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_MyersThe 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 😄
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.
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 Micheal_MyersTrue. Even when Red Hood was trying to force him to kill Joker he found a way around it.
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 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.
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..
Originally posted by Micheal_Myers
Either way, I think its pretty much universally agreed that the ending of BB is really uncharacteristic of Batman.
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 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 🙂