Was it really necessary to reboot Batman?

[Shikamaru]

The mainstream Batman of today's comics doesn't kill. The no-kill rule is more important to his character than to any other superhero. Literally. It is what makes him Batman.

 

[milost]

And that could change tomorrow. You never know what the future might bring. The character changes with the times as a contemporary hero. These writers and storytellers are always looking for new ways to put their own spin on the character.

My point is, there isn't "right" or "wrong". I'm all for the no killing code. BTAS Batman is probably my favorite interpretation of all time. I grew up with the Adam West and Denny O' Neil, 60's and 70s versions of the character that were exemplary of that idea. The ones that are brutal and kill on occasion though don't bother me in the slightest. That isn't all they're about. I don't see why people get so antsy about it when there are thousands of other stories to choose from. There are articles and pages dedicated to Batman's killing/murdering history, he's done it in the past, and has done it "recently", rules be damned.

The very incarnation that started all this, the creation in which all interpretations stem from, maimed and killed without any second thoughts. Simple stories, sure, but are we really going to say that the version that started it all is now invalid and "wrong" because today's standards, 75 years later are different? I don't think so. I'm surprised we haven't seen the obligatory "he's not Batman, he's the Punisher" argument yet.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Not at all similar scenarios.

Batman doesn't kill proactively.He's not supposed to kill at ALL,despite the lack of fidelity that rule gets in live action.One of dozens of things Burton got wrong.

Yet Batman shot at Talia's truck and caused her death without a shred of remorse or a mere "it was necessary this time" at all. But he was in the mood for kissing Catwoman instead.

Now, for a take that took so highly the concepts of no-killing and compassion, Nolan's Batman went against those without even addressing it.

Burton's Batman didn't have the non-killing rule. And yet he triedm to save Jack Napier instead of just smirk it away with a "I don't have to save you" like Nolan's Batman did. Bruce Wayne told Ra's that "Compassion is your weakness" and Bruce replied "It's what separates us from them." In the end, Bruce did learn his lesson and crossed the line by forgetting about compassion. One of the dozen things Nolan got wrong within his own set of rules.


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

The mainstream Batman of today's comics doesn't kill. The no-kill rule is more important to his character than to any other superhero. Literally. It is what makes him Batman.

Not at all. Batman is about revenge and instill fear in the souls of the criminals. The non-killing rule was a measure added merely to tone down the violence and make it less objectionable by censorship.

 

[The Joker]

Not at all. Batman is about revenge and instill fear in the souls of the criminals. The non-killing rule was a measure added merely to tone down the violence and make it less objectionable by censorship.

Initially yes, but it's been a mainstay with Batman for decades, and a big character trait that is often addressed.

 

[milost]

Batman is about revenge and instill fear in the souls of the criminals.

Eh, I don't think it's all about revenge. If it was revenge, Bruce would just quit after finding the faceless, nameless mugger, or Joe Chill, or Jack Napier or Lew Moxon.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Initially yes, but it's been a mainstay with Batman for decades, and a big character trait that is often addressed.

And often unaddressed by those who emphasize this and then have Batman killing.


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

Eh, I don't think it's all about revenge. If it was revenge, Bruce would just quit after finding the faceless, nameless mugger, or Joe Chill, or Jack Napier or Lew Moxon.

Not only revenge, sure. But it starts as one. In fact, Burton's Batman was not only looking for his parents' killer and didn't stop his crime-fighting career after Joker died.

 

[The Batman]

Batman has killed proactively.

He's not supposed to kill? Who says so? DC comics? How is that "getting it wrong"? There's thousands of different interpretations of the character. I don't like how TDKR turned out, I don't think Batman would ever "quit", certainly not retire to Italy, but he DID. I saw him do it with my own eyes. Even though I might not like it doesn't mean it's "wrong" or some travesty that broke a rule. If I want to see a Batman that never quits, I'll read Dark Knight Returns or watch the animated series. If I want to see a Batman that never kills, I'll watch the animated series.

Batman was a deputized cop in the 60s, in the television show he worked with the police and wore a badge. Does the vigilante depiction of Keaton and Bale Bats mean the interpretations of Burton and Nolan were "wrong"?

