What if Tim Burton Continued with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin

[GothamAlleys]

I'm sorry for offending you. Didnt mean to. Your blog is really nice.

I appreciate it

No I didnt feel sorry for Ledgers Joker just like I dont pity comic book Joker. He was one evil dude who got his rocks off on chaos. I cared about him as a bad ass villain the way Nolan wanted the audience to care about him. The way you do care about villains like that. I cared about him cos he presented the ultimate challenge to Batman. I cared about him cos he was so cool and entertaining like the Joker should be.

My point is that villains are usually the most liked. Darth Vader, even before his story was known, Joker, Terminator, Hannibal Lecter, Freddy Krueger. We didnt have to feel for them, they were just, simply put, "badass", and so was Burton's Batman. The guy was constantly backing up into shadows and almost whispering, he was nonexistent in real life, spending time sitting alone in the dark and sometimes sleeping upside down - that for me makes him a very interesting and cool character

I dont care if it was like the omics or not, I cared that it was cool

 

[El Payaso]

Nail on the head. He has a license to kill. He does what he is paid to do and legally authorized to do, and only does when necessary.

"Necessary" defined as "when he considers it's necessary." Which can be applied to Burton's Batman.

And God, legality is your standard to care about a character.

Killing? if it's legal then it's interesting. If it's not then I could care but I should not.

Spot on. Nolan goofed there. But at least no one did actually die. At least he had Alfred chew Bruce's ass out about it too about bein reckless. The immoral nature of Keatons Batman is totally ignored.

Now your standard is morality. Yes, you can endanger citizens' lives but as loing as someone else scolds him afterwards. What you're not considering is that Batman still put lives in danger no matter what someone else told him afterwards. Still an immoral thing to do, and making him therefore an uninteresting character we shouldn't care for.

Now at least Burton's Batman didn't endanger innocent people's lives as Nolan's did.

And if I'm not mistaken, no one scolded Batman after he blew up those cars (one of them had those 2 kids).

And revenge is wrong.

According to who exactly? Is any religion another kind of standard to tell us what character should we care or not for?

No Batman is killing people when he doesnt need to. He wants to. If it was a case of blowing up Axis when there was no other option left to stop them or setting that devil guy on fire cos he had no other choice in order to stop him or save someone then you could see why he did it.

And there was no choice. Axis's chemicals were killing people. It had to be stopped.

Which was bogus. Jim Gordon and the law would never support a loose cannon murdering vigilante.

Like he shouldn't protect a man who put policemen's lives in danger right?

 

[Fudgie]

My point is that villains are usually the most liked. Darth Vader, even before his story was known, Joker, Terminator, Hannibal Lecter, Freddy Krueger. We didnt have to feel for them, they were just, simply put, "badass", and so was Burton's Batman. The guy was constantly backing up into shadows and almost whispering, he was nonexistent in real life, spending time sitting alone in the dark and sometimes sleeping upside down - that for me makes him a very interesting and cool character

I dont care if it was like the omics or not, I cared that it was cool

I understand your point but I feel I should be caring about Batman cos he suffered a terrible loss and wants to deal with that pain by making sure nobody else ever suffers the pain and loss he did. He goes out and saves lives, he doesnt take them. Sometimes a situation pops up where hes gotta kill someone when theres no other way to stop a big threat or save someones life. I can dig those situations. Hes making a hard but necessary choice. Your point about the villains bein loved is what I said when you asked me about the Joker. We like them cos theyre being villains. Badass villains. They are what they are. We dont expect them to be anything else.

 

[GothamAlleys]

I feel for this Batman naturally because I see that hes psycho, but hes psycho because of the great tragedy that happened to him. Its the same way how I suddenly felt sorry for Joker in The Killing Joke after seeing what happened to him and what pushed him over the edge. So while Joker and Keaton's Batman are both psychos and their mental state is under serious question, seeing the cause of that make the characters tragic and make me feel for Batman since hes not killing innocent people but criminals instead.

My point with Joker was more so about the fact that we dont have to care or feel or love the characters and they dont have to be good, that its their presence, look and persona that makes them cool characters

 

[Fudgie]

"Necessary" defined as "when he considers it's necessary." Which can be applied to Burton's Batman.

Yeah. Like when someone is shooting at him or pulls a gun on him. Bond isnt Batman. He cant disappear into the shadows or fly into the sky or disarm with batarangs or wear bulletproof armor.

And God, legality is your standard to care about a character.

Killing? if it's legal then it's interesting. If it's not then I could care but I should not.

Yeah legality is an issue. Bond is licensed to kill. He does it under the orders of her majestys government. Batman going out and taking the law into his hands for fighting crime is one thing but when he starts playing god and killing people when it suits him and not when he has to thats wrong all the way. Hes no better than a criminal who pulls a trigger on someone just cos they can.

Now your standard is morality.

Now, before, and always.

Yes, you can endanger citizens' lives but as loing as someone else scolds him afterwards.

Stop bein silly. You know what I meant. I said Batman was wrong in Begins to do what he did in that Cop chase but at least is bad actions were addressed in the movie by Alfred who pulled him up on it. Its not even an issue in Burtons movies which is even worse.

What you're not considering is that Batman still put lives in danger no matter what someone else told him afterwards. Still an immoral thing to do, and making him therefore an uninteresting character we shouldn't care for.

No cos in this case although his actions were wrong he was racing against a clock to save Rachels life before the scarecrow toxin killed her. The Cops were trying to stop him. He was wrong to be so wreckless with them but from his perspective he really had no other way to save her and shake them off his tail. I can see it from his perspective but I dont condone it. He made a foolish error in the name of trying to save a life. Keaton Batman kills people not because of the urgency to save someone or cos he has no other choice. He just does it cos he can.

