Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In previous batman films Batman (1989), Batman returns and batman forever, batman is the reason behind quite a few deaths, Joker he caused to fall to his death, I dunno whether this was his intention, in batman returns he kills some of the penquins henchmen and in batman forever he was the reason two face died and he didn't even try to save him, in batman and robin I can't remember if batman killed or not. But anyways why was batman going around killing? I mean thats just not batman, I dunno if other people liked this batman but c'mon...thats just not batman I mean was there any reason the guys behind these movies decided to have batman killing...was it meant to make us think 'oh yay the bad guys dead'?

Batman kills all the time in the comics.

But he's not supposed to. That's kinda why the franchise got rebooted.

The movies were partially based on Frank Miller's work. While Frank Miller's Batman isn't as big a killer as some people, he's not exactly lenient either.

the correct answer is that batman in the old films was cooler then he is in the new films and the comics. superheroes that put the same criminal in jail over and over and over again even though he kills people= failure

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
the correct answer is that batman in the old films was cooler then he is in the new films and the comics. superheroes that put the same criminal in jail over and over and over again even though he kills people= failure

You know they were gonna have scarecrows gas stuff bring the joker back before they rebooted the series right? glare

It's why V will always be cooler than batman. Batman "can't" kill.

Batman can kill but chooses not to

I think it's worth saying.

He killed Ra's in Batman Begins.

There's already a thread about this, specifically comparing Batman's body count to Daredevil's.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
There's already a thread about this, specifically comparing Batman's body count to Daredevil's.

Thats comic DD and batman, plus this is discussing batman killing in the movies which is something he doesn't do or rarely does, this isn't about DD this is about batman

Originally posted by steverules_2
Batman can kill but chooses not to


ITA..

Originally posted by lord xyz
I think it's worth saying.

He killed Ra's in Batman Begins.


Actually Ra's chose to die, Batman did not kill him, Batman chose NOT to save him

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
ITA..




Actually Ra's chose to die, Batman did not kill him, Batman chose NOT to save him

While that is true, I just felt it was still somewhat out of character for Batman to let a defeated adversary die in that circumstance.

And Hey, no one said Ra's is dead...

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
the correct answer is that batman in the old films was cooler then he is in the new films and the comics. superheroes that put the same criminal in jail over and over and over again even though he kills people= failure
So are you sayin' those said superheroes should just be heartless killing machines when it comes to their enemies? That would make 'em no better than the same criminals they fought to lock up.

Originally posted by One Free Man
It's why V will always be cooler than batman. Batman "can't" kill.
Just a matter of opinion. Some people obviously prefer the kind of heroes that choose not to slay unless in self-defense, while others like the 'killing protagonists' more-so.

Originally posted by Placidity
While that is true, I just felt it was still somewhat out of character for Batman to let a defeated adversary die in that circumstance.
Yeah. It made Bale's Batman look like a hypocrite if nothing else, especially with the way he went on before about how nothing is beyond saving.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
ITA..


I dunno what ITA is but I'm gonna take a shot and say it means 'I Totally Agree'

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker

Actually Ra's chose to die, Batman did not kill him, Batman chose NOT to save him That's no different actually.
Also sometime superhero should kill imo. Batman should've killed Joker a long time ago instead he even saved him a few times. Tehn again, Joker could've killed him many time in the past.

Originally posted by SamZED
That's no different actually.
Also sometime superhero should kill imo. Batman should've killed Joker a long time ago instead he even saved him a few times. Tehn again, Joker could've killed him many time in the past.


It would have been more CONVINIENT for Batman to have killed the Joker. But should he have? Thats what many villains do, kill out of convinience. Batman is obviously not a villain.

Batman's will makes him a better character imo than heroes that just go around killing. The Joker even WANTS Batman to kill him on occassion. Joker has been known to egg Batman on. What kind of hero would Batman be if he succumbed and gave his greatest adversary what he wanted?

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
It would have been more CONVINIENT for Batman to have killed the Joker. But should he have? Thats what many villains do, kill out of convinience. Batman is obviously not a villain.