People straight up overact when it comes to the whole "OMG, the Batman doesn't kill" when it comes to the films. It's like a cliched discussion that never goes away from the armchair experts on Batman (who probably don't even grasp the charter's numerous iterations). It's not just Burton or Nolan interpretations, but anyone that scoffs at the idea. Not every iteration of the character is the same. If these foundations are there,

- he's Bruce Wayne
- he's human
- he's wealthy
- his parents, Thomas and Martha Wayne were killed
- he's motivated by their deaths to fight crime
- he dresses up as a bat (cowl, mask, cape, gloves, belt, etc.) for effect to frighten criminals
- has an arsenal at his disposal (rope, batarang, Batmobile, etc.)


Then it's "right", it's Batman. 1930s he was Batman. 1940s he was Batman. 1950s he was Batman. 1960s he was Batman. 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, now. All Batman. I don't care if it's Schumacher or Bill Finger, Miller or Burton, Dini or O' Neil, Nolan or Kane, they're all Batman. Don't like that Burton's Batman kills on occasion? Too bad, it's "right", he's Batman. Don't like that Schumacher's carries a Batcredit card? Too bad, he's Batman. Nolan's quit? Too bad, he's Batman. Batman, Batman, Batman.

There is no "canon". The character is a modern myth with 75 years of history and will continue to change, there is no "right" way of depicting them.

You are absolutely right, and I must say, I roll my eyes when people complain about Batman killing in the Burton movies, as if the idea of Batman killing is wrong in itself. Burton's Batman never proclaimed himself to be the modern iteration of Batman, and is in fact essentially a film version of early Bob Kane Batman, which is an equally valid version of Batman. No version of Batman is obligated to be just like the status quo version either. If every version of Batman were just like the one we're used to it would be uninteresting and boring.

I have more of a problem with Nolan's Batman, a guy who says he's no executioner, dropping bodies all throughout the The Dark Knight Trilogy.

 

[The Joker]

And often unaddressed by those who emphasize this and then have Batman killing.

Like when?

 

[Senator Pleasury]

Like when?

I just mentioned Batman shooting at Talia's truck, which killed her.

 

[milost]

Not only revenge, sure. But it starts as one. In fact, Burton's Batman was not only looking for his parents' killer and didn't stop his crime-fighting career after Joker died.

I don't remember the Keaton Batman looking for the man that shot his parents. He seemed more preoccupied with roughing up muggers, fighting the mob/Grissom and stopping the Joker from poisoning the city. Crime came first. He put on the suit to fight crime not to find the guy that killed his parents. Bale Batman was the same way. Sure, he was going to kill Joe Chill, but after he died he didn't just stop. He still became Batman. He still fought criminals. Crime in general motivated him, not the man that killed his parents.

I'm not sure I recall any interpretation starting out on swearing revenge on the criminal that killed his parents. There might be one (the 1940s/1950s "other Batman" story where Thomas Wayne attended a costume ball and they retconned Bruce's "warring on all criminals" to "vowing to dedicate my life to bring your killer to justice", but I'm not sure.

You are absolutely right, and I must say, I roll my eyes when people complain about Batman killing in the Burton movies, as if the idea of Batman killing is wrong in itself. Burton's Batman never proclaimed himself to be the modern iteration of Batman, and is in fact essentially a film version of early Bob Kane Batman, which is an equally valid version of Batman. No version of Batman is obligated to be just like the status quo version either. If every version of Batman were just like the one we're used to it would be uninteresting and boring.

I have more of a problem with Nolan's Batman, a guy who says he's no executioner, dropping bodies all throughout the The Dark Knight Trilogy.

Thanks.

And you're dead on with your statement towards the end of the first paragraph. If every version of Batman was just the same interpretation, that'd blow. There would be no progressions, no variety, and the character probably wouldn't even last as long as he has. What if it was all just the Golden Age Batman? He'd never have villains to fight? Imagine if it was just those whacky 50s/60s stories? Batmite and weird space aliens would be all the norm. Hell, Clooney Bats doesn't kill and is straight as an arrow, but I don't see anyone clamoring for that interpretation to come back or that it's the "right way". Schumacher Batman heroically fights crime to ensure that what happened to him would never happen to anyone else again, and I don't see anyone clamoring about how he got it right.

