Was it really necessary to reboot Batman?

[Shikamaru]

Still don't get how the no killing rule is any different here. You just said it is. All of them got this rule because it was requested for the CCA.

I already addressed this. Initially, yes. But today's reasons for Batman not killing have absolutely nothing to do with the CCA.

I didn't just say it is. I said the exact opposite. I said Batman is the only superhero whose no-kill rule is an actual part of his character instead of a peripheral thing added to him just because he is a superhero, which is the case for the vast majority of other superheroes out there. And yes, originally his no-kill rule was peripheral and was just there because he is a superhero, but that's not the case today. As I just said, today's reasons for Batman not killing have nothing to do with censorship. Comics are darker now than they ever have been before. If DC wanted to take Batman back to his murdering roots, they would have done that by now. There would be no censorship stopping them this time. But they don't because it became a huge part of his character in a way it isn't a huge part of any other superhero. It also made him more complex overall.

But anyways, the no killing rule only works when it's a way in which Batman does no kill even when he needs to, not when he does it anyways.

I agree.

Time brings more things. That doesn't mean they were incomplete before, as you suggested ("they never are who they are right at their inception"), or that they need everything right away. Like with Robin.

Didn't say they were incomplete; just that time brings more layers to them and they become more three-dimensional, which is practically the same thing you just said. "Time brings more things."

Well, every character has been based on something previously existing. That doesn't mean they're rip-offs. I don't remember Batman having mystical powers as The Shadow.

Depends on which version of The Shadow you're talking about. I don't think he had mystical powers in the pulp comics. I think that was only in the radio show.

There's no Robin; Batman got help from a lot of people, Alfred, Rachel, Lucius and John Blake. But none of them was an orphan whose parents had been killed and was raised by Bruce Wayne.

John Blake is that universe's Robin. A very generic and overall poorly done attempt at throwing in a Robin if you ask me, but still.

Oh, so if they make a Batman that doesn't need it, you don't add those things from the comics that you claim define the hero.

Same with the no killing rule when you have Batman as it was originally conceived.

Sure. There is nothing that says you can't create a different universe where there is another version of Batman that does kill. That's completely fine. This goes back to my discussion with milost.

Well, it was Marvel then. Not the Comic Code Authority's no killing rule.

I get the feeling you have no idea what you're talking about. In my last response to you, the specific text that you are quoting was me talking about how Marvel was the publisher that made superheroes more three-dimensional - a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with the no-killing rule or the CCA. And somehow, me stating that makes you find a correlation between Marvel and censorship.

Just like Robin.

So the fact that it's there in the comics for decades doesn't make it mandatory for every cinematic incarnation.

Never said Robin was mandatory for every cinematic incarnation.

 

[milost]

Look,try as you may,you're never going to convince me or anyone with a lick of sense that dropping a BOMB in a building full of goons and blowing it sky high is in any way the same as killing of a truck driver with a bomb set to blow up an entire city in a matter of minutes.

I'd like to think I have a "lick of sense".

What Batman does in '89 does is smart. He's shown planning some kind of raid at Axis Chemicals, whether it's a covert strike or a bombing. After the Joker makes his broadcasting though, he decides to pull out all the stops. He goes to eliminate the source before things get bad with preemptive measures. He kills to save lives. Imagine if he had killed off the Joker, his men, and all traces of smylex/DDID nerve gas. BAM, done.

In TDKR, it's the exact opposite. Batman OWNS the nuclear bomb device, he helped build it. He knew it was dangerous and could have drowned it in those three years. He didn't. He befriended and helped supported the villains. No preemptive measures were taken. At the very last minute (after he's fooled around and made a giant, flaming batsymbol out of gasoline), he goes to stop the villains with minutes to go. He also kills to save lives. Imagine if he had drowned the nuclear orb in the beginning. BAM, no threat, done.


In '89 he kills less than a dozen nameless Joker followers to stop the Joker on his own turf before he can harm any more Gothamites. Added bonus: Vengeance on the man that murdered his parents.

In TDKR he kills Talia and her driver to stop the LoS before they can harm any more Gothamites.

One is clearly a spur of the moment act,while the other is premeditated murder.

