Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[thecolorsblend]

It doesn't negate his rule. Having a moral stance, doesn't mean it's something that you end up doing inadvertently.

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

[The Laughing Fish]

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

This debate about killing with intent has got me thinking about the very first episode of Batman Beyond. In the beginning, we see an aging Batman suddenly suffering a heart attack while in combat, and he's forced to use a gun to defend himself from a crook. Batman didn't even fire the gun and only scared the crook away, but he was so ashamed that he had to resort to using the same weapon that murdered his parents and retired from personally fighting crime forever. Why? Because Batman had a "no-gun" rule. According to him, it didn't matter if he had no choice and his own life was at stake. He armed himself with a weapon he promised to never use, and felt extremely guilty for it. He couldn't forgive himself, and declared "Never Again!" as he closed the Batcave down, and wouldn't go back down there until he met Terry McGinnis decades later.

Now the Nolan trilogy fans might ask: what's your point? My point is that there must be consequences to breaking your own promises. And from a narrative point of view, there must be consequences for Batman breaking his rules if you make his moral code an important plot point. Bruce Wayne in the DC Animated Universe made a vow to never use guns no matter the circumstances. And the consequences of breaking that vow - regardless whether he wanted to or not - led him to giving up being a crimefighter. As BatmAngelus said earlier on: what's the point of having a rule if there aren't any consequences? If breaking your own rule doesn't really affect you, then yes, it does negate the rule and its importance.

[Edd Grayson]

You're correct, Laughing Fish, and as a fan of Batman Beyond, I can add that Bruce was getting old at that time, and he had already been through a lot as Batman, including falling out with Robin and Batgirl, but he never stopped being Batman until he saw himself forced to take the gun in order to defend himself.

[The Dark Knight]

Good post, Laughing Fish. I'm a big fan of Burton's films obviously, but the BTAS/Beyond version of Batman continues to show all other incarnations how it's done.

[Dagenspear]

It doesn't negate his rule. Having a moral stance, doesn't mean it's something that you end up doing inadvertently.

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

But the character isn't the one doing that.

[Dagenspear]

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

This debate about killing with intent has got me thinking about the very first episode of Batman Beyond. In the beginning, we see an aging Batman suddenly suffering a heart attack while in combat, and he's forced to use a gun to defend himself from a crook. Batman didn't even fire the gun and only scared the crook away, but he was so ashamed that he had to resort to using the same weapon that murdered his parents and retired from personally fighting crime forever. Why? Because Batman had a "no-gun" rule. According to him, it didn't matter if he had no choice and his own life was at stake. He armed himself with a weapon he promised to never use, and felt extremely guilty for it. He couldn't forgive himself, and declared "Never Again!" as he closed the Batcave down, and wouldn't go back down there until he met Terry McGinnis decades later.

Now the Nolan trilogy fans might ask: what's your point? My point is that there must be consequences to breaking your own promises. And from a narrative point of view, there must be consequences for Batman breaking his rules if you make his moral code an important plot point. Bruce Wayne in the DC Animated Universe made a vow to never use guns no matter the circumstances. And the consequences of breaking that vow - regardless whether he wanted to or not - led him to giving up being a crimefighter. As BatmAngelus said earlier on: what's the point of having a rule if there aren't any consequences? If breaking your own rule doesn't really affect you, then yes, it does negate the rule and its importance.

It doesn't. Because rules aren't there to follow because of consequences or guilt or shame. It's for you to know what's right and follow them. Bruce set forth a rule because he knew it was right. It wasn't about consequences. But I'm sure Bruce did feel guilt for killing Harvey inadvertently.

[The Laughing Fish]

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

I'm revisiting this because now the pathetic fuss over Batman killing in BvS has seen some people return to their lousy reasoning that lack of intent should absolve any guilt or responsibility, specifically in defense of TDKT. sh*t, can you imagine if somebody tried to defend themselves with that retarded reasoning after running somebody over?

"Yes Constable, I realise that pedestrian died immediately after he got hit by my car, and I wasn't looking when it happened because I was speeding at 100km/h...but I didn't mean for it to happen, so I didn't really kill him."

Good luck trying to explain that to the cops.

[The Dark Knight]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give me a person who intends to kill and does, over a man who doesn't intend to kill and does. I'm all about competency.

[The Laughing Fish]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give me a person who intends to kill and does, over a man who doesn't intend to kill and does. I'm all about competency.

As much as I ridicule the fanboys for their stupidity and hypocrisy, I blame people in the comic book industry for enabling this attitude. I can't expect much from fanboys - they're hopeless and can't think for themselves. But people like Neal Adams, Dennis O'Neill and Mark Waid should know better. Especially Adams and O'Neill because they've written their own stories where Batman kills too.

Then again, I heard that Adams thought Batman succeeded in killing Superman in BvS, so it makes you wonder if he actually bothered to watch the film.

[The Dark Knight]

Generally speaking, there is no left or right anymore. There's simply THE CORRECT WAY OF THINKING. And I don't care if you're homeless and sleeping under a bridge, or an esteemed and long respected comic writer living in a plush penthouse. If your opinion is stupid, I'll say so. No one is off limits. Batman is not the Punisher, but lives are still lost in his crusade. BvS made it painstakingly clear that Batman's methods had changed due to his sense of apathy and lost sense of control. But the facts don't matter for the anti BvS buffoons. May they suffer the same fate as BR's strongman.