Now at least Burton's Batman didn't endanger innocent people's lives as Nolan's did.

He gets no points for that. Human life is human life, criminal or innocent. Batman has no right to play god with people's lives.

And if I'm not mistaken, no one scolded Batman after he blew up those cars (one of them had those 2 kids).

No. That was a goof. But at least no one died again. But he could have looked in those cars before he blew them up. Nothin to contradict that he didnt.

According to who exactly?

Common sense. Revenge is always wrong. An eye for an eye and all of that. Spider-Man 3 sent that message out. The movie sucked ass but the moral message was correct when Aunt May said revenge is wrong and like a poison.

And there was no choice. Axis's chemicals were killing people. It had to be stopped.

No it didnt cos Batman already stopped it by the time blew it up. Jokers poison code in the products was broken by Batman earlier. He gave the information to Vicki for the press. Why was he goin to blow it up later? Someone else here said he shoulda just called the cops and have them raid the place and shut it down. He didnt have to blow it up and kill all those men.

Like he shouldn't protect a man who put policemen's lives in danger right?

Yeah thats the same as killing loads of people. At least Bale Batman was doin it to save someone who's life was in the balance and the Cops were an obstacle stopping him from saving her. Nobody died either. They were the saving graces for him. If he actually killed people and did all that just to escape then Gordon shouldnt support him.

 

[Ponyboy]

Just one more thing I wanna add, did you care for Ledger's Joker, did you feel sorry for him? I didnt. Yet its one of the most badass characters out there. Same goes for Keaton's Batman

I on the other hand did feel sorry for Keaton's Batman (unless all you meant was that Keaton was a badass character)... He was a man in pain. That's why I feel nothing (and generally dislike) for Bale's version of the character. I don't feel for him in any way... I don't think he's getting the performance across very well. Just me, i guess...

 

[GothamAlleys]

I did feel for him, but in BR. I connected with him in BR completely, but in B89 he was just this awesome shadowy character for me

 

[The Joker]

Thats all good, I just got an impression like if closet haters are coming out, but Im happy to see that youre not one of them. It just sounded pretty harsh, but if youre saying that its just friendly criticism, Im relieved

Gosh no, mate, like I said I love the Burton Batman movies. Always have, always will.

Batman Returns was the actually the movie that got me into Batman. Summer of '92. I was 12 years old. Then BTAS came out like two months later, and the rest is history.

Of course with Burton;s movies we're always gonna differ a lot because I like his Gothic, vampire-ish portrayal of Batman while you pretty much flat out dislike it. As I said, I like to have both, what Burton did presenting Batman as phantom, and what and Nolan did. Schumacher's take with Kilmer was decent, but I would much prefer him continuing with Keaton and Burton's dracula Batman. That would also eliminate the Robin character (I could enever imagine Robin fitting in Burton;s movies or Burton's Batman ever agreeing on having a teenage boy as a sidekick or anyone for that matter)

Wasn't Robin originally supposed to be in Batman Returns? A black version of the character, too, I heard?

Either way, Im glad I misinterpreted the recent criticism

No worries, mate. And to show a gesture of good will towards you, I'm going to first show you my Batman collection which proudly features blu-ray versions of Batman and Batman Returns (Ignore that Batman and Robin abomination in there. It was a necessary evil because it was part of the blu-ray Anthology box set)

And second, I'm going to add you to my buddy list.

 

[GothamAlleys]

Ah, was I wrong towards you. Kudos

As for Robin in BR, it only popped out in preproduction, even before the script or story was written and nobody was hot on the idea. And again, I dont think Robin is a character that can translate into movies. Its a kid after all in blu and green costume and with maks that covers only his eyes. And again, its a kid.

 

[Spoonman]

Great collection! and damn just seeing the Arkham Asylum case there made me anxious for Arkham City later this year!

 

[Ponyboy]

Batman & Robin is worth having... break it out when your mates are over and have a good laugh

 

[The Joker]

As for Robin in BR, it only popped out in preproduction, even before the script or story was written and nobody was hot on the idea. And again, I dont think Robin is a character that can translate into movies. Its a kid after all in blu and green costume and with maks that covers only his eyes. And again, its a kid.

Not that I'm champing for Robin to be in the movies, but Batman in the comics goes around in gray spandex with blue undies on the outside. If they can update that into the movies to something you can take seriously, then they can do something with Robin's costume, too.

As for his small mask, well if Clark Kent can get away with a pair of glasses and a combed hair style hiding his identity, then I think Robin can be given some lee way, too.

Great collection! and damn just seeing the Arkham Asylum case there made me anxious for Arkham City later this year!

Thanks man. Yeah, Arkham City seems like a million miles away! Can't come fast enough.

Batman & Robin is worth having... break it out when your mates are over and have a good laugh

LOL, actually I do intend to watch it drunk with a few friends one evening, and just laugh our asses off at it. Maybe make a drinking game for every time Arnie says an ice pun.

We'll be hammered by the first hour t:

 

[Ponyboy]

yes! The Arnie puns are definitely laugh out loud worthy... order some pizzas and break out the beer.... It's a great watch

 

[Mister Meddle]

I read Robin was supposed to be an African American teenager (Marlon Wayans was paid for the role and he is still receiving royalty checks) that was a garage mechanic and wore a typical mechanic suit with an R on it. I also heard his real name was supposed to be Robin, not Dick Grayson.

Oh and by the way, that is one impressive collection! The only thing you're missing is Batman Gotham Knight. Recently they had it on sale for only $5 on Blu Ray at Wal Mart.

