Constantly retiring or occasionally murdering?

[Kahran Ramsus]

It isn't like Batman goes out every night. Even in the Burton films in one of his most pathological portrayals he spends a night with Vicki instead of fighting crime.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Neither is a problem for me. Context is important. When Batman kills without extreme necessity - it's unacceptable for various reasons. When a desperate situation forces Batman's hand - sure. I honestly don't know how to feel about Batman going for aliens, creatures or whatever. I want Batman to stay on the Earth, in Gotham and fight crime. Not travel the Galaxy or fighting interdimensional horrors.

I personally never had a problem with Batman killing someone when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in self-defense or the defense of innocents. Sometimes there is no other option but to use lethal force. A good example would be Dent's death in TDK. I also don't have an issue with accidental deaths by collateral damage. If Batman is chasing Joker through the streets in the Batmobile while trying to stop him from destroying the city and accidentally sideswipes somebody, it is an unfortunate accident. Killing and murder are not the same thing.

 

[Brother Jack]

The older I've gotten, the less I like the whole "Bruce is the mask, Batman is the real guy" perspective. I'm not saying you can't do good things with that take, but for me it's reductive. It's more interesting to have a Bruce who is both himself and Batman, that neither one is necessarily more true than the other, just different manifestations of his psyche. It's the idea that all of us contain multitudes; that we're not able to be boiled down to a single aspect. That's one of the things I love about Bale's Batman. He was essentially playing three guys, the third being the public persona of "Bruce Wayne, eccentric billionaire" who is the only real mask. So the primary conflict with him as the protagonist is the friction between the human, fallible man that he is and the immortal, incorruptible symbol that he made out of himself.

 

[Awest66]

My Bruce Wayne doesn't appear in public and is somewhat of a recluse

That is not Bruce Wayne in any way, shape or form.

 

[The Batman]

Regarding the "Batman never quits" thing, Denny O Neil summed it up perfectly:

http://13thdimension.com/the-denny-oneil-interviews-there-is-no-hope-in-crime-alley/

In my private, interior-skull biography, he’s a perpetual 33. That’s maybe my Catholic background coming out. That’s when the Lord went on.

Logically, he’s got about three more years and then one of two things happens: He misses a step on one of those rooftops and he gets killed, like a professional athlete, a fighter who stays in the game too long — Muhammad Ali — OR … he comes to his senses, seeks out Talia, they have the two most beautiful and intelligent children in the world and he uses his skills to get clean water for Africa, to help benefit humanity in other ways.

All Nolan did was more or less take the second, equally valid option for Batman. He had Bruce try to help the world in other ways. He had Bruce retire for good and settle down.

 

[Boom]

Yep.

I know grim-dark, mentally-unstable Batman is all the rage these days, but there's nothing inherently wrong with Batman wanting to hang things up eventually and find some semblance of a happy life. It's a perfectly valid endgame for the character to have.

The killing issue is conceptually harder to justify, because his entire existence as Batman is predicated on the murder of his parents. "My parents were killed, so now I'm going to kill criminals" isn't exactly a heroic mindset.

 

[OutOfBoose]

I personally never had a problem with Batman killing someone when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in self-defense or the defense of innocents. Sometimes there is no other option but to use lethal force. A good example would be Dent's death in TDK. I also don't have an issue with accidental deaths by collateral damage. If Batman is chasing Joker through the streets in the Batmobile while trying to stop him from destroying the city and accidentally sideswipes somebody, it is an unfortunate accident. Killing and murder are not the same thing.

Exactly.

 

[Batmannerism]

I personally never had a problem with Batman killing someone when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY in self-defense or the defense of innocents. Sometimes there is no other option but to use lethal force. A good example would be Dent's death in TDK. I also don't have an issue with accidental deaths by collateral damage. If Batman is chasing Joker through the streets in the Batmobile while trying to stop him from destroying the city and accidentally sideswipes somebody, it is an unfortunate accident. Killing and murder are not the same thing.

You're absolutely right that killing and murder are not the same thing -and your points highlight how the law and and our everyday view of right and wrong are sometimes in sync and sometimes diverge.

In a technical, legal sense, when Batman tackled Dent he probably knew that the fall would kill Dent - which means he committed something called "reckless homicide" that means he intended to do an act that he knew that would likely kill another person and did it anyway.

