In the movies one that kills every now and then. Similar to dare-devil in his movie. It seems like directors aren't really into Batman not killing. Burton did, Nolan did, so if the next director said screw it and has Batman killing just because would you support it. My Asher is no.
Batman's no-kill stance is one of my favourite things about the him. It'd be nice if we saw that -obscenely important- side of the character reflected on screen next time.
Nolan's Batman didn't murder anyone. I will go as far as calling them killings but not murders. He didn't save Ras Al Ghoul and although he did set the Legue of Shadows headquarters on fire he didnt stop any ninja from escaping. Dent was 100% an accident and thats all.
Burton's Batman killed intentionally. Anyway enough with that.
No i don't want to see a murdering Batman. The only time that i didn't mind Batman killing was in The Dark Knight Returns where he killed the Mutant thug who held the little kid hostage. That's it. And I prefere the TDKReturns movie version where he hits the Mutant's hand, dissarming him a la Lucky Luck but that is also a bit on the silly side. THAT Batman would kill him because A) He was written by Frank Miller B) There is no other way of getting out of that situation.
I really love the psycho/obssesed/determined Batman like he is in War Games, Tower of Babel, TDKReturns even in All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder.
Batman's no-kill stance is very crucial to his character and is one of the most interesting things about him. Unlike most of the other superheroes who don't kill just because they're superheroes and because they're good guys, Batman has a deeper reason for not killing and for not using guns that is integrated into his character and formed who he is. Therefore when you make Batman a murderer, you completely change the entire Batman universe. You change his entire dynamic with the Joker. His entire dynamic with Ra's. His dynamic with Gordon. The necessity of Robin. The list goes on and on.
Batman's no-kill stance is one of my favourite things about the him. It'd be nice if we saw that -obscenely important- side of the character reflected on screen next time.
Nolan's Batman didn't murder anyone. I will go as far as calling them killings but not murders. He didn't save Ras Al Ghoul and although he did set the Legue of Shadows headquarters on fire he didnt stop any ninja from escaping. Dent was 100% an accident and thats all.
Burton's Batman killed intentionally. Anyway enough with that.
No i don't want to see a murdering Batman. The only time that i didn't mind Batman killing was in The Dark Knight Returns where he killed the Mutant thug who held the little kid hostage. That's it. And I prefere the TDKReturns movie version where he hits the Mutant's hand, dissarming him a la Lucky Luck but that is also a bit on the silly side. THAT Batman would kill him because A) He was written by Frank Miller B) There is no other way of getting out of that situation.
I really love the psycho/obssesed/determined Batman like he is in War Games, Tower of Babel, TDKReturns even in All Star Batman and Robin the Boy Wonder.
what is the difference? I don't even want to see Batman do that. I world rather have seen Batman knock out ras and fly up to a building where he is shipped to arkham and a batarang thrown at face
That's actually a major problem I have with The Dark Knight.
It uses The Joker character to brilliantly put across the no-kill stance throughout the film, culminating in Batman making his final decision and sparing him at the end. Thusly, properly "becoming" Batman.
Not to sound too pretentious, but that's brilliantly handled thematic realisation right there.
But then! They completely ruined it in the very next scene when he pushed Harvey Dent to his death.
It was like:
Batman (turning Dent's face normal-side up): But The Joker cannot win.
That's actually a major problem I have with The Dark Knight.
It uses The Joker character to brilliantly put across the no-kill stance throughout the film, culminating in Batman making his final decision and sparing him at the end. thsusly, properly "becoming" Batman.
Not to sound too pretentious, but that's brilliantly handled thematic realisation right there.
But then! They completely ruined it in the very next scene when he pushed Harvey Dent to his death.
It was like:
Batman (turning Dent's face normal-side up): But The Joker cannot win.
Harvey's death was a complete accident though. He never intended for him to die. He was just trying to grab the boy and Harvey resisted, leading to both of them falling from that height.
Accidental deaths shouldn't really count. They don't corrupt Batman because Batman has no intentions of killing in the first place.
Harvey's death was a complete accident though. He never intended for him to die. He was just trying to grab the boy and Harvey resisted, leading to both of them falling from that height.
Accidental deaths shouldn't really count. They don't corrupt Batman because Batman has no intentions of killing in the first place.
I've never bought the "accidental" thing, I have no idea how many times I've seen that movie now and all there is to that scene is Batman, a supremely trained master strategist, lunging at a distraught, mentally ill man and knocking him off a wide open space.
Would I support a vigilante who kills? No. Apart from the morality issues of it, if you cheer on a guy who takes the law into his own hands by killing, then it inspires other people to do it. They look at it and think "Hey that guy is getting a lot of love for killing people he deems as guilty. Maybe I can do the same".
That's murky territory. Before you know it purse snatchers and teens who steal beer are getting shot. One thing I loved about TDK is it showed Batman's type of vigilantism can spawn dangerous loose cannon copycats.
Batman killing Harvey/Batman being responsible for Harvey's death is great irony. His greatest act and what made him the Dark Knight came from breaking his one rule.
