Messages

Enjoyed that and he seemed to have a number of criticisms, but I love when people can take this movie for what it is and critique it from an appropriate point of view considering the context of the film.

I don't know why some people dislike this fight. It's epic and the best shot fight out of any of the films I think. That fight scene in Batman Forever in the party, and Bane versus Batman #1 were pretty sweet to, but as far as the actual choreography and shooting of the scene I think this one in 89 is the best.
I don't even get why people dislike it. The man just crashed his plane, he's gonna be a little beat up.

I never even knew about the Bat turn or that Keaton had trouble in the suit until years later. I always saw the way he moved as precise and ninja like I guess, I dunno. He obviously made it work.

Yes I agree on the potential for manslaughter charges or something of that nature. I guess I just don't see how they could even pursue a murder charge so I don't understand why people label him as a murderer. He's a killer, but I don't see the murder. I see the potential for other charges maybe.

But if he's doing it to take down a factory that is killing people then is it? People who hate this Batman say that it is murder because he didn't call the cops or take care of it another way. The movie had dictated up to that point that the Joker and his men would fire on site. It was established they couldn't be "arrested" and that in order to stop them you'd have to take them by force.

I just wonder what the alternative was supposed to be. You could call the cops, who are corrupt. But what are they going to do? Are they going to go into the factory and have another shoot out? Because we know what happens when they yell "freeze". I figured it was Batman taking measures into his own hands on an extreme level, trying to insure not another innocent soul was lost. He was gonna blow up that factory no matter who was in it in order to save lives.

Basically it says in the castle doctrine that the right to defend someone else can extend beyond your own property. Batman is defending the public from a group of terrorizers who are leaving a pile of bodies everywhere they go. Is it not perfectly acceptable to kill these people if that's what it takes to stop them from killing? As a citizen who is aware of a crime in progress, is it not his right to take necessary measures to stop the crime from happening?

I guess I could entertain the idea of manslaughter charges or reckless endangerment and such, but those are lower end homicide charges. I know I'm repeating some points here but I am just perplexed at how so many people equate this with murder. If people are killing people, how is it murder if you kill them in the process of stopping them from continuing to do so?

See, but what I mean is that I figure by what I've interpreted from the law, and from the castle doctrine which is a law that can be applied in some circumstances, that I don't think any of Batman's kills were murders. If he did them with vengeance and blood on the mind may be debatable, but in all instances, even with Axis, was he not essentially making a citizen's arrest, or acting as a citizen stopping a crime?

In the case of Axis, not only has it been established that Joker's men will fire on site, but they have tried to kill Batman. They have literally chased him down shooting at him. The police haven't taken care of Axis and these men who tried to kill him, and Batman technically doesn't know if his life is any longer in danger or not. On top of that, they are committing murders within the city with their chemicals and are striking often, and deadly at an unpredictable rate. It has been previously established that you will have to take them by force, you cannot arrest these men ("shoot to kill" or when the first cop says "freeze" what does Joker's man do? shoot). On top of that, based upon interpretations within variations of the castle doctrine, Batman also may have had the right to act on property that was not his, in which illegal acts were being committed. In this instance, murderous acts.

I am under the impression from the criminal code that if a crime is taking place, it is within your right as a citizen to take necessary action to stop that crime. If that crime is murder, killing the person doing the murdering is probably acceptable force, particularly when it has been previously established in the movie that it is going to take force to stop these men.

Like If Batman were to theoretically get tried for these "murders" what would the charges be and how would the prosecution argue they should stick is my question? Batman was killing people who were killing people, and who were trying to kill him. I know people bring up the "axis wasn't self defence" angle but according to my interpretation of the law, in order to kill someone and have it not be murder, it doesn't simply have to be a case of pure self defence as in your life is in grave danger at that very specific moment.

I'm not trying to sound unreasonable, I hope I'm making sense. If you look up the castle doctrine on wiki it explains where I am coming from. I just don't understand how it is murder.

I have done a bunch of legal research. First I should note that law is not my first language or anything.

Anyway, from what I have concluded, nothing Batman has ever done in 89 is murder. People tell me all the time he is a murderer but when I looked up the law in regards to murder, citizen's arrests and even the castle doctrine, I don't understand why it is murder. I think some people are just convinced it's murder because to, for example, blow up axis chemicals with those men inside at a moment where they are not shooting at you makes it murder. But according to the research I've done I don't think that's true.

I want to get opinions on this as it is impossible to have logical discussions with people on places like imdb for example where basically anything Burton did was crap and anything Nolan did was great and therefore 89 Batman has to be a murderer etc.

I was just wondering, can anyone make a more clear legal argument that Batman isn't a murderer? I'd make mine but I've made it a million times so I wanna hear other opinions. In my researched legal opinion, he is definitely NOT a murderer. I find anyone who thinks he's a murderer is hellbent and stuck on one idea, and doesn't seem to even entertain all the legal reasons why he is not. But like I said, I'm not a lawyer.

Please, would love some thoughts on this.

Keaton and Bale should be in a Batman movie, neither as Batman. That'd be cool, to maybe have them as villains, commish, Harvey, or other characters.

All I know is that the greatest Batman scene of all time, and likely ever, is Keaton sitting and waiting in the dark, and then seeing the Bat signal and taking a step towards it. That visual literally defines the character of Batman for me.

2. Penguin's finale, along with the music.

3. Unmasked Batman scene

4. Selina's transformation

5. Bruce and Selina's unique date night at Wayne Manor.

Yeah Chicago as it is isn't even a good stand in for Gotham. If they had to go super realistic New York or something nearby probably would have served better, because I've also always pictured Gotham as a bit of a New York, and therefore, a relatively coastal city. The wind in Chicago would be good for the flapping cape though, haha.