Now technically, that is an intent that qualifies as murder, but self-defence (as a defence to murder) includes defence of another person, which is what Batman is clearly trying to do, he wants to save little Jimmy Gordon - which means that Batman would likely be held to be acting validly in self-defence, so he would almost certainly be acquitted of Dent's killing.

As such, while we can definitely say Batman commits homicide when he tackles Dent, he doesn't commit murder.

As an audience (with an ordinary,non-legal perspective) we can understand Batman's choice (which means a jury probably would too) and in terms of the narrative of the movie, it's perfect.

In Burton's Batman, when he anchors the Joker to the gargoyle it's questionable whether he knows that act will kill the Joker - I mean, maybe he knew the gargoyle would break away and drag the Joker down, in which case that's murder - because the Joker isn't threatening anyone at that point, he's just escaping. It's homicide without any legal justification (like self-defence).

If he didn't know, well it's probably manslaughter, as he does an act that ends up killing the Joker - and a jury would have to decide if a reasonable person should have known better. Again, this is homicide that isn't justified and would be a serious crime.

On the other hand , as an audience we feel that the Joker must be punished - he's evil and he'll commit more atrocious crimes. As such, I imagine that many people feel that Batman probably did the right thing (although the law would probably not excuse his actions). There's a moral justification, but no legal justification for killing the Joker.


It's one of those strange contradictory things about humans and the values we hold that for some strange reason I don't get too upset about the Punisher (who, let's face it is essentially a serial killer who preys on criminals) committing mass murder on a regular basis, but I get annoyed when Batman kills without sufficient justification.


I remember watching Burton's Batman back in 1989 and thinking that he had gone a bit far when he strafed the Joker's thugs in the Batwing (with machineguns) that was a bit much. In terms of killing - well it's certainly murder, and is there a claim of self defence (defence of another) there ? Probably not, as Batman has already moved the poison gas balloons to a safe distance, and the goons were firing their weapons over the crowd. I suppose if they were shooting at Batman he could claim self-defence there.
Anyway, I found it a bit excessive - given that they didn't seem to pose much threat to him at that time.

Batfleck does some similar strafing in B v S - and I thought that a bit excessive too. I mean, even Miller's Batman used rubber bullets.

I also don't have an issue with accidental deaths by collateral damage. If Batman is chasing Joker through the streets in the Batmobile while trying to stop him from destroying the city and accidentally sideswipes somebody, it is an unfortunate accident.

I do disagree with you on the collateral damage issue - I have a massive problem with a Batman who negligently kills innocent people to take down bad guys. I am okay with bystanders getting killed by Batman's enemies while he's trying to stop them (e.g. the final showdown between Batman and the Joker in Miller's DKR, a lot of innocents get killed - but by the Joker, not a crossfire between him and Batman). So if Bats is chasing the Joker in the Batmobile and the Joker sideswipes and kills some innocents, I can live with that. But for Batman to do that, to me that's wrong - it would be negligent homicide (manslaughter, or what they call involuntary manslaughter in most American jurisdictions).

I'm not saying you're wrong or that your view is inferior - I'm just saying that I disagree, and luckily this forum is easily large enough for all of our opinions.

Going back to Miller's Batman from DKR, I think that Miller really captured Batman's toughness but also his essential decency in DKR (which to me is the ultimate Batman story) it upsets me that Snyder stole the look from that legendary tale for B v S , but absolutely ignored everything that made that Batman so compelling. I mean, he never intended to kill Superman (hence a kryptonite gas pellet, but not a spear) he wanted Supes to live with the knowledge of his defeat.

In that story, Miller also captured Batman cominng to terms with his age and his acceptance of the inevitability that he will one day have to hang up the cape and cowl for good - that eventually even he would have to retire.

I kind of feel sad that Miller chose to write sequels to that wonderful story - it was such a perfect ending for Batman. Ah well, sorry I've gone off topic there.

Anyway, if I had a point in this post it's gotten a bit lost, but what I will say is that I don't have a problem with Batman retiring at all - I mean, who would really want to be Batman (whereas being Bruce Wayne would have some real perks) - and I don't have a problem with him committing the occasional justifiable homicide (like the Dent tackle), but I have a problem with him murdering his enemies, and an even bigger problem with him negligently killing innocents.

Of course that's all just IMO.

Cheers.

 

[hafizbat]

It's interesting. I feel like some people are desperate for Batman to be very flawed and unstable because they're projecting their own issues onto him to make him more relatable.

