Batman killing

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