Bull.

What was Batman going to do in TDKR then when him and Selina go to stop the truck? Catch up with Talia and politely ask her to pull over? No, his plan was to stop that by lobbing missiles and a barrage of gun fire at it, so he can hook up the device and send it back to Fox to drown it. Hell, he even makes those heat seeking missiles follow him so they smash into the Tumblers on the streets below. That's a plan, that's premeditated, JUST like in Begins when he had Gordon take out the supports so the train (carrying Ra's) would come crashing down.

That's not a spur of the moment act, nice try though. In that third act, nothing Batman does is "spur of the moment". He even planned to fake his death and "die" a martyr by telling everyone from Fox to Selina and Gordon that there's "no autopilot".

Batman and his plans,

- Killed Ra's (when he could have easily saved him)

- Killed Talia

- Killed the driver


Spur of the moment would be the poor truck driver Batman kills in the Dark Knight by driving 100 miles into him and crushing him with the over head ceiling of the tunnel. But even then, I'm sure Batman should have been charged with murder.

Now I've gone on record saying how disappointed I was that Nolan had Batman kill.So it's not as if I was saying he (Nolan) could do no wrong.But in context,the way he handled it,you can give him the benefit of the excuse.There's no way in Hades Burton can have the same.His Batman kills without regard.Pure and simple.

So you give Nolan the benefit of the doubt who,

- creates a rule
- has Batman kill multiple times, causing contradiction
- tells his audience that they fudged up and that he did indeed break the rule multiple times
- doesn't show the consequences of Batman doing these deeds or having any feelings on the matter


But Burton, who,

- doesn't implement "da rule"
- shows Batman telling enemies, "I'm not going to kill you"
- subdues enemies without killing them for a majority of the film
- saves enemies from falling to their deaths
- bombs his opponent's lair


Is inexcusable, "wrong", and messed up. That's almost as hypocritical as Batman's stance on guns and killing in the Nolan flicks.

Perhaps initially.But Joker really doesn't want to kill Batman,as much as he wants to toy with him.They got their relationship wrong in their attempts to make it a "mythic" version of "We created each other,so now one has to kill the other."That had nothing to do with them as originally conceived.

No, not initially. There have been plenty of stories where Joker wants to straight up KILL Batman. Early appearances, 70s, Dark Knight Returns, Killing Joke, the Animated Series, . . . . THE DARK KNIGHT (in the beginning of the film). Nobody got anything wrong in terms of Batman vs. The Joker. They've ALL been great, except the 60s series which doesn't really touch on the idea that the Romero Joker is Batman's arch nemesis.

Burton and Co. got it right. Even before "ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light", they set up Batman and the Joker as a match made in hell.

"He's psychotic".

Batman hated everything the Joker represented before he ever knew that the Joker "made him". He fought crime, PERIOD. He foiled the Joker's several plots and had Jack's number. The Joker, like a lot of incarnations, despised Batman because he not only "dropped him into that vat of chemicals" (like 90% of the comics), but because no matter how hard the Joker tries, Batman steals his spotlight even though he remains a dark and mysterious entity.

That whole third act in the streets, "mano y mano" is a battle of the freaks sequence of them trying to claim the city and the night. The symbolism and theme of them creating each other is a nice added bonus, a twist nobody ever saw coming and a unique twist to their relationship. At the end, it's still Batman and the Joker.

Uh,he's not.That's why the cops were after him.(and rightfully so,when he's leaving BODIES all over Gotham.)

Senator's response is to your,

I guess cops are not required to find non-lethal means whenever possible either?

You seem to think Batman should be like a cop and find non-lethal means to the situations he's in, buuuuuuuuuuuut, he isn't a cop.

Even with the killings aside, Batman is a straight up criminal. That's what is ironic about his quest. In your view of the "right" Batman, he might not kill, but lethal is lethal. Breaking bones, beating criminals into submission, making them drink threw a straw, turning them into vegetables is STILL wrong and something a cop can't do.

Killing or not, Batman has been one of those darker heroes for most of his history (the exception being the 50s and 60s). He's a vigilante, plain and simple. Incarnations might have the no kill policy, the no guns policy, but more times than not, there are contradictions throughout some stories that make the viewing audience question Batman's actions.

