The Official Batman Forever Thread - Part 2

[El Payaso]

Wow, GothamAlleys, you draw like a pro.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Samm Hamm's a funny guy.

He literally puts his hands to the air claiming he didn't come up with the idea of Joker killing the Waynes and Alfred taking Vicky to the bat-cave. Yet he was against Batman wearing his cape.

Yeah, Sam Hamm is very hit and miss, he was better as the guy who came up with the ideas, like Goyer is to TDK.

There will be no Robin, take it from me. A different character filling the role - if there happened to be one - doesn't cut it.

There's quite a few ninjas saying Blake is more than just a cop. And one saying he was seen in Bat garb (I hope that's untrue). I could definitely see a Dick Grayson cop/ Thrillkiller Robin hybrid being in the movie.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Its really offensive what youre accusing me of. I would never claim or state things if I wouldnt know about them. Again, Im not truerToTheCore. Why would I be so bold and pompous to post a screencap if I wouldnt know the context and wouldnt read the comic book? Batman lead a masked group called The Body to the waterfront and bfirst threw some of them off the building then blew them off. They were a menace to the city, quick acting was required , as with Jokers gang where he had vitually no time for preemptive attack. And btw, in the same issue he also killed some of them off with his Batmobile

I asked you the other day what the context of that bat-wing/plane scene was and all you said was '*you* read the comic'. So, of course, that sounded like you had not read the comic, didn't see why you should have to go searching it out in the shops(or on the net), and thought *I* should do the 'leg' work.
So, now you have found some more images from it on the net(that re not posted in the Gotham Alleys website), and you know what happened in it...

so....Question of the day is....If you knew the context the other day when I asked what it was, why didn't you just say so?

man, you're funny. haha

anyway, I don't think there was no other option in the case of the Axis chemicals scene, and I don't see any compelling evidence as to why he had to zoom in and kill them all like that.
So, in the case of that comic, he apparently had to zoom in and blow them up, in the Burton movie, he did not, imo.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I didnt say so because I dont see any harm in anyone checking the issue for themsleves if they think someone would be dumb enough to post some panels AND issue number and claim something something thats not in the issue, plus you never trust me anyway so I wanted you to see for yourself

 

[Mister Meddle]

Even if you do explain the context he will still disagree with you. People these days.

 

[CConn]

Wait, that's the issue number again?

 

[Cain]

Detective Comics #814 or if you read TPB's in the collection of the single issues of that arc: City of Crime.

 

[ALP]

Lets come to a compromise: Batman used rubber bullets!

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Even if you do explain the context he will still disagree with you. People these days.

No, if he had posted up a scenario description where Batman went in and blew up a bunch of crooks for no good reason, where there were other options, then I would have said, 'Ok, he has done something the same as that Axis Chemicals scen in the books, you're right.'
I would have still thought it was a betrayal of the character, when told in a modern book, but I would have conceded that such a scene existed of course.

But, he didn't, he posted something that he should have know I would consider a very different situation, so of course i don't agree.
He posted up further panels from the book, and a more detailed description, that went some way to proving he had eventually read the book himself. Because now i know some of the actual context, insteda of just two panels from another website.

He knows I don't agree that the Axis chemicals scenario demanded that Batman had to go in and kill everyone in there with a bomb, and i see no compelling argument as to why that should be so.
The example he posted from the book was not the same situation imo, so I don't know why he thought he would be showing me something I would consider the same as that scene in the movie.

 

[ALP]

Careful Bum, breath to heavy and you might knock down your own strawman.

 

[Mister Meddle]

I can't believe you're still going on about the Axis scene. Let me ask you this.... how was Batman supposed to know that people were inside of Axis chemicals? At a time when most people would normally be at home with their families or counting the money that they stole earlier that day? All what he wanted to do was destroy Axis because they were creating the deadly toxin that was killing all different types of people in unusual locations. The Joker was so close to killing hundreds or even thousands with his toxin at the parade so how is it that you're acting like he was hardly a threat? In our society somebody like that would get labeled as a terrorist. And why should Batman care if he unintentionally blew up a few goons? In the end of the day Batman knew that nobody else would ever die from the deadly toxin. News anchorwoman, supermodels, parents or grandparents at a museum, etc.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

I can't believe you're still going on about the Axis scene.

listen man, I wouldn't have said anything further if you hadn't called my inegrtity into account with that last remark, and i'm not making a big deal out of you saying that, I'm just explaining myself to you.