Batman's will makes him a better character imo than heroes that just go around killing. The Joker even WANTS Batman to kill him on occassion. Joker has been known to egg Batman on. What kind of hero would Batman be if he succumbed and gave his greatest adversary what he wanted? I know Joker would be happy to die by Batman's hand, that'd only prove his point. But the whole not killing bad guys out of principal only works in comicbooks. Im really respect heros like Spider-man who's trying to convince his teammates not to kill his greatest enemy, heck I wish I could be that noble, but Joker's killed how many people? Hundreds? Thousands? And he keeps escaping every time, if that was the case in the real life it would've been the right thing for Bats to kill him to prevent murders in the future, dont you think so?

Originally posted by SamZED
I know Joker would be happy to die by Batman's hand, that'd only prove his point. But the whole not killing bad guys out of principal only works in comicbooks. Im really respect heros like Spider-man who's trying to convince his teammates not to kill his greatest enemy, heck I wish I could be that noble, but Joker's killed how many people? Hundreds? Thousands? And he keeps escaping every time, if that was the case in the real life it would've been the right thing for Bats to kill him to prevent murders in the future, dont you think so?


Bats believes he has no right to decide who lives and who dies. The Justice System (Though admittedly corrupt) is the one who should end the Joker's life. I'm pretty sure Batman believes that whatever his adversary deserves is up to the Judge to decide. And to be honest, I agree with him. If I were in Batman's boots, I would'nt feel that I had the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Now the real question is why Joker hasnt been executed yet. (Aside from the obvious answer being the character's all around importance to the mythos and his popularity.)

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Bats believes he has no right to decide who lives and who dies. The Justice System (Though admittedly corrupt) is the one who should end the Joker's life. I'm pretty sure Batman believes that whatever his adversary deserves is up to the Judge to decide. And to be honest, I agree with him. If I were in Batman's boots, I would'nt feel that I had the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Now the real question is why Joker hasnt been executed yet. (Aside from the obvious answer being the character's all around importance to the mythos and his popularity.)
You're a good person then. Im pretty sure I would've killed him when he killed Jason Todd.

And he doesnt get executed because he's crazy. They do not execute mentally ill people. Also, there was a book where Joker got a death sentence ironically for a murder he didn't commit. But Batman cought the real killer before they carried out the execution. I guess if that was the movie Batman he would've waited for Joker to get killed before solving the murder.

Originally posted by SamZED
I guess if that was the movie Batman he would've waited for Joker to get killed before solving the murder.


ROFLcopter. Whats the name of that book? It sounds like an interesting read.

I respect your opinion. Plenty of people would've have massacred the Joker if they were in Batman's position. I cant imagine killing anyone, and I realize that I would be no different from the Joker had I killed him. Thus I can relate to Batman's non-lethal war on crime.



Who does Batman kill in the comics? Lets stay keep it to intentional murders please.
Also the franchise got rebooted because Batman and Robin was such a terrible bomb, not because of anything that went against the mythos. Otherwise the franchise would have been rebooted in 89.

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
ITA..




Actually Ra's chose to die, Batman did not kill him, Batman chose NOT to save him I remember Ra's saying you can't kill me, and Batman was like, no, but I can let you die.

But he was the one that fought him on the train and stuff, so he is responsible.

Originally posted by steverules_2
I dunno what ITA is but I'm gonna take a shot and say it means 'I Totally Agree'

yep steve..

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
It would have been more CONVINIENT for Batman to have killed the Joker. But should he have? Thats what many villains do, kill out of convinience. Batman is obviously not a villain.

Batman's will makes him a better character imo than heroes that just go around killing. The Joker even WANTS Batman to kill him on occassion. Joker has been known to egg Batman on. What kind of hero would Batman be if he succumbed and gave his greatest adversary what he wanted?

ITA

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
ROFLcopter. Whats the name of that book? It sounds like an interesting read.