 

[The Joker]

yes! The Arnie puns are definitely laugh out loud worthy... order some pizzas and break out the beer.... It's a great watch

Sounds like a plan. But I prefer Chinese take away over Pizza

I read Robin was supposed to be an African American teenager (Marlon Wayans was paid for the role and he is still receiving royalty checks) that was a garage mechanic and wore a typical mechanic suit with an R on it. I also heard his real name was supposed to be Robin, not Dick Grayson.

Yeah, that was along the lines of what I heard as well.

Was there some reason why Burton was going to make him black I wonder? I mean he did the same thing to Harvey Dent in Batman '89.

Oh and by the way, that is one impressive collection! The only thing you're missing is Batman Gotham Knight. Recently they had it on sale for only $5 on Blu Ray at Wal Mart.

Thanks man. I'll keep an eye out for that

I wish they'd release Return of the Joker and MOTP on blu-ray.

 

[Ponyboy]

Sounds like a plan. But I prefer Chinese take away over Pizza

Chinese takeaway here is okay... I've been on a pizza kick... This bagel place (of all places) here in Welly is now offering New York style pizzas! They're amazing. They put any kiwi pizza to shame, shame, shame.

 

[returntovoid]

Well the ending of Batman makes him out to be a hero to the public. With the batsignal and his letter and the whole city lovin him. They wouldnt do that for a psycho.

I think what he meant was that the dark Batman is an anti-hero.

He's not your typical hero, he's the opposite of Superman or Spiderman.

 

[El Payaso]

Yeah. Like when someone is shooting at him or pulls a gun on him. Bond isnt Batman. He cant disappear into the shadows or fly into the sky or disarm with batarangs or wear bulletproof armor.

No, Bond can't fly nor he has gadgets and vehicles to beat his opponents like Batman does, what was I thinking about?

Yeah legality is an issue.

Man, I have to keep aware of legal reforms so I can know what movies I should and should not like.

Bond is licensed to kill. He does it under the orders of her majestys government. Batman going out and taking the law into his hands for fighting crime is one thing but when he starts playing god and killing people when it suits him and not when he has to thats wrong all the way.

So you don't mean that it's wrong for Batman to play God, you mean it's wrong for Batman to play Her Majesty the Queen!

And again, when criminalks are mass-poisoning people, yes that's the time when he had to kill or it means innocent people's necks.

Hes no better than a criminal who pulls a trigger on someone just cos they can.

Except for the obvious reason that this cliche doesn't point out that the criminals Batman kills kill innocent people. Dead criminals don't kill anymore.

Now, before, and always.

Then what are you doing commenting movies? Narrations and stories can go beyond moral standards, and quite foten they do.

Stop bein silly. You know what I meant. I said Batman was wrong in Begins to do what he did in that Cop chase but at least is bad actions were addressed in the movie by Alfred who pulled him up on it. Its not even an issue in Burtons movies which is even worse.

Viucky told Batman he was considered as crazy as the Joker. Wonder why she said that.

But no, thanks God Burton didn't feel like being the audience's daddy teaching us good manners and morals.

No cos in this case although his actions were wrong he was racing against a clock to save Rachels life before the scarecrow toxin killed her. The Cops were trying to stop him. He was wrong to be so wreckless with them but from his perspective he really had no other way to save her and shake them off his tail. I can see it from his perspective but I dont condone it. He made a foolish error in the name of trying to save a life. Keaton Batman kills people not because of the urgency to save someone or cos he has no other choice. He just does it cos he can.

Bale's morals were: it's worth the while to endanger 30 cops as long as I save my girl's life.

And yes, Keaton has killed in order to save innocent people's lives.

He gets no points for that. Human life is human life, criminal or innocent. Batman has no right to play god with people's lives.

Again nor does Bale while blowing up Ra's house (which caused his death) or when he decided it was cool to let the real Ra's die. He could have saved himk but he smiled and just threw a smartypants remark about how he wasn't going to. Was that some valuable moral standard?

No. That was a goof. But at least no one died again. But he could have looked in those cars before he blew them up. Nothin to contradict that he didnt.

Except the fact that he didn't.

And well, something tells me that he did know there were cops in those police cars.

Common sense. Revenge is always wrong. An eye for an eye and all of that. Spider-Man 3 sent that message out. The movie sucked ass but the moral message was correct when Aunt May said revenge is wrong and like a poison.

Wait a second, that can't be true. A movie with high moral messages that was terrible? So could that mean that morality is far from being a standard of movie quality? So now how are we going to know what movie we should like?

No it didnt cos Batman already stopped it by the time blew it up. Jokers poison code in the products was broken by Batman earlier. He gave the information to Vicki for the press. Why was he goin to blow it up later? Someone else here said he shoulda just called the cops and have them raid the place and shut it down. He didnt have to blow it up and kill all those men.

Apparently Batman thought that if they could produce their own toxins they were a danger to the whole city. You know, like in that parade thing.

Because when you combine toxins, even when Batman can break the code, new combinations can be made.

Yeah thats the same as killing loads of people. At least Bale Batman was doin it to save someone who's life was in the balance and the Cops were an obstacle stopping him from saving her. Nobody died either. They were the saving graces for him. If he actually killed people and did all that just to escape then Gordon shouldnt support him.

How about Batman telling the cops to take her to the hospital? Even better, how about if he knows there's some fear gas out there he carries the antidote with him? Little tips to make Batman a more coherent superhero.

 

[Fudgie]

No, Bond can't fly nor he has gadgets and vehicles to beat his opponents like Batman does, what was I thinking about?

Good you finally get that Bond doesnt a utility belt of gadgets at their disposal. Or a flying cape that he wears all the time or trained in expert fighting moves and stealth.

