A Stupid Argument

Originally posted by Deadline
It depends wether you think Batman killing is that important considering he already tortures people it's a next logical step. Quite frankly its illogical and to be quite honest people not used to the comics might not even understand it.

Nolan changed alot of stuff as well. Batman is arguably significantly weaker in DKR two dogs and Joker with a pole was giving him major problems. Also look at the fight at the party comic Batman would have probably had those guys finished in a couple of panels.

Batman not killing is important. Unlike the rest of the comic book heroes that refuse to take a life, Batman is the only one by far to constantly bring up this moral in dialogues. How many times do you see Spider-Man and Superman give a speech about how killing villains is wrong? Not a lot. Batman brings it up all the time.

Batman's greatest enemy is himself. The greatest challenge he ever faced is trying to control himself from killing his enemies. Batman is not very different from the Huntress and Punisher. Just like them, he also wants to kill their villains and is not afraid of taking a life. But he tries to control himself because he believes killing is wrong. It is one of the most important challenges of Batman in comics. Plus, the Joker's main goal for existing in the Batman universe is to try to make Batman break his one rule. So if Batman kills, the entire image of Batman and The Joker changes.

Nolan made changes too. But at least he got the basics of the characters' personalities correct. As for the dogs and the Joker with a pole, it makes sense why he had a hard time beating them due to 2 reasons:
1) He was tired from taking out an entire SWAT team.
2) His vision blacked out for a few seconds.
He didn't have a problem taking out the Joker's henchmen at the party. But he was stopped by the Joker when he was about to throw Rachel out the window.

And although he wasn't so strong in those scenes, he was strong in other parts of the franchise. He took out an entire SWAT team, he was fighting exactly how Batman fights in the comics during his battle with Scarecrow's henchmen, he defeated Ra's Al Ghul in a combat battle, and he scared the crap out of Gotham's mobs to the point where they had to run during the day instead of at night (because they were afraid of Batman).

but the movie doesnt have to be the exact same charecter
your using the same argument your saying is stupid just because he does not kill in one media form means he cant kill in another?
and besides charecters always change who knows what the comics will be like 20 or 30 years from now

Originally posted by mindbomb
but the movie doesnt have to be the exact same charecter
your using the same argument your saying is stupid just because he does not kill in one media form means he cant kill in another?
and besides charecters always change who knows what the comics will be like 20 or 30 years from now

I never said the movies have to be 100% exact to the comics. Movies just have to get the basics of the characters right.

When it comes to other media, it depends on what type of Batman-based media it is supposed to be. If it is supposed to be something completely new and different from the comics (like how "Iron Man: Armored Adventures" is a completely new take on the character), then it is fine for Batman to do whatever he wants. But if the form of media is supposed to be an ADAPTATION of the comics, then he can't just do whatever he wants. The adaptation must get at least the basics of his characters right. By your logic of an adaptation being allowed to do whatever it wants, then Dragonball Evolution is a great adaptation.

Characters don't always change. They're just not fully developed when they are first published. They are perfected overtime.

characters do change over time always take the batman from the 60s and compare it to the one from the 80s both of them are far from being first published but are not the same
dragonball evolution was not a good adaptation because it was not enertaining but the 89 batman i think was enertaining and i think it did get the basics right
a rich man who lost his parents to crime so he decided to fight crime and strikes fear in the hearts of criminals from the shadows
sounds like they got the basics right to me

Originally posted by mindbomb
characters do change over time always take the batman from the 60s and compare it to the one from the 80s both of them are far from being first published but are not the same

You are right that they change. But "change" is not the correct word that you want to use. The correct word is "develop". Characters DEVELOP overtime. Basically, comic book heroes are never perfected when they first come out. It takes years of changes before the character is perfected (even Superman wasn't perfected). Batman is not exception. They first tried a pulp take on Batman (when he was first created) and that didn't work well. Then, they tried a campier take on Batman. And that didn't work well either. It wasn't until 80's when Batman was fully perfected.

There's no "change". It's "evolution into perfection". There is a difference between these two.

Originally posted by mindbomb
dragonball evolution was not a good adaptation because it was not enertaining but the 89 batman i think was enertaining and i think it did get the basics right

First of all, I don't want to turn this into an "OK, Burton is a moron when it comes to Batman" thread (yes, there is already a thread called that). This thread is just to talk about this whole "Batman can kill wherever he wants" logic that some people have. It isn't used for the Burton films only; it is also used for other adaptations or comics (except the Golden Age and Elseworld stories).

Judging a movie from a critical point of view and an adaptation point of view are two different ways of looking at a film. Just because a movie is entertaining (and I'll admit B89 is entertaining) doesn't mean that it is a good adaptation. There are great movies out there that are terrible adaptations. But at the same time, there are also bad movies out there that are great adaptations. Looking at a film as a blockbuster hit and an adaptation are different.

