Comics Why Does Frank Miller Hate Superman?

[theMan-Bat]

Thats your right.


Thats one way of seeing it.Or maybe he wasnt willing to let a Hero get killed.

And maybe it's also proof that he's against killing.

Actully you just proved my point.

Remember I said he was confertable with the idea of killing those cops.

And your scans just proved that.

There's no way one of those cops could have survived that hit if they didnt get out in time.

And there's no was that Batman could have 100% known that they would all get out safely.

It was a very real possibility that one of them "COULD" have gotten left in that car and if so he would have been killed.

And Batman would be the killer.

They are running from their cars before he crashes into them.
I don't believe he was trying to kill them.
I believe his intent was to demobilize them, strike terror into their hearts. Injure, make them suffer, sure, but not kill.

How do ether of those apply to the topic being spoken about???I dont see your point.

I still dont see what Batman laughing has to do with anything.

It has to do with Batman laughing in All-Star Batman & Robin which Superman keeps referring to in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

About the only thing your proving is that Frank likes to keep a common theme in his Batman stories.

Boy what a shock

None of this is proof that both stories are told in the same universe.

Again, you might need it officially stated in Countdown before you believe that Miller's All-Star Batman & Robin is connected to Miller's Year One and Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, but it's clear to me that they are. If you don't see it that way than that's fine. To each his own.

 

[ironman29758]

the reason we put batman laughing in Batman Year One and Dark Knight Returns and the whole "of course we're criminals, we have to be criminals in there." in Dark Knight Strikes Again and Dark Knight Returns because It was those little fact that show the Frank Miller Batman Universe is connected. plus this Batman reminds me of the early batman stories except he doesn't kill. Batman showed he hated Green Lantern and he was shown saving his life and what about ASBR issue 7 and 8. It showed he really hurt the criminals but not killing it. (Putting Jocko Boy on drugs and throwing in the water.)

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

And maybe it's also proof that he's against killing.

Which wouldnt be very consistent with his treatment of those cops in the car.

They are running from their cars before he crashes into them.

That proves nothing.

If one of them had gotten stuck Batman wouldnt have been able to stop in time.

And theres a real possibility that one of them could have tripped while running and gotten hit by some flying mettle from the wreck.

Batman didnt seem to care about those possibilities, which translates that he is willing to be responsible for killing some one.

Which is not consistent with Batman in ether Year 1 or the Dark Knight Returns.

I don't believe he was trying to kill them.

I didnt say "Trying to kill them" I said he was confertable With the idea of them dieing because of his actions.

And your scans from the book helped prove that.

Thank You

I believe his intent was to demobilize them, strike terror into their hearts. Injure, make them suffer, sure, but not kill.

One of the first things they teach you in criminal law is that " intent follows the bullet".

It doesnt matter if Batman was trying to scare the cops or play a practical joke.

Its foreseeable that someone could die from such an action as purposely dropping a "TANK" like car on top of an other.

If any one were killed as a result of Batmans actions then Batman would be the killer.

This is something that Batman would be fully aware of before he took that action and he still went threw with it.

That shows that "All Star Batman" is willing to kill.No matter what they want to try an inject afterwards.

It has to do with Batman laughing in All-Star Batman & Robin which Superman keeps referring to in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

So you brought it up to just point out a simulairty in both stories????

Again, you might need it officially stated in Countdown before you believe that Miller's All-Star Batman & Robin is connected to Miller's Year One and Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, but it's clear to me that they are. If you don't see it that way than that's fine. To each his own.

I do need an offical statement to believe they are the same universe.

Whats obvious is that Frank wants them to be connect and he's writting it as such.

But what a writters wants is not always a fact.

There are plenty of similarities but there are more then a few differences as well.

Till they say officially that they are connected, to me they will be separate universes that share similar roots.

the reason we put batman laughing in Batman Year One and Dark Knight Returns and the whole "of course we're criminals, we have to be criminals in there." in Dark Knight Strikes Again and Dark Knight Returns because It was those little fact that show the Frank Miller Batman Universe is connected. plus this Batman reminds me of the early batman stories except he doesn't kill. Batman showed he hated Green Lantern and he was shown saving his life and what about ASBR issue 7 and 8. It showed he really hurt the criminals but not killing it. (Putting Jocko Boy on drugs and throwing in the water.)

The problem here is taking those examples and calling them "FACTS" of them being the same universe.

They are not facts of anything other then it proving that both universes share a common history.

Thats all they are.

They are simlar points in history.

They dont ammount to much more then that.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Which wouldnt be very consistent with his treatment of those cops in the car.

That proves nothing.

If one of them had gotten stuck Batman wouldnt have been able to stop in time.

