Batman's gun policy

[The Dark Knight]

Ra's never would have shown Batman mercy in a similar situation, not after what happened before in the film, anyway.

So, while I don't approve of letting Ra's die entirely, I don't feel too sorry about it. Now, dealing with Joker and Two-Face in TDK is another thing...

Ras actually has a philospophy in line with me, when I think about it. But he's too extreme for my liking. Fear gassing an entire city is over the top. It's segments inside a city that allows it to become corrupt and decayed. Innocent people who go about their daily lives have nothing to do with it.

[The Laughing Fish]

I see your points and if Nolan and his writers were putting together something in novel form, maybe more of these ideas could get flushed out. But you really can't do that when the final game plan is to sell toys and make something the studio can make a ton of money off of. It has to be about spectacle first and foremost because you only get a captive audience for so long.

I really don't see what marketing has to do with getting in the way of character development. Especially since these films waste a lot of time on unnecessary and redundant plot twists, political references and explaining how Batman's equipment works and where they came from. In my opinion, I'd trade all of those for even five minutes in exploring what Batman does after breaking his rules, and the personal consequences they bring.

As a matter of fact, you could even look to Ben Affleck's Daredevil as an example. As much as many people like to trash that movie, I have to give it credit that it showed Daredevil beginning as a vengeful, deadly vigilante at the start of the movie, but then he changes over time and refuses to kill Kingpin in the end, because he knows that simply beating him was enough to avenge his father and believes Kingpin needs to answer for his crimes.

For me, it's either Batman has a strict principle and enforces it or he doesn't. It can't be both, and trying to have it both only makes the entire plot contrived, and Batman's moral dilemma completely meaningless. That's the complete opposite of "deep" and "complex", which are words lots of people use to describe these films. 

If this issue persisted in any other superhero film or action film, lots of people would've complained about them. Luckily for Nolan, Batman is a huge pop culture icon and probably the biggest in comics, and will always be popular in theatres. I really do believe his films get away with damning flaws because lots of people people were desperate to embrace how "dark" they are, because expectations got really low following B&R and the backlash surrounding it.

Personally I enjoy watching the lightweight material the most. I respect what Nolan did, but as entertainment I absolutely have to be in a specific mood to watch this series. Something like B&R I can watch when I've had a bad day and that more than fits the bill. So I guess perhaps the best thing we should be thankful for is that Batman has a broad enough appeal that he can be expressed in an infinite number of ways to satisfy the appetites of many different perspectives. That in itself is pretty impressive as a general concept.

Very well. You're right that Batman has a vast appeal in terms of tone, whether it's Adam West, Tim Burton, or BTAS. Even Schumacher to an extent, because his films did have positive messages despite the issues they had. While I do like bits and pieces in these three films, I'm simply not fond of Nolan's stuff at all. Never mind - can't always agree on everything.

[Dagenspear]

For me, it's either Batman has a strict principle and enforces it or he doesn't. It can't be both, and trying to have it both only makes the entire plot contrived, and Batman's moral dilemma completely meaningless. That's the complete opposite of "deep" and "complex", which are words lots of people use to describe these films.

He does have a principle and he does embrace it, but that doesn't mean he always perfectly executes it. No human is perfect.

I really do believe his films get away with damning flaws because lots of people people were desperate to embrace how "dark" they are, because expectations got really low following B&R and the backlash surrounding it.

I really like both, so that's not really the case.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[thecolorsblend]

Ras actually has a philospophy in line with me, when I think about it. But he's too extreme for my liking. Fear gassing an entire city is over the top. It's segments inside a city that allows it to become corrupt and decayed. Innocent people who go about their daily lives have nothing to do with it.

That's kind of the point. The cancer infected everybody. Even the innocent bystanders were guilty by association inasmuch as they did not overthrow the corruption around them. So while they weren't actually guilty of perpetrating it, they were guilty in a sense of perpetuating it. The cancer affected everything so the whole had to be destroyed.

That's an extreme view, as you say, but I can't fault his logic.

[The Dark Knight]

Innocent bystaders don't have the means to overthrow a corrupt, powerful force. I think its very much like today's current climate. There are people out there who know what is going on, what the problems are and what should be done. But what can we really do? Not much, except talk about it with other people. The politicians and police are the authority, and unless we have another French revolution, nothing really changes. So in that sense, I don't see the innocent people as blameworthy. I'd rather empower these people by removing the problem that exists.