Originally posted by mindbomb
a rich man who lost his parents to crime so he decided to fight crime and strikes fear in the hearts of criminals from the shadows
sounds like they got the basics right to me

When I said I wanted the basics of the characters, I was referring to their personalities.

it wasent until the 80s?
how do you know that future batman stories wont be diffrent than the 80s
change occurs based on social pressures if the socieity is totally diffrent in 40 years than so will batman if stories about him are still being made

Originally posted by mindbomb
it wasent until the 80s?
how do you know that future batman stories wont be diffrent than the 80s
change occurs based on social pressures if the socieity is totally diffrent in 40 years than so will batman if stories about him are still being made

It actually wasn't until the late 70's. That was a typo.

How do I know? Because Batman's character is now perfected. Before the late 70's, they didn't finish working on his character. In the late 70's, they fully finished working on his character (as confirmed by DC). So there is no need to change Batman because he is now perfected. Before the late 70's, he WASN'T perfected. Plus, most Batman fans and comic book writers have always preferred a dark Batman over a campy one but were not allowed to include a dark Batman in the comics due to strict censorship on DC at that time. Comic books they wanted back then, the current Batman would have existed since the 1950's.

The society might chance in the future. But Batman's personality will stay the same. The only reason to why Batman might change is if DC is put under strict censorship again put under the too-much-censorship category. And in that case, it would not be an intentional choice by most Batman fans and Batman comic book writers. So that wouldn't count.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I want to talk about an argument that really bothers me. It has to do with the Tim Burton Batman films. And I want to hear other peoples' opinions of this. First of all, I want to say that even though Burton's films aren't exactly the most faithful films to the Batman comics, I still enjoy them occasionaly and have a soft spot for them due to nostalgia. I also don't hate Burton to the point of calling him a drughead (like a certain someone on these forums that we all know). I don't have anything against Burton.

My brother is a debater. He usually debates on YouTube with fanboys and trolls that troll other people. And a few days ago, he was debating with a Tim Burton fanboy that attacking a Batman fan just because that Batman fan said that Nolan's films were superior to Burton's films.

My brother started to debate with him and gave him facts to why Nolan's version is better. He also told him that Batman doesn't kill in the comics. The Tim Burton fanboy told him "He used a gun in his first year. Get your facts straight."

This is one of the most stupidest arguments that I have ever heard. Comic book characters are NEVER fully developed in their first year. It takes years and years of changes and modifications in comics until a character is perfected. No comic book superhero has ever stayed the same from their first appearance up until today. Even Superman wasn't the same in the first issue as he is now.

You really think that characters just come out as they are? They don't. And Batman is a great example of this. He started out as ripoff of a character called The Shadow. Detective Comics #27 (first appearance of Batman) was based on an issue of The Shadow (I forgot the name). And when Batman got rid of his gun due to these reasons:
-Censorship was forced on DC Comics
-He stopped using a gun when he became his own character and was no longer a ripoff of The Shadow.
-DC Comics as well as the fans thought that it was weird for Batman to kill people using a gun since his parents were killed by someone with a gun. So they removed the gun.

Batman's character and personality wasn't perfected until his Post-Crisis appearance (a.k.a. Batman: Year One).

Let's just apply this entire "he used a gun in his first year so he is allowed to kill in Burton's films" logic to Superman. By the logic of these people that are defending Burton's films using this excuse, I am allowed to make a Superman movie where Superman can't fly, it is not specified that he's from Krypton and that his father is Jor-El, he is invincible and nothing can hurt him, he kills criminals (he killed in his first appearance), and he fights a woman (he fought a woman in the early issues). If I make a Superman movie like that, no one is allowed o complain because it all happened in the early comics.
Well guess what? Superman's character and personality also wasn't perfected until Post-Crisis.

I am also allowed to make a Fantastic Four movie where the Human Torch is a robot. And then no one is allowed to complain.
Do you get my point? They develop and get perfected over time. They don't just come out as they are.

It's a really annoying argument that bothers me a lot. And I wish people would stop using it. Batman killing = NOT GOOD!!

I think when you argue about this issue at all you are confusing the topic of the debate. As you said it is about which was the better film, in that case whether Batman killed or not is inconsequential. If it was about which one is the more faithful adaptation that would be a different argument and one in which this reasoning may have place.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Yeah I've noticed it a lot as well. Like, will people will try to justify the things that happen. There's no shame in admitting that it's just fail comic book logic for why they do the things they do.

I don't necessarily think that that's what happening in this discussion, plus talking about comic book logic is like telling a Wrestling fan that pro-wrestling is fake, lol. Kind of comes off condescending, lol.

To be fair, what I think is the actual fail comic book logic is that Joker, Bane and Two Face break out of Arkham or Blackgate every two weeks. That's why Batman's "Don't kill" moral seem week, if criminal prosecution and incarceration wasn't a complete waste of time in the Batman universe, him not killing would be a very sensible thing to do.

