I have written a new blog on the site.
Batman does kill (http://www.batmanmovieonline.com/features.php?blog=50)
Any thoughts (good or bad)?
If you have a piece that you want featured on the site let me or one of the mods know about it! ;D
Yes Batman kill's i thoguht everyone knows that. In the very first Batman dc Batman had a gun and was not afraid to use it.
And on a similar topic why does everyone think that Batman killed Joker and The Penguin when it's obvious to anyone thats even seen the movie 1 time that he didn't.
is good, but i do see Batman trying to seek redemption in "Batman Returns":
In the end of "Batman", Batman is a killer; in "Batman Returns" at first Batman seems very violent and full of rage, but along the movie goes we see Batman seeing himself has a monster like The Pinguin and Catwoman, in the end of Batman Returns Bruce tries to stop Selina from making the same mistake he made: Kill Joker or Max Scherck
I believe that Batman Returns is treated like a direct sequel from Batman, but more in depth that in form
if you analise it you will see that Batman works for Batman Returns as parallel to compare
Quote from: Sandman on Sat, 13 Sep 2008, 00:54
Yes Batman kill's i thoguht everyone knows that. In the very first Batman dc Batman had a gun and was not afraid to use it.
But that was way back when?
It is simply not a big part of the character in the whole scheme of things.
QuoteI think we are on the same page. The fall is what killed them. In every film except B&R, Batman has been a third degree murderer. In other words he caused death even though it wasnt always intentional.
Yes why the hell do people keep saying he did it im sure he had no idea that the gargoyle was going to break off if anything he was just trying to keep Joker from getting away.
QuoteBut that was way back when?
It is simply not a big part of the character in the whole scheme of things.
It's a big part of Batman's origin no matter how long ago it was. Just because somewhere down the line someone said lets give him a no kill rule doesn't mean that Nolan's Batman or his movies are more accurate or close to the orignal comics
I totally agree, the one thing that bothered me in the burton films was Joker dieing and Batman killing, or just Batman killing. The nolan films explore the character of batman in a better way (in my opinion) however Burton nailed the look, no questions at all.
To me Batman gunning guys down or throwing a guy down a pit to his death seemed wrong, as did the "Im going to kill you" line to the joker.
Returns didn't bother me as it seemed alittle more comical, i still remembering my dad laughing out loud in the theater when Batman fried the devil guy with his car. Plus Penguin sorta did himself in.
Quote from: Sandman on Sat, 13 Sep 2008, 00:54
YAnd on a similar topic why does everyone think that Batman killed Joker and The Penguin when it's obvious to anyone thats even seen the movie 1 time that he didn't.
Batman's intent
was to kill the Joker - regardless of how he died in the end.
QuoteReturns didn't bother me as it seemed alittle more comical
Well it is a Burton film - Burton's dark humour is the reason for that.
I think killing as a part of Batman's career at some point is unavoidable and a more logical approach considering the damage he's sustained. I've often stated that I believe the true learning experience comes not from his training abroad, but AS the Batman. So, yes, I think he would be responsible for deaths at least in the early part of his crime fighting career in a pre Robin enviroment.
I'm willing to let this aspect of Burton slide, for now. He did kill many people, and few were in self defense. But I guess...who cares; Batman - he's human; he has faults; and he's dark. I suppose it explains why Arkham Asylum does not exist in any of Burton's Batman films.
Batman did want to kill the Joker: remember when he says to joker: "im gonna kill you!!!" and then he hit him to make him fall??? but joker hang himself and then pull batman and vicky, and the gargoyle issue was because the joker was going to escape and it was the only thing that batman could do to stop him, but im sure that batman want to kill him
Hummm well you are right he did say "im gonna kill you" but im still 100% sure. If you watch the start at chemical plant Batman saves one of Napier's men but as the movie goes on you see he gets more caught up in getting revenge which make's him and The Joker alot more personal enemies then in any other Batman movie to date.
And then there's the Batwing scene which is always going to be a arguable scene Batman does aim for the Joker but doesn't hit him, i always thought that he was trying to scare the Joker into giveing up so the poilce could get him???.
And finally the gargoyle bit yes Batman did hook him so he couldn't get away but if it didn't break off and Batman managed to pull himself back up would he have undone him and let him fall to his death, would he beat the crap out of him some more and hand him over to the police i don't know, but although he wanted to kill him i was never really sure he would but i could be wrong.
Hey there everyone, I am new to this site and I was just browsing around on the home page and saw raleagh's blog about Batman killing in the first film. Well, I wanted to post in the original topic but no one has posted anything for a while so I started a new one where I could put my opinion because my mind is itching to get these thoughts across.