I respect your opinion. Plenty of people would've have massacred the Joker if they were in Batman's position. I cant imagine killing anyone, and I realize that I would be no different from the Joker had I killed him. Thus I can relate to Batman's non-lethal war on crime.
The story's called "Devil's advocate". You should check it out, its good. The first time Joker got into a prison instead of Arkham. Everyone thought that it's gonna break him. It didnt

I cant help but notice tha Joker is right in a sick kind of way. It is a matter of situation, there are times when you cant help but kill and anyone can get in a situation like that. For example if there's a situation when the only way to save a 100 of innocent people would be to shoot some serial killer, or some maniac is about to kill a chld and the only way to prevent it from happening is to kill him. I think even Batman would've done that.

Originally posted by SamZED
The story's called "Devil's advocate". You should check it out, its good. The first time Joker got into a prison instead of Arkham. Everyone thought that it's gonna break him. It didnt

I cant help but notice tha Joker is right in a sick kind of way. It is a matter of situation, there are times when you cant help but kill and anyone can get in a situation like that. For example if there's a situation when the only way to save a 100 of innocent people would be to shoot some serial killer, or some maniac is about to kill a chld and the only way to prevent it from happening is to kill him. I think even Batman would've done that.


Bats is stubborn as hell. He always finds a way around stuff like that. Hostage situations are an everyday thing for Batman.

BUT, considering there is a situation that Batman cant escape where he must take 1 evil life in exchange for 100 innocents. He would probably end up doing it. However it would take a serious toll on him. He would probably second guess his decision many times over when its already too late. HOWEVER, he would'nt shoot anyone, we all know how Bats feels about guns. He'd use some other method. This is all theoretical of course, seeing as how Batman has always found non lethal ways to escape these situations.

Originally posted by lord xyz
I remember Ra's saying you can't kill me, and Batman was like, no, but I can let you die.

But he was the one that fought him on the train and stuff, so he is responsible.

"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"

Originally posted by The Heap
"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"

Either way, I think its pretty much universally agreed that the ending of BB is really uncharacteristic of Batman.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Bats is stubborn as hell. He always finds a way around stuff like that. Hostage situations are an everyday thing for Batman.

BUT, considering there is a situation that Batman cant escape where he must take 1 evil life in exchange for 100 innocents. He would probably end up doing it. However it would take a serious toll on him. He would probably second guess his decision many times over when its already too late. HOWEVER, he would'nt shoot anyone, we all know how Bats feels about guns. He'd use some other method. This is all theoretical of course, seeing as how Batman has always found non lethal ways to escape these situations. True. Even when Red Hood was trying to force him to kill Joker he found a way around it.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Bats is stubborn as hell. He always finds a way around stuff like that. Hostage situations are an everyday thing for Batman.

BUT, considering there is a situation that Batman cant escape where he must take 1 evil life in exchange for 100 innocents. He would probably end up doing it. However it would take a serious toll on him. He would probably second guess his decision many times over when its already too late. HOWEVER, he would'nt shoot anyone, we all know how Bats feels about guns. He'd use some other method. This is all theoretical of course, seeing as how Batman has always found non lethal ways to escape these situations.

He would shoot someone if enough happened. He was about to shoot Alex Luthor and he did shoot Darkseid

Originally posted by jalek moye
He would shoot someone if enough happened. He was about to shoot Alex Luthor and he did shoot Darkseid

The fact remains that he didnt shoot Alexander Luthor. And Darkseid is a god. Batman made an exception to the gun rule for him. However, it is common knowledge that Batman has a dislike for guns.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
The fact remains that he didnt shoot Alexander Luthor. And Darkseid is a god. Batman made an exception to the gun rule for him. However, it is common knowledge that Batman has a dislike for guns.
yea he dislikes them, but I'm sure if a little more had happened he would have pulled that trigger on alex, he was on the brink of crossing the line.

Originally posted by jalek moye
yea he dislikes them, but I'm sure if a little more had happened he would have pulled that trigger on alex, he was on the brink of crossing the line.


Thats very human. Who hasnt come close to crossing the line? Batman is only a man after all. What matter's here is that he had some sense talked into him. He was able to once again overcome the urge to cross the line.

Also, you and I both know Batman would have severely regretted it if he did shoot Alex Luthor. That would haunt Batman for quite some time. Would probably piss off alot of fans too..

