Was it really necessary to reboot Batman?

[Senator Pleasury]

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.

Batman is more interesting as he doesn't follow the classic superhero behavior.

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.

So, all comic superheros achieve perfection? They all lack of something when they're created?

I'm sorry but I just can't buy that. Comics superheroes work exactly as any other character: they're created, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But since they have to survive through decades, they often change to adapt themselves to the new times. Doesn't mean they just keep improving because oif the mere fact of changing.

Around the same time Batman acquired his no killing rule, he acquired a sidekick, Robin, who became and integral part of the character, was the first one and has been there for the most part. Nevertheless there's no Robin in the Nolan trilogy. Does it matter? Does that make it a worse trilogy? Not exactly.

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.

And if Batman had been a lacking character in 1939 it wouldn't5 have had the impact it did.

I don't despise the no killing rule. It can make things harder for Batman, but the point is, when Nolan had it in his bat-movies, he kept creating excuses to break it without even having consequences, so what was the point?

 

[Travesty]

Nevertheless there's no Robin in the Nolan trilogy. Does it matter? Does that make it a worse trilogy? Not exactly.

Never forget Robin John Blake.

Never....

 

[Shikamaru]

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.

Now you're on a completely different topic than I am.

Of course that Batman can kill in other continuities such as the Elseworld stories. The 1940's comics are practically Elseworld stories and they make sense for their time, so Batman killing there is just fine.

What I am talking about is the mainstream DC comic universe, the "New Earth" universe as it is known as. As in the universe that is to the DC multiverse what the 616 universe is to the Marvel multiverse. In that specific universe, Batman cannot kill. Any attempt to try to make him kill is "wrong" in that universe (except for maybe a once-in-a-blue-moon scenario). It doesn't mean the Earth-Two (Golden Age Batman) is wrong though. Why? Because he is in a different universe. Each universe has to play with the rules and characterizations established.

To offer an example, you and me talk a lot about how TDKR's ending is inaccurate to everything that is Batman. However, that isn't because it goes against what the Batman that we know from the comics would do. It's because we believe (I say that to not start any big debates over TDKR at the moment because we've had too many already) that it goes against what Nolan's Batman that we know from the previous movies would do. It just happens that Nolan's Batman was so immensely influenced by "New Earth Batman" (the main version of Batman we all know) so thus TDKR's ending goes against happens to go against both versions (again, in our view - to not start any TDKR debate at the moment). TDKR's ending is "wrong" in that universe. Batman being fooled by Talia's deception despite what we see him do in BB/TDK is also "wrong" in that universe but these things wouldn't be wrong in a different universe. Heck, those things could be 100% right in a different universe despite those ideas not being my cup of tea.

Any universes heavily based on the "New Earth Batman" (mainstream Batman) is also included in this. This includes adaptations such as the DCAU (Batman TAS), the Arkham universe, and the Nolan universe. All these universes based their Batman on the New Earth Batman of Post-Crisis comics - the Batman that doesn't kill. Thus these versions are all very similar in character and all have the no-kill rule, something they each establish right at the beginning when these respective creators - Bruce Timm, Rocksteady, Nolan - created their respective universe. Therefore, Nolan's Batman killing Talia in TDKR is "wrong" in his universe, especially after establishing the no-kill rule throughout the 3 films. Him leaving Ra's on a train to die - despite it not being direct murder IMO - is still out of character for Nolan's Batman. I can't see Nolan's Batman doing that based on type of person he is.

And finally, no, all of that can't just change tomorrow - at least not in a non-Elseworld story. First, there would be tons of fan backlash (and rightfully so). Second, as I said before, Batman became a more interesting and more complex character in the New Earth/Post-Crisis/mainstream/616/whatever-you-wanna-call-them comics (this is, once again, excluding Elseworld stories not in the main DC universe) so taking him back to his "Punisher roots" would be a stupid idea in the first place. And third, as I said before, the Batman we all know from today's mainstream comics is defined by his no-kill rule in a way that no other superhero is. Due to that, it would have a larger affect on his universe. For most superheroes, altering their no-kill rule wouldn't really affect their universe in the long run. For Batman, it would. Everything would be completely different. Nothing would be the same. No relationship with his supporting cast and villains would be the same. His relationship with Joker wouldn't be the same. The purpose of Robin would no longer be needed and wouldn't be the same. Ra's and the LOA would almost not be villains. His relationship with Gordon would be different. So much would be different.

 

[Shikamaru]

Batman is more interesting as he doesn't follow the classic superhero behavior.

He already doesn't. As I said, his no-kill rule is an actual part of his character and defines him in a way it doesn't define anyone. Most other superheroes don't kill because, well, "I'm a superhero and I'm a good guy!" That's what it boils down to. The no-kill rule for the rest is kinda just there. That already makes Batman's no-kill rule unique IMO.

