Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Thats true of any super hero when they are fighting "normal" people, we don't always see it of have it highlighted but its happening - MCU Heroes kill plenty.

But none of them are ever highlighted as having a code of not killing.

That's such a defining part of batman, effectively the only thing which separates him from those he fights against. But the levels of violence he actually uses makes the claim pretty ridiculous. We all know one punch with a bare fist which makes a person land awkwardly can kill, yet are expected to believe that batman can beat someone in the head with armoured gloves and boots and nobody dies.

So yes, he exercises the same level of force as say Captain America (when he isn't shooting Nazis with a literal gun) but we aren't expected to believe that Steve Rogers isn't killing people. He accepts that killing is sometimes necessary. So there isn't any dissonance between the narrative we are told and the narrative being shown on the screen.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

So yes, he exercises the same level of force as say Captain America (when he isn't shooting Nazis with a literal gun) but we aren't expected to believe that Steve Rogers isn't killing people. He accepts that killing is sometimes necessary. So there isn't any dissonance between the narrative we are told and the narrative being shown on the screen.

Well, sometimes. The moment Cap started bashing police going about their jobs with a portable battering ram, knocking them off a multi-story staircase (in Civil War), was the moment it was clear that his position in the narrative was fundamentally wrong.

Cap went out of his way in that fight to ensure that he didn't kill anyone (and that Bucky didn't kill anyone).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cap went out of his way in that fight to ensure that he didn't kill anyone (and that Bucky didn't kill anyone).

He smashed one guy in the head with a battering ram, and shoved others down the open center of what was a three-to-four story flight of stairs. There's no way he didn't kill anyone.

He caught them before they fell.

And Cap doesn't hit anyone with the battering ram.

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Cap went out of his way in that fight to ensure that he didn't kill anyone (and that Bucky didn't kill anyone).

He smashed one guy in the head with a battering ram, and shoved others down the open center of what was a three-to-four story flight of stairs. There's no way he didn't kill anyone.

No he didn't. Bucky did. Cap threw his shield about and hit some people real hard, but it was Bucky that started using the portable ram on his arm to hit people. Bucky I think killed people in that stair case. He also killed people who showed up with kill on sight orders over something he was framed for. So... yeah. Justified.

But regardless of that, Cap and Bucky are both professional soldiers and spies. Jobs that basically requiring killing. Batman is neither and specifically takes up a code of never crossing that line. Cap can and will kill the Red Skull. If Batman is willing to kill then why are any of his villains still alive?

I mean, his villains Shouldn’t be alive. Gotham really needs a death penalty.

 AduroT wrote:
I mean, his villains Shouldn’t be alive. Gotham really needs a death penalty.

In the comics they don't want to kill viillians as they have and need ongoing enemies.

In a film, you can and often do have a more permanent resolution.

 AduroT wrote:
I mean, his villains Shouldn’t be alive. Gotham really needs a death penalty.

Disagree. Batman's villains pretty much all fit the criteria for diminished capacity due to insanity.

What Gotham needs is more funding for its psychiatric institutions.

I just realised that Robert Pattinson has went from Twilight to Gotham...I guess vampires really do turn into bats after all.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I just realised that Robert Pattinson has went from Twilight to Gotham...I guess vampires really do turn into bats after all.

[slow clap]

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I mean, his villains Shouldn’t be alive. Gotham really needs a death penalty.

Disagree. Batman's villains pretty much all fit the criteria for diminished capacity due to insanity.

What Gotham needs is more funding for its psychiatric institutions.

...with security as a definite priority for that funding - the number of times people break out of Arkham Asylum, or take it over from the inside, is a touch ridiculous.

Once they can keep people there, then they can work on trying to cure them.

 Dysartes wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
I mean, his villains Shouldn’t be alive. Gotham really needs a death penalty.

Disagree. Batman's villains pretty much all fit the criteria for diminished capacity due to insanity.

