Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[Dagenspear]

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.

That doesn't make sense considering he showed no concern for that at any point, she'd already helped get the princess killed and had blown up Shreck's department store. Also, that's never developed in the movie, especially considering he says that the law applies to both of them, which he didn't believe before and that he's appalled at her killing Max in the dance scene.

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.

It would be if the movie cared about Batman killing people and if it mattered to the story. But it doesn't. What's also being missed here is that there's a line. Same with Punisher in s2 of Daredevil. The minute Batman tried to kill a for all intents and purposes innocent man in cold blood is the minute they lost the course and went from altering the character per adaption (like Batman 89 and BR), to just making him basically a villain. There's no getting back from that with him believing in humanity again or seeing Superman as a person. He was going to kill another hero that he knew wasn't evil. That's not just not my Batman. That's not a hero and not someone that the movie should accept as one because he had a change of heart. Whether or not Batman sees Superman as a person or believe in humanity again shouldn't matter to him not killing him. When they made Batman that, that's the biggest betrayal of the character. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

I know, that's why I said the scene was played for emotions rather than morality, and he saw how destructive revenge could be for somebody he cared about. I just think his "Wrong on both counts!" line was unnecessary, that's all.

[The Dark Knight]

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.

Gringo, lingo, dingo....BINGO.

Batman has concern for Selina. He wanted to live happily ever after with her in his castle. To do that, he needed to calm down a volatile personality and he said what he needed to say in that moment. It very nearly worked, but ultimately, Selina's rage meant more to her than a happy ending.

[Dagenspear]

Gringo, lingo, dingo....BINGO.

Batman has concern for Selina. He wanted to live happily ever after with her in his castle. To do that, he needed to calm down a volatile personality and he said what he needed to say in that moment. It very nearly worked, but ultimately, Selina's rage meant more to her than a happy ending.

And what makes this any less of an excuse for the movie than what I say, when what I say is in the movie and doesn't need to be assumed? Of course this is also still far bigger hypocrisy irregardless and isn't made an issue out of in the movie, by the standards applied. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

That doesn't make sense considering he showed no concern for that at any point, she'd already helped get the princess killed and had blown up Shreck's department store.

Bruce showing love for Selina is enough. He invites her to Wayne Manor to watch the tree lighting ceremony in front of the fireplace. Bruce attends Max's ball, only because Selina might attend. Catwoman sold Batman out to Bane in TDK Rises, and he continued to keep faith in her. His love for Selina outweighed any negative behavior she was involved in, which is consistent with the comics in this case. The same argument can be made for BR. Catwoman thought the Penguin was only going to scare the Ice Princess. She was still involved, but context matters. Bruce wanted to save Selina's soul before it was too late.

And what makes this any less of an excuse for the movie than what I say, when what I say is in the movie and doesn't need to be assumed? Of course this is also still far bigger hypocrisy irregardless and isn't made an issue out of in the movie, by the standards applied. Have a very great day!

No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK. If it means Batman can kill people, but he can't execute them, that doesn't make a lick of sense. Just as he has an anti-gun policy but he still uses them. I don't have a problem with Batman's no kill policy. I really don't. But I just ask that the creators be consistent with it. Adam West's Batman walks the talk in this regard.

[thecolorsblend]

No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK.

But see, like, that's different. Batman can use guns to kill people. But he can't use them to execute people. See? Totally different.

Or something.

[Travesty]

No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK.

But see, like, that's different. Batman can use guns to kill people. But he can't use them to execute people. See? Totally different.

Or something.

It's different because "execute" and "kill" aren't synonyms of each other, so they mean completely different things.

It makes perfect sense.

[Azrael]

No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK.

But see, like, that's different. Batman can use guns to kill people. But he can't use them to execute people. See? Totally different.

Or something.

(emphasis mine)

There may be some difference. In the movies, Batman kills in action scenes and the criminals fight back - the goons in Axis chemicals, the Strongman, the Fire Breather, saving Martha, the blitzkrieg stages in Batman V Superman etc. He kills like a soldier, not an executioner. "Execute" implies that the criminal is at Batman's mercy and doesn't pose a direct threat to him or any hostages, but he still pulls a Punisher and kills him.

[The Dark Knight]

Let's have a look at the B89/BR incidents.

Blowing up Axis - The chemicals had to go. Any goons who died were collateral damage.
Shooting Joker's goons - They were firing on the public. Batman is serving the role of Gotham's guardian.
Ray Charles - Self defence.

Honestly, the only incident that enters murky territory is this:



Is Batman at the criminal's mercy? Not really, but he punched Batman in the chest and refused to move.
Does he pose a threat to Batman? I'd say yes, given his massive size and ability to take a punch and laugh afterwards.

Like using the Batmobile exhaust on the fire breather, Batman simply ended the encounter and moved on.

[Dagenspear]

Bruce showing love for Selina is enough. He invites her to Wayne Manor to watch the tree lighting ceremony in front of the fireplace. Bruce attends Max's ball, only because Selina might attend. Catwoman sold Batman out to Bane in TDK Rises, and he continued to keep faith in her. His love for Selina outweighed any negative behavior she was involved in, which is consistent with the comics in this case. The same argument can be made for BR. Catwoman thought the Penguin was only going to scare the Ice Princess. She was still involved, but context matters. Bruce wanted to save Selina's soul before it was too late.

Bruce doesn't know about her issue with the ice princess thing. By all estimations, she was actively complicit in her death and even mocks his failure to save her. He has no reason to think she hasn't already crossed that line. Bruce had trust in Selina in TDKR because he had to. He had no other choice. He wasn't in love with her there. It wasn't choice based on love. It was a tactical decision to use someone who can help and counted on her desire to save herself, at least. In this it's as simple as he tries to help someone who was complicit in the murder of civilian woman for no reason other than revenge against him. I don't have a real problem with this, though thinking about it now, BR Batman has gone down a bit in my view, but he's still a hypocrite by the same logic of saying that TDKT Batman is a hypocrite for telling Selina no guns, no killing and that he won't execute, but has killed. Though I will continue to maintain that Bruce breaking the rule of no killing, even if he did have it, wouldn't negate the rule, because Bruce simply can't control every situation he's in.

No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK. If it means Batman can kill people, but he can't execute them, that doesn't make a lick of sense. Just as he has an anti-gun policy but he still uses them. I don't have a problem with Batman's no kill policy. I really don't. But I just ask that the creators be consistent with it. Adam West's Batman walks the talk in this regard.

It is consistent. Bruce says he won't be an executioner, not that he'll never killer. But by the same standards, BR Bruce isn't consistent by stating the law applies to both him and Selina or by being disgusted that she's gonna kill Max. That doesn't match up with his previously established character.

No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK.

But see, like, that's different. Batman can use guns to kill people. But he can't use them to execute people. See? Totally different.

Or something.

It's different because "execute" and "kill" aren't synonyms of each other, so they mean completely different things.

It makes perfect sense.

This is what I'm saying. Thank you!

There may be some difference. In the movies, Batman kills in action scenes and the criminals fight back - the goons in Axis chemicals, the Strongman, the Fire Breather, saving Martha, the blitzkrieg stages in Batman V Superman etc. He kills like a soldier, not an executioner. "Execute" implies that the criminal is at Batman's mercy and doesn't pose a direct threat to him or any hostages, but he still pulls a Punisher and kills him.

I agree with a lot of this. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!