And theres a real possibility that one of them could have tripped while running and gotten hit by some flying mettle from the wreck.

Batman didnt seem to care about those possibilities, which translates that he is willing to be responsible for killing some one.

Which is not consistent with Batman in ether Year 1 or the Dark Knight Returns.

I didnt say "Trying to kill them" I said he was confertable With the idea of them dieing because of his actions.

And your scans from the book helped prove that.

Thank You

One of the first things they teach you in criminal law is that " intent follows the bullet".

It doesnt matter if Batman was trying to scare the cops or play a practical joke.

Its foreseeable that someone could die from such an action as purposely dropping a "TANK" like car on top of an other.

If any one were killed as a result of Batmans actions then Batman would be the killer.

This is something that Batman would be fully aware of before he took that action and he still went threw with it.

That shows that "All Star Batman" is willing to kill.No matter what they want to try an inject afterwards.

In Batman: The Dark Knight Returns a man with a broken leg crashes into a window because he's trying to escape from Batman.
He's now dieing from a piece of glass shoved into a major artery in his arm.
Batman seems comfortable with the idea of him dieing because of his actions.
Batman smiles and watches.

And in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns its foreseeable that someone could die from Batman purposely rigging the Joker's dead body.

And throwing explosives at police officers. Someone could have died.

Electrocuting someone. That could have killed him.

Rapping Batrope around someones neck and pulling it. That could have killed him.

Also in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Batman shoots a kidnapper with a gun.
The kidnapper could have been killed.
Which translates that he is willing to be responsible for killing someone.

That shows that "Dark Knight Returns Batman" is willing to kill. No matter what they want to try an inject afterwords.

So you brought it up to just point out a simulairty in both stories????

You spelled similarity wrong.

I do need an offical statement to believe they are the same universe.

Obviously.

Whats obvious is that Frank wants them to be connect and he's writting it as such.

Exactly.

But what a writters wants is not always a fact.

There are plenty of similarities but there are more then a few differences as well.

Till they say officially that they are connected, to me they will be separate universes that share similar roots.

And as I said, if you don't see it that way that's fine. To each his own.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

In Batman: The Dark Knight Returns a man with a broken leg crashes into a window because he's trying to escape from Batman. He's now dieing from a piece of glass shoved into a major artery in his arm. Batman seems comfortable with the idea of him dieing because of his actions. Batman smiles and watches.

Only if your willing to assume that Batman would have been willing to let the man blead out if he didnt give him the info he was after.

I dont see TDKR Batman willing to go that route since he was willing to protect a crook from being killed by a store owner.

And in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns its foreseeable that someone could die from Batman purposely rigging the Joker's dead body.

And throwing explosives at police officers. Someone could have died.

Now you have a point.

Althou it could be argued that Batman mersurred the amound of damage that would result from the fire and also designed his explosives to be non lethal.

But in both cases there would still be the possibility of a random mistake that could end up killing someone.

Altho I would say that a death from such events is less foreseeable then then one resulting from dropping a Tank like car on top of an other car.

But that would be a debate about degrees of foreseeability, and thats a debate no one can win.

Also in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns Batman shoots a kidnapper with a gun. The kidnapper could have been killed. Which translates that he is willing to be responsible for killing someone.

Thats a poor example.

And its an old debate.

Simple fact is that we really cant tell where Batman shot that gang member.

And with out knowing where the bullet entered we can know if it was a fatle shot.

And Batman is one of the best marksmen around.If anyone is capable of shooting someone with the intent of simply disabling them its Batman.

That shows that "Dark Knight Returns Batman" is willing to kill. No matter what they want to try an inject afterwords.

You've only provided one example to debate.

Nothing conclusive.

You spelled similarity wrong.

Ehh I do that kind of thing often

Pain meds keep my head in the fog.

 

[ironman29758]

what about the pages with the mutants kidinaped that rich kid and when batman sent the bat and one mutant killed the other. Now don't say Batman didn't know but he could have averted it.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

what about when the pages with the mutants and when batman was in the shadows and sent a bat one mutant killed the other. Now don't say Batman didn't know but he could have averted it.

Dude I'm not even sure what your trying to say.No offense intended but can you please re-word that so I can reply to you???

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

what about the pages with the mutants kidinaped that rich kid and when batman sent the bat and one mutant killed the other. Now don't say Batman didn't know but he could have averted it.

Thats a little better thanks.

Your assuming eluding to parts not proven to be in evidence.

To begin with I'm not sure it can really be said that Batman "SENT" in the bat.

Batman does not control bats.

Its more likely that the bat just happened to be in the hall way.Bats are a very common place animal in Gotham city.

