Was Batman a killer in Burton Bat movies?

[hulkamania85]

Yes, Batman was a killer. There are plenty of instances where he probably could have found another way, but decided to go for the kill. I do prefer the non-killing version in Batman Begins and all comics after 1940 (he doesn't kill Ra's as much as leaves him to escape himself), but Batman killing doesn't ruin the previous movies for me, since I also read and appreciate the very early Batman stories.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Yes, Batman was a killer. There are plenty of instances where he probably could have found another way, but decided to go for the kill. I do prefer the non-killing version in Batman Begins and all comics after 1940 (he doesn't kill Ra's as much as leaves him to escape himself), but Batman killing doesn't ruin the previous movies for me, since I also read and appreciate the very early Batman stories.

So Batman killing in the movies is only okay by you because you can find instances of it happening in the comics? And that validates it?

That's a pretty silly perspective, to he honest. No offense.

 

[newwaveboy87]

no, it's really not a silly perspective.
the movies are adapted from the comics, if their can be instances of Batman killing in the comics, then it does validate the existence of his killing in the movies. even if the storylines were 50 yrs old at the time.

 

[hulkamania85]

So Batman killing in the movies is only okay by you because you can find instances of it happening in the comics? And that validates it?

That's a pretty silly perspective, to he honest. No offense.

By that argument what would be wrong with them making Batman gain superpowers by having him bitten by a mystical bat or something? Sure the whole "world's greatest detective" Batman is from the comics but apparently we shouldn't go by the comics?

The Batman we get in these movies is validated by a similar character appearing in the comics. In the case of Burton's Batman we got a Batman based off of the earlier stories where he had no problem killing. Personally, I prefer a Batman who tries his best not to kill, but having Batman kill in Burton's films didn't ruin them for me, because it wasn't like he was slitting criminal's throats at every opportunity either.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

no, it's really not a silly perspective.
the movies are adapted from the comics,

Yes, they are.

if their can be instances of Batman killing in the comics, then it does validate the existence of his killing in the movies.

No, it doesn't. If the killing doesn't work in the movie, then it doesn't work. Batman turns into a zebra in some of the comics, but that would not validate in if it appeared in the movie.

 

[newwaveboy87]

but the killing did work in Burton's movies. you just didn't like it.

and, yes, actually, if Batman turned into a zebra within comic continuity and it showed up in a movie it would validate it. doesn't mean it should be done, just means should it happen one can point back to it happening in the comics.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

By that argument what would be wrong with them making Batman gain superpowers by having him bitten by a mystical bat or something?

What you are suggesting is that if a detail in the movie is true to the comics, even if it doesn't work in the movie, it's okay. I am saying otherwise.

 

[newwaveboy87]

as long as it appears within the comics continuity i fail to see a problem with it appearing in the films. doesn't matter where the idea originated.

The Batcave also appeared on the 40s serials before making it's way to the comics, i believe.

and a bunch of Superman's gimics and characters were created in the serials as well.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

but the killing did work in Burton's movies. you just didn't like it.

When did I say that?

and, yes, actually, if Batman turned into a zebra within comic continuity and it showed up in a movie it would validate it. doesn't mean it should be done, just means should it happen one can point back to it happening in the comics.

If Batman turned into a zebra in, say, The Dark Knight, it would not work. I think we can agree on that. It worked in the 1950's comics as they were silly sci-fi.

 

[newwaveboy87]

i did say "that doesn't mean it should be done."

 

[Kevin Roegele]

i did say "that doesn't mean it should be done."

But you said it would be valid.

 

[newwaveboy87]

it would be valid if included, but doesn't mean it should be.

valid means this:

well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful

it says nothing about how it must be included. all valid means is that if something is included and has a basis in fact, in this case if something from comic lore that is unpopular is included, it is valid because it has been justified by it's existence in the comic.

see? nothing about it having to be included. it's just an "If included" theory.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Okay, maybe I haven't explained myself very well.

Let's go back to the original statement;

Y. I do prefer the non-killing version in Batman Begins and all comics after 1940 (he doesn't kill Ra's as much as leaves him to escape himself), but Batman killing doesn't ruin the previous movies for me, since I also read and appreciate the very early Batman stories.

My point is, it appears hulkmania85 is saying he didn't like the killing at all, but only accepts it because Batman has done it in the comics.

This brings to mind the image of him watching a Batman movie, and then pausing the movie, checking in the comic to see if something happens in there, and if so, the movie is okay to continue.

He should only like it if it works within the context of the film and if it works for Keaton's Batman. Is it justifiable, is it relevant?