Plus, don't forget to comment as well.
After reading the blog I noted that for Burton's Batman he was influenced by select material, and notably the Kane/Finger comics where Batman does kill. I believe Burton's adaption is not an origin story like that of Begins but it is still a story that is focused on some beginning, some start, in fact Batman is treated as such in the film, no citizen in Gotham city has heard of him. If this film is offering an image of the first appearance of Batman, and this appearance is being influenced by the actual first appearance of Batman in the 1940s where Batman did kill, then the film did an accurate job in staying true to the image of Batman as seen in his actual first appearance and encounters with thugs and crime.
My second point I'd like to discuss focuses Batman and the Joker. During the film after Wayne discovers that the Joker had killed his parents, it appears a total change of thought, a sudden flash of thinking, overtook Bruce Wayne, and that thought was solely focused on his passion to destroy that which was not responsible for his creation but for murdering his parents. If you pay attention to entire sequence from the point where Bruce discovers Jack as the murderer through the death of the Joker you sense a great tenseness, in fact a feeling that one of these two men are going to die(before one actually does die). The Joker's terrorizing of Gotham City needs to be stopped but also his terrorizing of Bruce's psyche. He was going to end it, no matter what.
Rather than being seen as killing, I take it as starting point, where afterwards he will vow never to kill again after he attains some peace in killing the man who killed his parents. It cannot be taken as a "this one time" kind of deal because Batman is still new to this game he has created. Because the Batman in this film can be seen as a beginning we can note that he is finding himself after each fight, so the Batman mythos that everyone knows can't quite be established yet. So after his first and intentional killing of the Joker and his henchmen maybe Batman went home and had another change of thought that found no merit in taking life and he could redeem himself of the lives he had taken that night by never killing again. In fact, we can credit this film for exploring what if Batman did kill, which could then lead to that familiar vow never to kill that batfans have bee accustomed to.
Full agreement. When Bruce finds out The Joker is the killer of his parents, the gloves are well and truly off. That's the precise moment he changed his crime fighting method.
Yes, Bruce did kill in Returns, but you can't expect him to be instantly at peace the second The Joker died. He would have been locked into that vengeful mindset, just switching it off is not an easy thing to do. It takes time. Pain like that doesn't go away overnight.
In the Returns finale when he says that Max is going to jail, Bruce appears to have changed his outlook. His bloodlust may have finally been sated and he may have wanted to move on. Personally, I don't think he ever would have. I think it was just a brief moment of wishful vulnerability. He may have wanted to, but he could not.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 16 Aug 2009, 06:39Full agreement. When Bruce finds out The Joker is the killer of his parents, the gloves are well and truly off. That's the precise moment he changed his crime fighting method.
Yep, we never see Batman intentionally take a life in B89 until
after he realizes that the Joker is Jack Napier is the guy who killed his parents. After that, all bets are off.
One might mention Johnny Gobs (the character, not the supercool BMO member). Thing is, we don't know what happened there. Maybe Gobbs "fell on his sword". Maybe Batman wasn't directly responsible. An argument either way is pure conjecture.
QuoteYes, Bruce did kill in Returns, but you can't expect him to be instantly at peace the second The Joker died. He would have been locked into that vengeful mindset, just switching it off is not an easy thing to do. It takes time. Pain like that doesn't go away overnight.
If you wanted to extrapolate an arc between the two films, that one works as well as any (and better than most). However...
QuoteIn the Returns finale when he says that Max is going to jail, Bruce appears to have changed his outlook. His bloodlust may have finally been sated and he may have wanted to move on. Personally, I don't think he ever would have. I think it was just a brief moment of wishful vulnerability. He may have wanted to, but he could not.
I could more easily buy this based upon the clear Kane/Finger influence. That Batman felt no remorse.
Still, going back to the arc idea you (and, with respect, others) have suggested, I would argue that Bruce wasn't entirely aware of his downward spiral. He slowly became more and more detached, more and more a recluse. He wasn't the man about town that B89 implied... but he obviously had a relationship with Shreck and they were used to dealing with one another. Bottom line, Bruce hadn't quite hit rock bottom yet.
Even so, he sees a funhouse mirror version of himself in Selina. By the mid-point of BR, we see Bruce and Selina battling the same demons... and they're both losing.
Bruce, however, sees Selina's issues for what they are (ie, self destruction) and then recognizes those same tendencies in himself. If he can find a new way, she can too. He has to believe that he can change if he stands any chance of helping her.
Batman landing in the Penguin's hideout and declaring that Shreck is going to prison is not hypocrisy, it's Batman at least attempting to reclaim his sense of law and order (rather than pure justice).