There's a bat on my second floor hall way right now flying around and bats arent something you see alot of around these parts.

I dont even think it was possible for Batman to be in the shadows of the hall way sending in the bat at the time because he had to have thrown the bat razor that got stuck in the guys hand from the outside of the window.

And even if Batman did send in the bat there's no reason to assume that they were going to kill each other over it.

And if you think that Batman sent in the bat hopping that they would kill each other trying to kill the bat then you have to assume that Batman would have also considered that they might kill the kid by accident shooting wildly.

Sorry but the evidence points to Batman taking advantage of the bat being there and not sending it in.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Only if your willing to assume that Batman would have been willing to let the man blead out if he didnt give him the info he was after.

I dont see TDKR Batman willing to go that route since he was willing to protect a crook from being killed by a store owner.

Now you have a point.

Althou it could be argued that Batman mersurred the amound of damage that would result from the fire and also designed his explosives to be non lethal.

But in both cases there would still be the possibility of a random mistake that could end up killing someone.

Altho I would say that a death from such events is less foreseeable then then one resulting from dropping a Tank like car on top of an other car.

But that would be a debate about degrees of foreseeability, and thats a debate no one can win.

Thats a poor example.

And its an old debate.

Simple fact is that we really cant tell where Batman shot that gang member.

And with out knowing where the bullet entered we can know if it was a fatle shot.

And Batman is one of the best marksmen around.If anyone is capable of shooting someone with the intent of simply disabling them its Batman.

You've only provided one example to debate.

Nothing conclusive.

There is the possibility that someone could have been killed because of Batman's actions in Dark Knight Returns.

Also in All-Star Batman & Robin he is still developing his craft, we see him making mistakes in his attempts to train Robin and reckless attempts at crime fighting. In Dark Knight Returns he's a seasoned pro.

Ehh I do that kind of thing often

Pain meds keep my head in the fog.

Oh, that's not good.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

There is the possibility that someone could have been killed because of Batman's actions in Dark Knight Returns.

Like I said you did bring up one case for debate.

But its not as conclusive as his actions in All Star.

Also in All-Star Batman & Robin he is still developing his craft, we see him making mistakes in his attempts to train Robin and reckless attempts at crime fighting. In Dark Knight Returns he's a seasoned pro.

Thats true.

But his portrayal in All star seems more extream then in TDKR or Y1.

Seem like he went from being a nice guy in Y1 to being a 100% prick in All Star to being only 1/2 a prick in TDKR.

To me that doesnt follow a natural flow.And besides that there are other inconsistencies I could mention.

Alto they are minor.

Oh, that's not good.

Nope it aint.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Thats true.

But his portrayal in All star seems more extream then in TDKR or Y1.

Seem like he went from being a nice guy in Y1 to being a 100% prick in All Star to being only 1/2 a prick in TDKR.

To me that doesnt follow a natural flow.And besides that there are other inconsistencies I could mention.

Alto they are minor.

In Batman Year One Miller was showing why Batman needs Gordon. In All-Star Batman & Robin Miller's showing why Batman needs Robin. That he needs a restraining figure. That he needs the childlike enthusiasm and innocence of Robin to counterbalance the obsessive nature of his crusade, to provide him with the human touchstone that prevents the Inner Beast from swallowing him whole. That's why Batman had been so extreme in All-Star Batman & Robin and is now becoming the father figure because of Robin. And I believe he's showing the events leading up to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

In Batman Year One Miller was showing why Batman needs Gordon. In All-Star Batman & Robin Miller's showing why Batman needs Robin. That he needs a restraining figure. That he needs the childlike enthusiasm and innocence of Robin to counterbalance the obsessive nature of his crusade, to provide him with the human touchstone that prevents the Inner Beast from swallowing him whole. That's why Batman had been so extreme in All-Star Batman & Robin and is now becoming the father figure because of Robin. And I believe he's showing the events leading up to Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.

And I'll say again...the degrees of the "Extreme" behaviors seem to be out of character, if they are intended to be in the same universe.

At least in my opinion.

 

[Superman2008]

Frank Miller sure draws Superman a lot for a guy that "hates Superman."
Action Comics #400 back cover art by Frank Miller of Superman in silhouette with the American flag:

More Superman art by Frank Miller of Superman flying with a kid in space:

What Frank Miller says about Superman in Comics Interview #31 makes it clear that Frank Miller does not hate Superman.