Huh, after reading a death in the Family it seems like Batman was seriously out to kill the Joker. And in the end, it seems like he pulls a Batman Begins on the Joker.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Either way, I think its pretty much universally agreed that the ending of BB is really uncharacteristic of Batman.
Technically speaking Batman didn't kill the joker in tim burtons batman, hitting the ground killed him.
and as for ras agul the train crash killed him,
He's not going to just simply stab a guy and kill him that way.
I think that we may be looking to much into this, but he chose not to save ras agul cause he knew he was a very big threat. and as for the joker, he chose to save him i think because he was more in the public eye and would be judged for letting him die. and i think the joker wanted him to let him die.

Originally posted by darthmaul1
Technically speaking Batman didn't kill the joker in tim burtons batman, hitting the ground killed him.
and as for ras agul the train crash killed him,
He's not going to just simply stab a guy and kill him that way.
I think that we may be looking to much into this, but he chose not to save ras agul cause he knew he was a very big threat. and as for the joker, he chose to save him i think because he was more in the public eye and would be judged for letting him die. and i think the joker wanted him to let him die.


agreed

Originally posted by darthmaul1
and as for the joker, he chose to save him i think because he was more in the public eye and would be judged for letting him die. and i think the joker wanted him to let him die.


You think Batman cares what the public thinks? Joker has killed hundreds, Jason Todd, and paralyzed Barbara Gordon. Batman has set out to END the Joker numerous times, but each time he comes to his senses before. Do you really think the public would hate on Batman for killing a psychopath who constantly threatens the life of millions causing all of Gotham to fear him? To be honest, if I were a Gotham citizen, I would rather Batman had killed the Joker a long tim ago.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
You think Batman cares what the public thinks? Joker has killed hundreds, Jason Todd, and paralyzed Barbara Gordon. Batman has set out to END the Joker numerous times, but each time he comes to his senses before. Do you really think the public would hate on Batman for killing a psychopath who constantly threatens the life of millions causing all of Gotham to fear him? To be honest, if I were a Gotham citizen, I would rather Batman had killed the Joker a long tim ago.

I think he was talking about the movie...

Originally posted by steverules_2
I think he was talking about the movie...


Movie or not, I really doubt the people of Gotham want Joker alive. I'm sure they'd much rather see him dead so they can sleep better at night.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
You think Batman cares what the public thinks? Joker has killed hundreds, Jason Todd, and paralyzed Barbara Gordon. Batman has set out to END the Joker numerous times, but each time he comes to his senses before. Do you really think the public would hate on Batman for killing a psychopath who constantly threatens the life of millions causing all of Gotham to fear him? To be honest, if I were a Gotham citizen, I would rather Batman had killed the Joker a long tim ago.

I was talking about the movie... and yes Batman does care what the public thinks that is why he took the fall for Dent and the people Dent killed, cause it would hurt the public to know that Dent killed them. That is why he tries to bring the criminals to justice and why he was cleaning up the justice system weeding out the coruption. He would turn into a criminal himself if he just went around killing the fugitives that he was capturing. Batman has to have faith that once he catches the criminal that the justice system will prevail.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Movie or not, I really doubt the people of Gotham want Joker alive. I'm sure they'd much rather see him dead so they can sleep better at night.

There can lots of threats made by Batman and Jim Gordon about someone crossing the line, but Kingdom Come put this to rest.
Magog killed Joker in broad daylight - in police custody - and was acquitted by a jury. Because the truth is, you're not going to find a jury anywhere willing to convict you for putting down the Joker.

Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Movie or not, I really doubt the people of Gotham want Joker alive. I'm sure they'd much rather see him dead so they can sleep better at night.