Man, I have to keep aware of legal reforms so I can know what movies I should and should not like.

The funny thing is that you think I'm dictating to you what you should like. If you like your Batman as a soulless killer then thats your choice. I dont like it. Thats not who Batman is.

So you don't mean that it's wrong for Batman to play God, you mean it's wrong for Batman to play Her Majesty the Queen!

Why cant you respond with anything better than stupid sarcasm? Its like youre trying to provoke me or something. I promise ya it wont work. James Bond, like the Police, is legally enforced to by the law to carry fire arms and kill. Hes not a rogue vigilante who ignores society's laws and goes out and does what ever he likes, like killing criminals just cos he wants to.

And again, when criminalks are mass-poisoning people, yes that's the time when he had to kill or it means innocent people's necks.

No. None of his kills saved anyone from being poisoned. He already cracked the poison code. The scheme was foiled. He had no reason to go and blow up Axis. He just did it cos he just found out Joker killed his parents.

Except for the obvious reason that this cliche doesn't point out that the criminals Batman kills kill innocent people. Dead criminals don't kill anymore.

Its not Batmans place either morally or legally to kill criminals just cos he thinks they deserve it.

There's a lot of reasons why Batman won't kill people.

* It's not his place to kill people. It's for the legal system to determine the severity of punishment for the criminals.

And where would it end? If he kills a killer or rapist, why not remove/kill the corrupt politicians? The double dealing police officers? He's a genius, why not implement his own ideas for society in all aspects of every day life. Pretty soon he'd become a tyrant if he started off on that road.

Also if a masked vigilante showed up and started killing people the police would be forced to hunt him down and arrest him. If a masked vigilante captures crooks for the police to throw in jail then there is the possibility of vigilante and law enforcement working together, which is how Batman really works, and why Jim Gordon supports him in the comics. Burtons Jim Gordon is a fat useless idiot whos good for nothing but turning on the batsignal.

* Not killing is the paradigm behind Bruce's entrie world view. He essentially became the man he is today the night his parent's died, and he doesn't like the creature that he's become. His stance on not killing is to prevent the creation of people like him.

* Batman's wont kill so that no child loses their parents to violence like he did. I believe this applies to criminal's kids too. Batman would never to to someone what Joe Chill did to him, regardless of how rotten the criminal in question is.

* Finally it would simply be too easy. If Batman were ever to cross that line it would be easier to cross it the next time. He doesn't want to go down the slippery slope which would end with him killing every criminal. You know what they say, it gets easier after the first kill.

Then what are you doing commenting movies? Narrations and stories can go beyond moral standards, and quite foten they do.

That depends on the context of the stories you're talkin about. Every story and set of characters is different. You cant lump them all together.

Viucky told Batman he was considered as crazy as the Joker. Wonder why she said that.

Because he goes around dressed up like a bat? She did say 'Lets face it you're not exactly normal are you'.

But no, thanks God Burton didn't feel like being the audience's daddy teaching us good manners and morals.

Hes not interested enough in Batman to do that. He only cares about the villains.

Bale's morals were: it's worth the while to endanger 30 cops as long as I save my girl's life.

No his moral was be a bit wreckless in order to save a life. At least it was recognized in the movie too that what he did was wrong. Burtons movies make it look like its ok for Batman to go around killing people. As if any city or law enforcement would tolerate a vigilante like that.

And yes, Keaton has killed in order to save innocent people's lives.

No he didnt. Whos life did he save when he killed all those criminals?

Again nor does Bale while blowing up Ra's house (which caused his death) or when he decided it was cool to let the real Ra's die. He could have saved himk but he smiled and just threw a smartypants remark about how he wasn't going to. Was that some valuable moral standard?

That isn't in any way true, there is noone visibly left behind, he saves the only person incapable of saving themself in Ras house. He didnt kill Ras either. Ras was on a suicide mission. He smashed the brakes. He was gonna ram the train into the W.E. building so he could cause the chain reaction for the toxin all across Gotham. Batman didnt place him in that situation. Batman didnt chain him to the train. Batman didnt kill him.

If you chose to jump out in front of a speedin car, and I could push you out of the way but I choose not to that don't mean I killed you. If you dont send money to the starvin people in third world countries does that mean youre murdering them?

Except the fact that he didn't.

Prove it if its a fact.

And well, something tells me that he did know there were cops in those police cars.

What police cars?

Wait a second, that can't be true. A movie with high moral messages that was terrible? So could that mean that morality is far from being a standard of movie quality? So now how are we going to know what movie we should like?

It is true. Spider-Man 3 didnt suck cos of the morality of the themes. It sucked cos of too many characters and rushed plots and cheesy dancing.

If you know Batman then you know he doesnt seek revenge. He didnt seek revenge on Joker when he crippled Barbara, killed Jason, or murdered Jim Gordons wife. Neither did Jim Gordon. Thats cos theyre both moral and decent men who know revenge is wrong.

Apparently Batman thought that if they could produce their own toxins they were a danger to the whole city. You know, like in that parade thing.

Because when you combine toxins, even when Batman can break the code, new combinations can be made.

So Batman thought that the only way to shut down that chemical plant was to blow the whole thing up with all the men inside? He couldnt have gone in there and kicked butt and left them for the Cops? He couldnt have tipped off the Cops to raid the place and shut it down? You think his only option was to blow it up? Yeah right.

How about Batman telling the cops to take her to the hospital? Even better, how about if he knows there's some fear gas out there he carries the antidote with him? Little tips to make Batman a more coherent superhero.

