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

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!!

Please comment on this.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
gave him facts to why Nolan's version is better

Hahaha.

Anyway, Batman's a better hero when he kills people. The fact that he doesn't in the comics just makes him a not very good hero in the first place.

So from that standpoint, i guess Burton's films are cooler but less faithful.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Hahaha.

Anyway, Batman's a better hero when he kills people. The fact that he doesn't in the comics just makes him a not very good hero in the first place.

So from that standpoint, i guess Burton's films are cooler but less faithful.



so heroes are better heroes when they kill people?

Within reason, yeah. Do you disagree? How do you feel about the Punisher's methods compared to Batmans?

I try to imagine that any superhero comic book, film, TV show, animated show or computer game all take place in separate universes which stand alone and are as such open to a lot of interpretation and you can't hold up rules for one based on whats been established in another.

If Batman kills people, he might as well be a villain, with already being a vigilante and all.

I'm not really following the jump in logic there. Are police officers villains for killing people? Just because there is no government patting you on the back every time you kill someone who was in the process of trying to kill other people him/herself doesn't make you a villain.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Hahaha.

Anyway, Batman's a better hero when he kills people. The fact that he doesn't in the comics just makes him a not very good hero in the first place.

So from that standpoint, i guess Burton's films are cooler but less faithful.

So then 95% of comic book heroes are all not good heroes. Superman isn't a good hero either.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Within reason, yeah. Do you disagree? How do you feel about the Punisher's methods compared to Batmans?

Punisher is more of an anti-hero. He has the "these pieces of trash are not worthy of living" type of attitude. Batman has more of a "I will strike with fear in the hearts of these worthless pieces of trash."

Ok that was probably a bad example but you get the point.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
So then 95% of comic book heroes are all not good heroes. Superman isn't a good hero either.

Oh hahaha, anyone who knows me knows about my hatred for the kryptonian boyscout. But to properly reply to your post, yes 95% of the heroes in comic books are not good heroes. If they were, New York wouldn't be getting obliterated every other week and there wouldn't be super villains that have twenty years of villainous history.


Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Punisher is more of an anti-hero. He has the "these pieces of trash are not worthy of living" type of attitude. Batman has more of a "I will strike with fear in the hearts of these worthless pieces of trash."

Ok that was probably a bad example but you get the point.

Anyone with a brain has no need to be afraid of Batman because they should know by now that the worse he'll do is smack them around then bring them to jail so that they can escape an hour later and go on a lolmurder spree.

The Punisher is a hero because he does what needs to be done to keep people safe at the expense of his own inner-self and morals and code. If a criminal hurts me or my family and the Punisher goes after him I can at the least have the peace of mind to know that if he succeeds that criminal will for sure never hurt another innocent person again (I mean, you know, aside from PIS bringing people back from the dead and shit, Frank can't help that). That is not a security one can have with Batman. So no, I don't consider Batman to be a good hero. Stopping the Joker from commiting a crime, and then willingly putting him in jail knowing he's going to break out and kill a bunch of security gaurds in the process is not heroic. If anything, that's a crime in itself.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

The Punisher is a hero because he does what needs to be done to keep people safe at the expense of his own inner-self and morals and code. If a criminal hurts me or my family and the Punisher goes after him I can at the least have the peace of mind to know that if he succeeds that criminal will for sure never hurt another innocent person again (I mean, you know, aside from PIS bringing people back from the dead and shit, Frank can't help that). That is not a security one can have with Batman. So no, I don't consider Batman to be a good hero. Stopping the Joker from commiting a crime, and then willingly putting him in jail knowing he's going to break out and kill a bunch of security gaurds in the process is not heroic. If anything, that's a crime in itself.

Dude, the Punisher kills people because he enjoys it. He would put a bullet in your head if you looked at him funny or jaywalked. He's a fascist in most of his comic books. Most of the people he kills are monsters, sure, but Frank is on no white horse when he dons his white skull costume.

