To: The Burton Haters

[dude stannis]

Sorry but Nolan's Batman used killing as a last resort. Burton's did it whenever to even the smallest of goons (ie the bell tower goon he threw down that drop).

Why was killing the last resort? He had the upper hand on Ducard. The bridge was out. There was no way Ducard could physically move the Microwave Emitter off of a moving train by himself.

As far as killing Two-Face goes. Batman was beyond redemption a that point. He saved Dick Grayson from the life of vengeance. I think if Burton had done BF it would've ended with Dick thanking Bats for saving his life (Both in the literal sense and a thematic sense) and gone off to become Nightwing so Burton could keep a solo Batman for Batman 4 and beyond.

 

[BurtonBegan]

If Burton had done Batman Forever I think its fair to say he would have done a lot of things differently, not making it rubbish for kick off.

As for the killing, I don't know what peoples problem is, it makes it more real. If Kim Basinger is in trouble, do you sit a goon down with a cup of tea and discuss his childhood, or do you throw him to his doom?

 

[CFE]

So how does the Begins mentality fit into this "no-killing" argument, do you think?

"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you..."

I wish Batman would just stick with whatever he's gonna stick with. Either kill criminals or not...

CFE

 

[Ibn]

Why was killing the last resort? He had the upper hand on Ducard. The bridge was out. There was no way Ducard could physically move the Microwave Emitter off of a moving train by himself.

Yep.

 

[Gilpesh]

Why was killing the last resort? He had the upper hand on Ducard. The bridge was out. There was no way Ducard could physically move the Microwave Emitter off of a moving train by himself.

Ra's would have easily used the League of Shadow to destory Gotham again because as Ra's said, they had infiltrated all levels of government in Gotham, so leaving him alive would not get him a fair trail that would put him behind bars.

As for the killing, I don't know what peoples problem is, it makes it more real.

And completely less Batman when he just kills kills kills and doesn't care. That's why some people call it Burtonman and Burtonman Returns.

If Kim Basinger is in trouble, do you sit a goon down with a cup of tea and discuss his childhood, or do you throw him to his doom?

You knock him unconscious and leave him on the ground where the cops can get him later, or did you not know that people can be knocked unconscious.

 

[CFE]

You knock him unconscious and leave him on the ground where the cops can get him later, or did you not know that people can be knocked unconscious.

Actually, I was thinking just that the other day.

If Batman can dispatch goons without killing them, why wouldn't he? It takes an excessive amount of doing to kill a man (given he is aware of your opposition against him. If you came up behind him without him knowing, then it'd be far easier to kill him) rather than knock him unconscious. I'd think Batman would want to get things done efficiently and without having to do more than is absolutely necessary.

CFE

 

[Gilpesh]

And just to clarify.

I think Burton made a good movie but not a good Batman movie.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The answer to all these questions is that there is no one singular version/vision of Batman.

Some versions kill, other do not.

 

[DocLathropBrown]

To then kill him, himself.

Nice character arc there.

Bruce already had murder on his soul, he could live with it. He had to do it so that Dick would never be tempted to again, to make sure Dick doesn't go down the same path of darkness he did when he killed Naiper (Bruce's "Revenge-is-your-whole-life" speech is a commentary about what he went through in BR). It wasn't in self-defense or even revenge.

Of course, Bruce doesn't know that Robin alreayd turned down the chance to kill Two Face. Oh well.

 

[GoogleMe94]

In the Dark Knight Returns he rode a tank and had a shotgun in the Two-Face part of the story.

I LOVED THAT. btw, that tank wasnt the Batmobile, it was a tank.

as for batman killing, seriously, even if he NEVER killed in the comics, WHO CARES? i like my batman badass and cool as ice, like in burtons movies. the whole "thou shalt not kill" comics stuff is BS, it makes him look like a wimp to me. if hes always too afraid to kill villians, i dunno, to me it makes him just not batman to me. i dont like viewing batman as a saviour, thats more for superman. i like batman the anti hero, not the 'true hero' hero. i liked how burton did batman, and the comics version just pales in comparison. its also why i didnt like bales batman, just too much of a consious and not enough badass. "why do we fall?"? so we can kick ppl's asses, not worry about whther they live or die. hee hee.

