) "killing" someone without there death being the intended result, while defending oneself or others (unintentional manslaghter). It seems to me that Batman only was involved with the third scenario and certainly wasn't involved with the first.

I'd argue that he engaged in option 2 - he killed the Joker to prevent the madman from escaping and resuming his crime spree, (and maybe even for a little retribution, Batman made it no secret that he was p-i-s-s-e-d once he confronted the Joker in the belltower).

 

[Infinity9999x]

The movies are based on a comic book character. Unless I see the body or a credible reference to the death, I don't think the deaths are "undeniable." I think the movies were designed to leave at least a little ambiguity. Even the guy in the Bell tower could have had his fall broken by the remains of the wooden staircase and survived (though just barely).

There is also a big difference between 1) intending to kill someone without justification (murder), 2) intending to kill someone in self defense or the defense of others, (intentional manslaughter, I think) 3) "killing" someone without there death being the intended result, while defending oneself or others (unintentional manslaghter). It seems to me that Batman only was involved with the third scenario and certainly wasn't involved with the first.

I get what you're saying, and yes, there's always a "possibility" that people lived, but come on, after a while it gets a little ridiculous. The chemical factory for example. Batman blew up a building in which a multitude of Joker's goons were working in. There's a very, very, verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry small possibility any of them survived, seeing how fast that place exploded, and most certainly the two goons right next to the car were dead.

And also, that scenario would fall under the number 2 option.

However, just to reinforce what I said above. I had no problem with Bats killing. He did it in his first appearances in the comics, and that's what the Burton movies reminded me most of.

 

[MacLeod]

This has to be the stupidest thread ever simply for what it is "trying" to imply. There may have been very little blood shown in the movie (in fact I remember critics saying that the actions scenes had little to no blood in them) but as far as people being killed by Batman in the Burton's movies that is certainly easy to see. Unless you're trying to battle the notion of it happening or not and you're stuck in some other reality where your view of things are the truth, the movie did in fact, rather plainly, have Batman killing people. Some were necessary, some on purpose, but at the end of the movie he did in fact, without fail, kill people. I'm not happy about that either but the fact still remains that he killed people. Even if you didn't see the bodies after the fact doesn't mean they weren't dead. It doesn't take a great leap to know that 2+2 = 4, and just because you didn't see the "4" doesn't mean it didn't happen. I've read comments on here go back and forth and just couldn't sit by and watch as some people try to defend something that can't be defended. Sorry for all you non-believers out there, but the fact remains, whether you like it or not, that Batman in the first and second movie, killed people. If you can't see that or really think you need to argue the point I suggest you go back to school and learn about implications, what if's, and cause and effect. Sorry to all those that read this as rude, but this has got to stop. I actually feel less intelligent after writing this so I can only imagine what it would be like to actually believe that people didn't die from something Batman did in Burton's movies.

 

[batmaluco]

Burton's Batman didn't kill enough.

 

[union_jak]

To be fair, some people suggest that the dynamite Batman attaches to the strongman was actually a circus confetti bomb. Hence the confetti that is visable when it blows up.

 

[MrQuinn]

To be fair, some people suggest that the dynamite Batman attaches to the strongman was actually a circus confetti bomb. Hence the confetti that is visable when it blows up.

that's a good point.

 

[MacLeod]

To be fair, some people suggest that the dynamite Batman attaches to the strongman was actually a circus confetti bomb. Hence the confetti that is visable when it blows up.

That may be, although doubtful, but that still doesn't take away that Batman killed people in 89. I personally hate myself for even checking this page let alone typing on it because of the stupidity of what it is, but there is no doubt, none, that Batman killed people in Burton's movies. If you think differently than you are blissfully living in a non-realistic world.

 

[TheBatman072]

Wow. WOW. I cannot believe this is even in question.

Unbelievable.

 

[Indrid Cold]

Wow. WOW. I cannot believe this is even in question.

Unbelievable.

Burton's Batman was a murderer, plain and simple.