Yeah stupid Batman for not be psychic and predicting he was gonna have a fear gas victim on his hands when he went to scope out Arkham. Fear gas doesnt kill ya. Rachel was given a concentrated dose to finish her off. It was a special case. How could he just walk up to the Cops and hand her over when timing was so critical? He had to get her to the cave and give her the antidote immediately. Also he had no antidote when he went out to Arkham. He had just asked Lucius to make him some more. When he got back to the Cave that night with Rachel there was some waiting for him with a little note from Alfred. It obviously arrived while he was out.

 

[Saint]

Batman is not a hero. Its a psycho whose disturbed and driven by pain.

False dilemma; Batman's a lot of different things--sometimes contradictory things--including a hero. That's comics: they are a mosaic, and the character is a mosaic.

Truth be told, he's been portrayed as a hero more consistently than anything else, really, though whether you value the more common interpretation of the character is, of course, up to you. I don't consider the original version of the character to be inherently more legitimate or more valuable than those that have come since.

 

[Spoonman]

Good you finally get that Bond doesnt a utility belt of gadgets at their disposal. Or a flying cape that he wears all the time or trained in expert fighting moves and stealth.

Whaa? Bond (as Ian Fleming wrote him) is an expert on stealth and combat. He may not know the martial arts from all continents or whatever like Bats but he is way above the avarage guy, dude would counter your moves and snap your neck while he is at it.

 

[returntovoid]

Thats not who Batman is.

Originally, that's who Batman stated out as in 1939 but his character later evolved. At the end of Batman Returns, Batman all of a sudden refuses to kill Max Shrek because Burton although he portrayed the killer Batman, he was trying to evolve the character of Batman at the end of Returns. I'm sure Burton would've fleshed this out if only WB let him direct the third film. Also, Penguin got killed because he was too stubborn to accept defeat, he pushed it too far and acted moronic and that all got him killed.

In the first kills and scenes of Batman in Returns, Burton is visually conveying that taking revenge on Joker via killing in the last film has taken a psychological toll on him. He's consumed by his inner demons/monster, he grinned blowing up the strongman, he's feeling awful and he's more darker. Then when he meets Selina Kyle/Catwoman, he sees someone else hungry for revenge like he did before killing The Joker. After connecting with each other, understanding each other, falling in love with each other and easily reveal their identities. Then this leads to the end when he trying to convince her from taking revenge on Max Shrek to protect her from getting consumed by it like he did and he just wants her to come with him to his home because he loves her.

He just did it cos he just found out Joker killed his parents.

Joker's poison killed dozens of people in the parade although Batman using his Bat-Plane takes the giant balloon away saves the rest of dozen peoples lives while the others are still dead due to the poison, he poisoned everyone in the museum and people using cosmetic/hair products died due to the poison.

Joker would have not been able to create this poison if it were not for the Axis chemicals.

Its not Batmans place either morally or legally to kill criminals just cos he thinks they deserve it.

He doesn't kill every criminal in his way like The Punisher in the Burton films and '39 comics, he just kills some or bunch of criminals. He has a code of honor only to kill evil but he does not follow the law, work within the law and most of all, he's not morally perfect like Superman or Spiderman.

* It's not his place to kill people. It's for the legal system to determine the severity of punishment for the criminals.

In all dark renditions, Batman does not work within the law.

But sometimes the legal system just fails, just watch the films Changeling and Dirty Harry. Mostly the legal system is right but sometimes it's just wrong.

why not remove/kill the corrupt politicians? The double dealing police officers?

To be true to life, that can not be done. Sadly, it's something about the world that you can't do much about. Batman would not be dumb enough to do that regardless of whether he kills bad guys or not, he has keen intellect.

Also if a masked vigilante showed up and started killing people the police would be forced to hunt him down and arrest him.

Batman can not be caught, he has a secret identity.

He also has skills in deception, stealth and theatricality.

which is how Batman really works, and why Jim Gordon supports him in the comics.

That started in the comics around 1942 when Gordan gave Batman a police badge.

Burtons Jim Gordon is a fat useless idiot whos good for nothing but turning on the batsignal.

That was exactly what Gordan was in the original 1939-1940 Batman comics.

* Not killing is the paradigm behind Bruce's entrie world view. He essentially became the man he is today the night his parent's died, and he doesn't like the creature that he's become. His stance on not killing is to prevent the creation of people like him.

To fight evil monsters, you must become a scary monster to defeat them.

Fight fire with fire. To catch a criminal you must think like a criminal.

Originally in 1939 Batman didn't have a no-killing rule but as he matured around 1941, he refrained from it although occasionally there would times where he would be in a be killed or kill situation.

* Batman's wont kill so that no child loses their parents to violence like he did. I believe this applies to criminal's kids too. Batman would never to to someone what Joe Chill did to him, regardless of how rotten the criminal in question is.

Batman spared the petty muggers lives at the first scene of Batman 89, you act as if he killed criminals left-to-right regardless of whether they were petty or dangerous. He didn't kill that goon that ran away by getting scared and he ran away when he saw Batman disarming that asian goon with the katana's, he didn't kill that asian guy via stabbing. Yes, Burton's Batman killed but it's not fair to ignore that he at least had a code of honor just because you personally don't like this depiction.

If the murderous criminal that is also a parent died, it's the parent's fault that they become a rotten murderous criminal. As Bruce Wayne it's understood that he's a philanthropist, he donates to poor that prevents poor kids or criminals kids from becoming criminals or suffering poverty.

 

[Fudgie]

Whaa? Bond (as Ian Fleming wrote him) is an expert on stealth and combat. He may not know the martial arts from all continents or whatever like Bats but he is way above the avarage guy, dude would counter your moves and snap your neck while he is at it.

