Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[Dagenspear]

Baleman's character never had a no kill rule.

Nonsense.

Batman: I have one rule.
The Joker: Oh, then that's the rule you'll have to break to know the truth.
Batman: Which is?
The Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.
The Joker: And tonight you're gonna break your one rule.
Batman: I'm considering it.

There's no statement in that dialogue against killing. Here's his stated rule in Batman Begins:

BRUCE: I will not become an executioner.

Maybe the writers and director intended something different from this situation, but that's on their lackings and not in the movie. Execution is different than killing. I used to think he had a no kill rule. But after going through the movies, I recognize that he never states such a rule. Killing is certainly not something he practices, but he never states a rule against it. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

More nonsense. It's widely known Batman's 'one rule' relates to killing and it's the exact phrase Baleman uses. Arguing anything to the contrary is spinmantics. Baleman also says "no guns, no killing" - and he's guilty of both.

[thecolorsblend]

More nonsense. It's widely known Batman's 'one rule' relates to killing and it's the exact phrase Baleman uses. Arguing anything to the contrary is spinmantics. Baleman also says "no guns, no killing" - and he's guilty of both.

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.

[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.

Bruce never says he won't take a life. That's the point. If Nolan meant otherwise, he's wrong. Because that's not in the movie. The claim that he has that rule isn't canon in the series. Of course TDK does evaluate when it is or it isn't in some way. Hence his killing of Harvey, when that's the only way to save the Jim's son in that moment. He won't kill the Joker because he's never in the exact same position with him as with Harvey. His claims to Selina are to her. But, to rebut how all of them have a mitigating factor: In Batman Returns, Selina pulls out a gun and says she's gonna kill Max. Bruce is disgusted and asks, "Who do you think you are?" And then at the end when Selina tells him that the law doesn't apply to people like him or us, Bruce responds, "Wrong on both counts." Both of these are hypocritical of him and the movie never claims that he is. He's treated as morally upright.

More nonsense. It's widely known Batman's 'one rule' relates to killing and it's the exact phrase Baleman uses. Arguing anything to the contrary is spinmantics. Baleman also says "no guns, no killing" - and he's guilty of both.

I can only state what the movies state and they never state no killing for his rule. He tells that to Selina, due to her own uses in that situation. He never makes a claim about himself. Call it hypocritical if you must. But he never claims that he has that rule. You're reading what hasn't been written. Semantics is a branch of logic concerned with meaning. So the attempt to make into something negative doesn't apply here.

[The Dark Knight]

I can only state what the movies state and they never state no killing for his rule. He tells that to Selina, due to her own uses in that situation. He never makes a claim about himself.

The film heavily implies Batman has a strong anti-gun policy.....even though he uses them.

"About that whole guns thing, I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do."

Call it hypocritical if you must.

I will because it is.

You're reading what hasn't been written. Semantics is a branch of logic concerned with meaning. So the attempt to make into something negative doesn't apply here.

What's the one rule then? That he will only eat chocolate donuts at 9.09am? Is that the rule that Batman is considering to break when he's angrily holding the Joker by the throat? If you want to play games with the meaning of executioner, go ahead. But Batman's one rule has always been clear cut in the other media. No killing, as he states to Catwoman in TDK Rises.

[Dagenspear]

The film heavily implies Batman has a strong anti-gun policy.....even though he uses them.

"About that whole guns thing, I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do."

That's a flaw in the movie, because every version of Batman that I've seen has been accepting of law enforcement and their use of guns. Though that line could be interpreted as guns for killing for Selina's case. But that's not stated in the movie. Of course, Batman never states that either for his own perception on guns. Not that that takes away the flaw.

I will because it is.

Sure.

What's the one rule then? That he will only eat chocolate donuts at 9.09am? Is that the rule that Batman is considering to break when he's angrily holding the Joker by the throat? If you want to play games with the meaning of executioner, go ahead. But Batman's one rule has always been clear cut in the other media. No killing, as he states to Catwoman in TDK Rises.

In other media. The Nolan movies go the execution route, by Batman's statement. I would say that the rule he considers breaking is executing him, by the movie's continuity on his rule.

[Travesty]

So let me get this straight: you're saying it's fine for Batman to kill people, because he "never had a rule about that", but he can't execute people, because that was stated in the movie?

Is this what you're saying?

[Dagenspear]

So let me get this straight: you're saying it's fine for Batman to kill people, because he "never had a rule about that", but he can't execute people, because that was stated in the movie?

Is this what you're saying?

I'm saying what the movie said. At the moment I'm not stating it's morality. My point is that it's not contradicted by the continuity of his rule as it's defined. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[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.

Despite my criticisms of the many hypocrisies in this series, I've got to admit that even Batman in BR was being hypocritical while trying to talk Catwoman out of taking her revenge over Max Schreck. Not necessarily because he got his revenge over the Joker in B89, but rather, he dismissed Selina's declaration that the law doesn't apply to either of them.

I had always been bothered by this because Selina is half-right, the law doesn't apply to Batman. He can roam around Gotham City and investigate suspects, beat up AND kill dangerous psychos without answering to any authority whatsoever, so when he says "Wrong on both counts!", it never made any sense to me to argue that he hasn't crossed the line many times. When thinking about it logically, yes, he has.

But I always thought the scene was less about a moral argument, and more towards the fact that it was a doomed premature romance. Finally, Bruce Wayne finds a somebody who is more or less a mirror image to him - the closest thing to a kindred spirit he will ever likely find...and it pained him that somebody that he was beginning to fall in love is consumed by vengeance. I think it would've been perfect without that unnecessary "Wrong on both counts!" line, but regardless, the scene was supposed to evoke the tragic and lonely side of Batman. That's why I can tolerate his hypocrisy there.

In fact, that's why BvS should be praised - not ridiculed - for Batman waking up to nearly becoming everything he fought against by becoming Superman's murderer - not the saviour of mankind, and shows contrition throughout the last half hour of the film i.e. rescuing Martha Kent, anonymously paying for Clark's funeral and the vow to start the Justice League to honour him. How many Batman movies do you know where the hero himself realises that he was wrong, and dedicates the rest of his time trying to make amends? That, in my opinion, should be applauded.

[thecolorsblend]

Despite my criticisms of the many hypocrisies in this series, I've got to admit that even Batman in BR was being hypocritical while trying to talk Catwoman out of taking her revenge over Max Schreck. Not necessarily because he got his revenge over the Joker in B89, but rather, he dismissed Selina's declaration that the law doesn't apply to either of them.

He was trying to talk her down. He wasn't overly concerned with the value of human life so much as he didn't want Selina to become what he is.