did anyone have a problem with Batman killing back then?

[The Laughing Fish]

Also, the Joker's death is really more on himself than it is Batman. If the Joker had simply let go of the helicopter ladder, he would've dangled off the side of the building. Batman may have intended to kill the Joker... but when the Joker actually died, it wasn't because Batman intended it. Batman fired a spear gun at the Joker's ankle. If he'd been aiming to kill, he would've fired the spear gun into the Joker's chest.

Forgive me if I sound pedantic, but I wouldn't call the weapon Batman had used a spear gun. It was a gun that fired two bolas; one had wrapped around the Joker's ankle and the other had wrapped around the gargoyle. Still, I thought Batman had a more direct role in Joker's death than the Penguin's death.

I may have to take back my original comment regarding the speargun.

It occurred to me right now that the Bola gun and the speargun were in fact the same. I was always under the impression they were two different guns, but after having another look at the weapons and gadgets I listed in that thread on the Misc. Burton sub-forum, the gun can be changed to fit different accessories. I'm surprised I didn't pick this up earlier on.

Apologies for the misunderstanding, colors. 

[Max Eckhardt]

I saw this film for the first time on Christmas day in 1991 on BBC1 when it premiered on UK TV
I can remember it like it was yesterday

I had seen the Adam West Batman movie a day or two before and quite enjoyed it, but up until that fateful day Superman was my favourite hero due to the excellent Christopher Reeve movies.

I remember Batman coming out a few years before but was too young to see it in the cinema. Although I was bout the toys for Christmas 89. (Batmobile/Batwing/Batman/Joker/Bob the goon)

I moved into a new home in 91 and was very happy to find a poster hanging on my bedroom room wall by the previous owner of Michael Keaton as Batman in the Batcave

I used to just lay on the bed staring at it ad imaging what the movie would be like.
The evening I saw Batman for the first time my entire life was changed. Batman instantly became my favourite hero and has remained so since. I was completely blown away. The best filmic experience I've ever had. I had no problem with the killing because the film didn't tell me that what Batman was doing was wrong.

It was only some years later 95-ish that I started reading the seminal Batman graphic novels that I realised Batman's aversion to guns taking of life.


 

[Paul (ral)]

I saw this film for the first time on Christmas day in 1991 on BBC1 when it premiered on UK TV

I'm actually posting an article about that soon

[The Laughing Fish]

I found this meme on Reddit. Keep in mind, it was posted on a Subreddit that seems to take the piss out of everything DC, so I wouldn't worry about this being anti-Burton.



As much as I loved Under the Red Hood, his resistance to kill due to a fear of permanently giving into his bloodthirsty tendencies doesn't quite hold up if you think too much about it. The problem is that while it might be understandable he has this personal dilemma, the other problem is he is essentially allowing Joker and co to escape and do more harm again. The writers really take away the nuance between murder outright and justifiable homicide too, though I don't necessarily blame them because this is a DC Comics edit. But no matter how hard they try justify Batman's unwillingness to kill under any circumstances, you'd have to really ignore the other side of the problem to fully buy into this reasoning.

Now that we'll finally get Robin in the upcoming Batman '89 comics, I anticipate the potential moral dilemmas Keaton's Batman will have, and whether or not it will be done better than what Schumacher gave us in BF.

[eledoremassis02]

100% agree! Bruce's story in Forever is the best part of the film for me and since there is more of it in the Schumacher cut then I'm all for it.

I think the problem is this, The early 90s Burton-Era does have an issue with endings going full throttle with little time to adjust. Batman has this (a bit) but Edward Scissorhands and Batman Returns goes full speed ahead with a little adjustment, they just kind of happen (mind you Returns and Edward have some of my favorite 3rd acts.)

I think it also may go down to the writing. Like Bruce being fully consumed by Batman by this point but it's not really discussed just alluded. I would have loved if they showed the hall where he had the benefit in 89 but dark and empty with the sound of the wind howling before cutting to Bruce in his study, this way you get that flip of 89.

I almost wonder if it was Bruce finding out that Salina was Catwoman that woke him up (It doesn't appear he killed the Organ Grinder but he at least planned on killing Penguin (in the same way Penguin killed the ice princess *something I just realized now*). It does bring up interesting conversations tho!

[The Dark Knight]

I think it also may go down to the writing. Like Bruce being fully consumed by Batman by this point but it's not really discussed just alluded.

I don't necessarily have a problem with Batman being the cause of deaths on the battlefield, but from the point of view of an individual's psychology, rather than the effect those choices on society, Batman is absolutely right. If you do something once, it gives you permission to do it again. Ever fed, never satisfied. Never fed, ever satisfied. Life experience has taught me that lesson over the years. The mental wrestle of having darkness but not letting it totally consume him is what makes Batman such an interesting character. And if he does go over the edge, it comes at a price.

[Dagenspear]

As much as I loved Under the Red Hood, his resistance to kill due to a fear of permanently giving into his bloodthirsty tendencies doesn't quite hold up if you think too much about it. The problem is that while it might be understandable he has this personal dilemma, the other problem is he is essentially allowing Joker and co to escape and do more harm again. The writers really take away the nuance between murder outright and justifiable homicide too, though I don't necessarily blame them because this is a DC Comics edit. But no matter how hard they try justify Batman's unwillingness to kill under any circumstances, you'd have to really ignore the other side of the problem to fully buy into this reasoning.

I think it's only a real problem if you want to see it as one. How does it not hold up? Murder isn't the same as someone committing atrocities.

In spite of the edit not fully representing the scene, as there is more nuance to the moment he actually dies. But in the context of the developed intention of the character, that I remember, Bruce punches Joker over the ledge, with seemingly no intention for him to not die. In legal terms, I think, at worst it was murder, I think, at best it's manslaughter, maybe, structure wise.