You just made my point. Hes not nearly in Batmans league. You think Bond could enter a room in the stealthy way Batman does? Batman has beaten foes one on one stronger than the likes of Jaws and Oddjob. Bond has to resort to electrocution and tactics like that to beat them. Hes no match for them in combat.

Originally, that's who Batman stated out as in 1939 but his character later evolved.

His character didnt evolve. DC stopped him from being in killer after all the complaints they got from readers in Batman #1.

At the end of Batman Returns, Batman all of a sudden refuses to kill Max Shrek because Burton although he portrayed the killer Batman, he was trying to evolve the character of Batman at the end of Returns.

Nah that was just bad writing cos Batman killed people in Returns too. He had literally just tried to squash the Penguin in his duckie with the batskiboat.

I'm sure Burton would've fleshed this out if only WB let him direct the third film.

He had the chance in Batman Returns and failed. They gave him carte blanche for that and he doubled the villain quota instead of making it a personal Batman story.

Also, Penguin got killed because he was too stubborn to accept defeat, he pushed it too far and acted moronic and that all got him killed.

So what? It wasnt for the lack of trying. He nearly squashed Penguin with his batskiboat a few minutes before. If Catwoman wasnt supernatural, and that sand truck had not been driving by when it was she'd be a red splat on the street after he punched her off the building.

In the first kills and scenes of Batman in Returns, Burton is visually conveying that taking revenge on Joker via killing in the last film has taken a psychological toll on him. He's consumed by his inner demons/monster, he grinned blowing up the strongman, he's feeling awful and he's more darker.

You making this up or some thing? Its never addressed anywhere in Returns that Batman is feeling bad about killing the Joker or anyone else. I've seen the movies. Batman's killing policy is not addressed in either of the Burton movies.

Then when he meets Selina Kyle/Catwoman, he sees someone else hungry for revenge like he did before killing The Joker. After connecting with each other, understanding each other, falling in love with each other and easily reveal their identities. Then this leads to the end when he trying to convince her from taking revenge on Max Shrek to protect her from getting consumed by it like he did and he just wants her to come with him to his home because he loves her.

I already told you that was bad writing cos it made no sense. He never told her revenge was wrong and what it does to ya. The only way he tried to appeal to her was to offer to come home with him. It wasnt about the killing. He had just tried to kill Penguin in his batskiboat.

Joker's poison killed dozens of people in the parade although Batman using his Bat-Plane takes the giant balloon away saves the rest of dozen peoples lives while the others are still dead due to the poison, he poisoned everyone in the museum and people using cosmetic/hair products died due to the poison.

Joker would have not been able to create this poison if it were not for the Axis chemicals.

So why did Batman not shut down Axis earlier in the flick when Joker first launched his poisoned product enterprise? He didnt have to blow it up neither. He could have just gone in and shut it down himself by kicking the henchmens butts and leavin them for the Cops. Or just let the Cops storm the place and shut it down. He didnt have to blow it up with all those men inside. He chose to cos he wanted revenge and is a killer.

He doesn't kill every criminal in his way like The Punisher in the Burton films and '39 comics

The Punisher in the Burton films? So you admit hes like the Punisher then?

he just kills some or bunch of criminals. He has a code of honor only to kill evil but he does not follow the law, work within the law and most of all, he's not morally perfect like Superman or Spiderman.

Oh he only kills some criminals when it suits him? How noble of him. He had no code of honor. Where was the honor in blowing up Axis when he didnt have to? Where was the honor in setting that poor bastard on fire with the Batmobile turbine when he could have just got out of the batmobile, disarmed or knocked him out with a batarang? He took out five clowns surrounding him with a batarang later in the flick, and one of them had a bazooka pointed at him. Its not like he has to kill these people. He does it just cos he wants to.

Honor, yeah right.

In all dark renditions, Batman does not work within the law

But sometimes the legal system just fails, just watch the films Changeling and Dirty Harry. Mostly the legal system is right but sometimes it's just wrong.

He bends the rules of the law to a point. But he doesnt harm people, guilty or innocent by slaughtering them. Jim Gordon would lead the man hunt to bring him down if he ever did that.

To be true to life, that can not be done. Sadly, it's something about the world that you can't do much about. Batman would not be dumb enough to do that regardless of whether he kills bad guys or not, he has keen intellect.

What do you mean true to life? You tryin to pull a realism card here, especially in the Burton Batman world?

Why couldnt Batman go around cherry pickin the officials and Cops he thinks are dirty? Give me one good reason why.

Batman can not be caught, he has a secret identity.

He also has skills in deception, stealth and theatricality.

Thats not the point I'm makin. The fact is not City or law enforcement would stand for a vigilante like that. Especially a good Cop like Jim Gordon. But in the Burton movies nobody gives a damn what he does. He can flit around blowing people up and setting them on fire in public and Gordon pats him on the back for it. Stupid as hell and a bastardization of Jim Gordon.

That started in the comics around 1942 when Gordan gave Batman a police badge.

So what? Jim Gordon in the movies supports him at the end of Batman 89 after he's killed loads of people. He stills lets him walk away in Returns after killin two members of the red triangle gang.

That was exactly what Gordan was in the original 1939-1940 Batman comics.

So what? You think cos Burton chose to portray Jim Gordon in the worst possible way cos thats how the character started out back in the beginning before the made him a real competent character thats ok? That was the best creative way to portray Jim Gordon as a useless Cop who allows a murdering vigilante to do as he pleases in his city? That Gordon is nothing more than a batsignal operator? You see why the Burton movies are such horrible representations of Batman. Its like Burton looked at Batmans comic book history and chose the weakest and worst representations of the characters.