 

[CFE]

The answer to all these questions is that there is no one singular version/vision of Batman.

Some versions kill, other do not.

Agreed. That sums up this entire thread.

CFE

 

[GoogleMe94]

^^problem is, most ppl on this forum (especially the nolan fanboys) tend to argue how batman should not kill, and that starts all kinds of fights and arguments. but i do agree, there is no one singular version of batman, and all fans have to except that. some kill, some dont.

 

[Gilpesh]

^^problem is, most ppl on this forum (especially the nolan fanboys) tend to argue how batman should not kill, and that starts all kinds of fights and arguments. but i do agree, there is no one singular version of batman, and all fans have to except that. some kill, some dont.

And the Burton ones.

 

[dude stannis]

Burton fans argue Batman should not kill? Did you even read that post?

 

[Gilpesh]

Burton fans argue Batman should not kill? Did you even read that post?

Ah... I did. I was just saying that Burton fans also start all kinds of fights and arguments and it is not limited to Nolan fans like the other poster said.

 

[dude stannis]

Ra's would have easily used the League of Shadow to destory Gotham again because as Ra's said, they had infiltrated all levels of government in Gotham, so leaving him alive would not get him a fair trail that would put him behind bars.

Well if that's the case the he might as well 'not save' every villain he fights.

Ah... I did. I was just saying that Burton fans also start all kinds of fights and arguments and it is not limited to Nolan fans like the other poster said.

Ah.... no. He said Nolan's fans tend to argue Batman shouldn't kill. That's what results in fights. Clearly you haven't been here very long because you'd know that back when Begins came out the Nolan fans would start a fight at the single mention of Burton's name.

 

[Ibn]

And just to clarify.

I think Burton made a good movie but not a good Batman movie.

Whatever. That's every Burton haters biggest copout. There was nothing NOT Batman about either movie. They were both classic BATMAN films. Seeing as though Batman was there, and the Joker, and the Penguin, and Selina Kyle, and even Harvey Dent as a nod to the fans, and ALOT of similarities to the comics. Classic Batman tales.

 

[GoogleMe94]

Whatever. That's every Burton haters biggest copout. There was nothing NOT Batman about either movie. They were both classic BATMAN films. Seeing as though Batman was there, and the Joker, and the Penguin, and Selina Kyle, and even Harvey Dent as a nod to the fans, and ALOT of similarities to the comics. Classic Batman tales.

i know. i totally agree, they were and are great Batman films, if not the best ones. they made buttloads of money at the boxoffice and are both considered classics of the genre. its only uber comics nerds that will say they suck. the nolanites will say they are not good batman films, of course, to push the success of the nolan series, but fortunatly the majority of fans arent as ignorant and like all 3 films the same amount, and just the younger 12-13 year old fans who probably have never seen the older films will talk sh** about them. any true batman fan will be able to appreciate all the batman films, even the schumacher ones, because even though those were campy and silly, they were still BATMAN films, that just happen to be set in the campy 50's/60's time periods of the character's history. personally, i am of the opinion that burton captured the true raw spirit of the modern batman, the dark vigelante of the night, even if gordon wasnt like the modern comics and so on and so forth (he was actually more like the "orginal" gordon from the early bob kane days).


i will be the first to admit that i dont read the comics, least not much today, because i simply could care less about them. but i have read a fair share in my lifetime to see that the burton batman films have much of the same classic iconic imagery that you find in any of todays comics (more then Begins had, thats for sure). only image i can recollect from the comics that begins had was gordon and batman on the rooftop at the end, but thats it. i dont remember anything in begins happeneing in the comics. i enjoy all the movies, but IMO burton got batman right the most. no, he didnt get every little damn detail, but its a movie and its not meant to be just like the 100,000,000,000 different comic books out there. his versions captured a certain time period of batman, a mix of different times actually. but they were nonehtheless batman films, ripped from certain comics, even if it is no particular one. just cuz begins was baseing its story off year one doesnt make it a perfect adaptation. why everyone acts like begins was the best batman ever, i have no idea, cuz its so isnt. IMO it was the lamest, cuz there were no memorable visuals, dialogue or villians, it was just like any normal action movie. i think what made it the the least fav. for me was the uncle ben moral-talk ripoff lines, like "why do we fall? so we can pick ourselves up" UGH! and noone can forget "its what i DOOO that defines me!". just, no. thank God keaton wasnt faced with one of these horrible one liners. and i certainly cant see keatons batman seriously saying "im batman......nice coat!" oh please, that would suck. but he didnt, which is a great thing.