 

[milost]

And often unaddressed by those who emphasize this and then have Batman killing.

I just mentioned Batman shooting at Talia's truck, which killed her.

To be fair though, Nolan, his brother and Goyer all acknowledged that they slipped up there and that their Batman killed in interviews. They just didn't do it in the actual story.

The choices Bale Batman made in terms of killing were appropriate and justified in my opinion, just like '89 Batman. I would have left Ra's to rot (imagine what he would have done if Batman saved him and allowed him to live), I would have demolished the garbage guy, I would have bucked Dent over and not leave a boy's life to chance. Talia and the driver? Forget them, it's either the city or the psychopath behind the wheel.

My only gripe is that Nolan and Co. should have followed up on and acknowledged the fact that their Bruce did those things within the actual story. I would have loved to have seen those things haunting him or struggling with the idea that he did break his one rule like the Joker foretold. That would have been an interesting concept to see and only add to the "brooding Batman" we all love. Imagine if during TDKR, he took what the Joker said to him to heart and that was one of the reasons why he slipped into seclusion. That paint and guilt. That would have been deeper than a failed clean energy project. Without Bruce acknowledging it, the character comes off as extremely hypocritical, especially with lines like "no guns, no killing".

 

[Travesty]

Batman killed in the Nolan films, in fact, he admitted to killing Ra's in TDKR. It's all
there.

I don't get pissed if Batman kills, but I do find it annoying when you insistently tell your audience that you don't kill, and not only do you do just that, but then you admit it.

 

[milost]

Batman killed in the Nolan films, in fact, he admitted to killing Ra's in TDKR. It's all there.

I do find it annoying when you insistently tell your audience that you don't kill, and not only do you do just that, but then you admit it.

 

[Travesty]

Heh, yes, that exact scene is where he admits it.

 

[milost]

B-b-b-but he was trying to kill innocent people bro.


I also love how Gordon in his letter tries to claim that "the Batman didn't kill Harvey Dent, he saved my boi" when in actuality, Batman did kill Harvey Dent to save his boy. That's definitely a head-scratcher. I can see him saying that he didn't kill those people and took the blame, but Dent? He most definitely DID! I wonder what the coroner autopsy report was for Dent pre and post conspiracy reveal. Up, slipped on a banana peel and broke his neck from the two story fall.

It's like in TDKR, Batman and Gordon just don't learn. Even Batman keeps lying in the end. His antics with the autopilot (lying to everyone, Selina right to her face) for a forced morale victory (in this case a martyrdom legacy) is once again based on a lie. This is heroism, being a fake. Embellishing on events that don't even happen?

People can say what they will about the Keaton Batman being a "cold, remorseless killer", but atleast he never claimed to have a staunch rule that he'd never break and never had to lie to achieve rep points. He was a dark, disturbed hero that did what he had to and got the job done. At least he never willingly harmed innocent citizens by driving over cop cars or using machine guns and cannon fire on parked vehicles that are feet away from children in the back of a van. What if there was a couple making out in there? Who pays for that kind of damage? What if they didn't have insurance and were financially destroyed?

And yet people seem to defend and care more about these guys,

A motley crew of mob enforcers and killers led by a homicidal madman. Makes no sense.

 

[Travesty]

B-b-b-but he was trying to kill innocent people bro.

t:

You and I are going to get along just greeeat.

 

[The Joker]

I just mentioned Batman shooting at Talia's truck, which killed her.

I thought you meant proper murder, and not a desperate tactic to stop a bomb that would kill millions in mere minutes.

Yeah I know he broke his kill rule there, but I see big difference between that and say blowing up Axis when he had other less drastic options available to him to shut down the poison production in there. It was just a factory not Fort Knox lol. It didn't need to be bombed.

t:

You and I are going to get along just greeeat.

Trav, your avatar is HILARIOUS

 

[milost]

but I see big difference between that and say blowing up Axis when he had other less drastic options available to him to shut down the poison production in there. It was just a factory not Fort Knox lol. It didn't need to be bombed.

Who knows, maybe he did.