So, all comic superheros achieve perfection? They all lack of something when they're created?

I'm sorry but I just can't buy that. Comics superheroes work exactly as any other character: they're created, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. But since they have to survive through decades, they often change to adapt themselves to the new times. Doesn't mean they just keep improving because oif the mere fact of changing.

I wouldn't say they "lack" something. Just that time brings in more and more layers to a character. Not always, but usually provided that the characters was in the hands of good writers.

In Batman's case specifically, you can almost say he started as a ripoff of the Shadow. The first story in Detective Comics #27 was almost an exact copy of a Shadow story. The idea of Batman carrying a gun came from there. He was originally Shadow 2.0 mixed in with some Sherlock Holmes, and later with Zorro. Eventually, he separated himself more and more from those characters and became his own character in his own right.

Around the same time Batman acquired his no killing rule, he acquired a sidekick, Robin, who became and integral part of the character, was the first one and has been there for the most part. Nevertheless there's no Robin in the Nolan trilogy. Does it matter? Does that make it a worse trilogy? Not exactly.

1) There was no Robin in BB/TDK because Nolan's Batman was still "a young Batman", as Nolan himself said. Then in TDKR which takes place 8 years later, there kinda is a Robin (although it isn't that well done IMO, but there is still a Robin nonetheless).

2) The purpose of Robin is to hold Batman back from crossing that line and becoming the Punisher. If a particular version of Batman has enough control, then there is no need for Robin. Based on what we saw of Nolan's Batman, he still had some control in him to not let his anger get the better of him and murder criminals willy-nilly. There was technically no need for Robin.

And if Batman had been a lacking character in 1939 it wouldn't5 have had the impact it did.

To be honest, most superheroes back then were lacking in character compared to today. They were, for the most part, generic archetypes and a lot of them read the same. It wasn't until Marvel's debut in the 1960's (starting with the Fantastic Four) that superheroes became the more three-dimensional characters we know today.

I don't despise the no killing rule. It can make things harder for Batman, but the point is, when Nolan had it in his bat-movies, he kept creating excuses to break it without even having consequences, so what was the point?

I agree. But what does that have to do with the importance of Batman's no-killing rule? Just because Nolan created excuses to break it doesn't mean it isn't a huge part of Batman's character.

 

[milost]

Well, we're pretty much on the same page usually, especially when it comes to TDKR. I think you agreed with my idea that the Batman depicted in Begins and Dark Knight was depicted as a different character than TDKR. That still doesn't change the storyteller's goal or vision though, no matter what we as fans think. Things change and get retconned all the time. Few written characters remain consistent, even by the same exact creative teams of writers. Anything can change at the drop of a hat. When a character is a fictional fabrication created by hundreds of different talents there's bound to be variations.

For me personally, when it comes to "Golden Age Batman", "Earth 69 Batman", "52 Batman", "Elseworlds" etc. I view continuity and canon as a joke. They're all "elseworlds" as far as I'm concerned. All of them. There's even inconsistencies within any given type. I'm not really sure what we're arguing here, we both agree, I just think it's useless to boil it down to "well, this is mainstream" or a particular version. Every intepretation is pulled from some melting pot of Batman, therefor it can't be "wrong". As far as Keaton Batman is concerned what he does or doesn't do isn't wrong or right. Same for Schumacher, same for Nolan. It's a film with standards on it's own terms, not what other mediums might dictate.

 

[The Joker]

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?

Since the Joker said he'd be at the parade at midnight, that was how long they had. He made this announcement during the day. So he had a few hours at least. Not minutes like in the TDKR situation.

Furthermore how did Bruce suddenly realize Axis was where Joker was producing his poisons? Did he know all along? Why didn't he shut it down before when Joker was tampering with the products?

In fact, Batman blew Axis chemicals too late (Joker was already prepared when he did).

Of course he was too late. He waited until night time to act when Joker had made the announcement during the day lol.

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.

That is nonsense. Why should a car equipped with machine guns make anyone think they are about to be blown sky high? Did Batman really think the whole factory was going to mass evacuate just because the Batmobile went driving in and shot down one wall?

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

A whole three seconds. Don't nit pick.

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

I don't get it either. It's not like Keaton's Batman was supposed to be portrayed as someone who had no problem killing people, especially when he didn't have to.

 

[Elevator Man]

Wow this thread has really gotten derailed. Should change the thread title to "Was it really necessary for Batman to kill in either the Burton, Schumacher, or Nolan Batfilms?"


With that said I'm enjoying this debate.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

"Was it really necessary for Batman to kill in either the Burton, Schumacher, or Nolan Batfilms?".