I don't think Bruce meant to kill Harvey. I think he acted in desperation to save the life of a young traumatized boy and his family (a situation similar to his own tragedy).
It would have been better played, however, had Batman catch Dent and grab the ledge, only to lose his grip (or for Dent to let go).
He had, after all, already tried to stop the situation peacefully by talking Dent out of it. Lunging at him so close to the edge of the balcony was a last resort...
I don't think Bruce meant to kill Harvey. I think he acted in desperation to save the life of a young traumatized boy and his family (a situation similar to his own tragedy).
It would have been better played, however, had Batman catch Dent and grab the ledge, only to lose his grip (or for Dent to let go).
I've never bought the "accidental" thing, I have no idea how many times I've seen that movie now and all there is to that scene is Batman, a supremely trained master strategist, lunging at a distraught, mentally ill man and knocking him off a wide open space.
What I see is a supremely trained but shot master strategist trying to grab a kid from the hands of a mentally ill man with the man resisting resulting in all 3 of them to fall.
Yes, remember his new Batman costume made him more vulnerable to knives and gun fire. He's just taken a direct shot at close range. He had to be feeling that.
He killed Dent as far as I'm concerned, no ifs or buts about it. He flat out killed him. Why isn't Dent breathing? Because Batman killed him. Why is Dent in the hole with his neck to the side, dead. Because Batman killed him. Why did Dent fall? Because Batman bucked him over. Why did Batman do it? Because he was threatening a boy's life. I have absolutely no problem with it either. Dent was past the point where he could be reasoned with and he was threatening the life of an innocent boy that had no part in Batman, Gordon and Dent's game.
Dent's logic was flawed no matter how much he missed Rachel, Gordon and Batman tried to reason with him and talk to him, but it wouldn't work. Batman did what he needed to, one rule be damned. Just look at Dent, smiling sadistically at Gordon, holding his pistol to a little boy's head, he needed to go.
An accident? Hardly. I've seen that scene so many times. Batman literally bucks Dent off with a vicious growl. We don't even hear Dent yell or scream on his way down, for all we know, Batman snapped his neck in mid grab. Fans just make excuses so that rule sticks, but it doesn't. Both Nolans and Goyer confirmed this in the screenplay book. They said their Batman snapped the rule in half, in all three films.
Jimmy Gordon's life > Two-Face
Yeah, a little "no killing" rule is a nice little morality rule to follow if you're perfect and living in a fantasy world. Batman isn't perfect, he's human. He does what other people can't (clearly, he's a vigilante) and he gets his hands dirty. I'm totally fine with a Batman that kills. None of the deaths at the hands of Batman in any of the 6 Batman films where he has killed has bothered me. Not one. The only one that made me question it a bit was the Strongman thug with the bomb in Returns. That's the only time.
I'm not sure why people are so caught up in it or why they feel that it isn't "Batman" any more when he does. It's been debated and dwelled upon for years. As long as he's not going around, randomly snapping necks, rabbit punching thugs in the throat, pulling a gun out and shooting criminals, I have no problem with it. That's literally what occurs in Batman's conception in his initial appearance in the 30s and 40s (and in the 70s and 80s). Accidents happen. Situations pop up. The world isn't so black and white.
It's the same deal with Superman. I have absolutely no problem with him
killing Zod and saving innocent civilians in the process.
I'm fine with a Batman that has a "no killing rule" and adheres to it. I'm fine with a Batman that has a "no killing rule" and breaks it. I'm fine with a Batman that doesn't have the rule and enforces his own sense of justice and law. I'm fine with a Batman that boasts "a fitting end for their kind".
That's actually a major problem I have with The Dark Knight.
It uses The Joker character to brilliantly put across the no-kill stance throughout the film, culminating in Batman making his final decision and sparing him at the end. Thusly, properly "becoming" Batman.
Not to sound too pretentious, but that's brilliantly handled thematic realisation right there.
But then! They completely ruined it in the very next scene when he pushed Harvey Dent to his death.
It was like:
Batman (turning Dent's face normal-side up): But The Joker cannot win.
It reminded me of Batman Forever.After preaching to Robin for the entire movie about not killing-how does he handle Two-Face?Knocks him over the edge to his death.
Replace Robin with Joker,and the above describes TDK.
So what was Batman supposed to do? Leave the coin to chance? Risk Jimmy Gordon's life?
Knowing Dent, he'd probably find a way to keep flipping just like he did with the Maroni's driver to get to Maroni. Who knows what he would have done if Batman had let him go on his rampage and it came up on tails. He'd probably go after Barbara and their daughter next.
Batman disposed of Dent, it needed to happen. Dent was beyond repair.
My only gripe is it would have been nice to see Bruce dwell on that decision but he sort of makes it even and rectifies the choice by taking the blame for Dent's crimes, for Dent and Rachel. Well, that and they cut out Batman's great line of "Nothing fair ever came out of the barrel of a gun". That was a great line for Batman and that scene that was stupid to cut.
I think something that is equally enforced in these movies is that Batman "does what is necessary." Just straight up lunge at a psycho killer B:TAS style, even if that means breaking his neck.