What Gotham needs is more funding for its psychiatric institutions.

...with security as a definite priority for that funding - the number of times people break out of Arkham Asylum, or take it over from the inside, is a touch ridiculous.

Once they can keep people there, then they can work on trying to cure them.

I always got the impression Arkham was part of the problem

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Thats true of any super hero when they are fighting "normal" people, we don't always see it of have it highlighted but its happening - MCU Heroes kill plenty.

But none of them are ever highlighted as having a code of not killing.

That's such a defining part of batman, effectively the only thing which separates him from those he fights against. But the levels of violence he actually uses makes the claim pretty ridiculous. We all know one punch with a bare fist which makes a person land awkwardly can kill, yet are expected to believe that batman can beat someone in the head with armoured gloves and boots and nobody dies.

IIRC, Batman: Ego -- cited by the director as an influence on this film -- deals with this. Think we can expect to see him struggling with his dual nature. Yeah, he was way over the top with that thug, and I think that's intentional and relevant.

In the most recent Batman story line (Joker War) the Joker taunts Batman by asking him who he thinks hates him more: the people that died early on because Bats didn't realize the level of threat he was or the more recently deceased that died because Bats hasn't really stopped him and allowed him to go on killing by not killing him. He goes on to tell Batman that this proves that Batman doesn't really care about the people of Gotham but cares about being right and feeling righteous.

Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.

If you kill, the dead person is unable to makes amends and change the error of their ways. They can change their ways if their arm never fully recovers, or if they’re paralyzed.

Philosophically and morally speaking, Batman isn’t guilty of “not-murdering” his super villains. Batman captures the bad guys and allows society to deal with them as they choose. He may (almost certainly) cause them grievous harm in the process, but that harm acts as a deterrent to future crime. Batman does not commit the murders. He attempts to stop them. But if he were to kill his enemies, he would deny them the opportunity to repent.

"The deliberate taking of human -- even superhuman life goes against every believe I have -- and that you have. That's the one thing we've always had in common. It's what made us what we are.

More than anyone in the world, when you scratch everything else away from Batman, you're left with with someone who doesn't want to see anybody die."


That always just summed him up completely for me.

Then, of course, there's this, for a 'realistic' take on Batman, that isn't miserable. - Though I'd like to highlight that I'm NOT 'prejudging' this movie. There's no indication that they're NOT going this way.

Alex Ross is the greatest artist in comics. Just hands down, no competition.

Absolutely.

The downside being that it isn't a quick process to produce such quality.

I tend to think he works better as a cover artist than the main artist for a story, due to time constraints - the series of character study covers he did for the JSA, for example, are stunning.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.

If you kill, the dead person is unable to makes amends and change the error of their ways. They can change their ways if their arm never fully recovers, or if they’re paralyzed.

Philosophically and morally speaking, Batman isn’t guilty of “not-murdering” his super villains. Batman captures the bad guys and allows society to deal with them as they choose. He may (almost certainly) cause them grievous harm in the process, but that harm acts as a deterrent to future crime. Batman does not commit the murders. He attempts to stop them. But if he were to kill his enemies, he would deny them the opportunity to repent.

I don't know, The Joker seems like a pretty reliable guy. We should trust him on this.

I've always wanted to retcon Batman a little bit by having his mother's maiden name be "Arkham" and her being from said family.

Which is one of the reasons Bruce continues to fund and rerererere etc etc etc build Arkham after the 123rd mass breakout or destruction of it.

..course that family has a history of mental issues of their own but that sort of thing never passes down the line .....

 greatbigtree wrote:
Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.

If you kill, the dead person is unable to makes amends and change the error of their ways. They can change their ways if their arm never fully recovers, or if they’re paralyzed.

Philosophically and morally speaking, Batman isn’t guilty of “not-murdering” his super villains. Batman captures the bad guys and allows society to deal with them as they choose. He may (almost certainly) cause them grievous harm in the process, but that harm acts as a deterrent to future crime. Batman does not commit the murders. He attempts to stop them. But if he were to kill his enemies, he would deny them the opportunity to repent.