No, it wasn't. It was just written that wayt: but here's the facts:

1. Burton's Batman is based on the golden age Batman, and the GA Batman killed people. So it doesn't really matter.

2. Schumacher's Batman kills Two-Face, but I don't know if that was his intention. I always thought he threw the coins to confuse Two-Face. Anyway, he doesn't kill anyone in Batman and Robin.

3. Nolan's Batman killed Ra's, Two-Face and Talia. I don't know if he intended to kill Talia or Two-Face, but Ra's = killed in cold blood.

There's really only two live action movies where Batman upholds his no-kill rule: Batman the movie (1966), and Batman & Robin!

 

[Shikamaru]

Well, we're pretty much on the same page usually, especially when it comes to TDKR. I think you agreed with my idea that the Batman depicted in Begins and Dark Knight was depicted as a different character than TDKR. That still doesn't change the storyteller's goal or vision though, no matter what we as fans think. Things change and get retconned all the time. Few written characters remain consistent, even by the same exact creative teams of writers. Anything can change at the drop of a hat. When a character is a fictional fabrication created by hundreds of different talents there's bound to be variations.

Just because things can get retconned - as in someone physically ignoring them by releasing a film - doesn't mean they can't get critiqued for being retconned. You're really saying that Nolan can just ignore anything that he established in the previous films in a film he promoted as "the epic ending to this epic three-act trilogy"? I'm not talking working around the story. It's not retconning if your audience doesn't know you changed the "plan".

For me personally, when it comes to "Golden Age Batman", "Earth 69 Batman", "52 Batman", "Elseworlds" etc. I view continuity and canon as a joke. They're all "elseworlds" as far as I'm concerned. All of them. There's even inconsistencies within any given type.

There is still even inconsistencies within any given type, but the basics of the character in a particular universe remain intact. It is only when a writer leaves a particular universe when you start to see the basics get ignored (which, once again, is fine).

I'm not really sure what we're arguing here, we both agree, I just think it's useless to boil it down to "well, this is mainstream" or a particular version. Every intepretation is pulled from some melting pot of Batman, therefor it can't be "wrong". As far as Keaton Batman is concerned what he does or doesn't do isn't wrong or right. Same for Schumacher, same for Nolan. It's a film with standards on it's own terms, not what other mediums might dictate.

I never said Keaton's Batman can't kill because "mainstream comic book Batman" doesn't. I said that I don't like the fact that he kills. Burton's whole take on Batman from the beginning was never my cup of tea. If it is yours, that's fine. But I never stated that my cup of tea is the law.

 

[Human Torch]

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.

Exactly.There has been nothing to stop them from reversing the no kill rule for 35/40 years.If it was such a good idea,why didn't they?Because it's integral to the character.

 

[Human Torch]

Never forget Robin John Blake.

Never....

I'm sure we won't.

No matter how hard we try.

 

[Shikamaru]

Wow this thread has really gotten derailed. Should change the thread title to "Was it really necessary for Batman to kill in either the Burton, Schumacher, or Nolan Batfilms?"


With that said I'm enjoying this debate.

I think that was inevitable. One simply doesn't bring up the idea of continuing a franchise in which Batman kills without stirring up a whole debate on that topic. That's not to say Goshdarn Batman is a troll or anything; just that is is inevitable.

 

[milost]

No, you didn't Shika, no worries. My comments were directed at Human Torch's "wrong" posts. When you quoted me I just sort of assumed you naturally agreed with everything he stated.

As for Nolan, what can we do? He made his TDKR the way he wanted to. Like you, I don't agree with it, I think he bastardized a lot of the ground he laid. Are those choices inherently "wrong" though? I don't know. A lot of times I sort of have to step back and realize that these are merely writers telling a story. As the story teller, they can do what they want. Sure, they aren't beyond critique, everyone knows how I feel about TDKR, but what are you going to do. It happened. It's just one story written by three guys who are shepards of a larger character. Even the best Batman stories could have any number of fallicies if you look for them.

 

[Human Torch]

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

Because most people are astute enough to see the difference between bombing hapless goons,and accidentally knocking a guy trying to shoot a kid over the edge.

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)

Why hasn't Batman killed Joker yet?"The Rule"
I think the only person Bat's would kill is the person who murdered his parents.By making Joker that guy you've turned one of the best adversarial relationships in comics into a 2D revenge plot.

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

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

 

[shauner111]

I dont know how leaving Ras on a train to die can be considered "cold blooded murder". He didnt put Ras on that train, Ras Al Ghul did. He didnt save him, he left him to die by his own hand. Ill never see that as murder. Ras killed Ras.

Two-Face , yes he killed him, but that wasn't the intention. It wasn't murder with intent. It was to save a boy.

Talia, we dont know if her death or the drivers was intentional or just a way to stop the truck. I dont think he intended on killing them. But if he did, that would be the one time he truly broke his one rule. And in this case, it was reasonable (like with Superman killing Zod to save a family + billions on earth). He killed to save Gotham as a whole.