The reason batman didn't kill joker is cause joker wanted batman to kill him, to make him cross the line like he did with Dent...but if batman killed joker he knew that he'd be no better than the joker had he killed him, I'm sure batman may have considered killing joker but he wouldn't do it cause he knows that if he killed there wouldn't be much difference between him and joker...I may be wrong in thinking that but yeah

Originally posted by steverules_2
The reason batman didn't kill joker is cause joker wanted batman to kill him, to make him cross the line like he did with Dent...but if batman killed joker he knew that he'd be no better than the joker had he killed him, I'm sure batman may have considered killing joker but he wouldn't do it cause he knows that if he killed there wouldn't be much difference between him and joker...I may be wrong in thinking that but yeah

Have you seen Kevin Smith's Batman mini, 'Cacophony'?
Onomatopoeia gets away from Batman by stabbing the Joker, making Batman choose between pursuing him and saving Joker's life. He agonizes, but chooses to save Joker despite Jim Gordon's protests - "Just let him die!! Just because you don't kill him, doesn't mean you have to save him!"
It turns out that might have been for the best. Joker says later, death would have put him at peace. Because as long as he's alive he'll play the game with Batman and want to kill him; only reason he doesn't is because once Batman dies, he'll have nothing to live for.

Originally posted by steverules_2
In previous batman films Batman (1989), Batman returns and batman forever, batman is the reason behind quite a few deaths, Joker he caused to fall to his death, I dunno whether this was his intention, in batman returns he kills some of the penquins henchmen and in batman forever he was the reason two face died and he didn't even try to save him, in batman and robin I can't remember if batman killed or not. But anyways why was batman going around killing? I mean thats just not batman, I dunno if other people liked this batman but c'mon...thats just not batman I mean was there any reason the guys behind these movies decided to have batman killing...was it meant to make us think 'oh yay the bad guys dead'?

thats one of several reasons the Burton/Schumacher Batman movies are pathetic and need to be burned,they totally butchered and raped to death his character making him into a coward killer.Even in the early days when he killed people and carried a gun,he never killed them in cowardly ways like he did in those movies,he only killed when he absoultely had to and there was no other way.he could easily have avoided killing those people you mentioned in those movies.thank god for Nolan,the only true batman director that understood his character.

Originally posted by roughrider
Have you seen Kevin Smith's Batman mini, 'Cacophony'?
Onomatopoeia gets away from Batman by stabbing the Joker, making Batman choose between pursuing him and saving Joker's life. He agonizes, but chooses to save Joker despite Jim Gordon's protests - "Just let him die!! Just because you don't kill him, doesn't mean you have to save him!"
It turns out that might have been for the best. Joker says later, death would have put him at peace. Because as long as he's alive he'll play the game with Batman and want to kill him; only reason he doesn't is because once Batman dies, he'll have nothing to live for.

Haven't read it no...whats it got to do with the film?

I'm sure I'm meant to see some kind of point here but I don't

Originally posted by lord xyz
I remember Ra's saying you can't kill me, and Batman was like, no, but I can let you die.

But he was the one that fought him on the train and stuff, so he is responsible.

The reason why Batman didn't save Ra's in BB is because he COULDN'T save him even if he wanted to. Have you ever seen Batman carrying someone while gliding with his cape? No. He couldn't have saved Ra's because he can only carry one person while gliding (himself). In other words, Batman wasn't responsible for Ra's death because he couldn't have saved him anyways.

And I know you will probably reply back by saying "Well, if that's true, then why didn't Batman just say that? Why did he say 'I won't kill you but I don't have to save you' instead of saying 'Sorry. I can only glide by myself'?

What do you think the public audience would have thought if Batman said simply said "I can only carry one person. I can't save you."?

Originally posted by steverules_2
Haven't read it no...whats it got to do with the film?

I'm sure I'm meant to see some kind of point here but I don't

Because the title of the thread is 'Batman Killing'; not 'Batman Killing In The Movies'. Seems this would be a thread discussing Batman's moral code in general. You want to get movie-centric, get more specific.

The movies have reflected the comics in different times. The early comics had deaths by Batman's hand, and he shrugged it off as a necessity for enforcing justice. But by the late forties that had to end and Joker had to become less of a psycho killer, due to editorial pressures to make the comics more 'suitable ' to kids.

Originally posted by roughrider
Have you seen Kevin Smith's Batman mini, 'Cacophony'?
Onomatopoeia gets away from Batman by stabbing the Joker, making Batman choose between pursuing him and saving Joker's life. He agonizes, but chooses to save Joker despite Jim Gordon's protests - "Just let him die!! Just because you don't kill him, doesn't mean you have to save him!"
It turns out that might have been for the best. Joker says later, death would have put him at peace. Because as long as he's alive he'll play the game with Batman and want to kill him; only reason he doesn't is because once Batman dies, he'll have nothing to live for.