Once the Joker announces to Gotham that he plans to hand out 20 million to a money hungry crowd though, that forces Batman's hand.

Everyone in Gotham might buy the Joker's speech, but Wayne isn't an idiot. He knows the Joker is planning some kind of Gotham holocaust with his "anniversary festival". That Joker broadcast is practically begging Batman to fight him (mano y mano). So what does he do? He pulls out all the stops, stops playing games, and decides to attack the Joker on his own turf before he can harm anymore people by leveling the factory. Seems like a smart, proactive decision to me. If he had succeeded, Joker, his men, and the deadly chemical compounds would have been obliterated and not a single soul would have been harmed that night.

 

[Travesty]

Trav, your avatar is HILARIOUS

 

[Senator Pleasury]

I don't remember the Keaton Batman looking for the man that shot his parents. He seemed more preoccupied with roughing up muggers, fighting the mob/Grissom and stopping the Joker from poisoning the city. Crime came first. He put on the suit to fight crime not to find the guy that killed his parents. Bale Batman was the same way. Sure, he was going to kill Joe Chill, but after he died he didn't just stop. He still became Batman. He still fought criminals. Crime in general motivated him, not the man that killed his parents.

You're 110% right.

What I meant was that he didn't stop when he found his parents' killer, and finding him was not his goal.

I'm not sure I recall any interpretation starting out on swearing revenge on the criminal that killed his parents. There might be one (the 1940s/1950s "other Batman" story where Thomas Wayne attended a costume ball and they retconned Bruce's "warring on all criminals" to "vowing to dedicate my life to bring your killer to justice", but I'm not sure.

Yes:

source: http://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/night-to-remember.html


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

To be fair though, Nolan, his brother and Goyer all acknowledged that they slipped up there and that their Batman killed in interviews. They just didn't do it in the actual story.

Well, as you say, that wasn't in the movie.

The choices Bale Batman made in terms of killing were appropriate and justified in my opinion, just like '89 Batman. I would have left Ra's to rot (imagine what he would have done if Batman saved him and allowed him to live), I would have demolished the garbage guy, I would have bucked Dent over and not leave a boy's life to chance. Talia and the driver? Forget them, it's either the city or the psychopath behind the wheel.

My only gripe is that Nolan and Co. should have followed up on and acknowledged the fact that their Bruce did those things within the actual story. I would have loved to have seen those things haunting him or struggling with the idea that he did break his one rule like the Joker foretold. That would have been an interesting concept to see and only add to the "brooding Batman" we all love. Imagine if during TDKR, he took what the Joker said to him to heart and that was one of the reasons why he slipped into seclusion. That paint and guilt. That would have been deeper than a failed clean energy project. Without Bruce acknowledging it, the character comes off as extremely hypocritical, especially with lines like "no guns, no killing".

110% agree again.


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

I thought you meant proper murder, and not a desperate tactic to stop a bomb that would kill millions in mere minutes.

Yeah I know he broke his kill rule there, but I see big difference between that and say blowing up Axis when he had other less drastic options available to him to shut down the poison production in there. It was just a factory not Fort Knox lol. It didn't need to be bombed.

And how many minutes did Gotham people have before Joker started killing them in his parade? Did Batman know? Was he in the position of taking a few hours thinking how not to kill those murderers while putting Gotham's inhabitants lives in jeopardy in the meantime?

In fact, Batman blew Axis chemicals too late (Joker was already prepared when he did). So it wasn't like he had all night to act and destroy the chemical plant before Joker and his men were ready to gas the city. Anyway, milost said it better.

And, as milost pointed out, the Batmobile attacked the plant with machine guns and all. If they wanted to stay and try their luck, it's their choice.

As for Batman's situation in TDKR, sure, it was desperate. Still, he took his time to kiss Catwoman.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

At least he never willingly harmed innocent citizens by driving over cop cars or using machine guns and cannon fire on parked vehicles that are feet away from children in the back of a fan. What if there was a couple making out in there? Who pays for that kind of damage? What if they didn't have insurance and were financially destroyed?

I never liked that scene. If Burton or Schumacher did the same thing, I could easily believe that the vehicles were empty. It's harder for me to do that when it's supposed to be "the real world".