 

[Dfens]

i know. i totally agree, those were great batman films. only the nolan fanboys will they are not, or just the younger 13 year old fans who probably have never seen the older films. any true batman fan will be able to appreciate all the batman films, even the schumacher ones, because even though those were campy and silly, they were still BATMAN films. personally, i am of the opinion that burton captured the true raw spirit of batman, even if gordon wasnt like the modern comics and so on and so forth. i dont read the comics, because i simply could care less about them. but i do enjoy the movies, but IMO burton got batman right. no, he didnt get every little damn detail, but its a movie and its not meant to be just like the 100000000000 different comic books out there. his versions captured a certain time period of batman, a mix of different times actually. but they were nonehtheless batman films, ripped from certain comics, even it is no particular one. just cuz begins was baseing its story off year one doesnt make it a perfect adaptation. why everyone acts like begins was the best batman ever, i have no idea, cuz its so isnt. IMO it was the lamest.

Hilarious post. Easily the ****ing stupidest post I've ever read. I don't care if I get banned again (I'll be back) but this is just pure idiocy.

 

[GoogleMe94]

i dont even think you read the whole thing, you are just being a troll. you are the one that is rediculous, not me. a wonder that anyone can take you seriously on these boards, just run back to the dark knight board and kiss nolans ash some more instead of trolling the misc. batman films board. i hope you do get banned "again", because you certainly deserve it. should be an ignore option on this site, it works wonders for your kind on imdb.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I think the definition of geek is someone who cannot bear the thought that their concept of a fictional character might be presented a different way by another. And then wastes their time arguing about it online, without ever realising that every single person has a different idea of exactly what that character is.

I cannot think of another character that is so adable that they can go from absolute camp crimefighter to athletic superhero to almost demonic vigilante. Batman has been blessed with some of the greatest creators in the mediums of both comicbook and film, and each has created a unique interpretation of the character, which is in turn why he has lasted so long.

This is something to be celebrated, not argued about! The mere act of arguing than any version of Batman is more 'true' than another is nonsensical as there is no one true Batman. He doesn't really exist. Even arguing that one movie version of Batman is truer to the comics than another is folly, because one can easily point straight to the comics that it resembles, and those it doesn't.

 

[GoogleMe94]

^^agreed. i think thats what i was trying to say in my post. and yes, everyone has there own opinions of what is there favorite or not. thats something that cannot be helped. but like i said, even the schumacher films can be appreciated, cuz there was a time too where batman was like that, thought fans like to forget that period. but i totally agree that batman is the most flexible of any superhero, there is not just one version of the character. you cant say that about any other comic book character.

 

[SHADOWBAT69]

I think the definition of geek is someone who cannot bear the thought that their concept of a fictional character might be presented a different way by another. And then wastes their time arguing about it online, without ever realising that every single person has a different idea of exactly what that character is.

I cannot think of another character that is so adable that they can go from absolute camp crimefighter to athletic superhero to almost demonic vigilante. Batman has been blessed with some of the greatest creators in the mediums of both comicbook and film, and each has created a unique interpretation of the character, which is in turn why he has lasted so long.

This is something to be celebrated, not argued about! The mere act of arguing than any version of Batman is more 'true' than another is nonsensical as there is no one true Batman. He doesn't really exist. Even arguing that one movie version of Batman is truer to the comics than another is folly, because one can easily point straight to the comics that it resembles, and those it doesn't.

But thats the problem Kevin. The vast majority of poeple on the internet cant like all the interpretations of Batman, in any medium. Thats why there are so many arguments. Its sad actually. I can enjoy all the Batman movies for different reasons, however there are only 2 that I actually "love" or "really like". Same with the various cartoon incarnations and the comics thru the years. The thing is, most are so narrow minded they only want one version of Batman and that, to them, is the only "true" version. And, as all of us have seen here on SHH, you just cant argue the point.

 

[ab38416]

edit

 

[ab38416]

edit