Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[Dagenspear]

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?  I don't want to agree with Dagenspear, but I'd like to hear more robust arguments than "Batman excused Catwoman helping Oswald kill the Ice Princess because he was in love".  A real hero wouldn't do that, unless he somehow thought the Ice Princess deserved her fate or was a lesser human. [giveup]

Thank you.

No, you see, Batkeaton never claimed to be a hero or have a strong morality, so that makes it okay, right? Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

In that scene he prefesses to have a stronger moral code than he has and takes on a similar holier than thou approach. Exactly right for Baleman and Oldordon and the movie knows that. BR doesn't, by your logic.

Baleman makes commitments he cannot keep. Keaton is simply a protector of Gotham City and therefore has no moral codes to break, even if he feels regret about his behavior at times.

Not really. Bruce has done his research on her in TDKR. He knows just as much, if not more, than BR Bruce knows about Selina. I think in that movie even Selina knows more about him than he does her.

Yes, really. They meet only a handful of times. Researching someone on a computer doesn't equal a connection to a human being on a personal level. Simply put, TDK Rises doesn't give the Bruce/Selina relationship time to develop, and yet they retire together.

The finale scene of the film is a time a jump. Call it what you want, but it's not a single date and oh let's live happily ever after after we made out once and I told you about my ex.

I'm going on what the film shows. Time jump or no time jump, that changes nothing.

It's what the movie has Batman say.

And it's a mess.

Christopher's Nolan's wrong. That isn't in the movie at all. His view doesn't matter if it's not reflected in the movie itself.

Batman says he has one rule in the movie. The director of the film says something that goes against your stance so you ignore it.

No, you see, Batkeaton never claimed to be a hero or have a strong morality

You're right, he didn't.

so that makes it okay, right?

Batman is not a classical hero in the Burton films, in case anyone you're under that illusion.

[The Laughing Fish]

Christopher's Nolan's wrong. That isn't in the movie at all. His view doesn't matter if it's not reflected in the movie itself.

Batman says he has one rule in the movie. The director of the film says something that goes against your stance so you ignore it.

Yes. This level of denial is getting ridiculous, and quite sad, frankly. And it doesn't bode well for the critics and the fans who insist this Batman has never killed in the trilogy. It reaffirms my belief that none of the fans of these movies know what they're talking about.

There's nothing wrong if one enjoys Nolan's films for popcorn value; they may not work for me, but different strokes for different folks. But if it gets to the point that people must deny what the director says, and project their own wishful interpretation of what happens in a movie, then it all this does is convince me that Nolan is a terribly overrated writer and director.

Batman is not a classical hero in the Burton films, in case anyone you're under that illusion.

This. And besides, I don't call a classical hero who breaks his own nonsensical moral stance multiple times, while putting an entire city in danger by refusing to kill maniac for no reason...only to then kill another maniac in the last five minutes. And to add further insult to injury, take the blame for that maniac's sins, which destroys everything Batman stood for and give the city a false sense of security for eight years.

No matter what I think about that line in BR, it's nowhere near as bad and doesn't even bring horrible repercussions caused by Batman in that trilogy.

[Dagenspear]

Yes. This level of denial is getting ridiculous, and quite sad, frankly. And it doesn't bode well for the critics and the fans who insist this Batman has never killed in the trilogy. It reaffirms my belief that none of the fans of these movies know what they're talking about.

There's nothing wrong if one enjoys Nolan's films for popcorn value; they may not work for me, but different strokes for different folks. But if it gets to the point that people must deny what the director says, and project their own wishful interpretation of what happens in a movie, then it all this does is convince me that Nolan is a terribly overrated writer and director.

You generally resort to belittling when someone doesn't fall in line with what you say. Bruce did kill. That's a fact. I'm not ignoring the context and facts of the movie. The director should be denied if what they're saying contradicts what happens in the movie itself. It doesn't matter what Nolan is. His abilities aren't important in this discussion. If you want to prove to someone somehow that Nolan isn't a good a writer, you're barking up the wrong tree.