To fight evil monsters, you must become a scary monster to defeat them.

Fight fire with fire. To catch a criminal you must think like a criminal.

He can do that without murdering them as the comics have proven many times over. If you're a Batman fan then you know that already. Batmans about striking fear through imagery and theatrics, not being a executioner.

Originally in 1939 Batman didn't have a no-killing rule but as he matured around 1941, he refrained from it although occasionally there would times where he would be in a be killed or kill situation.

I already told ya DC canned that after Batman #1 cos they got complaints from the readers about seeing Batman kill people.

Batman spared the petty muggers lives at the first scene of Batman 89, you act as if he killed criminals left-to-right regardless of whether they were petty or dangerous.

How merciful of him. He only did that so they could spread the word about him. 'I want you to tell all your friends about me'.

Yes, Burton's Batman killed but it's not fair to ignore that he at least had a code of honor just because you personally don't like this depiction.

I already told ya he has no code of honor. He doesnt kill when only necessary he kills when it suits him. Theres no honor in that. Hes playing god with peoples lives by deciding if they live or die.

If the murderous criminal that is also a parent died, it's the parent's fault that they become a rotten murderous criminal.

But its not their fault they died. The one who took their life is responsible for that.

As Bruce Wayne it's understood that he's a philanthropist, he donates to poor that prevents poor kids or criminals kids from becoming criminals or suffering poverty.

No he doesnt. Where is that shown? Bruce would never inflict on any child what Joe Chill did on him. You think throwin cash at the child is going to make up for killing their parents? Also if you start killing once then you dont stop. You cross the line then you dont come back. Its too easy to keep on killin after the first kill. Eventually hed find himself killin muggers and car jackers just cos he believes a few months in prison wont make them change their ways and theyre nothin but a stain on society.

Watch this and learn exactly why Batman wont kill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdCl3j-ZUb8

 

[El Payaso]

Good you finally get that Bond doesnt a utility belt of gadgets at their disposal. Or a flying cape that he wears all the time or trained in expert fighting moves and stealth.

Great, you don’t have a clue who James Bond is.

I’ll explain: he does have gadgets (including cars) and he is trained in fighting, very muchy like Batman. Watch the movies, they’re great.

Now that said, what does any of this have to do with Bond killing being a good thing again?

The funny thing is that you think I'm dictating to you what you should like. If you like your Batman as a soulless killer then thats your choice. I dont like it. Thats not who Batman is.

I’m just questioning this notion of measuring the quality of a movie according to the legality of the main role’s actions.

Why cant you respond with anything better than stupid sarcasm?

I hope you’re not trying to tell me how to reply. I thought you were against that.

James Bond, like the Police, is legally enforced to by the law to carry fire arms and kill. Hes not a rogue vigilante who ignores society's laws and goes out and does what ever he likes, like killing criminals just cos he wants to.

I don’t know if you’re aware of this but everything that Batman is is against the law. Law doesn’t allow people to chase criminals by themselves, specially while hiding their identities. Law doesn’t allow to have people with cars that are able to launch missiles and destroy public and private proterty as Batman does all the time.

Man, Batman concept himself is against the law.

If Bruce Wayne were so moral as you love to think he’d be a cop or a lawyer. But Bale’s or Keaton’s Bruce, he knows that’s not enough.

No. None of his kills saved anyone from being poisoned.

I’m pretty sure a lot of future victims were saved when Batman blew Axis up. And a lot more when Joker died.

He already cracked the poison code. The scheme was foiled. He had no reason to go and blow up Axis. He just did it cos he just found out Joker killed his parents.

Sure, once the code was cracked there was no chance the Joker could, for example, use the same Smilex formula to gas Gotham. Oh wait, there was!

Looks like the Joker had to be stopped at any cost. Once Axis is destroyed there’s absolutely no chance of future Smilex production, see?

And lol at the idea of blowing up Axis because he killed his parents. He wanted Joker dead because he killed his parents. Axis thing was just to stop the mass poisoning.

Its not Batmans place either morally or legally to kill criminals just cos he thinks they deserve it.

It’s not his place to chase them either. He just took that task against any law.

Put a mask on and try to tell the police that you are going to chase criminals on your own account. You’ll be in jail before those criminals.

There's a lot of reasons why Batman won't kill people.

There's a lot of reasons why Batman would.

Thing is, those reasons won’t make any movie any better or worse by themselves.

* It's not his place to kill people. It's for the legal system to determine the severity of punishment for the criminals.

And where would it end? If he kills a killer or rapist, why not remove/kill the corrupt politicians? The double dealing police officers? He's a genius, why not implement his own ideas for society in all aspects of every day life. Pretty soon he'd become a tyrant if he started off on that road.

If a corrupt politician killed Bruce’s parents that could be possible. As far as I can remember it’s not the case.

Also if a masked vigilante showed up and started killing people the police would be forced to hunt him down and arrest him.

Also if a masked vigilante showed up WITHOUT killing people the police would be forced to hunt him down and arrest him anyways. Batman is against the law no matter what.

* Not killing is the paradigm behind Bruce's entrie world view. He essentially became the man he is today the night his parent's died, and he doesn't like the creature that he's become. His stance on not killing is to prevent the creation of people like him.

If he doesn’t kill then that would make otehr people not killing? Can you elaborate in the logic of this?

* Batman's wont kill so that no child loses their parents to violence like he did. I believe this applies to criminal's kids too. Batman would never to to someone what Joe Chill did to him, regardless of how rotten the criminal in question is.

I’m sure Batman relates a lot more to sons of innocent people like he was.

