Wait, so in some comics, you say he hates military technology and is wary of any alliance with a military company. Yet in others, his own company produces military tech like armored suit components such as kevlar and nomex, night/thermal vision and advanced satellite communications, not to mention most of the tech and equipment for his transportation - Batman's boat, the jet and the car all come from his company and that he utilizes it for his
own purpose. But hey, according to you, if they aren't for military use, they must be for domestic purposes, eh?
I never said military weapons. I said military "technology". There's a difference. And that includes things
other than guns, you know. And yes, his company does produce military technology. And regardless of what you say about his fear or loathing of guns, he
has used them in Year Two and DKR. And has also utilized explosives a number of times before for different purposes.
They aren't reliable when speaking of a single particular instance. Unfortunately for you, our circular arguments have had more than quite a bit of repetition, so yes, memory is pretty reliable when it becomes a habit.
The way you conduct yourself as in engaging in pointless criticism generally backed by nothing but oversensitive nonsense and insubstantial arguments.
Like I said before, I am not here to prove it. I'm speaking not just from memory, but from experience. You have a hard time swallowing the truth, tough luck, kiddo.
Actually, whenever someone pointed out that it was only the first draft and many things can change in the shooting script, you dismissed their argument by pointing to all the available footage from trailers and pics and saying that since pretty much everything revealed at the time was consistent with the first draft, there wasn't much hope for changes.
But hey, we both know you're going to play the 'I didn't say that' or 'prove it' card knowing well there is no way to dig up links or actual posts now, so I won't really bother either. Besides, I can't imagine how low a self-esteem and personal integrity it would take for a person to not stand by his own words. You want to engage in such cowardice? Fine by me.
What part about the Hype deleting pretty much everything in the BB forum
didn't you understand? Are you suffering from some kind of critical deficiency in reading comprehension. Just because proof is not available anymore doesn't mean it never existed to begin with.
What, did you shut off your brain while watching Begins? So you're saying Batman hurting people who are attacking him to save his own life is allowed, but not when he's trying to save another life and said people are preventing him from doing so? Bloody hypocrite.
So that particular precinct won't join the pursuit and cause him more trouble later on. Really, it's such an
No, they noticed him
before he ran them over. Look at that scene again. That's how the police initiate 'lockdowns' around an area. They close all possible exits from the place. That police car wasn't there just to get some donuts you know.
Please, that's such a lame copout. Clearly you were criticizing Batman's actions in the context of the story and when I pointed out they were clearly justified, you say 'because that's how the story is written'? Brilliant! Why don't we use that phrase for the events taking place in every single Batman film, comic and novel and be done with all the arguments, eh?
You: 'Batman doesn't (insert any "out of character" action) in the comics, but he does in the films'
Me: 'D'uh, because the story in the comics is written that way'.
Yeah, that makes sense.
So that particular precinct won't join the pursuit and cause him more trouble. Cops tend to do that, you know.
Yet here you are crying about him running over just one car. You can't seem to make up your mind about things now, can you?
Like I said, it was a calculated risk. You get your hypersensitive tendencies in a bunch because Batman plays rough sometimes even in the comics, hey, stop liking the character and wasting our time with never-ending needless whining about how it's not consistent with your pacifist version of Batman.
And they did. Had he not taken out that first car beforehand, he would have had to do it later when next time they couldn't be caught by surprise like that and won't be so easy to dispose of.
Those cops were guarding one of the exits from Arkham. Their job is to stop anyone from leaving the premises and chase them if they do. It's not like if Batman nudged by them, they would have simply forgot about it and said, 'hell with it, we were just waiting there and that's what we will continue to do'.
Yes, the kind of POLICE OFFICERS he dropped an entire floor on in Year One. You don't approve? Go find another superhero, junior, because Batman's taken such calculated risks in the comics many times before.
Like I said before, it's pointless to argue "what could've happened" over what takes place in a fictional universe. I'll just say people aren't as fragile in a make-believe world as they are in the real one and that Batman took a calculated risk, something he's done many times before in the comics. Hence it not being 'out of character'.
How is it absurd? I've shown you how Batman has taken what your call 'reckless' action in Year One, so if BB does something similar to the very adaptation it is based on, how the **** is it 'out-of-character'?
Please, I don't like you enough to waste my time on you anymore than I have to.
And who gives a rat's ass about what
you think, skippy? It proves
my point about how it is not 'out-of-character'. You can take your pacifist version of Batman and shove it up your rear end for all I care.
Uh, because I am citing an event from the very comic BB is based on to prove how your criticism of Batman's actions in the film during the Arkham escape is load of horse manure? Seems pretty relevant to me.
Hate to bust your bubble, but it does work that way. Batman has taken such risks in the comics before. He did so in Year One. Another instance I remember is him getting Catwoman to drop Lois from a skyscraper in Hush. And it would've killed Lois had Superman not saved her because of Ivy's influence on him. Another instance I remember, in Detective Comics #790, him throwing a junkie dealer he was interrogating through the window of a building several stories tall to get information out of him. For information. And had Batgirl not saved him, he would've been dead. Like I said, calculated risks. He's done so many times in the comics and it's
not out of character.
Here's scans as proof so you'd shut up about this already:
In BB he was running from the cops not just to escape, but also save Rachel. He was the only one who had the antidote, that is why he didn't let Gordon take her down to the medics. She would've been dead by the time the police figured it out. Whether or not he was attacked like in Year One is irrelevant. Batman did what he had to do to save a life that was bordering in its last moments.
Uh, no because that would kill or injure people in both vehicles and would hence, serve no purpose. Try thinking of something that makes more sense next time, junior.
I've already given the Year One example (and two more in this post) where he took an even more drastic action than what you're whining about in BB. Which proves your 'out of character' claim couldn't be more worthless. And I find it hilarious you crying about something that's been an aspect of the character in many stories from the source material. Boo-freakin'-hoo.
t: 