But Shreck now knows Catwoman's real identity. She's facing exposure should Shreck be handed over to the authorities. Batman, recognizing that he has to reach Selina (not Catwoman), removes his mask to stoke their connection and simultaneously expose himself to Shreck.
He is, in effect, making the same sacrifice he's asking her to make. He's willing to take this as far as she is. Shreck will go into custody knowing who both Batman and Catwoman really are.
Maskless in front of their enemy, they truly are the same now. Split right down the center.
Unfortunately, Selina either can't or won't make the same decision. Her thirst for vengeance has taken her too far. She's going to see this thing through, even if it kills her.
I don't know if Burton brought all this out to intentionally create an arc through the movies... but if he did, it would've been interesting to see how it would've played out in Batman 3.
Good post, colors. You highlight the deep themes Returns has going on very well indeed.
merged topics
Good article, ral. You really got deep in Batman's character in 89.
Well, for me, when Bruce discovers that Joker is his parents killer, he changes his methods. He wants revenge. It makes sense that he kills Joker in the movie.
I have personally not seen Returns for quite some time, in fact I still have the VHS copy, and everything in our house is DVD now. But now from the issues that have been mentioned in this topic it makes me wan to eagerly explore and analyze these themes in Returns.
I guess I never appreciated Returns as I should have. I never found it on par with Batman, but then again I have not seen in it in ages. This film must be a much deeper film than I thought it to be. At one time I thought the whole Christmas time background was silly but it is actually quite dark; it brings up the fact even in a time where there is widespread joy, there can be no such joy Batman, even during Christmas he still must fight evil.
So, I definitely need to watch the film, I just hope it is available separate from the anthology because I think its kind of pricy.
Quote from: batman89 on Sun, 16 Aug 2009, 19:40
I have personally not seen Returns for quite some time, in fact I still have the VHS copy, and everything in our house is DVD now. But now from the issues that have been mentioned in this topic it makes me wan to eagerly explore and analyze these themes in Returns.
I recommend that you do.
If we're going to talk about Batman films here, I think it's essential for members to watch them (the Burton films especially) every so often to keep the material fresh in our minds.
Quote from: batman89 on Sun, 16 Aug 2009, 19:40I guess I never appreciated Returns as I should have. I never found it on par with Batman, but then again I have not seen in it in ages. This film must be a much deeper film than I thought it to be. At one time I thought the whole Christmas time background was silly but it is actually quite dark; it brings up the fact even in a time where there is widespread joy, there can be no such joy Batman, even during Christmas he still must fight evil.
To me, BR is one of those movies that improves once it gets away from it's premiere window. It's difficult to appreciate the various nuances and stuff without the benefit of hindsight. I didn't really dig on BR until about 2004, when a friend went on and on and on about how awesome it is, how visual the film as a whole is, the symbolism, the (underappreciated) comics influences, the cinematic influences, etc. Good stuff all around, I think.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 19:01
To me, BR is one of those movies that improves once it gets away from it's premiere window. It's difficult to appreciate the various nuances and stuff without the benefit of hindsight. I didn't really dig on BR until about 2004, when a friend went on and on and on about how awesome it is, how visual the film as a whole is, the symbolism, the (underappreciated) comics influences, the cinematic influences, etc. Good stuff all around, I think.
Yes, I agree. Watching this film as an adult is an entirely new experience. Lots of stuff went over my head as a child. I was more interested in the explosions and action scenes back then.
I know what you mean. Back then, you could've made a movie with no plot at all and it's nothing Batman beating the s#!+ out of everybody and I would've given it two thumbs up without question.
And while my tastes nowadays have expanded... well, I still love watching Batman kick the snot out of people. Some things never change, I guess.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 17 Aug 2009, 19:01
To me, BR is one of those movies that improves once it gets away from it's premiere window. It's difficult to appreciate the various nuances and stuff without the benefit of hindsight. I didn't really dig on BR until about 2004, when a friend went on and on and on about how awesome it is, how visual the film as a whole is, the symbolism, the (underappreciated) comics influences, the cinematic influences, etc. Good stuff all around, I think.
Agreed 100%. There's something very special about this film.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 15 Sep 2008, 05:36
I'm willing to let this aspect of Burton slide, for now. He did kill many people, and few were in self defense. But I guess...who cares; Batman - he's human; he has faults; and he's dark. I suppose it explains why Arkham Asylum does not exist in any of Burton's Batman films.
I would have LOVED to see what Arkham would have looked like in Burtons world.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Mon, 24 Aug 2009, 04:27I would have LOVED to see what Arkham would have looked like in Burtons world.