Which is what I've always said. Batman is an idiot, hell you'll even get people here trying to justify that as well.

Originally posted by steverules_2
In previous batman films Batman (1989), Batman returns and batman forever, batman is the reason behind quite a few deaths, Joker he caused to fall to his death, I dunno whether this was his intention, in batman returns he kills some of the penquins henchmen and in batman forever he was the reason two face died and he didn't even try to save him, in batman and robin I can't remember if batman killed or not. But anyways why was batman going around killing? I mean thats just not batman, I dunno if other people liked this batman but c'mon...thats just not batman I mean was there any reason the guys behind these movies decided to have batman killing...was it meant to make us think 'oh yay the bad guys dead'?

exactly,great thread thread and great points. Thats why Nolans Batman movies are the one and only TRUE Batman movies because Batman never killed anybody in either of them.Those pathetic Burton/Schumacher Batman movies are a disgrace to Batmans character having him kill people in cowardly ways like he did in those three Burton/Scumacher Batman movies. May Burton and Schumacher burn in hell for raping to death his character like that. Thank god for Nolan we got to see Batmans true character.Thats how The Punisher acts but thats not Batman at all.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
The reason why Batman didn't save Ra's in BB is because he COULDN'T save him even if he wanted to. Have you ever seen Batman carrying someone while gliding with his cape? No. He couldn't have saved Ra's because he can only carry one person while gliding (himself). In other words, Batman wasn't responsible for Ra's death because he couldn't have saved him anyways.

And I know you will probably reply back by saying "Well, if that's true, then why didn't Batman just say that? Why did he say 'I won't kill you but I don't have to save you' instead of saying 'Sorry. I can only glide by myself'?

What do you think the public audience would have thought if Batman said simply said "I can only carry one person. I can't save you."?

ha ha,thats a good point.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
The reason why Batman didn't save Ra's in BB is because he COULDN'T save him even if he wanted to. Have you ever seen Batman carrying someone while gliding with his cape? No. He couldn't have saved Ra's because he can only carry one person while gliding (himself). In other words, Batman wasn't responsible for Ra's death because he couldn't have saved him anyways.

And I know you will probably reply back by saying "Well, if that's true, then why didn't Batman just say that? Why did he say 'I won't kill you but I don't have to save you' instead of saying 'Sorry. I can only glide by myself'?

What do you think the public audience would have thought if Batman said simply said "I can only carry one person. I can't save you."?

Thats 100% speculation. Yes this version of Batman doesn't kill because Nolan has read the comics and in the comics Batman has done similar stuff.

Recent article on Comic Vine covers this.

http://www.comicvine.com/news/off-my-mind-should-batman-kill-the-joker/140977/

Please look at this thread. I explained everything about Batman not being allowed to kill.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f50/t535895.html

(I'm not a comic buff, so I level the following criticism directly at Nolan's movies.)

This is my chief complaint with the Nolan films. In the first film, Batman leaves Ra's al Ghul to die -- knowing full well that the maniac won't be able to save himself -- and yet does not extent the same treatment to the Joker?

To me, it is a demonstration of utter and complete fanservice to the Joker. Unlike Ra's, he's too cool to die? It exposes Batman's entire philosophy to be wholly ineffective and hypocritical. And I submit if the reason Batman spared the Joker was simply to avoid giving his enemy the satisfaction of being right, then that makes him even more pathetic, because he values his own personal quarrel with the Joker as more important than ending his threat to society.

Originally posted by Gideon
(I'm not a comic buff, so I level the following criticism directly at Nolan's movies.)

This is my chief complaint with the Nolan films. In the first film, Batman leaves Ra's al Ghul to die -- knowing full well that the maniac won't be able to save himself -- and yet does not extent the same treatment to the Joker?

