Did Batman adopt a moral code by the end of the movie?

[The Laughing Fish]

As compelling as this scene is, I do have one gripe that has always bothered me about Batman trying to persuade Catwoman to turn Shreck over to the police. Catwoman declares that they are both above the law, but Batman disagrees. I find it a little hard to believe he'd say that because he ruthlessly killed criminals throughout the film. It was a contradictory line that didn't ring true to me. But perhaps one might argue that Batman didn't realize what he had become until he saw a reflection of himself in Selina and how her desire to get revenge was destroying her. In addition to wanting to find happiness with Selina since he sees her as his kindred spirit, maybe that's what Batman meant when he said "We're the same. Split right down to the centre". But I honestly think that's a bit too subtle if that's the case.

Having said that, if one chooses to recognize Batman Forever as a sequel to the Burton films, you could argue that movie fleshes out Bruce's sudden moral stance as he tries to discourage Dick Grayson from seeking revenge over Two-Face. In Forever, Bruce tells Dick that "the pain doesn't stop with Harvey, it grows. And it leads to taking your anger out on another face. And another. Until you wake up on one terrible morning and realize you've spent your whole life seeking revenge, and you won't remember why". He says this because he's speaking about his own experience, and he doesn't want Dick to go on the same path.

What do you all think? Did Batman adopt a moral code by the end of Batman Returns, or not?

[Slash Man]

Batman wasn't killing people out of anger, though. Those were thugs who intended to harm him or other people. Max was already defenseless, and Selina wanted to kill him out of revenge. That's where Batman's morals kicked in.

Though it may be contradictory, Batman saw Catwoman as a criminal as well. While sympathetic, he wouldn't allow her to just do as she pleases. Obviously, Batman did the same in the first movie with the Joker, but the instance of killing in revenge was in a much different light when Joker was the one who ruined Bruce's life so early on.

[The Laughing Fish]

But that's the problem: Shreck ruined Catwoman's life too because his attempted murder sent her over the edge. Though I think I do see your point about the differences between the maniacal Joker and the defenseless Shreck. One was a psychotic menace who everyone knew was a threat and is capable of anything, whereas the other was a somewhat adored figure by the fooling public and didn't really pose a threat at large.

[Slash Man]

Yeah, I think we can chalk it up to Batman being imperfect, perhaps even a touch selfish. It's easier for him to renounce Catwoman's actions because he's not in the same situation, but when he himself was confronted with the Joker, he couldn't hold back.

[Catwoman]

Maybe part of it was realizing the line he crossed with killing The Joker and trying to save Selina - who he obviously loved - from falling into that abyss. He knew she was out of control at that point. The last stitch of her psyche had popped. So while he was able to keep from falling in, he knew if she stepped over that line there was no bringing her back and salvaging his dreams for him and her.

Or maybe he was just being self-righteous and "Do as I say, not as I do" and I'm just giving the bastard too much credit lol.

[JokerMeThis]

I think Bruce saw the error of his ways through Selina's actions. He tried to save her but failed. But he learned a lesson and I believe this lead to his moral code we see in Batman Forever. Sometimes we are able to tolerate ourselves going down the wrong path but when we see someone we love doing the same thing we'll say something because we don't want them to turn out like us. Bruce did the same thing with Dick in Batman Forever.

[The Laughing Fish]

I think Bruce saw the error of his ways through Selina's actions. He tried to save her but failed. But he learned a lesson and I believe this lead to his moral code we see in Batman Forever. Sometimes we are able to tolerate ourselves going down the wrong path but when we see someone we love doing the same thing we'll say something because we don't want them to turn out like us. Bruce did the same thing with Dick in Batman Forever.

I guess Batman never expected nor wanted anyone he knew to become a reflection of himself. Whether or not it was intended, that idea of Bruce trying to stop someone he cares about from falling into that trap continued in BF. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from emulating him that way is something that the film deserves to get credit for. Critics might argue that Batman is still a hypocrite for killing Two-Face; much to Robin's satisfaction especially. And yeah, that might be true too. But it also allowed Robin to move on with his life - free from wanting revenge. Batman darkened his soul one more time to save another, I suppose. The complete opposite of what happened in the end of BR.

But then again, similar to what Catwoman said - it could've been just contrived BS and we're giving the writers too much credit than they deserve. 

[The Laughing Fish]

I'm revisiting this again because I recently read an old two-part issue where Batman's somewhat double standards were on display by the end of the story.

At the end of Batman #422, Batman's investigation of a serial killer who preyed on women came to an end when the sister of one of the victims took matters into her own hands. This is what Batman says to Robin at the end of the issue:



So why is this a bit hypocritical? Because this little storyline follows right after Ten Nights of the Beast, where Batman decides to lock KGBeast up underground and let him starve to death because he realized the Russian assassin was too dangerous to keep alive. Batman's actions in these stories kind of reminds me of his "Wrong on both counts!" line as he confronts Catwoman at the end of BR, despite the fact that Catwoman is half-right - the law doesn't apply to him!

Now while Burton's Batman certainly has a lot of influence in the Golden Age comics, I can't help but feel that he has some influences with the 80s comics too, albeit arguably unintentional. Batman in that era did kill under desperate circumstances, but he still preaches that nobody can be above the law. Batman only kills in the films to stop mass-murderers and psychopaths but Gotham City accepts him as long as the ends justify the means, so to speak. It's not realistic, but then again, vigilantes could never co-operate with the law under any circumstances in the real world. With the exception of the Joker, Batman doesn't kill out of vengeance (but even then, you could argue that Batman did Gotham a huge favour by getting rid of that maniac). In that KGBeast storyline, Batman and Robin were co-operating with the CIA in an effort to protect President Reagan from getting assassinated, and stop KGBeast from continuing his plot to destroy the US's space program by wiping out its key members. Batman decides to end KGBeast for the sake of national security.

You could also argue that these two comics storylines can be treated as individual tales because Batman doesn't break his rule and preach morality in the same story. And most importantly, when Batman does kill in the 80s comics (at least the ones I've read) and in BR, his morality doesn't become an important plot point, unlike something in the Nolan movies.

Just my opinion. 

[Dagenspear]

I think Bruce saw the error of his ways through Selina's actions. He tried to save her but failed. But he learned a lesson and I believe this lead to his moral code we see in Batman Forever. Sometimes we are able to tolerate ourselves going down the wrong path but when we see someone we love doing the same thing we'll say something because we don't want them to turn out like us. Bruce did the same thing with Dick in Batman Forever.

I guess Batman never expected nor wanted anyone he knew to become a reflection of himself. Whether or not it was intended, that idea of Bruce trying to stop someone he cares about from falling into that trap continued in BF. Bruce trying to prevent Dick from emulating him that way is something that the film deserves to get credit for. Critics might argue that Batman is still a hypocrite for killing Two-Face; much to Robin's satisfaction especially. And yeah, that might be true too. But it also allowed Robin to move on with his life - free from wanting revenge. Batman darkened his soul one more time to save another, I suppose. The complete opposite of what happened in the end of BR.

But then again, similar to what Catwoman said - it could've been just contrived BS and we're giving the writers too much credit than they deserve. 

Two-Face actually doesn't die there. And he wasn't intended to. It was always meant to be left open. But he does survive. We see his outfit in Arkham's area.

[The Dark Knight]

Tommy Lee's Two-Face is very much dead.