Yeah! Since the Wayne Manor in BR looks like a haunted mansion, I wonder what Arkham would look like.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Mon, 24 Aug 2009, 04:27
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 15 Sep 2008, 05:36
I'm willing to let this aspect of Burton slide, for now. He did kill many people, and few were in self defense. But I guess...who cares; Batman - he's human; he has faults; and he's dark. I suppose it explains why Arkham Asylum does not exist in any of Burton's Batman films.
I would have LOVED to see what Arkham would have looked like in Burtons world.
Oh that would have been intense.
Quote from: silenig on Mon, 24 Aug 2009, 12:06
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Mon, 24 Aug 2009, 04:27I would have LOVED to see what Arkham would have looked like in Burtons world.
Yeah! Since the Wayne Manor in BR looks like a haunted mansion, I wonder what Arkham would look like.
Probably something along those lines but even darker, which is hard to see what could be darker lol.
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Fri, 28 Aug 2009, 02:55
Quote from: silenig on Mon, 24 Aug 2009, 12:06
Quote from: DarkVengeance on Mon, 24 Aug 2009, 04:27I would have LOVED to see what Arkham would have looked like in Burtons world.
Yeah! Since the Wayne Manor in BR looks like a haunted mansion, I wonder what Arkham would look like.
Probably something along those lines but even darker, which is hard to see what could be darker lol.
I'm sure Arkham Asylum would be great, much better than Shumacher's version.
I am of the opinion that batman does not kill. Batman is a guy who trys to stop evil. But if he killed anyone, that would defeat the purpose of him saving anyone. In "Batman" he tries to save jack napier. He doesn't kill max schreck in the sewer does he? I'm sure in the really dark batman comics he does but I don't like those comics one bit. Batman is trying to do the right thing by making the decision to be batman and that doesn't give him any more liberties than anyone else. He is helping gotham- good for him- he still has to obey the law- however much he likes it or not (unless they are really terrible laws :)).
First off, in batman returns when selina tells him that people like them are above the law, he outrightly contradicts her. Second, lets explain the joker parade and thereafter shall we. I think I should clarify what I said before. Batman can't kill anyone just because he's batman, not even if they deserve it. Its exactly like a police officer. But if someone is actively hurting someone and the only way to stop them is by using a gun then you have to do what you have to do. Thats what batman was trying to do in the bat plane. Joker was killing everyone around him and batman had to stop him. As far as the cathedral goes, when keaton says "I ought to kill you" he means that he should kill him for all the bad things he's done. He of course won't though.
Burton's Batman does kill. If you think otherwise, you are in denial.
I didn't say batman doesn't kill. I'm saying he only does it when it is absolutely necessary, like when a psychomaniac is killing everyone with smilex gas! Otherwise he tries to use a more humane course of action. He isn't a common brute who gets mad at bad guys and just takes them out is he? ;D. Like I said before, like a law enforcement person a super hero wouldn't kill anyone unless they had to (the only difference is that he is a super hero who scares people- not kill). Just because some over the top dark comic book writer has batman kill doesn't make it right. The only time I see burton trying to kill is in the joker parade and I explained that all already.
After realising Napier was The Joker, Burton's Batman killed. It?s not up in the air for debate.
Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 01:21
The only time I see burton trying to kill is in the joker parade
Are you serious?
When I see people being riddled with bullets, Axis Chemicals being blown apart, a goon tossed down a bell tower, or blown up with a time bomb, I don't need the movie to insult my intelligence by spelling it out in 50 foot high letters that they were killed.
Batman killed in the early years in the comics.
All evidence points to those guys being dead. There is no evidence that points to the contrary. There was nothing ambiguous about those deaths. It really is as simple as that. Case closed.
I'll say this again. I didn't say batman doesn't kill. I'm saying he only kills when he has to. Like when a big black guy is trying to kill him (good catch- I totally forgot about that scene). What I'm saying is that he is not some guy killing bad guys so they won't hurt anyone anymore. He kills only when they are trying to hurt him or others and only if thats the only thing that will do it. In this case the only way to stop the black guy from killing himself was to throw him down the cathedral.
Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 01:46
I'll say this again. I didn't say batman doesn't kill.
Er, but you did.
Quote from: burtongenius on Sat, 28 Nov 2009, 20:15
I am of the opinion that batman does not kill.
You must have changed your opinion or something in your other posts.
Your posts are very hard to understand and follow.
You're right. I can see how you would be confused. What I meant was that he doesn't go out and kill people on his accord. Only in response to someone hurting others or himself. And only if that is the only option. And I forgot to address the axis blow up. He blew up the plant to get rid of the chemicals. He didn't drive there to blow up the people. Like I keep saying, he does what he has to but only if he has to. If their in there then I guess thats their bad moral compass.
Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 02:11
He blew up the plant to get rid of the chemicals. He didn't drive there to blow up the people.
Correct. Joker's henchmen are just collateral damage.
Batman kills with very little remorse in Burton's films. It's safe to assume that the Joker's Axis Chemical thugs bought it when Batman 'sploded the factory.
Batman again killed the huge black thug in the belfry when he dropped him through the opening in the floor. Or if the guy survived, it was certainly against Batman's intentions.
I don't mind a Batman who kills. In fact, I find that it fits the psychological profile of a man who takes every other matter of law, order and criminal investigation into his own hands. Drawing the line at killing his foes just cuz Denny frickin O'Neil says so is arbitrary at best, nonsensical at worst. It's not that I don't understand that this reference point contradicts decade upon decade of comics, it's that I don't care. A non-killing Batman makes sense if we're talking about Adam West. It makes absolutely zero sense if it's a darker Batman though. No sense. None at all. There have been zillions of classic Batman stories featuring a Batman who refuses to kill under any circumstances. I'm down with that. I'm simply saying that it's a bizarre and illogical decision for the character to make.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 04:53
I don't mind a Batman who kills.
I had past reservations about it, but I now outright love it.
Batman is a dark guy and he is human. This is not Superman. He has to resort to hard levels of violence in order to operate, and he is not going to take any nonsense. His life depends on it. He will put you down no matter what. He will stop you. If he has to kill you, he will. Bottom line, don?t be bad.
You?ve got to be badder than the bad guys. You cannot have any weakness or boundaries. If you are truly serious about fighting crime, you?ve got to be willing to go all the way.
I much prefer a Batman who kills. He must have a visible code, but he must be flawed and break that code once in a while if you ask me. Not that it's a flaw per-say, but like you said, he isn't Superman.
A hero isn't just a person who stops bad guys. He's a person who stands up for the right thing. You can't have one without the other. I know batman is a scary creature. He's Batman. He uses that personage to scare people. But that doesn't mean his ultimate mission is dark. His mission is to stop bad guys because bruce wayne is a guy who believes in a good world. Keaton says something like this toward the end of the movie (batman 89). "Its not a perfect world" or something to that extent when talking to Vicki twice (first visit, second visit) (first- "Its not a normal world", second- "Its not a perfect world"). He wants to clean out gotham. He killed that clown guy in the second batman movie. The reas was that he had to. The guy was too big to be safely taken down. That may seem unfair to the big guy, but you could also say he could cause more damage. The point is that killing was the only way he was going to get out of that situation and batman has to do whatever he can to be able to do his hero duty. And does everyone just forget that he tried to save napier's life in axis?
Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 17:40
A hero isn't just a person who stops bad guys. He's a person who stands up for the right thing. You can't have one without the other.
Obviously. That's why he's out there in the first place. He has a crusade. It goes without saying.
Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 17:40
I know batman is a scary creature. He's Batman. He uses that personage to scare people. But that doesn't mean his ultimate mission is dark. His mission is to stop bad guys because bruce wayne is a guy who believes in a good world.
Obviously. He's a good guy behind a dark image. Simple.
Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 17:40
And does everyone just forget that he tried to save napier's life in axis?
Yeah, that's before he finds out he's the killer of his parents. Before his crime fighting method changed.
Quote from: Batmoney on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 09:16
I much prefer a Batman who kills. He must have a visible code, but he must be flawed and break that code once in a while if you ask me. Not that it's a flaw per-say, but like you said, he isn't Superman.
Again, I can only agree. In fact, if I've got a gripe about modern DC Comics (and by that, I mean within the past twenty or so years), it's that Batman and Superman's roles in the DCU have gotten completely bass-ackwards. You sometimes see images of Superman shrouded in darkness with glowing red eyes. In TDK, Bruce talked about "wanting to inspire" people.
Quote from: burtongenius on Sun, 29 Nov 2009, 17:40
A hero isn't just a person who stops bad guys. He's a person who stands up for the right thing.
And therefore I would argue that Batman is not a hero.
1. How is killing people mercilessly because they are bad and you are a super hero standing up for the right thing?
2. Good guy doesn't kill if doesn't have to unlike dark batman.
3. Napier is a ganster. Batman has every right to let him drop according to the dark batman. And I have no idea how his crime fighting method changed. Maybe I just didn't watch the movie as astutely?
In response to colorsblend. Then why does he kill just bad guys if not a hero?
Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 30 Nov 2009, 02:39
In response to colorsblend.
You can quote people you know.
Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 30 Nov 2009, 02:39
In response to colorsblend. Then why does he kill just bad guys if not a hero?
Again, there is a quote button at the top of everyone's post.
A hero implies a certain virtue, purity and selflessness. The hero is typically devoted to his cause (perhaps even singlemindedly so) but his actions and psychology are understood to be fundamentally good for society.
In other words, a hero is almost everything Batman isn't.
That doesn't cheapen Batman's goals. He wants to rid the city of crime and corruption. Honorable. Heroic, even.
It's his methods that set him apart from a hero. Batman busts into a known crime nest. Where is his search warrant?
Batman beats the crap out of suspected perps. Where is his due process?
Batman conducts aggressive, often brutal interrogations. Where is Miranda?
Batman collects evidence. Where is his court order?
Batman investigates ballistics, forensics and other things. Where is his Internal Affairs division?
Batman takes the law into his own hands. He's usually right when he busts into someone's home or when he beats the crap out of a perp. But that doesn't make him any less a criminal by every definition of the word. If any police department conducted their business the way Batman does, you'd have scandals from here to Christmas.
These are not the actions of a hero. A hero has honorable goals, decent methods and honest results. But Batman sure doesn't! A hero works inside the system he's got; he doesn't violate society's rules and laws to serve his own agenda. But Batman sure does!
Batman is a character loaded with contradictions and a paradox or two.
His hypocrisy is what makes him an interesting character. It's what also makes him something other than a hero.
Agreed, colors.
Batman obviously has a crusade and stands up for the right thing, but he's more than just that.
Gordon's final quote in The Dark Knight summarised things perfectly.
"Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark knight."
Between you and me, I think we're wasting our time explaining all this.
I know he does things outside the law. But he does it within reason. He kills people who are trying and able to kill him, and he kills people that are trying to kill others if that is the only option. He's batman remember. The real point is to ask, and I think this is where I think you're getting at, is whether his goals to stop bad people are for selfish reasons or for a humanity reason. And if he does it purely for the first reason then the whole dynamics of the batman comics changes. He becomes a real villain and wouldn't have a bat signal and wouldn't be friends with gordon. A batman like that would've dropped johhny gobbs to the ground and would do the same for jack over the chemicals.
And if he's the selfish, revengeful, psycho batman then he is no watchful protector. He doesn't protect good. He hurts bad guys to make himself feel better.
Sorry about the quote thing- I am very computer challenged.
A hero has honorable goals - colorsblend both batmans I have mentioned have that same honorable goal. The difference is whether it is selfish or not. And batman doesn't have tot have decent methods. He has to have reasonable methods.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 30 Nov 2009, 02:55
Gordon's final quote in The Dark Knight summarised things perfectly.
"Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian. A watchful protector. A dark knight."
01- It would take an actor of Gary Oldman's caliber to make that monologue work.
02- It's so
true. The idea of a "virtuous hero" Batman, to me, misses the entire point of the character.
QuoteBetween you and me, I think we're wasting our time explaining all this.
No doubt. But I view it like this. This guy is going to keep posting this stuff. I can ignore it and pretend like it's not there... except that future viewers may read it and think "hmmm, y'know, that burtongenius guy has a point". Um, no! He doesn't!
Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 30 Nov 2009, 03:10
I know he does things outside the law. He's batman remember. The real point is to ask, and I think this is where I think you're getting at, is whether his goals to stop bad people are for selfish reasons or for a humanity reason.
Actually, my point was to ask whether his actions are ultimately good for society. I think on his best day, Batman's overall influence (but not necessarily his results) is not necessarily for the best.
As to his motivations, however, these tend to change depending on the creative driving force of the comic/cartoon/movie/whatever in question.
In the Burton films, I think it's clear that Bruce is acting out of a selfish agenda. He is Batman, and not because he necessarily wants to make the world a better place but because he has to believe that there is Authority. That there is Order.
The Joker upsets that. The Penguin and Shreck co-opt that. Catwoman reflects who Batman is and what he's become.
Burton's Batman may bust a lot of criminals and protect Gotham from supervillains... but is he ultimately good for society?
In BB, I think it's obvious that Bruce wants to believe "it's not personal". But it is. Every major conflict in the movie is personal for Bruce. The sacking of Wayne Manor. The rampant graft and corruption in Gotham's official channels. And, I think most significantly, Ghul using Wayne Tower as Ground Zero for the microwave emitter.
All of these are things Batman cannot abide. And you cannot deny the personal stake he has in every single one of those things. I'm not arguing that he wouldn't be involved if it didn't concern him/his family directly, but I am saying you cannot argue that there isn't a personal dimension to his inner conflicts, his agenda and his methods.