[thecolorsblend]

Innocent bystaders don't have the means to overthrow a corrupt, powerful force. I think its very much like today's current climate. There are people out there who know what is going on, what the problems are and what should be done. But what can we really do? Not much, except talk about it with other people. The politicians and police are the authority, and unless we have another French revolution, nothing really changes. So in that sense, I don't see the innocent people as blameworthy. I'd rather empower these people by removing the problem that exists.

Well, I'd never be one to advocate mob justice. But there were cases aplenty in, say, the American Old West when murderers, thieves and whatnot were lynched by the town. They had a shared morality and were ready, willing and able to rise up and act outside the law if the law was not available. Or sometimes they had to take sides against corrupt officials. It was known to happen.

Yes yes yes, I realize "lynching" has certain negative connotations but those are not the persons or circumstances I'm referring to above.

It isn't like America is unique in that regard. Citizen justice is an age old practice. If the people see systemic corruption that The System protects, history shows that the people can and will rise up against it.

All of this is to say that the people of Gotham never did that.

Ghul's view was the reason they didn't was that they were in some way involved in (or at least complicit to) Gotham's corruption. Therefore they needed to be destroyed.

Bruce's view was they didn't because they needed a symbol to believe in and then they could take action but if there a Batman out there fighting the mobsters, crooked cops and corrupt judges, the rest of the city would follow suit.

On that basis, you could view electing Harvey Dent as Gotham making a stand and choosing justice over corruption... which Ra's himself might've seen had he given Bruce the extra time he requested.

Anyway...

[Andrew]

As we all know, despite Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing" during the rooftop fight scene, the end of the movie has Catwoman shooting Bane to death in order to save Batman, and Batman himself shooting at Talia's truck to save the town. What always made a huge impression on me was Catwoman telling Batman as soon as she rescued him: "About the whole no guns thing...(shakes her head)...I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do".

So, I suppose Nolan was trying to convey the message that guns are the answer to stop crime and disorder after all?

Well guns are usually considered part of the answer in the sense that it's OK for the police to have and use them and Batman doesn't object to that in general.

With Batman himself, it is very provocative, although very underexplored, that he wasn't able to himself defeat Bane, Catwoman using a tactic he dislikes was necessary and so I guess he does become more accepting of it in some cases. With Catwoman in general he seems to feel that some of his old principles were too stringent and myopic although not worth completely abandoning.

I guarantee you, if it was somebody else introduced a moral code and then have their character break it without exploring the consequences over it, or come to terms that he must break it to rescue others, that director would've been condemned by the critics for poor writing.

I don't know, I think a lot of protagonists commit dubious or inconsistent actions without the filmmakers getting a lot of criticism.

[The Laughing Fish]

Well guns are usually considered part of the answer in the sense that it's OK for the police to have and use them and Batman doesn't object to that in general.

With Batman himself, it is very provocative, although very underexplored, that he wasn't able to himself defeat Bane, Catwoman using a tactic he dislikes was necessary and so I guess he does become more accepting of it in some cases. With Catwoman in general he seems to feel that some of his old principles were too stringent and myopic although not worth completely abandoning.

The thing is, we have this Batman who supposedly holds a higher moral standard for himself, but is never consistent with it. The idea that Batman is becoming accepting about using guns because of Catwoman doesn't really hold much water, because he had already been using guns with every vehicle he drives long before he met her. You might say he never shot anybody before, but that still doesn't matter because he knows what he does is a matter of life and death. Sooner or later, he'll eventually have to use a gun to stop somebody, whether he likes it or not. Sometimes, there's no getting it, i.e. Batman shooting Knyazev's flamethrower tank to save Martha Kent in BvS. So it's disappointing to hear him take a no-gun stance, when he already knows it's impossible to avoid lethal force.

I don't know, I think a lot of protagonists commit dubious or inconsistent actions without the filmmakers getting a lot of criticism.

To tell you the truth, I'm starting to see that with Iron Man in the MCU. I used to think he was great in IM1, IM3 and Avengers 1. But ever since Age of Ultron, the writing for him has been going downhill, he hasn't learned any of his mistakes and he is starting to do a lot things that don't add up to me i.e. involving a teenage Spider-Man in a post-Sokovia Accords era. But he's still the quipping smartass, which seems most people only care about nowadays.

With that said, I still maintain what I said in my original post. I can't image critics giving somebody like Zack Snyder a pass for applying a flimsy and inconsistent gun policy.