That's why there areparodies on the subject like this,

[YT]1byycwl8qgc[/YT]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byycwl8qgc


That's why so many people argue again and again on what is "accurate" or true to the character. In the end though, it's useless because Batman has had more personalities than we can bother to count,

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Look,try as you may,you're never going to convince me or anyone with a lick of sense that dropping a BOMB in a building full of goons and blowing it sky high is in any way the same as killing of a truck driver with a bomb set to blow up an entire city in a matter of minutes.
One is clearly a spur of the moment act,while the other is premeditated murder.

He was completely aware of what he was doing. He shot around the truck and then, when it didn't work, he shot the driver and killed him, then he made the truck fall which caused Talia's death as a direct consequence. He knew what those missiles do when he shot them directly at the driver.

At least Burton's Batman gave them a few seconds to run and made them aware that he was armed. That truck driver didn't have much a chance, but I guess he made his choices. Batman's decision was as much a "spur of the moment" as when Catwoman killed Bane to save Batman. Might have been a quick decision but it was premeditated and had a reason behind it.

Now I've gone on record saying how disappointed I was that Nolan had Batman kill.So it's not as if I was saying he (Nolan) could do no wrong.But in context,the way he handled it,you can give him the benefit of the excuse.There's no way in Hades Burton can have the same.His Batman kills without regard.Pure and simple.

When the lives of many innocents were at stake, yes. When it wasn't the case, he left thugs alive to spread the word, tried to save Jack Napier (better than smirk it off with a "I don't have to save you") and I don't remember him killing any of Joker's henchmen at that alley.

But both Batmen killed.

Perhaps initially.But Joker really doesn't want to kill Batman,as much as he wants to toy with him.They got their relationship wrong in their attempts to make it a "mythic" version of "We created each other,so now one has to kill the other."That had nothing to do with them as originally conceived.

And didn't Jack's Joker toy with him? He even had his own parade and forced Batman to attend. And hadn't he died, he would have keep doing so in the future. And it's not like Joker hasn't tried to kill him in the comics before.

About how they were originally conceived: on their first comic together, Joker kept having fun while murdering people and Batman kept stopping him until Joker fell and died (I know ts was reversed later). Exact same as in B89.

Uh,he's not.That's why the cops were after him.(and rightfully so,when he's leaving BODIES all over Gotham.)

No, they were after him because they didn't know who he was and what he wanted. After that, they were delighted to introduce everyone the bat-signal and by BR they were getting along big time.

But Gotham cops are weird. Cops weren't after him after he recklessly smashed and made crash ever cop car out there in B. Begins.

*************************************************

I already addressed this. Initially, yes. But today's reasons for Batman not killing have absolutely nothing to do with the CCA.

But you still haven't told me how it's so much different for Batman.

I didn't just say it is. I said the exact opposite. I said Batman is the only superhero whose no-kill rule is an actual part of his character instead of a peripheral thing added to him just because he is a superhero, which is the case for the vast majority of other superheroes out there. And yes, originally his no-kill rule was peripheral and was just there because he is a superhero, but that's not the case today. As I just said, today's reasons for Batman not killing have nothing to do with censorship. Comics are darker now than they ever have been before. If DC wanted to take Batman back to his murdering roots, they would have done that by now. There would be no censorship stopping them this time. But they don't because it became a huge part of his character in a way it isn't a huge part of any other superhero. It also made him more complex overall.

I don't know if more complex, but it's an interesting element to add if you have to keep the character going on for years. He wants revenge, he wants to kill back but he can't.

But the thing is that here we're talking about movies. Adaptations that are to tell the story in two hours or 3 movies. You can have the original Batman and there's plenty to say about it. Problem in movies is if you keep talking about the no killing rule and yet the character kills and not a big fuss is made about it.

I agree.

Didn't say they were incomplete; just that time brings more layers to them and they become more three-dimensional, which is practically the same thing you just said. "Time brings more things."

You said "they never are who they are right at their inception" and then you said it was subsequent layers that got the character complete. So it sounded like there's something lacking there to me.