"Superman is such a great character. Superman was created during the Depression in response to a feeling of powerlessness, as a statement by the boys who made him up, that we do have power! Superman was the common man, he fought battles for the rights of people. Many of his stories are anti-war statements. They make the very strong point that in war, men are murdered by their own government! Superman would drag generals to the front line of battlefields so that they'd be in danger and realize that their men were. Superman fought corrupt employers, robber barons, he actually represented something -- the common man. What I discovered is that when you're working on a character like Superman -- that legend is really what's in control. The essental things that makes Superman Superman had to be in John Byrne's version and in mine.

Originally I intended to avoid the whole issue of Superman in the story (Batman: The Dark Knight Returns) because I thought his presence would dwarf Batman. I had originally planned on just simply coming up with some excuse that got him off the planet at the time the adventure takes place. However, as I thought about it I found ways to use Superman's history to make it conceivable that Superman could exist and yet the world could still be a lousy place to live in. As a matter of fact Superman is now a major force to the series - he permeates it."

I love how Frank Miller has Clark give the classic Superman wink in Batman: The Dark Knight Returns. That's right out of both the Fleischer cartoons and The Adventures of Superman TV show starring George Reeves, complete with the classic glasses with the round frames.

And I especially love the classic red and black Fleischer-esque Superman emblem that Miller gives Superman in DK2.

When I first read this thread, going over the first 2 pages of posts, I never realized how hateful Miller is of Superman, I just never saw it. But then, a lot of posts had compelling evidence contrary to what I thought. So I went back and read The Dark Knight Returns, The Dark Knight Strikes again and a couple of the All-Star Batman issues. And as far as I can tell, I don't see Miller as a Superman hater. Sure, his depictions of him teeter on the extreme bias of ignorant/naive Superman, but he doesn't hate him.
If he did, he wouldn't have portrayed Superman & Wonder Womans passion (knockin' the boots), so wild and pimpish like....come on, the freakin' earth shook as he and Wonder Woman did the horizontal mambo!
Miller's belief is that two characters with such contrasting beliefs cannot be allies. Whereas other writers, such as Loeb have portrayed Batman and Superman as allies who constantly question each other, yet trust each other because of the potential instinct they have of one another to do good.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Miller's belief is that two characters with such contrasting beliefs cannot be allies. Whereas other writers, such as Loeb have portrayed Batman and Superman as allies who constantly question each other, yet trust each other because of the potential instinct they have of one another to do good.

Well said.

 

[CLARKY]

Trying to prove Miller's batman is not a killer is like trying to paint the horizon : a lot of talk but in the end it is impossible. Just like pretending Miller like Superman.
I especially love the strengh and confidence of those trying to explain how Miller's Batman can precisely create bomb that would not be too dangerous for "good" people, or the naivity to believe and even prove that batman didn't kill anybody, while his car is crashing the others cars, making explosions everywhere.
THAT, is something far beyond my comprehension.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Trying to prove Miller's batman is not a killer is like trying to paint the horizon : a lot of talk but in the end it is impossible.Just like pretending Miller like Superman.

I dont get what your trying to imply.

I especially love the strengh and confidence of those trying to explain how Miller's Batman can precisely create bomb that would not be too dangerous for "good" people,

You must have misunderstood something because I have not seen anyone come close to saying that.

The only thing stated was that it is conceivable that Batman could have designed his explosives to do minimal damage.

So basically it would be like the idea of a "dogs bark being worse then its bite".

or the naivity to believe and even prove that batman didn't kill anybody, while his car is crashing the others cars, making explosions everywhere.

You are missing the point of the debate.

The scans prove that the cops survived so we "KNOW" Batman did not kill those cops

What was being debated was wether or not Batman was "WILLING" to kill those cops.

THAT, is something far beyond my comprehension.

As is the point your trying to make.

 

[Oddzball]

Thats a little better thanks.

Your assuming eluding to parts not proven to be in evidence.

To begin with I'm not sure it can really be said that Batman "SENT" in the bat.

Batman does not control bats.

Its more likely that the bat just happened to be in the hall way.Bats are a very common place animal in Gotham city.

There's a bat on my second floor hall way right now flying around and bats arent something you see alot of around these parts.

I dont even think it was possible for Batman to be in the shadows of the hall way sending in the bat at the time because he had to have thrown the bat razor that got stuck in the guys hand from the outside of the window.

And even if Batman did send in the bat there's no reason to assume that they were going to kill each other over it.

And if you think that Batman sent in the bat hopping that they would kill each other trying to kill the bat then you have to assume that Batman would have also considered that they might kill the kid by accident shooting wildly.

Sorry but the evidence points to Batman taking advantage of the bat being there and not sending it in.

Consider if you will a David V. Reed tale from the 70s. Batman escapes being dropped from a plane, KOs the pilot and flies the plane. He drops the unconscious pilot in a parachute with the thought balloon that the people below will know what to do with a mercenary.