A lot of the things you hear, like how Batman should never be happy in a relationship, should be a recluse who has mental issues, gives into his rage at the world blah blah all sound like insecurities being projected onto him.

Maybe that's why Nolan's Batman actually being a very noble and heroic man who ended up saving the city and retiring to a happily ever after with Selina is just so wrong to them. They need Batman to be perpetually suffering.

Which is why Batfleck is SO appealing to that crowd. That man has got serious issues.

 

[hafizbat]

Great post Batmannerism! It's always nice to see a reasonable, well-thought opinion on this subject. Most of the time all it comes down to is "Bale killed too" but it's so much more than that.

 

[The Batman]

It's interesting. I feel like some people are desperate for Batman to be very flawed and unstable because they're projecting their own issues onto him to make him more relatable.

A lot of the things you hear, like how Batman should never be happy in a relationship, should be a recluse who has mental issues, gives into his rage at the world blah blah all sound like insecurities being projected onto him.

Maybe that's why Nolan's Batman actually being a very noble and heroic man who ended up saving the city and retiring to a happily ever after with Selina is just so wrong to them. They need Batman to be perpetually suffering.

Which is why Batfleck is SO appealing to that crowd. That man has got serious issues.

Pretty much.

Batman in general is often a very noble and heroic man. A lot of fans seem to forget that, though. They act like Batman is just a non-killing version of The Punisher or Rorschach.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Joker's death in Batman 1989 was pretty silly to begin with. I can't see a normal situation like that result in a regular helicopter ripping off a large stone gargoyle from a building like it was made of styrofoam. And if the chopper was powerful enough to do that, wouldn't it rip Joker's leg off or snap the cable first?

 

[DieSmiling]

I prefer a Batman that doesn't kill but to be honest Batman faking his own death and retiring in TDKR bothers me way more than any of the killing he does in the Burton or Snyder films.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I do disagree with you on the collateral damage issue - I have a massive problem with a Batman who negligently kills innocent people to take down bad guys. I am okay with bystanders getting killed by Batman's enemies while he's trying to stop them (e.g. the final showdown between Batman and the Joker in Miller's DKR, a lot of innocents get killed - but by the Joker, not a crossfire between him and Batman). So if Bats is chasing the Joker in the Batmobile and the Joker sideswipes and kills some innocents, I can live with that. But for Batman to do that, to me that's wrong - it would be negligent homicide (manslaughter, or what they call involuntary manslaughter in most American jurisdictions).

I'm not saying you're wrong or that your view is inferior - I'm just saying that I disagree, and luckily this forum is easily large enough for all of our opinions.

Well it does depend on the circumstances. If Batman is being particularly reckless or doesn't care, then yeah I have a problem with that. But if he's legitimately doing the best he can to avoid casualties and an accident happens anyways, then I'm okay with it.

 

[DieSmiling]

I think there's also a distinction to be made between a Batman that is a tortured soul, who is everlastingly committed, obsessed with his mission and will never settle down or truly be happy... And a Batman who's a psychopath or a murderer.

 

[Batmannerism]

Great post Batmannerism! It's always nice to see a reasonable, well-thought opinion on this subject. Most of the time all it comes down to is "Bale killed too" but it's so much more than that.

Thank you for your kind words !

 

[King23DC]

Neither, honestly. Both have happened in the source material, and one is realistic to happen on occasion. He's not out there killingly Willy Nilly ever on Punisher levels. He still has a code that he tries his best to abide by.

 

[AndrewGilkison]

The problem with a Batman who kills is you then run out of villains really quickly. A Batman who has no problem killing a small time thug is certainly not going to hesitate to kill a dangerous monster like The Joker the first time he can. That is just logic.

That's why that scene in BvS was so stupid. Batman mows down Luthor's thugs with the machine gun from his Batwing like its nothing and yet The Joker is alive and well in Suicide Squad. So am I to believe in this universe that Batman can't kill The Joker? Or that he doesn't have a problem with him being alive even though he doesn't mind killing bad guys? Because both of those things makes Batman look really bad.

That's different than the Nolan trilogy where Batman had to break "his one rule" against Two-Face and Talia. The stakes were really high, innocent lives were in danger, and Batman had to act quickly. That is not the same thing as mowing down Luthor's thugs for no reason. While also allowing The Joker to live so he could be in Suicide Squad (even though that makes no sense).