Man of Steel is another example. I didn't care about it at first, I assumed that the buildings were evacuated. It's not like in The Dark Knight where you actually see people inside the cars. But then Zack Snyder himself admits that Superman caused innocent people to die. Now I find the Metropolis fight disturbing, like that fight in Marvelman/Miracleman where the entire city is destroyed, people run around with limbs ripped off, people are crushed inside of cars, and there's blood everywhere. Maybe Snyder was inspired by Marvelman. To show us what would happen in the real world when superhumans fight.

But superheroes aren't real. There's no point in making them "realistic". It puts limits on what stories you can tell, which villains you can use, and kills the sense of wonder. That's why I still prefer the classic Superman movies and Burton/Schumacher's Batman. I don't hate Man of Steel or The Dark Knight trilogy, but they lack something.

 

[Human Torch]

Burton's Batman didn't have the non-killing rule.

That's the whole problem.If he at least paid lip service to that fundamental concept it would be something.

Unfortunately,when you make Joker the killer of Bruce's parents,you've given him-nay required him to kill the Joker.So,even if he wasn't blood-thirsty enough to kill a building full of goons,you'd still have to deal with that.

Not at all. Batman is about revenge and instill fear in the souls of the criminals. The non-killing rule was a measure added merely to tone down the violence and make it less objectionable by censorship.

It doesn't matter how it came about.Writers were smart enough to involve it into the character's philosophy,so that it became integral to him.

 

[Human Torch]

I thought you meant proper murder, and not a desperate tactic to stop a bomb that would kill millions in mere minutes.

Yeah I know he broke his kill rule there, but I see big difference between that and say blowing up Axis when he had other less drastic options available to him to shut down the poison production in there. It was just a factory not Fort Knox lol. It didn't need to be bombed.

Yep.And it's still amazing to me that people can't seem to except that.

 

[Senator Pleasury]

That's the whole problem.If he at least paid lip service to that fundamental concept it would be something.

People having Batman with his no killing rule has Batman killing anyways. Why more inconsistency?

Unfortunately,when you make Joker the killer of Bruce's parents,you've given him-nay required him to kill the Joker.So,even if he wasn't blood-thirsty enough to kill a building full of goons,you'd still have to deal with that.

Oh, Batman has plenty of reasons to kill the Joker as it is, as he keeps murdering people like there's no tomorrow. Batman knows that there's probably no other way out: "We're gonna kill each other, aren't we? Perhaps you'll kill me, perhaps I'll kill you." (Batman, The Killing Joke)

But there's no blood-thirst in stopping a bunch of murderers from killing Gotham people, like there's no blood-thirst in killing Talia to get rid of her a-bomb.

It doesn't matter how it came about.Writers were smart enough to involve it into the character's philosophy,so that it became integral to him.

Writers were smart enough to make the comic obey the rules so it could survive, deleting what made Batman a different character from the average superhero: he does cross the line.

Anyways, writers should be smart enough to keep Batman from killing if they're going to make a whole thing out of the no killing rule for three movies.

Yep.And it's still amazing to me that people can't seem to except that.

Maybe because people knew that Joker was going to kill thousands right away if Batman didn't stop him.

 

[Shikamaru]

Not at all. Batman is about revenge and instill fear in the souls of the criminals. The non-killing rule was a measure added merely to tone down the violence and make it less objectionable by censorship.

Initially, yes. But throughout the years, Batman became a more interesting and more complex character due to the no-kill rule. It started to define him in a way it doesn't define any other superhero, including Superman. That's the way comic book characters work. Unlike movie heroes, they never are who they are right at their inception. They are slowly built into perfection overtime. Today's Batman's reasons for not killing have nothing to do with censorship or toning down the violence - it has entirely to do with his character.

You do realize that comics today are darker than they ever have been before. You can now get away with more things than you ever did before and kill as many characters as you want - that has been the way things have been since the start of the Modern Age of comics in the 1980's. Kids in general don't read mainstream DC comics anymore. If Batman's no-kill rule was there 100% to tone his down and had no complex importance to his character whatsoever, writers would have gotten rid of it by now and taken him back to his 1940's roots. But they don't for the already stated reasons.