Was going to post in this topic again, but then I looked at the thread title and clicked back.

Originally posted by Dr Will Hatch
Dude, the Punisher kills people because he enjoys it. He would put a bullet in your head if you looked at him funny or jaywalked. He's a fascist in most of his comic books. Most of the people he kills are monsters, sure, but Frank is on no white horse when he dons his white skull costume.

Castle doesn't kill people because he enjoys it. Taking out criminals is a mission for him, to stop them hurting innocents-like his family.

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!!

The gun use by Batman in the early stories is a dead beaten horse already. The gun argument is for n00bs. If you want Batman to kill then just stick to Watchmen and you'll love Rorschach

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Within reason, yeah. Do you disagree? How do you feel about the Punisher's methods compared to Batmans?

Punisher isn't a hero; he's an anti-hero. there's a massive gilf between the two imo.

Originally posted by BUSTER1
Castle doesn't kill people because he enjoys it. Taking out criminals is a mission for him, to stop them hurting innocents-like his family.

Its a bit of both im afraid.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
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.

But, the first Human Torch was a robot, so I wouldn't complain at all.

I personally don't mind when Batman kills, as it provides a counter-balance to Superman.

Originally posted by Scythe
But, the first Human Torch was a robot, so I wouldn't complain at all.

Thats a pretty terrible comparison anyway. As far as I can remember that android was never part of the FF.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Punisher isn't a hero; he's an anti-hero. there's a massive gilf between the two imo.

I feel like you're kinda dodging there lol. There's no such thing as an actual anti-hero. It's a literary term used to describe a relationship between different characters, not something that can be found in real life. You're either a hero, or you're not.

Originally posted by BUSTER1
Castle doesn't kill people because he enjoys it. Taking out criminals is a mission for him, to stop them hurting innocents-like his family.

And yet for all the thousands of criminals he's killed, thousands more pop up to replace them. There's no proof that Frank's method is any better than a hero who doesn't kill to get the job done.

Originally posted by Deadline
Thats a pretty terrible comparison anyway. As far as I can remember that android was never part of the FF.

While true, I suppose I'm used to movies crapping all over established continuity.

Some of the situations are unrealistic though, like how two people fall off a building but bats always manages to save them both and also without terminal velocity kicking in.

He is only human supposedly.......

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I feel like you're kinda dodging there lol. There's no such thing as an actual anti-hero. It's a literary term used to describe a relationship between different characters, not something that can be found in real life. You're either a hero, or you're not.

I disagree, but for the sake of argument, if Batman killed, he wouldn't technically be a superhero.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I'm not really following the jump in logic there. Are police officers villains for killing people? Just because there is no government patting you on the back every time you kill someone who was in the process of trying to kill other people him/herself doesn't make you a villain.
Yes. Police officers who kill when a non-lethal alternative can be reached are villains. How many policemen do you know who have actually killed someone? Odds are that less than one in ten have and of those most probably don't feel terribly good about it.

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
The gun use by Batman in the early stories is a dead beaten horse already. The gun argument is for n00bs. If you want Batman to kill then just stick to Watchmen and you'll love Rorschach

I don't want him to kill. In my post, I was explaining why the first year of Batman's publication history is NOT a valid excuse for him to kill. Were you paying attention while reading my post?

Originally posted by -Pr-
I disagree, but for the sake of argument, if Batman killed, he wouldn't technically be a superhero.

Wolverine isn't a superhero? Moon Knight isn't a superhero?


Originally posted by spidermanrocks
I don't want him to kill. In my post, I was explaining why the first year of Batman's publication history is NOT a valid excuse for him to kill. Were you paying attention while reading my post?

Yea we were and android torch was never part of the FF anyway.

Originally posted by Deadline
Wolverine isn't a superhero? Moon Knight isn't a superhero?