Like I stated, I'd rather see Batman kill to save a child then watch him stand idly by to see what Dent's next move is so he doesn't break his one rule. It's foolish.
Could Batman have done something different? Thrown a Batarang and classically knock the pistol from Dent's hand? Knock him out like he did at the pent house party? Sure, but then we wouldn't get the "Dark Knight" ending we got for the film and it wouldn't have been as fulfilling. It's a film, not real life.
Who says Batman has to do nothing. But tackling him could have been avoided. He just grabbed joker from 45 stories again a batarang to dents hand similar to the red hood movie is all I'm.asking for. That is all well and good for Nolan but next series should stick to the rule that is what makes Batman king
He killed Dent as far as I'm concerned, no ifs or buts about it. He flat out killed him. Why isn't Dent breathing? Because Batman killed him. Why is Dent in the hole with his neck to the side, dead. Because Batman killed him. Why did Dent fall? Because Batman bucked him over. Why did Batman do it? Because he was threatening a boy's life. I have absolutely no problem with it either. Dent was past the point where he could be reasoned with and he was threatening the life of an innocent boy that had no part in Batman, Gordon and Dent's game.
Dent's logic was flawed no matter how much he missed Rachel, Gordon and Batman tried to reason with him and talk to him, but it wouldn't work. Batman did what he needed to, one rule be damned. Just look at Dent, smiling sadistically at Gordon, holding his pistol to a little boy's head, he needed to go.
An accident? Hardly. I've seen that scene so many times. Batman literally bucks Dent off with a vicious growl. We don't even hear Dent yell or scream on his way down, for all we know, Batman snapped his neck in mid grab. Fans just make excuses so that rule sticks, but it doesn't. Both Nolans and Goyer confirmed this in the screenplay book. They said their Batman snapped the rule in half, in all three films.
Jimmy Gordon's life > Two-Face
Yeah, a little "no killing" rule is a nice little morality rule to follow if you're perfect and living in a fantasy world. Batman isn't perfect, he's human. He does what other people can't (clearly, he's a vigilante) and he gets his hands dirty. I'm totally fine with a Batman that kills. None of the deaths at the hands of Batman in any of the 6 Batman films where he has killed has bothered me. Not one. The only one that made me question it a bit was the Strongman thug with the bomb in Returns. That's the only time.
I'm not sure why people are so caught up in it or why they feel that it isn't "Batman" any more when he does. It's been debated and dwelled upon for years. As long as he's not going around, randomly snapping necks, rabbit punching thugs in the throat, pulling a gun out and shooting criminals, I have no problem with it. That's literally what occurs in Batman's conception in his initial appearance in the 30s and 40s (and in the 70s and 80s). Accidents happen. Situations pop up. The world isn't so black and white.
It's the same deal with Superman. I have absolutely no problem with him
killing Zod and saving innocent civilians in the process.
I'm fine with a Batman that has a "no killing rule" and adheres to it. I'm fine with a Batman that has a "no killing rule" and breaks it. I'm fine with a Batman that doesn't have the rule and enforces his own sense of justice and law. I'm fine with a Batman that boasts "a fitting end for their kind".
Why is he not breathing and with his neck to the side? Simple. It is because he fell from a ridiculous distance that lead to his death.
That scene plays off entirely as an accident to me, even the first time I saw it in theatres. I don't even hear Batman's "growl" and I saw that scene many times.
It would make sense that it is an accident. Logically speaking, Batman would not kill Dent after he made it clear that an intentional murder is wrong. One of the messages of both BB and TDK was also that Batman always finds a way without having to resort to murder. It would be completely out of character for him to intentionally break Dent's neck. Let's say for the sake of argument that Batman really did intentionally snap Dent's neck. In that case, that would be a plot hole. Assuming that Dent's death is not an accident, you cannot justify that scene making sense within the context of the film.
TDK's script also never states that Batman kills Harvey. I've never read the screenplay book. However, given Nolan's track record post-TDKR, I refuse to believe anything he says at this point. The man has lied over and over again. I can point you to many things he said prior to TDKR that contradict the vision of the trilogy that he claimed he always had after TDKR came out. I cannot take his word anymore.
I find it funny how you say that Two-Face's death was not an accident and then you defend it by saying that "accidents happen".
Yes, the "no killing" rule is a crucial part of Batman. In fact, it is more important to Batman than it is for any other superhero. This is because unlike other superheroes who don't kill because they're superheroes, Batman has far deeper reasons for not doing it and is a core part of his character. In fact, the "no kill" rule is the second most defining thing about the character (the first being that he has no powers). Once he decides to intentionally commit murder, he is no better than the Joker and the Joker wants that. Batman killing completely changes the whole Batman universe from head to toe as well as Batman's relationships with many characters.
Who says Batman has to do nothing. But tackling him could have been avoided. He just grabbed joker from 45 stories again a batarang to dents hand similar to the red hood movie is all I'm.asking for. That is all well and good for Nolan but next series should stick to the rule that is what makes Batman king
In the Joker scenario, he was in fine shape and had a perfect shot to catch the Joker. In the Two-Face scenario, he not only took a bullet at close range but also had to grab the kid on top of stopping Harvey.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
