did anyone have a problem with Batman killing back then?

[riddler]

the only Batman who did not kill anyone was Clooney. The difference is Nolan fans justify their Batman for doing it while condemning the rest. Pretty hypocritical when most of Afflecks killing was done in a dream sequence.

[The Dark Knight]

Indeed. Affleckman only outright kills people in the batwing and batmobile sequences. As you say, Keaton and Bale both did that, too.

[Silver Nemesis]

the only Batman who did not kill anyone was Clooney.

Further evidence of that unspeakable truth which none of us is openly willing to admit – that George Clooney was by far the best Batman.

The intense eyes, the square jaw, the pointy nipples. Has any other actor ever embodied the tortured essence of Batman quite so powerfully?

[BatmAngelus]

In all seriousness, Clooney still had one of the best Bruce-Alfred scenes of all time, even though most of it was because of Michael Gough and the dialogue that dived into Bruce's psyche:

[Silver Nemesis]

Joking aside, I think he was a good Bruce. He had the playboy part down effortlessly. And he had better chemistry with Gough and O'Donnell than Kilmer did. The scenes between him and Alfred are legitimately good, not just from an acting perspective but a writing standpoint too. Alfred's speech about Batman's quest essentially boiling down to an effort to control death is spot on.

It's weird, but the older I get the more I like Batman & Robin. Maybe it's just nostalgia, or maybe it's in my nature to defend things that are excessively maligned, but there's something about the movie I find appealing. It's a cheerful, upbeat Batman film, and how often do we see those these days?

[Dagenspear]

the only Batman who did not kill anyone was Clooney. The difference is Nolan fans justify their Batman for doing it while condemning the rest. Pretty hypocritical when most of Afflecks killing was done in a dream sequence.

That's because Batman & Robin rocks. But Val Kilmer's Batman didn't really kill anyone either. And Affleck's killed in more than just a dream sequence. It's not a justification. It's a statement of intention. In TDKT, Batman never actively tries to or wants to kill people. That's the difference.

Indeed. Affleckman only outright kills people in the batwing and batmobile sequences. As you say, Keaton and Bale both did that, too.

Bale didn't do that purposefully. He also, for all intents and purposes as far as we know, kills pre-KGBeast. Not that doing it in machines changes culpability. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless you both! God bless everyone!

[The Dark Knight]

Bale didn't do that purposefully.

Same result. He didn't intend to kill most people in the monastery either, but he did.

[The Joker]

Yep. Intentional, unintentional, or just being reckless, we are left with the same result.

With Val Kilmer's Batman, I have to disagree that he didn't really kill. If we're looking at all of this in a literal sense, it's kinda difficult to argue the intent by him throwing several silver dollar's at Two-Face with such timing right when Harvey's coin was in mid-air. Given Harvey's psychosis, and his OCD in the coin deciding, I have a hard time believing that Kilmer's Batman didn't know what the outcome would be with Harvey standing on such a limited amount of space right above certain death.

I can certainly understand why he did it, perhaps in some ways to spare Robin of vengeance by murder, but the intent of his actions with the coins appear to be pretty conspicuous.

[The Dark Knight]

Engaging in certain behaviour and being ignorant of the consequences is foolish. Affleck's Batman hooks vehicles up to a chain and drags them around, knowing it's going to cause serious damage to the occupants. And he's fine with that, so it works. Bale on the other hand blows away parked cars, which were shown to have children sitting inside. In BB he argues he didn't have time to observe the rules of the road, as if that makes him exempt. You can argue morals but if there's still a morgue full of bodies those morals don't mean squat.

[Dagenspear]

Engaging in certain behaviour and being ignorant of the consequences is foolish. Affleck's Batman hooks vehicles up to a chain and drags them around, knowing it's going to cause serious damage to the occupants. And he's fine with that, so it works. Bale on the other hand blows away parked cars, which were shown to have children sitting inside. In BB he argues he didn't have time to observe the rules of the road, as if that makes him exempt. You can argue morals but if there's still a morgue full of bodies those morals don't mean squat.

Same result. He didn't intend to kill most people in the monastery either, but he did.

There's a reason people are judged based on intention. It matters.

Yep. Intentional, unintentional, or just being reckless, we are left with the same result.

With Val Kilmer's Batman, I have to disagree that he didn't really kill. If we're looking at all of this in a literal sense, it's kinda difficult to argue the intent by him throwing several silver dollar's at Two-Face with such timing right when Harvey's coin was in mid-air. Given Harvey's psychosis, and his OCD in the coin deciding, I have a hard time believing that Kilmer's Batman didn't know what the outcome would be with Harvey standing on such a limited amount of space right above certain death.

I can certainly understand why he did it, perhaps in some ways to spare Robin of vengeance by murder, but the intent of his actions with the coins appear to be pretty conspicuous.

Intentions matter. Two-Face didn't die. Have a very great day everyone!

God bless everyone!