Yea we were and android torch was never part of the FF anyway.

i meant to say "murder" not "kill" as there's a difference imo.

and Wolverine again would be an "anti-hero" imo.

Or just a rebel without a cause.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i meant to say "murder" not "kill" as there's a difference imo.

and Wolverine again would be an "anti-hero" imo.

Yea that pretty much sums it up if. If Wolverine is an anti-hero to you thats fine but hes a superhero to a whole load of people and is described as one.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes. Police officers who kill when a non-lethal alternative can be reached are villains. How many policemen do you know who have actually killed someone? Odds are that less than one in ten have and of those most probably don't feel terribly good about it.

That's not even fully true. A police officer is expected to shoot a murderer that is fleeing a crime, not attacking anybody, if he possesses the means to kill someone again. But what does that have to do with what I said? I said a police officer who kills someone who is in the process of trying to kill someone else is not a villain. Hell, I am a security guard, but legally if someone pulls out a gun I can draw my own and blow their head off without a second thought and I'm fine. Would doing so make me a villain because instead of fist fighting them and taking them to jail I just shot them?

Originally posted by -Pr-
I disagree, but for the sake of argument, if Batman killed, he wouldn't technically be a superhero.

Okay. So in your mind, if someone kills people they are not a hero. Is that correct, or am I over-generalizing your statement?


EDIT- I've realized that this is ultimately an act futility, because when it comes down to it the question is "What contitutes as a hero and what constitues as a villain". If something thinks that killing is always wrong unless it's a last resort, then yeah to them Batman killing the Joker to prevent him from killing other people would still be wrong. To someone like myself who thinks murder can be justified, Batman killing the joker to save lives is heroic. To me, I think allowing the Joker to go to jail knowing that he's going to break out and kill people, some times even acknowledging it out loud, is villainous and cowardly in itself. The only way I could kind of forgive Batman is if he went to the families of every single guard Joker has ever killed whilst escaping from Arkham, and ask the family for their forgiveness, and to explain to them that he could have ultimately prevented the Joker from killing their father/husband/wife/daughter/son, but didn't because it "is against his moral code". Unfortunately, he doesn't do that, so in my eyes he's a villain and a coward. However morality isn't something that you can really argue as if it were a fact.

edit

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Okay. So in your mind, if someone kills people they are not a hero. Is that correct, or am I over-generalizing your statement?


Yea thats what it sounded like to me.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

EDIT- I've realized that this is ultimately an act futility, because when it comes down to it the question is "What contitutes as a hero and what constitues as a villain". If something thinks that killing is always wrong unless it's a last resort, then yeah to them Batman killing the Joker to prevent him from killing other people would still be wrong. To someone like myself who thinks murder can be justified, Batman killing the joker to save lives is heroic. To me, I think allowing the Joker to go to jail knowing that he's going to break out and kill people, some times even acknowledging it out loud, is villainous and cowardly in itself. The only way I could kind of forgive Batman is if he went to the families of every single guard Joker has ever killed whilst escaping from Arkham, and ask the family for their forgiveness, and to explain to them that he could have ultimately prevented the Joker from killing their father/husband/wife/daughter/son, but didn't because it "is against his moral code". Unfortunately, he doesn't do that, so in my eyes he's a villain and a coward. However morality isn't something that you can really argue as if it were a fact.

A lot of people don't actually understand is that the reason why he does that is because its a comicbook and writers have to invent reasons for keeping villains alive. The problem is people start taking comicbook logic as real and don't understand its a plot device.

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.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yea that pretty much sums it up if. If Wolverine is an anti-hero to you thats fine but hes a superhero to a whole load of people and is described as one.

i wonder what he would say himself if you asked him.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Okay. So in your mind, if someone kills people they are not a hero. Is that correct, or am I over-generalizing your statement?

the latter. even superman has killed people.



batman has been called on it before, and he's explained why he doesn't kill.

and the fact of the matter is that for all the people joker has killed, batman has saved more people being on the streets and in the JLA than the Joker has killled.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i wonder what he would say himself if you asked him.