Bruce says he's not a vigilante in BB, and many viewers drank that Kool-Aid and followed him along on his next adventure in TDK. And there they were faced with likely the same stark reality that Nolan had to confront.
Batman may be useful to the GCPD in certain times and under certain circumstances. But make no mistake, he
is a vigilante. It
is personal.
Batman is
not a hero.
QuoteSorry about the quote thing- I am very computer challenged.
It's not difficult. Click it some time.
Actually, my point was to ask whether his actions are ultimately good for society. I think on his best day, Batman's overall influence (but not necessarily his results) is not necessarily for the best.
In response to this statement I would ask how anyone stopping evil is not necessarily for the best- stopping joker, penguin from killing thousands of people. I would follow that influence any day of the week.
No doubt. But I view it like this. This guy is going to keep posting this stuff. I can ignore it and pretend like it's not there... except that future viewers may read it and think "hmmm, y'know, that burtongenius guy has a point". Um, no! He doesn't!
I think others can be the judge :). To me its real simple. Batman trys to stop bad people by dressing up as a bat and scaring people and stopping them from crimes. Hence the gangsters and villains. I guess I just hopelessly assumed that he did this because he wanted to help others. How idiotic of me :). Batman can be one complicated character, I guess in this post anyway, can't he? ;).
And I can't figure out how to quote only snippets. Every time I try it quotes the whole thing. Again computer challenged.
A killing Batman is not a true villain. He?s not whacking good guys. He?s whacking bad guys. By permanently ridding the streets of this filth, he is protecting the good.
These bad guys are not going to be rehabilitated. Batman takes the time to catch evil doers, but they're quickly regurgitated back on the streets causing mayhem with Arkham?s revolving door policy. Then he sets about catching them again. And so on.
In The Dark Knight, Bruce states that he doesn?t want his war on crime to last forever. If he was serious about that, he would be stepping things up and killing a few. Burton?s ruthless Batman just makes sense.
And burtongenius, you best learn how to use the quote icon. And quickly.
I would only add that Batman wouldn't and shouldn't use lethal force on, say, a purse-snatcher. The strawman that typically gets used in the "should Batman kill?" discussion is a comparison to the Punisher (presumably implying a gun-toting Batman).
The Punisher would probably blow a purse-snatcher away and sleep like a baby afterward.
Batman would satisfy himself with opening a can of whoop-ass on the guy and then dropping him off at police HQ afterwards.
But. Following the events of TKJ and ADITF, nobody will convince me that Batman wouldn't have the Joker's head on a pike. For damn sure, Batman wouldn't share a laugh with the Joker and he wouldn't stew in his virtual certainty that the Joker's body wouldn't be recovered. Batman would find a way to confirm or disconfirm the kill. If possible, while deriving no satisfaction or pleasure from the act, he'd do it himself. Quickly and efficiently.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 30 Nov 2009, 05:34
I would only add that Batman wouldn't and shouldn't use lethal force on, say, a purse-snatcher.
Agreed. But if you're aligned with high level crime, you're fair game.
When it comes heavyweights such as The Joker, that sucker is gonna be dead for sure. No buts about it. He's got to be. He is simply too dangerous to be kept alive. Especially after he's tried to gas the entire City.
The machine gunned Joker goons and so on. They pose an immediate serious risk and must be taken down. I would've liked Batman to dispose of the African Thug sooner, but I would have been dovoid of a great fight. But you get what I mean.
I didn't mean to cause an internation incident ;). Don't get your panties in a bunch dark knight, I think I figured out the whole quote thing. And I completely agree with your last post - minus the blood thirsty part . If you read my previous posts you'd see why.
Quote from: burtongenius on Mon, 30 Nov 2009, 22:22
Don't get your panties in a bunch dark knight, I think I figured out the whole quote thing.
About time. I wasn't the only one frustrated by your computer illiteracy.
[/quote]
About time. I wasn't the only one frustrated by your computer illiteracy.
[/quote]
oh, riiiight ;D
good thing I didn't get caught by the quote police or I would've been in real trouble.
I agree with the whole batman does kill thing. I agree with everything he does in batman 89. But batman does not kill out of pure hapinstance. There has to be a reason. The only real difference between batman and any other super hero is that he has to scare people and use humanly ways to stop criminals. Didn't see anything in the fine print that made him homocidal.
Quote from: burtongenius on Tue, 1 Dec 2009, 04:10
good thing I didn't get caught by the quote police or I would've been in real trouble.
Not really. Burton's Batman would deal with things more to my liking. :)
Quote from: thecolorsblendActually, my point was to ask whether his actions are ultimately good for society. I think on his best day, Batman's overall influence (but not necessarily his results) is not necessarily for the best.