Let me ask you this.... how was Batman supposed to know that people were inside of Axis chemicals? At a time when most people would normally be at home with their families or counting the money that they stole earlier that day? All what he wanted to do was destroy Axis because they were creating the deadly toxin that was killing all different types of people in unusual locations.

I know this because right after the Axis scene the Joker is seen taunting Batman from his helicopter because he didn't succeed in killing him.
That helicopter scene is meant to illustrate the fact that Batman fully intended to kill the Joker and his gang, but failed to get the Joker.

He didn't take any precautions to ensure anyone wasn't in there either did he? When he knew there would be a good chance of that.

The Joker was so close to killing hundreds or even thousands with his toxin at the parade so how is it that you're acting like he was hardly a threat? In our society somebody like that would get labeled as a terrorist. And why should Batman care if he unintentionally blew up a few goons? In the end of the day Batman knew that nobody else would ever die from the deadly toxin. News anchorwoman, supermodels, parents or grandparents at a museum, etc.

I didn't say he was hardly a threat, I have been saying that there were other ways of dealing with that situation.
Swoop into the place gurellia style, like he does in the books, alert the cops as well, get them to surround the place so's nothing gets out, and after you have taken out the factory, get the cops to prevent the Joker from even going anywhere near the parade.
as to your last point...people *did* die of the toxin at the parade, it was a shabby operation all round.

Why should Batman care if he blew up some goons? Because it just makes him a murderer, even apart from it being morally wrong and unbecoming of a superhero, who is to say he won't kill the wrong person next time when he decides to do something like that, someone innocent, and there is no going back after a kill, unlike wrongful arrest or beating them up.

 

[The Joker]

I didn't say he was hardly a threat, I have been saying that there were other ways of dealing with that situation.
Swoop into the place gurellia style, like he does in the books, alert the cops as well, get them to surround the place so's nothing gets out, and after you have taken out the factory, get the cops to prevent the Joker from even going anywhere near the parade.

I agree with this. Just blowing up Axis was not the only solution. There was several less dramatic options, like the ones you mentioned, to dealing with it.

They were just closing down a chemical plant, not taking over another country.

 

[CConn]

I think bum makes some valid points, but he's digging way too deeply into them.

 

[CConn]

Detective Comics #814 or if you read TPB's in the collection of the single issues of that arc: City of Crime.

I knew I had seen those panels before!

God, that was a boring story. But yeah, Batman killed people in it.

 

[circa81]

Could we please get back on topic?

 

[CConn]

This topic's actually kind of interesting, though.

 

[Thebumwhowalks]

Could we please get back on topic?

ok, i will rattle off some things about Two-Face in the film, and why I don't mind the characterisation as much as most other BM fans seem to...

- The opening sequence with Two-Face in BF is more entertaining to me than the Two-Face finale of TDK. I still feel they should have saved Two-Face for another film after TDK, and the character was not exactly done properly, in fact, the character as done in BF was just as valid an interpretation, just differing wildly in what they got right and wrong.

what they got right -

- Two-Face's obsession with Batman, blaming him for his scarring.

- much like BTAS added a further explanation for Harvey's extreme descent into madness, here they added the fact that the scarring had given him some brain damage.

- Two-Face's mood swings, going from one extreme to another, much like his dual personality, and not even at the flip of his coin, just because he is caught between two personas in his mental state.

what they got wrong -

- a bit too much of a cackler, sure, he had his moments in the books of cackling, enjoying his crazy schemes, but he was also a hard boiled old fashioned gangster who carried himself with decorum, albiet with some eccentricities like any of the BM rogue's gallery.
The brain damage in this incarnation does explain this though, in BTAS they added the pre-scarring personality problems to explain his extreme descant into madness, here they used brain damage.