As for retirement, Bruce Wayne is going to retire at some point (or he will die). He is only a human being. Professional athletes can't play their sport forever. The body eventually gives out.

I thought it was lame though, how the Nolan Trilogy went from Batman being in his rookie years in the first two movies (Begins was his origin story, Dark Knight was the first time he fought his greatest villain The Joker) to an adaption of The Dark Knight Returns in the third one. It was really jarring. Nolan's Batman never had a prime, or reached legendary status because he goes from being a rookie to being a broken down old man in the span of three movies. That kind of took the shine off of Nolan's Batman a bit.

 

[hafizbat]

^I think it adds to the grounded approach Nolan took though. It actually makes more sense. He was active for two years in which he effectively crushed organized crime and made a huge impact on the city, and then he disappeared. When the city needed him again, he returned to save it. While his career was short, it was hugely influential and ended up with him becoming a clear symbol for the city. I also really really love Blake's line about the Batman in TDKR,

It's about that night, this night, eight years ago. The night Dent died, the last confirmed sighting of the Batman. He murders those people, takes down two SWAT teams, breaks Dent's neck and then just... vanishes?

Nolan's Batman managed to have the aura of an urban myth while still accomplishing everything he set out to do.

Compare that to Batfleck, who apparently has been active for 20 years, yet hasn't accomplished anything except becoming a depressed and twisted man. He hasn't influenced his city, other than creating fear in good people as well as criminals. And he doesn't feel like he's done anything either, what with him lamenting to Alfred that for 20 years he's just been cleaning weeds.

 

[Awest66]

faking his own death and retiring in TDKR bothers me way more than any of the killing he does in the Burton or Snyder films.

It was perfectly in character for Nolan's version of Batman to do so especially since he succeeded in what he set out to do in Batman Begins, which was to create an everlasting symbol.

 

[metaphysician]

Joker's death in Batman 1989 was pretty silly to begin with. I can't see a normal situation like that result in a regular helicopter ripping off a large stone gargoyle from a building like it was made of styrofoam. And if the chopper was powerful enough to do that, wouldn't it rip Joker's leg off or snap the cable first?

Yeah, I think in that circumstance, the *intent* wasn't to kill the Joker, or even threaten him with death. The intent was to keep him from escaping. The Joker just refused to let go, until the gargoyle somehow came loose. It wasn't a particularly foreseeable outcome, versus the Joker hanging upside down from the roof.

 

[Brother Jack]

I prefer a Batman that doesn't kill but to be honest Batman faking his own death and retiring in TDKR bothers me way more than any of the killing he does in the Burton or Snyder films.

You must not like Dark Knight Returns, then.

 

[The Guard]

Batman doesn't only refuse to kill his villains because he doesn't want to kill.

He refuses to kill them, and seeks help for them, because he believes them to be ill, and capable of being healed.

There's absolutely a way Batman could kill occassionally, and still not kill his villains, and for it not to be lacking in any logic.

 

[King23DC]

^I think it adds to the grounded approach Nolan took though. It actually makes more sense. He was active for two years in which he effectively crushed organized crime and made a huge impact on the city, and then he disappeared. When the city needed him again, he returned to save it. While his career was short, it was hugely influential and ended up with him becoming a clear symbol for the city. I also really really love Blake's line about the Batman in TDKR,

Nolan's Batman managed to have the aura of an urban myth while still accomplishing everything he set out to do.

Compare that to Batfleck, who apparently has been active for 20 years, yet hasn't accomplished anything except becoming a depressed and twisted man. He hasn't influenced his city, other than creating fear in good people as well as criminals. And he doesn't feel like he's done anything either, what with him lamenting to Alfred that for 20 years he's just been cleaning weeds.

It's grounded approach vs Batffleck (comic book approach) where things just reset to status quo. I prefer Nolan's approach too. Who cares about the semantics of how long his Batman was functioning, if he ultimately had way more impact, and achieved his goal? While also letting go of his personal torment and anger for a better happier life?

 

[Herofan]

I have to go with being too ready to retire being worse because it doesn't make sense (aside from in MotP, before he was Batman) that either he would lose his drive against crime or that supervillains would go away and he especially wouldn't feel a need to fight them. His retiring could work if he did have great successors in place but not if he quit before that.

I also think Batman Never Killing is as much a commercial/marketing choice as a creative choice and even then even in relatively recent comics he's come close to or tried to killed some characters.