Reed had Batman kill off this guy. We didn't see the killing occur but there is little doubt what Reed meant.

By default, guns are used to kill. The Lone Ranger may be able to shoot and only wound, but the story takes the effort to establish he did shoot to wound.

Batman fired at a dodging target. Nothing in story nerfed the effects of the shot and more importantly nothing in story explicitly established Bruce's intent when using the gun.

If the guy lived, it was luck, not Bat-intent.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Consider if you will a David V. Reed tale from the 70s. Batman escapes being dropped from a plane, KOs the pilot and flies the plane. He drops the unconscious pilot in a parachute with the thought balloon that the people below will know what to do with a mercenary.

Reed had Batman kill off this guy. We didn't see the killing occur but there is little doubt what Reed meant.

By default, guns are used to kill. The Lone Ranger may be able to shoot and only wound, but the story takes the effort to establish he did shoot to wound.

Batman fired at a dodging target. Nothing in story nerfed the effects of the shot and more importantly nothing in story explicitly established Bruce's intent when using the gun.

If the guy lived, it was luck, not Bat-intent.

Dude I'm not sure what point your trying to make.

The "Gang member" in question from Millers TDKR's was not shot by Batman but by an other gang member while trying to shoot at a flying bat that some people seem to think was sent in the room by Batman.

A bit further on those pages Batman does shoot a gun at a 3rd gang member but that guy [or girl] was not a "dodging target".He/She was standing quite still holding a child as a shield.

So saying it was "Luck" and not intent is an assumption and a claim you can not back up.

Further more any examples of Batman killing in the 70's or any other book is irrelevant because we were only talking about Millers Batman.

 

[CLARKY]

I dont get what your trying to imply.

I was implying that there is no point trying to prove Miller's batman is not a killer. He is.

You must have misunderstood something because I have not seen anyone come close to saying that.
You did : "Batman mersurred the amound of damage that would result from the fire and also designed his explosives to be non lethal". It is what I subjectively call : "close to that".

The only thing stated was that it is conceivable that Batman could have designed his explosives to do minimal damage.So basically it would be like the idea of a "dogs bark being worse then its bite".

Yeah, that was my point. "oh look batman has a gun! , but do not worry! the bullets are built/the gun is engineered to shoot only non-lethal parts of the body!". Right.It is playing with terms, I honestly think.

You are missing the point of the debate.
The scans prove that the cops survived so we "KNOW" Batman did not kill those cops

No, I disagree, the pics only proved that the cars are exploding and people are around. But I trust that Miller Batma has designed specific wheels to crash cars with a minimum of damages, in order to instill fear in the heart of criminals. So if the debate was "are they alive or not", I think it is directly connected to "Miller's batman is a killer", so I don'tthink I was that missing the point of the debate.

What was being debated was wether or not Batman was "WILLING" to kill those cops.

Yeah, I did understand this but this so-well-skilled-batman would not crash the cars thinking "no problem, they are not going to die". That was very very very risky from someone who would not be willing to kill. I think he doesn't care "let's destroy them and if they survive, luck is with them".

As is the point your trying to make.

Well, not tat much in the end. But I see what you are implying. In the end, I think message was a little "sarcastic". It was supposed to be that way but not because of you specifically but because I'm fed up with people always defending Miller whatever he does, and his batman may not be a "killer" as we traditionnally use the word, but he is in fact. I think Miller writes him that way and cleverly let the fans finding way to prove his Batman is not a killer.

Furthermore, pretending that he is not a killer even if he is able to break someone's hand, legs and jaw, because the guy is a bad guy is very perverse and lame. The guy won't be able to write and to eat and to walk ; but Hey!, he is alive! I'm not using a specific example but just generalisations about Batman in comics. I hope you see what I mean.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

I was implying that there is no point trying to prove Miller's batman is not a killer. He is.

Well that depends on "Which" of Millers Batmans we're talking about.

I see strong evidence that the one in "All Star" is not the same as Year 1 or TDKR's.

You did : "Batman mersurred the amound of damage that would result from the fire and also designed his explosives to be non lethal". It is what I subjectively call : "close to that".

Its not because by no means does it imply that their....

not too dangerous for "good" people,

I said nothing about how said boams or explosives could effect the "bad" any differently then the "good".

One can calculate the amount of damage from a fire based on the amount of the excellerant used and one can design an explosive to be non leathal by mersurring the ingrediants used and then placing it out of the reach of any one person..

Yeah, that was my point. "oh look batman has a gun! , but do not worry! the bullets are built/the gun is engineered to shoot only non-lethal parts of the body!". Right.It is playing with terms, I honestly think.