The problem is he knows that the system absolutely can not cope with the super villains.

So don't kill the Joker - cripple him and know that he is no longer a threat to others.

As I said the main reason that he does not do either is that comics need ongoing villains - films don't.

@ Mr Morden:

Batman does, frequently, beat the Joker to within an inch of his life. I think it’s at the end of “The Killing Joke” that the Joker says to Bats, “Go ahead, beat the hell out of me like you always do.” Or something along those lines. And Bats replies with something along the lines of, “I don’t want to hurt you, I want to help you. I don’t want for one of us to wind up killing the other.”

To which the Joker says something like, “Yeah, that would be good, but it isn’t gonna happen.”

Batman can’t relent on the possibility that it could though. He can’t condemn someone to Death, because that precludes the possibility of redemption.

And yes, as a “real world” issue, recurring villains are importan in comic books. Batman, the character, has a motivation that coincides with this.

Sometimes I feel like Batman and Gotham don’t quite fit into the wider DC universe. It’s the all round lack of super powers, aliens, magic etc. and darker tone in comparison to the others. But I’m not an expert so feel free to scoff and roll your eyes.

The DC universe only became a connected universe years after the characters were conceived, and I think we still see the evidence of that today in both the comics and movies. Meanwhile, Stan Lee and company invented much of the Marvel universe around the same time period with a little more attention to connectivity.

 gorgon wrote:
The DC universe only became a connected universe years after the characters were conceived, and I think we still see the evidence of that today in both the comics and movies. Meanwhile, Stan Lee and company invented much of the Marvel universe around the same time period with a little more attention to connectivity.

I did not know that! Love new information. (This is not a sarcastic post, just in case)

 greatbigtree wrote:
Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.

Well, guilty according to Batman.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Batman punishes the guilty, severely, but does not kill. Batman believes in the possibility of rehabilitation and redemption.

Well, guilty according to Batman.

Anarchy movie when DC?

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Mr Morden:

Batman does, frequently, beat the Joker to within an inch of his life. I think it’s at the end of “The Killing Joke” that the Joker says to Bats, “Go ahead, beat the hell out of me like you always do.” Or something along those lines. And Bats replies with something along the lines of, “I don’t want to hurt you, I want to help you. I don’t want for one of us to wind up killing the other.”

To which the Joker says something like, “Yeah, that would be good, but it isn’t gonna happen.”

Batman can’t relent on the possibility that it could though. He can’t condemn someone to Death, because that precludes the possibility of redemption.

And yes, as a “real world” issue, recurring villains are importan in comic books. Batman, the character, has a motivation that coincides with this.

Beating him up does nothing - he is on the masocist scale anyway - he knows, it batman knows it.

Cripple him, take his limbs or something similar, - then let him repent.

Batman the film character does not have to worry about future issues so he does not have the same restrictions because he is a similar but different character.

 gorgon wrote:
The DC universe only became a connected universe years after the characters were conceived, and I think we still see the evidence of that today in both the comics and movies. Meanwhile, Stan Lee and company invented much of the Marvel universe around the same time period with a little more attention to connectivity.

Ehh... thats not really true.

Marvel as we know it started with the invention of the Fantastic 4. There were many character that were created before the first "cross over" in the Avengers 3 years later. But things still didn't really wholly cross over until years after that.

Both DC and Marvel are created off the back bone of acquisitions of other comic companies and characters. But DC more so than Marvel. And that acquisition led to a lot of characters that where wholly separate suddenly being able to cross over. With Avengers and other team books becoming popular we got more Justice Society and such. Thats what led to more and more cross overs which eventually built to the idea of a cohesive universe of characters that can interact. The inter connectivity isn't so much a product of planning and attention as it is a sales gimmick that then took shape.