 

[newwaveboy87]

Burton's Batman was based on the early comic works and Dark Knight Returns, where Batman, yes, indeed did kill. so, his argument has no real logical flaw because it also worked for Burton's Batman. Burton's version HAD to be that dark to get rid of the memory of Adam West's old TV show from the public's mind.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

Burton's Batman was based on the early comic works and Dark Knight Returns, where Batman, yes, indeed did kill. so, his argument has no real logical flaw because it also worked for Burton's Batman. Burton's version HAD to be that dark to get rid of the memory of Adam West's old TV show from the public's mind.

You're missing the point. He's only accepting something in the movie because it happened in the comic, regardless of whether it worked in the context of the movie. You say you believe the killing worked in that context. Say it didn't. Say Batman turned into a zebra in the movie. Would he then accept it if he saw that it was in the comic as well?

 

[newwaveboy87]

probably.
but Batman turning into a zebra would've happened at all it would've been during the 60s show. different mediums, different writers/directors, different takes.

i get the point you're making, but i'm also understanding the point he's making.

let me give you an example, i'm also an X-Men fan. Logan's had a history in the comics of being an "older brother" type to lots of younger female characters - Jubilee and Kitty being the two most famous - so when the first movie came out and he was that for Rogue, i accepted it because there's a history of it in the comics and it worked for the film, their relationship that is. Rogue on the other hand is a completely different story.

i think that's what he's saying here. Batman killing in Burton's films works because it happened in the comics that the films were inspired by, and the Batman in those films was the Batman in the comics that inspired it. Batman was an ******* in DKR, and he killed in the 30s comics, so his being a jerk and killing is supported and works in Burton's movies. whethor or not someone likes the interpretation is again, a different story.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

i think that's what he's saying here. Batman killing in Burton's films works because it happened in the comics that the films were inspired by

Forget the comics, put them aside. Something can only work in the movie if it works in the movie. The comics are irrelevent whilst you're watching the movie.

The viewer should not have a handbook ready to check whether something corresponds to the comicbook or not (Burton certainly did not when he was making the movie, nor should he). Batman is merely based on the comic, it's not a direct translation, nor is Burton ever saying, "This is exactly what happens in the comicbook."

 

[newwaveboy87]

even if we are to put the comics aside, the killing still works with THAT version of Batman. one way or another the 60s show had to be blasted into the past, and a darker, brooding, more violent Batman was the way that they chose to go about it.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

even if we are to put the comics aside, the killing still works with THAT version of Batman. one way or another the 60s show had to be blasted into the past, and a darker, brooding, more violent Batman was the way that they chose to go about it.

Forget the killing, that's just the example he used. What I'm talking about is that he didn't think something should happen in a movie. Then he looked at the comicbook, and because it happened in the comic, it was okay in the movie. Even though, personally, he didn't think it worked in the movie.

The comicbook is not a guide to the movies. Nor are the movies a guide to the comic.

Look at the 1989 movie Batman in and of itself. Given the narrative and characters Burton constructs, do their actions ring true?

If not, it doesn't matter if the corresponding characters did it in a comicbook. That doesn't make it work in Burton's movie.

 

[newwaveboy87]

but, i personally, believe the killing did work in Burton's version.

what he says is that he PREFERS for Batman to not kill but Batman's killing doesn't detract from the films.

i agree that i prefer for Batman not to kill, but his killing in the Burton films does work and doesn't really detract.

 

[hulkamania85]

Okay, maybe I haven't explained myself very well.

Let's go back to the original statement;



My point is, it appears hulkmania85 is saying he didn't like the killing at all, but only accepts it because Batman has done it in the comics.

This brings to mind the image of him watching a Batman movie, and then pausing the movie, checking in the comic to see if something happens in there, and if so, the movie is okay to continue.

He should only like it if it works within the context of the film and if it works for Keaton's Batman. Is it justifiable, is it relevant?

I never said I disliked it. I said I prefer the non-killing version.

Edit: Beaten

 

[Kevin Roegele]

I never said I disliked it. I said I prefer the non-killing version.

Edit: Beaten

Yes, but you also said...

Batman killing doesn't ruin the previous movies for me, since I also read and appreciate the very early Batman stories

As if Batman killing would have ruined the movies for you had you not read the comics.

 

[newwaveboy87]

umm...no.
a lot of people were stating that Batman killing was going against the comics and he said that Batman's killing didn't bother him because it happened in the comics.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

he said that Batman's killing didn't bother him because it happened in the comics.

Exactly. That's what I'm saying.

 

[newwaveboy87]

read the first half of what i said
it goes both ways. people are mad that he killed because it wasn't in the comics for a long time. others accept that he killed in the movie because he also did so in the comics.

you've made a big deal out of nothing and over complicated a simple statement.