See above for the most part.

As for the Gun comparison, there are such things as "Non Lethal ammunition".

No, I disagree, the pics only proved that the cars are exploding and people are around.

No it shows them escaping.

And the fact that its never mentioned by other police,news or anything that they were killed proves that they survived.The destruction of the police car was mentioned but not any deaths.

Dick Graysons "abduction" by the Batman was front page news.If Batman had killed just one of those cops it would have also made big news.

But I trust that Miller Batma has designed specific wheels to crash cars with a minimum of damages, in order to instill fear in the heart of criminals. So if the debate was "are they alive or not", I think it is directly connected to "Miller's batman is a killer", so I don'tthink I was that missing the point of the debate.

But the debate wasnt "is Millers Batman a killer".

The debated was "Is All star Batman the same Batman as Year 1& TDKR Batman".

So it appears that you did "miss the point of the debate".

Yeah, I did understand this but this so-well-skilled-batman would not crash the cars thinking "no problem, they are not going to die". That was very very very risky from someone who would not be willing to kill. I think he doesn't care "let's destroy them and if they survive, luck is with them".

With this I agree.

As I said...I dont think that the Batman in "All Star" is the same Batman in "Y1 or TDKR".

All Star Batman is willing to kill.

Y1 and TDKR Batman were not as willing to kill.

Well, not tat much in the end. But I see what you are implying. In the end, I think message was a little "sarcastic". It was supposed to be that way but not because of you specifically but because I'm fed up with people always defending Miller whatever he does, and his batman may not be a "killer" as we traditionnally use the word, but he is in fact. I think Miller writes him that way and cleverly let the fans finding way to prove his Batman is not a killer.

Furthermore, pretending that he is not a killer even if he is able to break someone's hand, legs and jaw, because the guy is a bad guy is very perverse and lame. The guy won't be able to write and to eat and to walk ; but Hey!, he is alive! I'm not using a specific example but just generalisations about Batman in comics. I hope you see what I mean.

I'm starting to....but there's a "BIG" difference in crippling a guy and killing him.

Millers Y1 and TDKR Batman was willing to cripple but not kill.

All star Batman seems to be willing to kill.

 

[Oddzball]

Dude I'm not sure what point your trying to make.

The "Gang member" in question from Millers TDKR's was not shot by Batman but by an other gang member while trying to shoot at a flying bat that some people seem to think was sent in the room by Batman.

A bit further on those pages Batman does shoot a gun at a 3rd gang member but that guy [or girl] was not a "dodging target".He/She was standing quite still holding a child as a shield.

So saying it was "Luck" and not intent is an assumption and a claim you can not back up.

Further more any examples of Batman killing in the 70's or any other book is irrelevant because we were only talking about Millers Batman.

It's relevant in the sense that there is no real consensus by creative types re: Batman being a 'not-killer'. Some of the arguments against what Miller wrote appear to be "But BATMAN does not kill!" variety.

Batman probably shouldn't kill. I personally would prefer it that way, but for all the damning of Miller I'll glady and most heartfeltedly do, slamming him for making Bats bloodthirsty is a garbage argument.

 

[CLARKY]

Well that depends on "Which" of Millers Batmans we're talking about.
I see strong evidence that the one in "All Star" is not the same as Year 1 or TDKR's.

If they are different, for me they are not, they are very very close. And What I most subjectively call "a portrayal" is not only what is in the book but how it could work outside of the story. And I think they are pretty similar.

Its not because by no means does it imply that their....

Sorry, I do not understand.

I said nothing about how said boams or explosives could effect the "bad" any differently then the "good".

I've never said you did, but I was implying that was what you were thinking. And it was ironic a little bit too.

One can calculate the amount of damage from a fire based on the amount of the excellerant used and one can design an explosive to be non leathal by mersurring the ingrediants used and then placing it out of the reach of any one person..

Sure, sure, but I find it too much precise for an explanation, and I doubt Miller wrote it thinking like you do. As I mentionned I think he just let fans finding what they want to find and prove what they want to see.

As for the Gun comparison, there are such things as "Non Lethal ammunition".

Indeed, that was exactly my point. I think it is ********, and that Miller is playing with the word "killer". The only thing that "disturb" me with killing is that it is definitive. But Miller's batman (whatever book it is but especially ASB&R) can destroy lives in a very definitive way yet not be called "a killer" ... come on. This is the most hypocrite things to write.

No it shows them escaping.

yeah like "I'm escaping from an exploding car". Well good luck, bud!! And again, if they are still alive, they were very very very lucky to manage to get out of the car, because I'm not sure batman would have stopped the car and says "oh , get out of the cars, I'm going to crash them." So I disagree, I don't think it shows them escaping at all, and even if there were, my point is that he was going to kill them.