I wonder what the writers would say or marvel would say if you asked them. No he probably wouldn't describe himself as a super hero but that doesn't change anything.



Originally posted by -Pr-


batman has been called on it before, and he's explained why he doesn't kill.



Its a comicbook. The only argument that makes sense is that if he kills he will go nuts.

Originally posted by -Pr-

and the fact of the matter is that for all the people joker has killed, batman has saved more people being on the streets and in the JLA than the Joker has killled.

Don't know how you worked that out more people have been killed because Batman won't take Joker out. He kills non-humans, like I said before vampire are sentinet. According to your logic its ok to kill sentient beings but not humans.

Originally posted by Deadline
I wonder what the writers would say or marvel would say if you asked them. No he probably wouldn't describe himself as a super hero but that doesn't change anything.

yes, i wonder what the writers would say.



to you.



eh, no. it's actual fact. batman was a key party of saving the multiverse. batman with the jla has saved millions of people both directly and indirectly.

him killing joker removes any chance of doing it in the fuiture.

Originally posted by -Pr-
yes, i wonder what the writers would say.


Yes and I'm pretty sure some of them would consider him to be a superhero. Anyway my point is its purely subjective with Punisher its more clear cut.

Originally posted by -Pr-

to you.

Thats just a cop out. Sometimes it really is a matter of opinion but in some cases somebody can't make a coherent argument and therefore state its a matter of opinion.

No its doesn't make sense especially when he kills other sentinet lifeforms its a comicbook Pr and its a plot device. He tried to kill Darkseid.

Originally posted by -Pr-

eh, no. it's actual fact. batman was a key party of saving the multiverse. batman with the jla has saved millions of people both directly and indirectly.

Um the point I'm making is because Joker isn't dead more people have been killed. My point isn't that he hasn't saved alot of lives.


Originally posted by -Pr-

him killing joker removes any chance of doing it in the fuiture.

Wasn't that sort of my point? Hes obvoulsy going to kill again if you send him to Arkham.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yes and I'm pretty sure some of them would consider him to be a superhero. Anyway my point is its purely subjective with Punisher its more clear cut.

i never said they wouldn't nor shouldn't. i just said what i believe.



it isn't a cop out. batman is written to be a complex, lifelike character. he shouldn't just decide to start killing one day.

batman sees differences between beings. he's stated as such.



batman has saved more lives than joker has taken, both directly and indirectly.



no, because i'm talking about Batman, not Joker.

Originally posted by -Pr-

it isn't a cop out. batman is written to be a complex, lifelike character. he shouldn't just decide to start killing one day.


Yea hes complex and people also behave in a certain way to further the plot.

Originally posted by -Pr-

batman sees differences between beings. he's stated as such.


So wait somebody says something in a comicbook and you believe it hook line and sinker? I don't care what he said it doesn't make sense just because a lifeform is different to a human being doesn't make it ok.

Originally posted by -Pr-

batman has saved more lives than joker has taken, both directly and indirectly.



Ok i'll repeat myself again. He would have saved more people if he killed the Joker.

Originally posted by -Pr-
batman has been called on it before, and he's explained why he doesn't kill.

and the fact of the matter is that for all the people joker has killed, batman has saved more people being on the streets and in the JLA than the Joker has killled.

It's a comic book. Batman isn't explaining anything, it's the writers of the comic trying to justify his actions, not Batman, the writers. I keep trying to say, I'm not talking about there in-universe explanation, I don't care about what they have to say in-universe. I'm looking at it from a real life perspective.

Originally posted by Deadline
Yea hes complex and people also behave in a certain way to further the plot.



So wait somebody says something in a comicbook and you believe it hook line and sinker? I don't care what he said it doesn't make sense just because a lifeform is different to a human being doesn't make it ok.