Burton's Batman was simply a killer. And that's OK because it was based off of the 1939 Batman.

 

[Travesty]

He totally killed Ra's. He planned the entire thing out, with the derailing and knowing that the train won't stop. Plus, he admits to killing Ra's in TDKR, so there's even confirmation on it.

 

[milost]

Because most people are astute enough to see the difference between bombing hapless goons,and accidentally knocking a guy trying to shoot a kid over the edge.

His rule was that he didn't kill, period. Seperating himself from his enemies, compassion and all that remember?

"I have one rule.", "No guns, no killing" I think it was wasn't it? Not, "I don't kill, unless the villains force my hand, then I do". None of the films even deal with this notion, especially when the Joker, the villain of the piece, ended up being right. "Killing is making a choice", well Batman certainly chose, not just with Dent but in all the films.

A couple of posts back Joker made the point that Batman had several options available at his disposal for the Axis Chemicals situation. Well, that's true of every Batman. In Begins, he could have been the noble and compassionate hero and try to save his former mentor, but he didn't. Your "right" Batman would have saved him. Dent? He could have done anything. Batman can appear and disappear at will, he's a friggin' ninja. But what does he do? He attacks Dent instead of simply disarming him. Would have been the perfect time for a classic shurickan Batarang in pistol situation. But no, like in 1988, the writers decided to go a different route and make it more dramatic.

Why hasn't Batman killed Joker yet?"The Rule"
I think the only person Bat's would kill is the person who murdered his parents.By making Joker that guy you've turned one of the best adversarial relationships in comics into a 2D revenge plot.

Except it wasn't a revenge plot when Batman was foiling the Joker's plans and fighting his men before the third act. Before he ever knew who killed his parents. So no, not revenge. Same thing with the "coldblooded killer" hyperbole. First two hours of the film, Batman is shown subduing, not killing his enemies. He even goes as far saving some of them from certain death.

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

I guess you haven't seen those videos where cops open fire for the simplest reasons.

Besides, not only is Batman fictional, he's a vigilante. No matter what he does his very nature is against the law and nothing like what a cop does. A cop can't beat someone to a pulp and put them in the hospital, making them eat threw a straw, like Batman can. They face real consequences.

 

[Goshdarn Batman]

I dont know how leaving Ras on a train to die can be considered "cold blooded murder". He didnt put Ras on that train, Ras Al Ghul did. He didnt save him, he left him to die by his own hand. Ill never see that as murder. Ras killed Ras.

In the deleted scene, Batman actually chops of Ra's' arm. And the hand is still holding on to Ra's' sword. Batman grabs the decapitated arm, and this happens:

Batman: "I'm not going to kill you. You're going to commit suicide!"

And then he chops off Ra's' head with his own arm. Sick...

 

[shauner111]

He totally killed Ra's. He planned the entire thing out, with the derailing and knowing that the train won't stop. Plus, he admits to killing Ra's in TDKR, so there's even confirmation on it.

He doesn't admit to ****. He just ignores what she says because there's no changing her mind, she believes what she believes.

 

[milost]

He totally killed Ra's. He planned the entire thing out, with the derailing and knowing that the train won't stop. Plus, he admits to killing Ra's in TDKR, so there's even confirmation on it.

Yup, doesn't matter what anyone thinks. Batman killed Ra's. The writers confirmed that they messed up and that theirs did kill. That he snapped his rules in half. Then in TDKR, Batman confirms that he killed Ra's because "he was trying to kill millions of innocent people". He justified it right then and there.

Anyone that doesn't think Batman's exchange with Ra's isn't cold or harsh is fooling themselves, especially when the writers and character himself confirms it. The "right", heroic, Batman, the character we know an love would have saved him. BTAS, O'Neil, current you name it. Batman could have been the better man and lent out his hand. He didn't. Ra's died in a fall/explosion caused by Batman. Predetermined. Even if Ra's wanted to, he couldn't get off that train. Batman ordered Gordon to blow the supports before he even grappled to the monorail. Was he going to stop it? Sure, but how could Ra's have known? He didn't. "Who said anything about stopping it." Ohhhhh you sadistic Batman you. Ra's never had a chance.

Batman's ethics and codes in the Nolan films are wishy washy at best. That's why you have paradoies from College Humor depicting a Batman that doesn't understand what killing (or using guns for that matter) means.

 

[milost]

He doesn't admit to ****. He just ignores what she says because there's no changing her mind, she believes what she believes.

Sounds familiar.

 

[Travesty]

 

[shauner111]

Funny, because i thought it sounded like you guys too!

 

[Travesty]

 

[milost]

Funny, because i thought it sounded like you guys too!

We're Batman, you're Talia. Called it.