Should Batman kill again?

[Rasputin911]

So i just was doin' a little research on the Dark Knight and found out that he was a killer in his original conception, willing to murder criminals if he deemed it necessary. I remember Batman was also willing to take life in the Burton films.

I got wondering: should writers re-examine Batman's "no killing" rule? I realize it has become an important part of the character, but plenty of things about the character are bound to change in the years/decades to come. That's just how superhero comics are.

What would you guys think of this? I think some story arcs where Batman kills some enemies as a last resort would be great. Not any all-out massacres like the Punisher or Rorschach would do, but some selective, carefully planned hits in order to save innocent lives.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Um... No. Just no.

 

[maveholic31]

I also vote no on this. Not killing makes Batman the true hero he is and everything he stands for. If Batman kills, he disrupts his moral code and becomes a villain himself. Not killing makes him incorruptible, which in my eyes makes him more dangerous. (Though he does kick the crap out of some villains to the very brink of death)

 

[CashforStash]

Yes and No for me, look at the Punisher....

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I vote he shouldn't kill, and they should treat the first two films like his first years in comics, where he was willing to let his opponents die if he deemed it right. Thus, in the third film, he should come to the revelation that he no longer wants to kill, and seeks redemption for allowing Ra's to die (which would be a good step in for Talia) and for "killing" Two-Face (and essentially killing Gotham's hero, which would refer back to at the end of TDK, when he asks Gordon to call it in that he was responsible for all of the murders).

 

[Dark Victory]

...No.

 

[Motown Marvel]

oh hell no.

 

[Finlandman]

No!

 

[Two-Face=Badass]

No. But I'd love to see a graphic novel in which a crime so vile is committed in front of him that he crosses this line just once at the beginning and is forced on to the path of redemption, as the death consumes him. This may offend some people so out-of-continuity-with-possible-into-continuity like The Killing Joke would be best. Frankly, I find that concept or something like it a gold mine for writers, to have Batman finally confront the feelings of being a killer just once.

 

[C. W. Saturn]

No.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

No.

 

[Rasputin911]

you guys have no imagination. new things need to be tried eventually.

I will repeat: Batman's original incarnation was a killer. So actually take 5 seconds to think about it before hopping on the "i hate change" bandwagon.

Let's face it, Batman's unwillingness to take life sometimes seems forced and unbelievable. Like when he saves the Joker from suicide in several story arcs, or prevents others from killing Joker in revenge. Seems out of place for such a dark, brooding, wrathful persona.

The writers sometimes even have to squirm their way around the rule, like when he "lets" Ras die in BB. Why not just come out and say it: someone in Batman's line of work would have to kill people every now and then, even if he didn't like it at all.

Think about it: cops are allowed to use lethal force. How is Batman supposed to strike fear into Gotham's underworld if he wont even go as far as the cops?

 

[WolfCypher]

No, and can you list examples where he has killed in the "616" (Earth-1) DC universe?

 

[Rasputin911]

No, and can you list examples where he has killed in the "616" (Earth-1) DC universe?

don't go all "infinite crisis" on me. He killed during the early parts of the Golden Age

 

[WolfCypher]

I thought you could tell me an exact scenario. I've heard he killed in the early, early years of his history, but I know of no particular story.

 

[Rasputin911]

He killed several mutants in the Hugo Strange story, as well as the vampire in that one i can't remember (The Mad Monk or something?), some random thugs (with a gun no less), and would attempt to murder Joker (though the Clown Prince would always survive)

 

[Johann Krauss]

No, and can you list examples where he has killed in the "616" (Earth-1) DC universe?

616 is marvel...

But I do think someone in Batmans line of work would have to kill at least once. Like to save someone and there's no other choice(and don't pull out that BS "there's always a choice"). The only reason they don't have him kill is because fanboys would cry out (even if it was justified). and I'm not taliking about him becoming the Punisher or even start carrying a gun, I'm saying if he had to choose between killing some thug or not being able to save someone, which would you rather have him do? Because someday down the line someone will write that story and it'll be really interesting to see what happens.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Well, the problem of having Batman kill someone, from a reader's stand point is this: Batman kills a guy. 5 years later some crazed writer comes along and attempts to write that year's "Biggest shocker in Batman's history" and it turns out that the guy Batman killed 5 years ago never actually died and spent his time plotting revenge.

So if having Batman not kill someone to spare my from wasting my time and money on THAT, then by all means, have him not kill.