Quote from: the Riddler on Mon, 30 Nov 2009, 03:32In response to this statement I would ask how anyone stopping evil is not necessarily for the best- stopping joker, penguin from killing thousands of people. I would follow that influence any day of the week.
Those things are superficially good, I don't deny that.
But Batman breaks the law, violates another human's rights (
RIGHTS), he's committed assault an uncountable amount of times, etc. He breaks the law so that other people who break the law go to prison. On some level, he's got to be seen by the public as more effective than duly deputized and authorized legal authorities. You could argue he further undermines John Q. Public's faith in the system.
Moreover, Batman is often regarded as having a very gray morality when in fact he probably has the most black and white worldview of anyone in the DC canon! Superman might smack a bad guy around but he's not above talking someone through their problems. Batman (if he's being written coherently and consistently) wouldn't and doesn't do that. If Batman sees a purse-snatcher, he'll most likely kick the tar out of him, tie him up and move along to his next assignment. Superman will return the purse to the victim, at least make an attempt at getting through to the perp and then gently hand him over to the police.
Superman makes a lot of citizen's arrests. Batman breaks the law night after night after night.
Superman inspires people. Batman scares (or kicks) the piss out of them.
Superman would be good for society. Batman, as a cure, would be almost as bad as the disease.
And understand, I'm not bashing on Batman. How could I?? I love the character precisely because of these sorts of contradictions. It underlies everything the character does. His is ultimately a self-defeating ambition.
Batman is not a hero.
Excellent post Colors. I concur entirely.
I agree Colors. He's not really a hero. Probably closer to a psycho, which I dig!
Just reading this tagline from an unused B89 poster.
"In the not too distant future, laws will have no meaning, courts will have no power and justice will have no champion."
Sums up Batman and his universe for me. A universe that is pitch black, with little hope and out of control. Batman in turn *must* be pitch black in his response, "because nobody else can". Burton's Batman *must* take a lethal stand when criminality is pushed to excess without any punishment at all.
Batman is serious, no nonsense and doesn't play games. If you've got a job to do, you do it right. And quickly. For example, if a restaurant if filthy, infested and not making any money, you fire the chef, give it one hell of a clean and makeover - and relaunch the brand.
When Batman steps out, people aligned with evil (mostly everyone) are trying to kill him. You should not show these criminals any respect, for you will receive none. The whole eye for an eye rationale.
Batman is proactive. He's not Superman, who is more reactive. More often than not, situations call for immeditate action for pure safety, ala The Joker gassing the City with the balloons. And with African thugs who play for keeps, it's you or him.
And in all honesty, jail time, with bail and all that nonsense, is not fitting for these heinous crimes. Death is the only fitting punishment. Not for purse snatchers and that, though. But if the purse snatcher wants to wield a chain and samurai sword, that's a different story.
Proactive, good term, I like it! Kinda separates him a little more from the mold of the classic protector. Instead of waiting for something to happen, it's kinda like Batman wants something to happen because he's obsessed with fighting crime.
Quote from: Batmoney on Fri, 22 Oct 2010, 09:40
Proactive, good term, I like it! Kinda separates him a little more from the mold of the classic protector. Instead of waiting for something to happen, it's kinda like Batman wants something to happen because he's obsessed with fighting crime.
Batman is a detective, and a cynic. He
knows something will happen. He?s always alert, collecting information to stop criminality before it gets out of control.
For example, if The Joker is planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in the City square, he just can?t learn about it with a few minutes to spare. If he lets his guard down, and lets his obsession slip an inch, that would be a reality.
He?s one man, not Superman who flies to the danger zone immediately. Batman has to stop the hijacking in the first place,
before anything else can come of it.
yes he does
I like how Batman isn't so serious in a late script once he confronts the Joker. He actually shares a few jokes with him, but more notably, instead of saying "I'm going to kill you," he says "I'm going to kick your ass."
^ Thankfully that was changed.
The only line that still has relevance is how Joker mentions how they're both killers, his reasoning being that Batman's a killer for keeping him alive. The people who think Batman was a bit quick to kill the Joker don't know the circumstances of if he didn't.
Ill just quote two blog comment I got:
"Cops kill. Soldiers kill. It doesnt make them evil or immoral for Christ sake, its just natural part of life and what comes with defending innocent and fighting criminals. Sometimes (and often) its impractical to arrest or to leave the enemy alive . The "no kill under any circumstances" kill is ridiculous and cartoonish and not what the real world is about"
"Batman should kill more. It would make alote of sense to kill say joker. It would save alote more lives in the long run"