This. And besides, I don't call a classical hero who breaks his own nonsensical moral stance multiple times, while putting an entire city in danger by refusing to kill maniac for no reason...only to then kill another maniac in the last five minutes. And to add further insult to injury, take the blame for that maniac's sins, which destroys everything Batman stood for and give the city a false sense of security for eight years.

No matter what I think about that line in BR, it's nowhere near as bad and doesn't even bring horrible repercussions caused by Batman in that trilogy.

This is another case of ignoring context and the facts of the movie.

Baleman makes commitments he cannot keep. Keaton is simply a protector of Gotham City and therefore has no moral codes to break, even if he feels regret about his behavior at times.

Yes, really. They meet only a handful of times. Researching someone on a computer doesn't equal a connection to a human being on a personal level. Simply put, TDK Rises doesn't give the Bruce/Selina relationship time to develop, and yet they retire together.

I'm going on what the film shows. Time jump or no time jump, that changes nothing.

And it's a mess.

Batman says he has one rule in the movie. The director of the film says something that goes against your stance so you ignore it.

You're right, he didn't.

Batman is not a classical hero in the Burton films, in case anyone you're under that illusion.

He never makes a commitment he can't keep. Batkeaton's actions aren't excused just because he doesn't state a moral code. He's still does more wrong than Baleman by this logic and he does take a moral high ground that he's never had in BR.There's no real difference.

And making out once doesn't equal a connection to a human being on a personal level. They have no deep connection in that way on either. There's nothing there. I don't get this fixation on the relationship in trying to pretend it's something it's not.

By doing that you're ignoring the context.

It goes against what was stated in the movie. Anything the director or writer says doesn't matter. They're factually incorrect.

It doesn't change anything. He's wrong.

[The Dark Knight]

He never makes a commitment he can't keep.

Jonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?
Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...
Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Batkeaton's actions aren't excused just because he doesn't state a moral code. He's still does more wrong than Baleman by this logic and he does take a moral high ground that he's never had in BR.There's no real difference.

Only if you ignore the reasoning behind his comments. In 2015 you were singing a different tune about this. Keaton guns down Joker goons, throws Ray Charles down a bell shaft and kills the Strongman. If protecting the public from violent criminals is abhorrent, consider him guilty. Consider the two different approaches of the Batmen. In B89, Keaton stops the Batmobile and takes the fight to the back alleys. In TDK, Baleman blasts cars away with his cannons, endangering the public. Different scenarios, but the point remains. Baleman was more reckless while Keaton was more considered. He only endangered the lives of the people who needed to be endangered.

And making out once doesn't equal a connection to a human being on a personal level. They have no deep connection in that way on either. There's nothing there. I don't get this fixation on the relationship in trying to pretend it's something it's not.

Bruce and Selina are in the process of building a relationship in BR and it's a whole lot more believable than the flimsy, bare bones attempt in TDK Rises. They meet in Max's office, on the city streets, at Wayne Manor and various times while in costume.

By doing that you're ignoring the context.

It's on the film to make us care about the characters and make the conclusion believable. Imagining incidents off screen aren't good enough.

It goes against what was stated in the movie. Anything the director or writer says doesn't matter. They're factually incorrect.

He's only the guy who directed the movie. Yeah, let's not take his word for anything.

It doesn't change anything. He's wrong.

Nope.

[The Laughing Fish]

It goes against what was stated in the movie. Anything the director or writer says doesn't matter. They're factually incorrect.

He's only the guy who directed the movie. Yeah, let's not take his word for anything.

It's certainly a foolish claim to make, isn't it? If it weren't for the director and the writers, these movies wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Additionally, if we can't rely on the filmmakers, then there's no point watching any of their films. Why bother watching something if it makes ZERO sense, and force ourselves to infer something that's not there?

Sorry Dagenspear, but if anyone's ignoring context and conveniently twisting things around here, it's you. That's a fact.