And the fact that its never mentioned by other police,news or anything that they were killed proves that they survived.The destruction of the police car was mentioned but not any deaths.
Dick Graysons "abduction" by the Batman was front page news.If Batman had killed just one of those cops it would have also made big news.

There you may have a point, ok, but instead of having the headline "1 (or 2) (or 3) cop(s) killed!", it is more appealing to have "a poor innocent young boy kidnapped!" for everywhere inthe world, it would be like consider as bad enough for the police and especially in a city where bad cops frighten people, I think it is pretty clever and/or appealing to avoid specify it. People would be happy and would recognize the effectivness of batman. In Gotham Sin city, I would doubt the media are entirely free, whatever the newspaper is. false reports and all that ... and maybe inside the article it is specified that cops are dead. I think it has a certain kind credibility, hasn't it ?

But the debate wasnt "is Millers Batman a killer".
The debated was "Is All star Batman the same Batman as Year 1& TDKR Batman".
So it appears that you did "miss the point of the debate".

No, it appears not. The topic is about F.Miller and Superman, then the discussion moved to something else. My first post was dealing about what was dealt at that time, and you were talking about the killer thing and batman. In general.Did he kill ? Was he willing to kill ? Is he a killer in this book? no in another book, etc ...

All Star Batman is willing to kill.
Y1 and TDKR Batman were not as willing to kill.

Yeah he is willing to kill, that is my point. But I disagree a little, I think he is not that far from YO & and is as willing to kill as in TDKR.

I'm starting to....but there's a "BIG" difference in crippling a guy and killing him.Millers Y1 and TDKR Batman was willing to cripple but not kill.All star Batman seems to be willing to kill.

Yeah, but it is my point : crippling someone in a definitive manner is equal to kill, it is hypocrite (from Miller, not from you) to pretend that he is not a killer.As long as he spreads "his" justice and his punishments in a definitive way, it's like being a killer.
At least the Punisher admits it and do it far more less hypocretely and sadistically (sometimes).

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

It's relevant in the sense that there is no real consensus by creative types re: Batman being a 'not-killer'. Some of the arguments against what Miller wrote appear to be "But BATMAN does not kill!" variety.

Batman probably shouldn't kill. I personally would prefer it that way, but for all the damning of Miller I'll glady and most heartfeltedly do, slamming him for making Bats bloodthirsty is a garbage argument.

You still seem to be losing the point.

This hasnt been a discussion about wether Batman should or should not kill.

We were talking about wether the Batman in "All Star" is the same Batman that is in The Dark night Returns and in Year 1.

If they are different, for me they are not, they are very very close. And What I most subjectively call "a portrayal" is not only what is in the book but how it could work outside of the story. And I think they are pretty similar.

They may be very similar but that are also quite different.
But that can be explained by character growth.

I've never said you did, but I was implying that was what you were thinking.

Ahhhh....nut that was nowhere near what I was think.

Sure, sure, but I find it too much precise for an explanation,

To me its the perfect explanation.To me Batman is very much a perfectionist and a control freak.He would do his best to be "Precise".

and I doubt Miller wrote it thinking like you do. As I mentionned I think he just let fans finding what they want to find and prove what they want to see.

I can agree with that.It seems to fit Millers style.

Indeed, that was exactly my point. I think it is ********, and that Miller is playing with the word "killer". The only thing that "disturb" me with killing is that it is definitive. But Miller's batman (whatever book it is but especially ASB&R) can destroy lives in a very definitive way yet not be called "a killer" ... come on. This is the most hypocrite things to write.

True enough.

But as I said.....there is a big difference from "destroying a life: and "killing someone".

But I see strong evidence that "All Star" Batman is willing to kill or let some die.

yeah like "I'm escaping from an exploding car". Well good luck, bud!! And again, if they are still alive, they were very very very lucky to manage to get out of the car, because I'm not sure batman would have stopped the car and says "oh , get out of the cars, I'm going to crash them."

I agree and I said the same earlier.

So I disagree, I don't think it shows them escaping at all,

It does show them escaping.

and even if there were, my point is that he was going to kill them.

I wont say he was going to kill them.

We really cant say we know what his motivation was.

But whats obvious is that he was "WILLING" to kill them.

