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.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
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.
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."?
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.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
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.
(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.
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...
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
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.
__________________
"I'm not smart so much as I am not dumb." - Harlan Ellison
KMC Community Forums
Nov 13th, 2009 07:03 PM
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.