But...he does have his moments of being a serious gangster throughout the movie, it's a popular misconception that he is serious in the first moments of the opening sequence and then goes all out cackling for the rest of the film...when he is laughing wildly, it is always because he is excited at that moment because he is getting closer to destroying Batman, it's a logical part of the characterisation.

He is serious when he confronts the Riddler in his hideout and when he attacks the Nygmatech party, even to an extent when he holds the circus to ransom.

so, even though the cackling Two-Face was not the greatest representation of the character, and they overdid it to the point where it became overbearing for a lot of BM fans, it did make sense in the context of the characterisation they went for.

 

[El Payaso]

So Batman in comic books has let villiains on trains to die with a sarcastic remark about what his obligations are not. And he has taken the blame for crimes and turned into a fugitive for 8 years in comics too?

No? Le betrayal!

Now, at the point of the movie when Batman blows AXIS, criminals of Gotham already know what he's capable of. Once again, that alone and the presence of Batmobile was warning enough for then thugs to elave. And yes, it is better to kill them off but having Gotham free from poisoned products at once.

The only criticism I'd accept is that Batman knew about the poisoned products, and that Joker was responsible, when he took Vicky to the Batcave. God knows why he waited so long to visit AXIS. I always assumed he took Vicky to the Batcave first because he needed her to take the files to her newspaper asap so people could avoid being posioned (plus he had to take Vicky's film out of her bra ). So then the following night (Batman doesn't work in daylight) he went to AXIS.

Why should Batman care if he blew up some goons? Because it just makes him a murderer, even apart from it being morally wrong and unbecoming of a superhero, who is to say he won't kill the wrong person next time when he decides to do something like that, someone innocent, and there is no going back after a kill, unlike wrongful arrest or beating them up.

Police are corrupt to no end.

 

[GothamAlleys]

First theres a statement that Batman doesnt kill. I showed ootherwise. Then it was 'oh, it was in self defence'. I provided examples of contrary. Then it was 'oh, it was just in the first year'. I presented examples from each decade, including very recent comics. The it was 'it wasnt cold blooded, we dont know the context'. I provided the context. Then it was 'its not the same', then provided more examples from the very same issue showing Batman kiling with batmobile guns aside from blowing up building full of enemies. And its still not enough. I see some will just keep finding excuses and believe what they want to believe no matter what

 

[C. Lee]

There is a thread about BATMAN 89 http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=364195&page=4

Shouldn't the AXIS bombing discussion be in there?

 

[SmellTheWeird]

The Batman "killing" issues is a matter of interpretation. Some people don't really get it.

Batman himself isn't a hero. He's an anti-hero. A vigilante, hero ... not a superhero boy scout. Sometimes things are just NECESSARY. That is the most enduring and interesting form of the character. Not the deputized, do gooder, who runs around with little boys in red and green tights with elf booties on (very pedophile like, I might add) in broad daylight, shakes hands with commissioners and stupid stuff like that.

I personally have no problem with Batman killing if it's out of absolute necessity. It's a logical answer that at some point in Batman's dangerous endeavours, villains may get offed from time to time. Like in real life, there are times where it is in escapable. I see no problem in the deaths in B89, Batman Forever (even though it sucks), Batman Begins, and The Dark Knight. Hell, Bruce Wayne killed a dude in "the man who falls" one of the very stories Batman Begins is based from.

Now with that said, its when Batman becomes a deliberate killer with no good reason, where there is a clear cut choice in the equation that I have a problem with ... such is the case in Tim Burton's deformed atrocity, Batman Returns.

Like the scene where he offs the big guy Penguin thug by strapping a bomb to him and watching him BLOW to pieces. Literally. I mean really? A cunning, super skilled combantant like Batman couldn't find a way of taking the guy down without blatantly killing him for NO reason? One punch, he gives up and says "eff it" and blows him up?

Lazy writing, and completely out of character. Even for dark, mysterioso 1939's / dracula style Batman that the first two Burton films were based from. Batman Returns sucks, plain and simple.

 

[CConn]

Mmm, sure it is.

And TTTC is as smart as he thinks he is.

 

[The Sage]

Stay on topic, fellas, leave the insults out.

 

[bullets]

I thought it was a bit too campy at the time but now it seems more amusing. Stuff like this :