So what you are doing here is taking one piece of comic book logic (Villains can break out whenever they want) and now try to find a justification for the Batman's behavior (I won't kill or let someone die, that is not my call to make) in real life.

do you think that the same writers are going to be their 40,50 or 60 years from now anything could happen between now and then
they might change him to boost ratings people might have a diffrent view on what justice is
bottom line is that just because the people writing the stories now dont want to change anything doesnt mean the people who right the stories of the future dont want to change anything

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think when you argue about this issue at all you are confusing the topic of the debate. As you said it is about which was the better film, in that case whether Batman killed or not is inconsequential. If it was about which one is the more faithful adaptation that would be a different argument and one in which this reasoning may have place.

It is actually not about those two topics at all. This whole argument of Batman being allowed to kill just because he killed in his first year an excuse used for every single adaptation and canon comic storyline where Batman randomly kills for no reason. I used Tim Burton's films as an example because they are the most obvious and most well-known example.

Originally posted by mindbomb
do you think that the same writers are going to be their 40,50 or 60 years from now anything could happen between now and then
they might change him to boost ratings people might have a diffrent view on what justice is
bottom line is that just because the people writing the stories now dont want to change anything doesnt mean the people who right the stories of the future dont want to change anything

In that case, it will take place in a different time period where people have a different view on society. So it would kinda make sense. But at the moment, all of the Batman films so far took place in our time period (a.k.a. the time period where killing people is seen as wrong and not considered part of justice). If the Burton film took place 100 years ago, then that would be fine because killing criminals was normal back then.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
It is actually not about those two topics at all. This whole argument of Batman being allowed to kill just because he killed in his first year an excuse used for every single adaptation and canon comic storyline where Batman randomly kills for no reason. I used Tim Burton's films as an example because they are the most obvious and most well-known example.

Well, like I said, it's not a valid argument in judging whether something is good. It's only valid in judging whether it is faithful to current (and indeed somewhat long running) canon.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, like I said, it's not a valid argument in judging whether something is good. It's only valid in judging whether it is faithful to current (and indeed somewhat long running) canon.

Once again, you don't understand why I created this thread. This is not a thread to bash on the Burton movies. This thread is a response to whoever defends a Batman adaptation or a canon comic storyline with the "Batman killed in his first year of publication" excuse.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Once again, you don't understand why I created this thread. This is not a thread to bash on the Burton movies. This thread is a response to whoever defends a Batman adaptation or a canon comic storyline with the "Batman killed in his first year of publication" excuse.

I agree. My point is just that it's pointless to defend it with that, since the argument "Batman killed in the movie (or other adaptation) therefore it is a bad movie" is flawed from the start and doesn't need a counter argument, it just needs its wrongness pointed out.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
In that case, it will take place in a different time period where people have a different view on society. So it would kinda make sense. But at the moment, all of the Batman films so far took place in our time period (a.k.a. the time period where killing people is seen as wrong and not considered part of justice). If the Burton film took place 100 years ago, then that would be fine because killing criminals was normal back then.

thats kind of my point batman's personality is up to the writers as an evolving charecter it's not set in stone is it

Originally posted by mindbomb
thats kind of my point batman's personality is up to the writers as an evolving charecter it's not set in stone is it

Yes and no. For the current continuity (which Burton claimed his movie was inspired by), Batman is not allowed to kill. All writers that base their adaptations or comic book story arcs on the modern continuity must stay true to this continuity's Batman. If they change him in the future, the current DC continuity would be eliminated (like how the Golden Age and Silver Age continuity were eliminated when Batman became dark again).

Also, adaptations ARE allowed to stay true to the Golden Age or Silver Age versions of Batman (or even Elseworld stories of Batman). Batman: Brave & the Bold (the cartoon series) is a good example of a Silver Age Batman adaptation done right (as well as the 60's show). But in Burton's case, his films are not true to the Golden Age Batman, Silver Age Batman, Modern Age Batman, Frank Miller's Batman, or Elseworld stories of Batman.

Basically, most Batman adaptations are based on the modern Batman. But if someone wants to base their Batman on a Batman that is not part of the modern continuity, that is fine as long as they base their Batman on DIFFERENT Batman part of the comics.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree. My point is just that it's pointless to defend it with that, since the argument "Batman killed in the movie (or other adaptation) therefore it is a bad movie" is flawed from the start and doesn't need a counter argument, it just needs its wrongness pointed out.

I agree with that. But I never actually said "Burton's Batman film is a bad movie". This whole time I have been saying only "Burton's Batman film is a bad adaptation".

but useing your logic all batman got the insperation from the original batman who did kill after all if he never existed their would be no batman
so doesnt that mean that the argument that burton should of followed some type of continuity fall in the same category of arguments your calling stupid

The way Batman killed in the Burton movies was just wrong. He was needlessly killing. Setting that guy on fire with the Batmobile's turbine, blowing up Axis Chemicals with all Joker's men inside etc.

Killing in self defense when there's no other way to stop a criminal, or save someone's life is justified. But it should be the absolute last resort.

Otherwise he's no better than the criminals he hunts.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I agree with that. But I never actually said "Burton's Batman film is a bad movie". This whole time I have been saying only "Burton's Batman film is a bad adaptation".