There you may have a point, ok, but instead of having the headline "1 (or 2) (or 3) cop(s) killed!", it is more appealing to have "a poor innocent young boy kidnapped!" for everywhere inthe world, it would be like consider as bad enough for the police and especially in a city where bad cops frighten people, I think it is pretty clever and/or appealing to avoid specify it. People would be happy and would recognize the effectivness of batman. In Gotham Sin city, I would doubt the media are entirely free, whatever the newspaper is. false reports and all that ... and maybe inside the article it is specified that cops are dead. I think it has a certain kind credibility, hasn't it ?

I'm not sure I would agree.

No, it appears not. The topic is about F.Miller and Superman, then the discussion moved to something else.

I didnt mention the topic, just the debate that you entered.

My first post was dealing about what was dealt at that time, and you were talking about the killer thing and batman. In general.Did he kill ? Was he willing to kill ? Is he a killer in this book? no in another book, etc ...

Actually we were talking about how I believe "All Star" Batman is not the same Batman from other Miller Batman book because "All Star" Batman is willing to kill.

Yeah he is willing to kill, that is my point. But I disagree a little, I think he is not that far from YO & and is as willing to kill as in TDKR.

I dont see any real evidence that sites that Batman was willing to kill in either Y1 or TDKR.

Yeah, but it is my point : crippling someone in a definitive manner is equal to kill, it is hypocrite (from Miller, not from you) to pretend that he is not a killer.As long as he spreads "his" justice and his punishments in a definitive way, it's like being a killer.
At least the Punisher admits it and do it far more less hypocretely and sadistically (sometimes).

I dont agree.

I dont see crippling someone as the equal of killing them.

 

[CLARKY]

They may be very similar but that are also quite different.But that can be explained by character growth.

yeah ok but I think it's just the same person, just few months or years later.Even if it is not officially the same, it is Miller's Batman. I take him as "the same".

Ahhhh....nut that was nowhere near what I was think.

ok but I still consider that was not that far.

To me its the perfect explanation.To me Batman is very much a perfectionist and a control freak.He would do his best to be "Precise".

aaaaah, are you talking about Miller batman specifically ?

But as I said.....there is a big difference from "destroying a life: and "killing someone".

Well, there is a difference, but as I said I find it hypocrite to destroy a life and not kill someone. In pure facts, he does not kill, yet wouldn't mind destroying someone live. I find it hypocrite and really really bad.

It does show them escaping.

Well, no.Again, I disagree. "Fleeing from an explosive car", I'm not sure they stand a chance. So, I had a look at the pic again, to analyse everything as precisely as it seems necessary to do, on this debate, and the guy, on the left, falling, near explosives cars, doesn't look to escape like the guy above him.

I wont say he was going to kill them.We really cant say we know what his motivation was.But whats obvious is that he was "WILLING" to kill them.

Agreed.

I didnt mention the topic, just the debate that you entered.

Forget it.

I dont see any real evidence that sites that Batman was willing to kill in either Y1 or TDKR.

He does kill the joker in TDKR !?! In year one, you may be right but as you said, he may have evolved with the years.

I dont see crippling someone as the equal of killing them.

We have talked about that earlier, I think it is hypocrite.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

yeah ok but I think it's just the same person, just few months or years later.Even if it is not officially the same, it is Miller's Batman. I take him as "the same".

Thats your right.

And as far as I know Miller is claiming that they are the same character.

Even thou it really doesnt make as much sence as you might think.But thats my opinion.

aaaaah, are you talking about Miller batman specifically ?

Not so much.I was refering to the mainstream Batman.

I do see the the control freak in Millers Batman.

Well, there is a difference, but as I said I find it hypocrite to destroy a life and not kill someone. In pure facts, he does not kill, yet wouldn't mind destroying someone live. I find it hypocrite and really really bad.

Well your welcome to your opinion.

I dont see it in quite that way.It may be crossing a line to destroy a life but I can see where there may be times that its needed.

What I dont agree with is how Millers Batman is "TOO" willing to take that route with common crooks.

Maybe with the serial killers and the real crazy bad guys, crippling might be needed to make sure they dont hurt others.......but a guy robbing a bank?????

Well, no.Again, I disagree. "Fleeing from an explosive car", I'm not sure they stand a chance. So, I had a look at the pic again, to analyse everything as precisely as it seems necessary to do, on this debate, and the guy, on the left, falling, near explosives cars, doesn't look to escape like the guy above him.

Well I see them all running????And the fact that was never reported that any cop was killed is proof enough for me that none of the cops were killed.

What bothers me more about that issue is the fact that there's no way Batman could have known that they would all escape safely.

Which meens Batman was "WILLING" to kill them.

The fact that no one was killed was pure luck.

He does kill the joker in TDKR !?!

No he didnt.

Batman broke his back but the Joker lived after that.The Joker then killed himself by twisting the rest of his spine till his own neck broke.