Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[The Laughing Fish]

I tend to agree. The films don't make distinctions there.

Bruce in Begins says "I won't be an executioner". In TDK, he says he only has one rule... which, elliptically, can only be taking life in general. As you say, in TDKRises it's more blunt yet when he says "No killing".

If Nolan cast his version of Batman as someone who will take life under a certain array of circumstances but not willy-nilly as the mood strikes him, I think the movies could be evaluated in terms of when it is or isn't appropriate for Batman to take life.

But they don't.

On the contrary, as you know, they rather starkly say that he won't take life. A fine and noble moral line, I suppose. But his selective violation of that rule makes him a hypocrite. Fine and dandy since some amount of hypocrisy is built into most incarnations of Batman anyway. But all of those have some mitigating factor to them which allows audiences to savor his hypocrisy rather than be distracted by it.

Taking life in the Nolan trilogy is different. No clarification is ever offered, no remorse is ever expressed and very little heed is ever paid to the fact that (A) Batman has one rule and (B) Batman has repeatedly broken his one rule.

And as you know well, I don't think even think he was out of line in breaking that rule. But he still set that rule and then he broke that rule. Very little is ever made of those two undeniable facts in the films. As it stands, Batman is very much of the "Do as I say, not as I do" school in the Nolan trilogy but it isn't done in a way that benefits the material.

Sad, really.

I'm re-quoting your post again because recently, I've read some anti-BvS comments on YouTube questioning why didn't Batman kill the psychotic Joker if he had abandoned his moral code. Oh, the irony!



I actually told these very same people that criticism more than applies to the entire Nolan trilogy, and they couldn't defend it. To their credit, at least they weren't that delusional and tried to justify Nolan's inconsistencies. I guess that counts for something.

[Dagenspear]

I tend to agree. The films don't make distinctions there.

Bruce in Begins says "I won't be an executioner". In TDK, he says he only has one rule... which, elliptically, can only be taking life in general. As you say, in TDKRises it's more blunt yet when he says "No killing".

If Nolan cast his version of Batman as someone who will take life under a certain array of circumstances but not willy-nilly as the mood strikes him, I think the movies could be evaluated in terms of when it is or isn't appropriate for Batman to take life.

But they don't.

On the contrary, as you know, they rather starkly say that he won't take life. A fine and noble moral line, I suppose. But his selective violation of that rule makes him a hypocrite. Fine and dandy since some amount of hypocrisy is built into most incarnations of Batman anyway. But all of those have some mitigating factor to them which allows audiences to savor his hypocrisy rather than be distracted by it.

Taking life in the Nolan trilogy is different. No clarification is ever offered, no remorse is ever expressed and very little heed is ever paid to the fact that (A) Batman has one rule and (B) Batman has repeatedly broken his one rule.

And as you know well, I don't think even think he was out of line in breaking that rule. But he still set that rule and then he broke that rule. Very little is ever made of those two undeniable facts in the films. As it stands, Batman is very much of the "Do as I say, not as I do" school in the Nolan trilogy but it isn't done in a way that benefits the material.

Sad, really.

I'm re-quoting your post again because recently, I've read some anti-BvS comments on YouTube questioning why didn't Batman kill the psychotic Joker if he had abandoned his moral code. Oh, the irony!



I actually told these very same people that criticism more than applies to the entire Nolan trilogy, and they couldn't defend it. To their credit, at least they weren't that delusional and tried to justify Nolan's inconsistencies. I guess that counts for something.

Baleman was never faced with the same situation where killing the Joker was the way to save anyone, even himself, the same way as he was with Harvey in the movie, at any point. Your comparison isn't appropriate. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[Andrew]

An obvious, if not very moral, explanation of the inconsistency is that he saved Joker rather than let him die because he knew Joker wanted him to kill him/let him die, so he was proving a point against the point Joker wanted to make.

[Andrew]

I've noticed some discussion of the Ice Princess here.  Can some of the defenders of Batman Returns please reassure me about Batman excusing Catwoman's complicity in her death simply because he loved her, which is Dagenspear's argument?

Well it is flawed screenwriting/continuity. We the viewers are supposed to think/presume the protagonist Batman knows Catwoman didn't mean to get her killed because we learn it, the script acts as if he therefore knows it, even though Batman didn't learn it. But while mocking Batman for not saving the Princess Catwoman arguably seem regretful it happened, especially as she kind of compares her to herself and argues Batman actually killed her.