Anyways no child would want his daddy to go to jail forever. But if daddy kills people dady has to face the consequences.

* Finally it would simply be too easy. If Batman were ever to cross that line it would be easier to cross it the next time. He doesn't want to go down the slippery slope which would end with him killing every criminal. You know what they say, it gets easier after the first kill.

Yes.......... so?

He finds an effective way to save people from criminals but he needs to go ‘nah, it’s too easy, I’ll stop doing it this way’?

That depends on the context of the stories you're talkin about. Every story and set of characters is different. You cant lump them all together.

Batman context: a man in a personal look for justice goes beyond the law.

That context can – and so it has been done many times - range from killing to no killing.

Because he goes around dressed up like a bat? She did say 'Lets face it you're not exactly normal are you'.

I’m sure his m.o. is a known matter also.

Hes not interested enough in Batman to do that. He only cares about the villains.

Wrong again. He cares a lot about Batman but feels that mistery around him is essential. And guess what, it worked.

But he knows Hictchcock’s words also: The better the villiain is the better the movie will be.

No his moral was be a bit wreckless in order to save a life. At least it was recognized in the movie too that what he did was wrong. Burtons movies make it look like its ok for Batman to go around killing people. As if any city or law enforcement would tolerate a vigilante like that.

Endangering the life of a dozen of policemen and destroying public and private property: “be a bit wreckless.” Only in your world.

Let’s not forget how many police cars Batman literally destroyed in such a violent way in those tunnels. “It was a miracle no one died.” More than a miracle it was some unbelievable thing the writers had to add.

No he didnt. Whos life did he save when he killed all those criminals?

Every life in Gotham City since those criminals werew about to spread toxic gas all over the city.

That isn't in any way true, there is noone visibly left behind, he saves the only person incapable of saving themself in Ras house. He didnt kill Ras either. Ras was on a suicide mission. He smashed the brakes. He was gonna ram the train into the W.E. building so he could cause the chain reaction for the toxin all across Gotham. Batman didnt place him in that situation. Batman didnt chain him to the train. Batman didnt kill him.

If you chose to jump out in front of a speedin car, and I could push you out of the way but I choose not to that don't mean I killed you. If you dont send money to the starvin people in third world countries does that mean youre murdering them?

I didn’t say he killed him, I said he’s morally responsible because he could have saved him. In fact, he saved him when he thought he was a man looking for justice. Then he changed his mind and let him die when he felt like it.

Not the same as killing but in your book his lacks of morals would make him unworthy of our interest.

Prove it if its a fact.

The children were there, Batman blew up the cars anyways. People were walking in that mall, Batman shot his guns and passed by running anyways. Cops were obviously in those police cars, Batman crushed and made the cars to crash violently all the same.

Batman doesn’t care mucyh about innocent people’s safety when it’s about chasing criminals.

What police cars?

Batman Begins’s.

It is true. Spider-Man 3 didnt suck cos of the morality of the themes. It sucked cos of too many characters and rushed plots and cheesy dancing.

My entire point: morals don’t define how good a movie is.

If you know Batman then you know he doesnt seek revenge. He didnt seek revenge on Joker when he crippled Barbara, killed Jason, or murdered Jim Gordons wife. Neither did Jim Gordon. Thats cos theyre both moral and decent men who know revenge is wrong.

I remember it was Goirdon the one who insisted in not killing him. Batman’s only reply: “I’ll do my best.”

That said, he looked for revenge in the comics. Read "Batman Year Two." It wasn't until someone else killed Joe Chill that he stopped trying to kill him with the same gun Chill used 'that night.'

So Batman thought that the only way to shut down that chemical plant was to blow the whole thing up with all the men inside? He couldnt have gone in there and kicked butt and left them for the Cops? He couldnt have tipped off the Cops to raid the place and shut it down? You think his only option was to blow it up? Yeah right.

Yeah. Absolutely right.

And I love your ideas: Batman needed to be created because Gotham’s police is way too corrupt and when he decides to stop Axis chemicals... he needs to call the police.

Not only Batman knew it was needed, he proved blowing Axis worked.

Yeah stupid Batman for not be psychic and predicting he was gonna have a fear gas victim on his hands when he went to scope out Arkham.

Pretty stupid. Have you noticed he carries an utility belt? Guess why? He knows he might face some dangers so he knows he has to be prepared. You don’t need to be a psychic to know that.

Fear gas doesnt kill ya.

Oh, so it’s okay.

Even when he was ill for three days, and he didn’t recover until Fox prepared an antidote.

Rachel was given a concentrated dose to finish her off. It was a special case. How could he just walk up to the Cops and hand her over when timing was so critical? He had to get her to the cave and give her the antidote immediately. Also he had no antidote when he went out to Arkham. He had just asked Lucius to make him some more. When he got back to the Cave that night with Rachel there was some waiting for him with a little note from Alfred. It obviously arrived while he was out.

So he didn’t even know if there was antidote or not? Then he destroyed those cars and put all those policemen’s lives in danger just in case?

And now that you mention, if the dose was a concentrated one, potentially lethal, and Crane explained that aloud and Batman knew about it... a) how is that Batman gassed Crane with a potenmtially lethal gas? And b) How is that Crance got the same dose Rachel did and no one gave him the antidote and yet he didn’t die?

 

[Spoonman]

Fudgie, you shouldnt base Bond abbilities on frigging Roger Moore....please, if you are not bothered to know the literary character at least watch the Craig (and to a lesser extent) and Dalton movies. Bond is not some lucky guy with gadgets, he's been extensively trained way beyond using guns and stuff, that fella is a ruthless killing machine, you need way beyond attitude and luck for that letme tell ya.