[Dagenspear]

Jonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?
Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...
Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

Only if you ignore the reasoning behind his comments. In 2015 you were singing a different tune about this. Keaton guns down Joker goons, throws Ray Charles down a bell shaft and kills the Strongman. If protecting the public from violent criminals is abhorrent, consider him guilty. Consider the two different approaches of the Batmen. In B89, Keaton stops the Batmobile and takes the fight to the back alleys. In TDK, Baleman blasts cars away with his cannons, endangering the public. Different scenarios, but the point remains. Baleman was more reckless while Keaton was more considered. He only endangered the lives of the people who needed to be endangered.

Bruce and Selina are in the process of building a relationship in BR and it's a whole lot more believable than the flimsy, bare bones attempt in TDK Rises. They meet in Max's office, on the city streets, at Wayne Manor and various times while in costume.

It's on the film to make us care about the characters and make the conclusion believable. Imagining incidents off screen aren't good enough.

He's only the guy who directed the movie. Yeah, let's not take his word for anything.

Nope.

That's contradicted by what the movie has the character state, so they're wrong.

If you can ignore the reasons and context, why can't I? I'm just using the frame of logic you provide. Blowing up an entire building that could contain factory workers just doing their jobs isn't less reckless than Baleman, if we're using your logic.

They don't have a relationship and have no process. They meet, are attracted to eachother, but don't build anything. They have nothing but a hot makeout. It's all bare bones on both sides. The difference is that TDKR doesn't pretend they have some empty connection that can't exist. But I accept what BR gives on face value, because I don't want to needlessly tear down for no reason.

They're relationship is meaningless to making us care about them. That's their characters. The end is the cap off. It means nothing in making us care about them. Their relationship isn't the point of the ending. It's Bruce and Alfred's relationship that matters there. It just happens to be Selina he's with.

If he's wrong, we shouldn't.

He is.

It's certainly a foolish claim to make, isn't it? If it weren't for the director and the writers, these movies wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Additionally, if we can't rely on the filmmakers, then there's no point watching any of their films. Why bother watching something if it makes ZERO sense, and force ourselves to infer something that's not there?

Sorry Dagenspear, but if anyone's ignoring context and conveniently twisting things around here, it's you. That's a fact.

It's you. Please don't deflect. The facts are that what they say isn't in the movie. You do that too. Say things that didn't happen in the movies. You and Nolan have that in common.

[The Dark Knight]

That's contradicted by what the movie has the character state, so they're wrong.

They're not. The director contradicts you.

If you can ignore the reasons and context, why can't I?

The only person ignoring context here is you - the person who refuses to accept the word of the director himself.

Blowing up an entire building that could contain factory workers just doing their jobs isn't less reckless than Baleman, if we're using your logic.

You clearly don't understand the difference between the two characters. Keaton destroys a chemical weapons facility. Anyone who is in the vicinity deserves to be blown up with it. They're guilty by association. And guess what? Keaton's Batman doesn't have a no kill policy like Baleman. It's also an isolated incident away from the public.

They don't have a relationship and have no process. They meet, are attracted to eachother, but don't build anything. They have nothing but a hot make out.

Which is a whole lot more than we see with Baleman and Selina. They do build something but you choose to ignore it.

It's all bare bones on both sides.

It's bare bones on the TDKR side. Michelle's Selina get a lot more time to shine in her performance.

They're relationship is meaningless to making us care about them. That's their characters. The end is the cap off. It means nothing in making us care about them. Their relationship isn't the point of the ending. It's Bruce and Alfred's relationship that matters there. It just happens to be Selina he's with.

If their intent was for the audience not to care about their relationship, they succeeded. Which is what makes the finale with the two at the cafe cheap.

If he's wrong, we shouldn't.

Which he's not. You are.

[The Laughing Fish]

It's you. Please don't deflect. The facts are that what they say isn't in the movie. You do that too. Say things that didn't happen in the movies. You and Nolan have that in common.

You're the one who is deflecting, mate. And I hate to say it, but you're a liar too.