Although, i wouldn't mind seeing Batman take out The Joker. The effects it would have on Batman and his family and all of Gotham would be interesting to see. And even more so, the effect of the Joker's RETURN on Batman and all of Gotham would be even more interesting, as any good that came out of it suddenly meets a nice, hard kick to the crotch.

 

[Majic Walrus]

you guys have no imagination. new things need to be tried eventually.

I will repeat: Batman's original incarnation was a killer. So actually take 5 seconds to think about it before hopping on the "i hate change" bandwagon.

Let's face it, Batman's unwillingness to take life sometimes seems forced and unbelievable. Like when he saves the Joker from suicide in several story arcs, or prevents others from killing Joker in revenge. Seems out of place for such a dark, brooding, wrathful persona.

The writers sometimes even have to squirm their way around the rule, like when he "lets" Ras die in BB. Why not just come out and say it: someone in Batman's line of work would have to kill people every now and then, even if he didn't like it at all.

Think about it: cops are allowed to use lethal force. How is Batman supposed to strike fear into Gotham's underworld if he wont even go as far as the cops?

Which isn't the comics and shouldn't be considered canon, no matter how good it is.

I'm not opposed to change, but I am opposed to making Batman into another Punisher or murderous vigilante. Batman has a strict black/white moral code that cannot be compromised because if it were to be compromised it would put Batman on the side of the rules he doesn't want to be on.

Now, I recognize that in the past Batman has killed in several instances as a matter of fact, however as a rule he doesn't kill. This is an integral part of his character. To change this would be like changing Superman and making him a killer. It just wouldn't work.

Elseworlds stories where Batman kills are entirely different, they aren't canon and don't really constitute change just a different universe.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

you guys have no imagination. new things need to be tried eventually.

I will repeat: Batman's original incarnation was a killer. So actually take 5 seconds to think about it before hopping on the "i hate change" bandwagon.

Let's face it, Batman's unwillingness to take life sometimes seems forced and unbelievable. Like when he saves the Joker from suicide in several story arcs, or prevents others from killing Joker in revenge. Seems out of place for such a dark, brooding, wrathful persona.

The writers sometimes even have to squirm their way around the rule, like when he "lets" Ras die in BB. Why not just come out and say it: someone in Batman's line of work would have to kill people every now and then, even if he didn't like it at all.

Think about it: cops are allowed to use lethal force. How is Batman supposed to strike fear into Gotham's underworld if he wont even go as far as the cops?

Don't you think criminals suffer more if they take near-deadly beatings, survive, and then have to have it happen again if they continue down that same path?

 

[Rasputin911]

Don't you think criminals suffer more if they take near-deadly beatings, survive, and then have to have it happen again if they continue down that same path?

Maybe sometimes, but in most cases, no. Why else would they keep doing it? The Joker, for instance, is often portrayed as taking a semi-sexual pleasure from Batman's beatings.

 

[Johann Krauss]

Don't you think criminals suffer more if they take near-deadly beatings, survive, and then have to have it happen again if they continue down that same path?

Joker
Penguin
Scarecrow
Mad Hatter
Mr. Freeze
Bane
ZSAZ
TwoFace

These are guys who have gotten near deadly beatings and still come back for more, so no. And Batman has over the years become a bit more clean. The most recent Batman to dish out near deadly beatings were All Star Batman

 

[Finlandman]

I oppose this because Batman's not a bad guy. Killing people is evil. Original incarnation of Batman was evil. Burton's Batman was evil. The REAL Batman isn't a murderer.

 

[Rasputin911]

[/B]

I oppose this because Batman's not a bad guy. Killing people is evil. Original incarnation of Batman was evil. Burton's Batman was evil. The REAL Batman isn't a murderer.

How do you define the real Batman? What standards are you using?

Is the original conception that his creators wanted until they were forced (yes, by their bosses) to censor him, not real enough? I'd say you can't get a truer Batman than the original. My proposal is actually pretty traditionalist.

Say what you want, but Sean Connery will always be James Bond

 

[Majic Walrus]

The "real" Batman would be the commonly mainstream current incarnation of Batman.

If Batman were a killer now then he would be the "Real" Batman, but he's not a killer now because that's not who this character is. Having this character kill would be out of character and it would change the nature of his identity. He would turn into the "Lawful Evil" Batman of DC Comics 27-34 (ish) or the more Brutal Frank Miller or Tim Burton Batman.

You have to realize that many times you cannot just change the nature of an accepted character for the purpose of "it would be neat" that cheapens the development that we've had with Batman.

If Batman killed then he would simply become a killer and as Green Arrow says, "We're heroes. That's not who we are."