Batman has done it in many different incarnations: some ignored the darkness, some ignored the no killing rule, some ignored Robin. Not every element was in every incarnation.

Depends on which version of The Shadow you're talking about. I don't think he had mystical powers in the pulp comics. I think that was only in the radio show.

So we have to find out what version Bob Kane liked first before saying he was merely ripping it off. I say Batman had originally many well documented inspirations, it wasn't just one character's rip off.

John Blake is that universe's Robin. A very generic and overall poorly done attempt at throwing in a Robin if you ask me, but still.

So generic and poorly done that's actually not the character. The name, his profession, the way he dresses, the way he met Batman, the relationship with him, the fact he's a successor... nothing at all whatsoever in the movie makes him Robin. Except, of course, that nerd wink Nolan gave to fans by calling him "Robin" (which is the name of the character, not his alter ego).

Sure. There is nothing that says you can't create a different universe where there is another version of Batman that does kill. That's completely fine. This goes back to my discussion with milost.

Every director has built and brought their own universe. Burton, Schumacher and Nolan. But if you didn't have a problem with that, then we wouldn't be talking.

Never said Robin was mandatory for every cinematic incarnation.

I thought your case was about all those layers time has brought and how they should be kept in movies.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

Man, this thread got popular...for the wrong reason

 

[Human Torch]

I'd like to think I have a "lick of sense".

What Batman does in '89 does is smart. He's shown planning some kind of raid at Axis Chemicals, whether it's a covert strike or a bombing. After the Joker makes his broadcasting though, he decides to pull out all the stops. He goes to eliminate the source before things get bad with preemptive measures. He kills to save lives. Imagine if he had killed off the Joker, his men, and all traces of smylex/DDID nerve gas. BAM, done.

In TDKR, it's the exact opposite. Batman OWNS the nuclear bomb device, he helped build it. He knew it was dangerous and could have drowned it in those three years. He didn't. He befriended and helped supported the villains. No preemptive measures were taken. At the very last minute (after he's fooled around and made a giant, flaming batsymbol out of gasoline), he goes to stop the villains with minutes to go. He also kills to save lives. Imagine if he had drowned the nuclear orb in the beginning. BAM, no threat, done.

The trouble is,his raid on Axis is pre-planned (yes,very Batman-like) but the plan was to kill the Joker and all his goons by bombing them.(very un-Batman like)

Now,in TDKR.There was no real way for him to pre-plan the thing.What really should've gone down,was Batman leaping to the truck from the Bat,and knocking the driver out "Indiana Jones" style.But,with time on the line,Nolan had him simply shoot the driver.Not what I'd have liked,but more plausible for Bats than premeditated murder.

In '89 he kills less than a dozen nameless Joker followers to stop the Joker on his own turf before he can harm any more Gothamites. Added bonus: Vengeance on the man that murdered his parents.

In TDKR he kills Talia and her driver to stop the LoS before they can harm any more Gothamites.

But Bats is not supposed to kill proactively.That's the point I was making about the cops.A cop can't go in and kill a B&E suspect because they figure "Well,he might've killed somebody."Lets use our brains a little here.Bats has no moral nor legal right to kill people- long before they attempted the crime.

Bull.

What was Batman going to do in TDKR then when him and Selina go to stop the truck? Catch up with Talia and politely ask her to pull over? No, his plan was to stop that by lobbing missiles and a barrage of gun fire at it, so he can hook up the device and send it back to Fox to drown it. Hell, he even makes those heat seeking missiles follow him so they smash into the Tumblers on the streets below. That's a plan, that's premeditated, JUST like in Begins when he had Gordon take out the supports so the train (carrying Ra's) would come crashing down.

That's not a spur of the moment act, nice try though. In that third act, nothing Batman does is "spur of the moment". He even planned to fake his death and "die" a martyr by telling everyone from Fox to Selina and Gordon that there's "no autopilot".

That's not "plans",that's reacting to a given situation.

Batman and his plans,

- Killed Ra's (when he could have easily saved him)

- Killed Talia

- Killed the driver


Spur of the moment would be the poor truck driver Batman kills in the Dark Knight by driving 100 miles into him and crushing him with the over head ceiling of the tunnel. But even then, I'm sure Batman should have been charged with murder.