Your behaviour is a classic case of psychological projection, which is a defense mechanism where one can't cope with their own unwanted feelings and emotions, and attribute them onto others instead. For example, if a person is behaving in a rude and abusive manner, they'd deny any wrongdoing, and instead they'll accuse the other people for being rude and abusive.

Source: http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection

You've been projecting for the last two years since you've started posting here. At first, you denied Batman kills because you tried to use absurd arguments that he didn't "mean" to do it, despite agreeing that he did break his rule anyway. Not to mention ignoring Batman's culpability in setting up Ra's to be trapped in a doomed train. Then, you tried to cover up this flaw in your own argument coming up with the ludicrous suggestion that "breaking the rule doesn't negate the importance of the rule itself".

Now, not only do you keep ignoring facts that Batman kills, you've gone from refusing to acknowledge the filmmakers admitting he breaks his moral code, to suggesting that they're wrong about their own work, and then accuse people like me for "ignoring facts". Seriously, do you not even understand that by saying they're wrong, you're implying that the filmmakers are lying and dishonest about their own work? Don't you realise how stupid that sounds and ruins their credibility as artists even further if you keep saying that? I'll say it again, if it weren't for Nolan, these films wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

The facts I provide are written transcripts with actual context, whereas the "facts" you provide are based on nothing more than remaking the movie in your own mind, and refusing to acknowledge what's really happening on screen. I point out all the flaws of what I really don't like about these movies, and you accuse me of wanting to hate them, because you can't cope with the fact these films do have issues.

Now, I'm not condemning you for simply enjoying the trilogy. After all, I've enjoyed my own share of flawed, even corny stuff and I have no hesitation to admit some of the films I like are definitely flawed i.e. Batman Returns, Man of Steel, Thor: The Dark World etc. But at least I don't deny if I feel something doesn't seem right i.e. Batman saying "Wrong on both counts" in Batman Returns. Some people have already shared their opinions of that particular scene, and while I do agree with their assessment of what it was really about, I still think that quote by Batman was unnecessary. Regardless, that's the beauty of internet forums. People are free to express their different opinions, as long as they have the facts to back it up as well as using context to support their analysis.

But your problem is you keep denying things that happen on screen and whatever's written in text, using bizarre logical fallacies to twist your own interpretation whenever it's convenient. The last twelve or so pages is proof of this. You do this because deep down you know the films are deeply flawed, but you can't cope with admitting they are flawed, so you tell people around here they're wrong. When in fact, you're wrong. And yet, you hysterically tell me that me - and Nolan! - say things that didn't happen in the movies? Do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm not going to waste my time on this even further. I don't resent you Dagenspear, but you need to get real. This denial and projection isn't good for you. Take care and look after yourself.

[Dagenspear]

They're not. The director contradicts you.

The only person ignoring context here is you - the person who refuses to accept the word of the director himself.

You clearly don't understand the difference between the two characters. Keaton destroys a chemical weapons facility. Anyone who is in the vicinity deserves to be blown up with it. They're guilty by association. And guess what? Keaton's Batman doesn't have a no kill policy like Baleman. It's also an isolated incident away from the public.

Which is a whole lot more than we see with Baleman and Selina. They do build something but you choose to ignore it.

It's bare bones on the TDKR side. Michelle's Selina get a lot more time to shine in her performance.

If their intent was for the audience not to care about their relationship, they succeeded. Which is what makes the finale with the two at the cafe cheap.

Which he's not. You are.

The director is wrong and movie proves that. BB states one thing. The director states another. He's wrong.

No. But that's more deflection from your side of the discussion to avoid the fact that you apply double standards to these movies.

But who is he to say that all of them even know what's really going on or even judge them in that way? For all he knows, they have no knowledge. If we're applying the logic of recklessness that you give, it's the same no matter what, if not not worse on the batkeaton side, by this logic. Which I don't hold to.

They build nothing. They have no real development of their relationship. It's all the same. But explain to me what they build. They learn nothing about eachother as real people. They're attracted to eachother and that's it. What's the difference between the 2?

