did anyone have a problem with Batman killing back then?

[The Dark Knight]

Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Bruce didn't actually know about the jack-in-the-box or the exploding octopus. The villains discussed their plan before they captured him, so he couldn't possibly have known about the death trap. Riddler, Joker and Penguin were responsible for that goon's death. West's Batman never intentionally killed anyone.

Yep. The worst thing West's Batman did was leave parachutes on the road after doing Emergency Bat-Turns. When it came to being a model citizen, West's Batman walked the talk. And for that he must be praised. He's very consistent.

[riddler]

Bruce knew all of this and yet later on purposely throws a thug into the trap where he is indeed thrown out the window, into the water where a big explosion occurs. Though the Nolanites will probably claim it's okay for Batman to kill if he's not wearing his suit.

Bruce didn't actually know about the jack-in-the-box or the exploding octopus. The villains discussed their plan before they captured him, so he couldn't possibly have known about the death trap. Riddler, Joker and Penguin were responsible for that goon's death. West's Batman never intentionally killed anyone.

I just watched it the other day and I could be wrong but I'm about 90% sure the bad guys capture Bruce Wayne with the assumption that Batman would come save him. They discuss the foot trap in front of Bruce obviously having no clue he is Batman and this is how Bruce escapes; the bad guys assume he'll just be a damsel in distress and talk about their plans for Batman freely around Bruce.

[Silver Nemesis]

The villains did intend to use Bruce as bait to lure Batman into a trap, but Bruce was either absent or unconscious from Penguin's knockout gas whenever the particulars of the plan were discussed. He didn't know about the jack-in-the-box or the exploding octopus.

[The Laughing Fish]

I know this focuses on BvS, but the following relates to people's attitude towards Batman killing on screen.

A month ago, Jay Oliva, known for directing The Dark Knight Returns animated adaptation and did storyboard work on BvS, got into an argument  with detractors about Zack Snyder's vision on Twitter, and Batman killing in the film became the main talking point. This detractor's tweet is indicative to the moronic attitude about the topic:

A Batman who kills is no Batman in my opinion. And I know you're gonna say he killed in other live action films but at least they mentioned his one rule and didn't just step all over it.

https://twitter.com/drdr47811/status/987874884947730432



Thankfully, several other people with common sense replied to refute that idiocy.

Batman has  killed in other movies but as soon as Snyder did it, it's the worse thing ever. That makes zero sense.

It's intellectually dishonest to claim that a Batman that kills is "no Batman", and then proceed to justify other instances of him doing the same, by basically saying "well, at least they payed lip service to his rule." You do know that mentioning it doesn't erase the act, right?

What's more, you said that they mentioning the rule and doing the opposite is an example of them not stepping over it. But logic tell us it's the opposite: mentioning his rule and have him killing anyways is the epitome example of stepping over his rule. Makes sense?

So, you want a hypocrite Batman.

That's make it infinitely worse. That makes him a hypocrite. He's going to kill you then lie about it.

So you didnt like Keaton's Batman and Bale's Batman either because they killed too

That makes no sense. You're saying it's better to be hypocritical & turn his "rule" into lip service than actually show him aware he's changed & breaking his rule bc the world itself changed & give us a story of redemption where he ends the film with a renewed sense of hope?

[BatmanFurst]

For those that saw this back in '89(I wasn't born yet), do any of you remember anyone having a problem with Batman killing back then?

Now I'm not justifying or condemning Burton's decision to have Batman kill in his films, but it's something I've been wondering since with today's Batman fans, many of them don't consider this to be the "true" Batman since he's a murderer, but it didn't seem to be a problem with folks back then, and I'm assuming Batman hasn't killed in decades in the comics by that point(haven't read them, sorry). It does puzzle me how people seemed to dislike the inclusion of Joker being the murderer of the Waynes from day one, but they are fine with him going Charles Bronson Death Wish style on the bad guys he faces.

Discuss...

I wasn't around when the film came out so I can't give a real answer to that question. However, I personally don't have a problem with it in the 89 film. I think the real problem here is just ignorance. I'm sure most of the people that complain about Batman killing in this film are oblivious to the fact the the film was based on Bob Kane/Bill Finger's take on the character. So I don't know why this is still a debate. The characterization of Batman in the 89 film is based on a period where he killed people, used a hand gun, and had machine guns attatched to the Batwing. Keaton's Batman in the first film is pretty faithful to the sorce material. Batman doesn't do anything that can't be immeadiately referenced in the Golden Age, so I'm unsure as to why this is even an issue. If the filmmakers have stated that the 89 film is based on a specific version of the character, it's unfair to then use the rules and morals of a different incarnation of said character against the film imo.

[The Dark Knight]

As far as I am concerned, Batman isn't telling himself 'I'm going to kill a bunch of people tonight.' His primary focus is protecting the city. And if that means using an explosive device, so be it. If he enters into an encounter where it becomes apparent lethal force is required, he will act accordingly - Ray Charles always being a good example. But I don't foresee him ever whacking nobody punks like Nick and Eddie in cold blood. That's why the killer Batman meme is so false. It's the exaggerated idea that Batman is a bloodthirsty serial killer who gets a kick out of taking life.

[The Laughing Fish]

If people want to express their distaste for the idea of Batman killing, I'd respect them A LOT more if they were consistent. What these idiots don't understand is Hollywood thinks Batman's rule is ridiculous if the movies are meant to be dark. If you really don't want Batman to kill in live action, apply that criteria against all of the films, and the producers will finally get the message.

And no, you hypocritical idiots, a rule isn't a rule if it gets broken all the time for plot convenience. Don't ever tolerate lip service.

[BatmanFurst]

As far as I am concerned, Batman isn't telling himself 'I'm going to kill a bunch of people tonight.' His primary focus is protecting the city. And if that means using an explosive device, so be it. If he enters into an encounter where it becomes apparent lethal force is required, he will act accordingly - Ray Charles always being a good example. But I don't foresee him ever whacking nobody punks like Nick and Eddie in cold blood. That's why the killer Batman meme is so false. It's the exaggerated idea that Batman is a bloodthirsty serial killer who gets a kick out of taking life.

True for the most part except for the Joker. He flat out says "I'm going to kill you" which shows that killing him was a premeditated act. Again, I don't have a problem with that either. If the Pre-Robin Batman was put in that situation he'd react the same way.

[The Dark Knight]

A very specific circumstance involving the killer of his parents.

I admit the strongman sequence is a little harder to defend, but alas.

[thecolorsblend]

A very specific circumstance involving the killer of his parents.

I admit the strongman sequence is a little harder to defend, but alas.

The explosion that ensued following the strongman's plunge down the hole is ambiguous at best. First off, the guy could've taken the bomb out of his pants before it went kablooey.

But even if he didn't, that was a pretty wimpy explosion. There's no reason to assume he died from that. He might not have even been too horribly injured.

Also, the Joker's death is really more on himself than it is Batman. If the Joker had simply let go of the helicopter ladder, he would've dangled off the side of the building. Batman may have intended to kill the Joker... but when the Joker actually died, it wasn't because Batman intended it. Batman fired a spear gun at the Joker's ankle. If he'd been aiming to kill, he would've fired the spear gun into the Joker's chest.

The examples of Batman taking people out permanently raised so far are rather easy to defend.