So you give Nolan the benefit of the doubt who,

- creates a rule
- has Batman kill multiple times, causing contradiction
- tells his audience that they fudged up and that he did indeed break the rule multiple times
- doesn't show the consequences of Batman doing these deeds or having any feelings on the matter


But Burton, who,

- doesn't implement "da rule"
- shows Batman telling enemies, "I'm not going to kill you"
- subdues enemies without killing them for a majority of the film
- saves enemies from falling to their deaths
- bombs his opponent's lair


Is inexcusable, "wrong", and messed up. That's almost as hypocritical as Batman's stance on guns and killing in the Nolan flicks.

BTW,I'm not saying Burton's Bats was a psycho-killer.(we don't really learn of any deaths pre-Joker,apart of the "questionable" fate of "Johnny Gobs")

No, not initially. There have been plenty of stories where Joker wants to straight up KILL Batman. Early appearances, 70s, Dark Knight Returns, Killing Joke, the Animated Series, . . . . THE DARK KNIGHT (in the beginning of the film). Nobody got anything wrong in terms of Batman vs. The Joker. They've ALL been great, except the 60s series which doesn't really touch on the idea that the Romero Joker is Batman's arch nemesis.

Burton and Co. got it right. Even before "ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light", they set up Batman and the Joker as a match made in hell.

"He's psychotic".

Batman hated everything the Joker represented before he ever knew that the Joker "made him". He fought crime, PERIOD. He foiled the Joker's several plots and had Jack's number. The Joker, like a lot of incarnations, despised Batman because he not only "dropped him into that vat of chemicals" (like 90% of the comics), but because no matter how hard the Joker tries, Batman steals his spotlight even though he remains a dark and mysterious entity.

That whole third act in the streets, "mano y mano" is a battle of the freaks sequence of them trying to claim the city and the night. The symbolism and theme of them creating each other is a nice added bonus, a twist nobody ever saw coming and a unique twist to their relationship. At the end, it's still Batman and the Joker.

By making him the murderer of Bats parents you twist the whole relationship to one of Revenge.Batman HAS to kill the Joker at that point.He can never return for "second rounds".That's why Joker had to die in the end,killing the best adversarial relationship in comic.(and there can be no doubt that he's dead either,since Burton showed us he ended up street pizza) But even if he did return,Bats would be out for blood again against his parents killer.There was no where for that plot to go,but the inevitable death of the Joker.A colossal waste of potential.

 

[Travesty]

 

[milost]

It's funny because it's true.

You forgot to add the poor crazy Garbage man to Bale's list of kills though. He died doing his waste management duties when Batman hit him in a head on collision, pancaking his head and body up into the ceiling.

 

[Kane52630]

Totally walked out fine...well except for his head.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

2007-2008? He died young

Batman kills children in the Nolanverse.

 

[BatLobster]

Man, Batman fans can argue for days about fictional murders. Actually, I guess now Superman fans can too.

To me, it all just comes down to the simple fact that in action movies, stuff needs to blow up, people need to die, the bad guys need to be stopped. Sometimes it's tough to keep trying to figure out creative ways around the good guy simply bringing about the bad guy's demise.

But I like that in Nolan's films the idea of him not wanting to be a murderer is addressed. The fact that he has lapses and contradictions only enhances the idea that he's on this insane quest...starting a one-man war on crime while and attempting to do so without getting any blood on his hands.

I think TDK kind of smashes right through the mere conceit of him having his rule, because how many people die in that movie indirectly because of Batman? It's kind of like once he puts on that suit, people are going to die no matter what and that's a philosophical point at play there. But yet, he still does save The Joker in the end when he really didn't have to. I don't think anyone can argue with that being classic Batman of the comics to a T. He's not perfect about his rule in the movies (which makes him more human), but if there's another way he finds it.

At the end of the day, I think it's kind of silly to get caught up in the semantics of it all. Do I find Bale's Batman to be a heroic figure overall? Absolutely, hell yes. Keaton's? Yes. Probably a bit less so and more on the anti-hero side of things, but still easy enough to root for and clearly view him as the good guy.