To me, it is a demonstration of utter and complete fanservice to the Joker. Unlike Ra's, he's too cool to die? It exposes Batman's entire philosophy to be wholly ineffective and hypocritical. And I submit if the reason Batman spared the Joker was simply to avoid giving his enemy the satisfaction of being right, then that makes him even more pathetic, because he values his own personal quarrel with the Joker as more important than ending his threat to society.

Yean thats pretty much consistent with his hypocrisy in comics as well.

Originally posted by Gideon
(I'm not a comic buff, so I level the following criticism directly at Nolan's movies.)

This is my chief complaint with the Nolan films. In the first film, Batman leaves Ra's al Ghul to die -- knowing full well that the maniac won't be able to save himself -- and yet does not extent the same treatment to the Joker?

To me, it is a demonstration of utter and complete fanservice to the Joker. Unlike Ra's, he's too cool to die? It exposes Batman's entire philosophy to be wholly ineffective and hypocritical. And I submit if the reason Batman spared the Joker was simply to avoid giving his enemy the satisfaction of being right, then that makes him even more pathetic, because he values his own personal quarrel with the Joker as more important than ending his threat to society.

There is a difference between Ra's situation and the Joker's situation. Batman didn't kill Ra's Al Ghul; he just didn't save him. However, Batman was the reason why the Joker was thrown off a building. So he HAD to save him.

That's probably why I don't read comics. That stuff bothers me.

Originally posted by Gideon
(I'm not a comic buff, so I level the following criticism directly at Nolan's movies.)

This is my chief complaint with the Nolan films. In the first film, Batman leaves Ra's al Ghul to die -- knowing full well that the maniac won't be able to save himself -- and yet does not extent the same treatment to the Joker?

To me, it is a demonstration of utter and complete fanservice to the Joker. Unlike Ra's, he's too cool to die? It exposes Batman's entire philosophy to be wholly ineffective and hypocritical. And I submit if the reason Batman spared the Joker was simply to avoid giving his enemy the satisfaction of being right, then that makes him even more pathetic, because he values his own personal quarrel with the Joker as more important than ending his threat to society.

The situations are different. Batman couldn't save Ras Al Ghul anyway with that subway car right about to crash, especially as they were locked in close combat and Ras would just as soon try to pull Batman down with him. Batman is supposed to get Ras out against his will and try to get a lifeline going? Because his cape couldn't hold both of them.
And saving the Joker was as much about proving his point; that deep down we are not all the same as him. Of course this was only his first meeting with the Joker. Repeated meetings would cause anyone to change his mind...

roughrider
The situations are different. Batman couldn't save Ras Al Ghul anyway with that subway car right about to crash, especially as they were locked in close combat and Ras would just as soon try to pull Batman down with him. Batman is supposed to get Ras out against his will and try to get a lifeline going? Because his cape couldn't hold both of them.
And saving the Joker was as much about proving his point; that deep down we are not all the same as him. Of course this was only his first meeting with the Joker. Repeated meetings would cause anyone to change his mind...

This sounds like a lot of speculation and guesswork. Do you have evidence to suggest that Ra's al Ghul would have continued to struggle with Batman if he'd tried to save him?

Originally posted by Gideon
This sounds like a lot of speculation and guesswork. Do you have evidence to suggest that Ra's al Ghul would have continued to struggle with Batman if he'd tried to save him?

When Batman finally had the upper hand on him and at his mercy, Ras baited him to kill him - "Are you finally ready to do what is necessary?" In Ras mind, if Batman had killed him he would have won. He was ready for death, and either BAtman would die with him or woukld have finally become him, and taken his place if batman crossed the line.

I think if it was Joker in the subway car, he would have laughed at impeding death and Batman would have done the same thing in those precious seconds - not killed him, but not save him either.

Originally posted by Gideon
That's probably why I don't read comics. That stuff bothers me.

You don't read comics because of something you saw in a MOVIE? ha. lacking

Batman must of Killed at least one person in the dark knight, when he crushed the garbage truck with the batmobile

I guess my comment ended the discussion?

everyone hates you!

Originally posted by AthenasTrgrFngr
everyone hates you!

Really? Cause i threw a wrench into the works? Now i have to phone the suicide hotline............and they've blocked my number.