Michelle's performance has no bearing on the relationship itself. Her character is her shining attribute there. Certainly the best written female love interest character in superhero fiction to me, but that doesn't mean anything to the their relationship. It's both bare bones.

It would only feel cheap, if the relationship was meant to be important to the movie. It's not. The movie doesn't put it as the focus. You have a fixation on the batcat romance, but the movie itself doesn't have to. The batcat relationship doesn't matter to the cafe scene.

He is, because what he says is contradicted by the movie having the character state his stance: Not being an executioner.

You're the one who is deflecting, mate. And I hate to say it, but you're a liar too.

Your behaviour is a classic case of psychological projection, which is a defense mechanism where one can't cope with their own unwanted feelings and emotions, and attribute them onto others instead. For example, if a person is behaving in a rude and abusive manner, they'd deny any wrongdoing, and instead they'll accuse the other people for being rude and abusive.

Source: http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection

You've been projecting for the last two years since you've started posting here. At first, you denied Batman kills because you tried to use absurd arguments that he didn't "mean" to do it, despite agreeing that he did break his rule anyway. Not to mention ignoring Batman's culpability in setting up Ra's to be trapped in a doomed train. Then, you tried to cover up this flaw in your own argument coming up with the ludicrous suggestion that "breaking the rule doesn't negate the importance of the rule itself".

Now, not only do you keep ignoring facts that Batman kills, you've gone from refusing to acknowledge the filmmakers admitting he breaks his moral code, to suggesting that they're wrong about their own work, and then accuse people like me for "ignoring facts". Seriously, do you not even understand that by saying they're wrong, you're implying that the filmmakers are lying and dishonest about their own work? Don't you realise how stupid that sounds and ruins their credibility as artists even further if you keep saying that? I'll say it again, if it weren't for Nolan, these films wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

The facts I provide are written transcripts with actual context, whereas the "facts" you provide are based on nothing more than remaking the movie in your own mind, and refusing to acknowledge what's really happening on screen. I point out all the flaws of what I really don't like about these movies, and you accuse me of wanting to hate them, because you can't cope with the fact these films do have issues.

Now, I'm not condemning you for simply enjoying the trilogy. After all, I've enjoyed my own share of flawed, even corny stuff and I have no hesitation to admit some of the films I like are definitely flawed i.e. Batman Returns, Man of Steel, Thor: The Dark World etc. But at least I don't deny if I feel something doesn't seem right i.e. Batman saying "Wrong on both counts" in Batman Returns. Some people have already shared their opinions of that particular scene, and while I do agree with their assessment of what it was really about, I still think that quote by Batman was unnecessary. Regardless, that's the beauty of internet forums. People are free to express their different opinions, as long as they have the facts to back it up as well as using context to support their analysis.

But your problem is you keep denying things that happen on screen and whatever's written in text, using bizarre logical fallacies to twist your own interpretation whenever it's convenient. The last twelve or so pages is proof of this. You do this because deep down you know the films are deeply flawed, but you can't cope with admitting they are flawed, so you tell people around here they're wrong. When in fact, you're wrong. And yet, you hysterically tell me that me - and Nolan! - say things that didn't happen in the movies? Do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm not going to waste my time on this even further. I don't resent you Dagenspear, but you need to get real. This denial and projection isn't good for you. Take care and look after yourself.

I stated more than once that he kills. This is another situation where you ignore the facts. I don't really care much about the artists credibility here.

You provide the facts of what the writers say is in the movie. But that contradicts what the movies say. So what they say aren't facts. It's a fact that they're saying it. But it's not a fact that it's in the movie. They're wrong.

You've more than once ignored what happened on screen. That's not me. But you did that belittling thing again, when someone doesn't fall in line with you. I percieve hat you know you're wrong and that's why you do it. All movies are flawed. That means nothing to the discussion. It's in what way they're flawed. And in this situation, the way that's said it's flawed isn't in the movie. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!