Ok i'll repeat myself again. He would have saved more people if he killed the Joker.

his plots work fine without him crossing the line and killing a human being.

don't be silly.

it does to batman. and me. it's relative, not definitive.

no. he would have saved all the people joker might have killed, but his absence from the JLA would have caused the deaths of millions. he keeps joker alive, thousands die. he kills joker, millions die, again through direct and indirect means.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It's a comic book. Batman isn't explaining anything, it's the writers of the comic trying to justify his actions, not Batman, the writers. I keep trying to say, I'm not talking about there in-universe explanation, I don't care about what they have to say in-universe. I'm looking at it from a real life perspective.

why? im genuinely asking.

Originally posted by -Pr-
his plots work fine without him crossing the line and killing a human being.

Yea they do we keep seeing Joker all the time.

Originally posted by -Pr-

don't be silly.

Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between comicbook logic and the real world.

Originally posted by -Pr-

it does to batman. and me. it's relative, not definitive.

Let see if I can get this straight its ok to kill other lifeforms because they are different to human beings. So if a lifeform was intelligent like a human had emotions and felt pain it would be ok to kill it?

You might as well argue its ok to kill people from different races.

Originally posted by -Pr-

no. he would have saved all the people joker might have killed, but his absence from the JLA would have caused the deaths of millions. he keeps joker alive, thousands die. he kills joker, millions die, again through direct and indirect means.



Are you really trying to stretch this shit? Absence from the JLA, what the hell has that got to do with him killing the Joker? How the hell would more people die if he killed the Joker?

Originally posted by Deadline
Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between comicbook logic and the real world.

great, bash me for no reason. nice.



to some people, yes. you're making it seem like batman is some stone cold killer of everything but humans. he isn't. he just prizes human life above all.



not NEARLY the same thing.



because he'd be a fugitive. he wouldn't be in the JLA anymore if he killed Joker. He wouldn't save all the people he'd usually save if he were part of the team.

He'd be a wanted man, by both friends and the Gotham police, and millions would suffer for it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
he wouldn't be in the JLA anymore if he killed Joker.

How so? In your previous posts you were making it sound like there was some sort of story detailing how millions would die if Batman were no longer a member of the JLA. Does such a storyline exist? Genuine question.

Originally posted by Dr Mystery
How so? In your previous posts you were making it sound like there was some sort of story detailing how millions would die if Batman were no longer a member of the JLA. Does such a storyline exist? Genuine question.

Batman wouldn't be allowed in the JLA. The days of the JLA killing their villains (even rarely) are no more, and he would most likely be expelled (and hunted/captured).

Look at what Batman did while part of the JLA. He was integral in stopping the White Martians. He was a huge part of the "Heaven's Ladder" story. Final Crisis. Infinite Crisis (though Brother Eye was his own creation), World War III.

How many losses would the JLA have incurred if not for Batman. I know the others do their part and so on, but so does Batman. Now, if he'd killed Joker and been hunted/locked up, who would have saved the JLA.

Yes, you can say "well it's comics, they'd find a way" but that doesn't really address the point, imo. "In universe", Batman is too important to the League and to Gotham.

Look at Dick Grayson's tenure as Batman for example. He'd been good, sure, but he's no Bruce.

I think people need to come off from the fixation on Batman sparing Joker. To my knowledge Batman has only made one exception to the no-killing rule, and that's when he attempted to kill Darkseid in Final Crisis. And Darkseid was threatening to destroy ALL Reality. That gives you an idea of just what it takes to make Batman break his vow.

Joker killing a few thousand just doesn't cut it. It will never be enough to push Batman to murdering the Joker.

Originally posted by -Pr-
why? im genuinely asking.

Long story short, it's because I think the comic books are stupid. The writing is stupid, the characters are stupid, their justifications for doing what they do, is stupid. It's all just so dumb to me. Yeah, "in-universe" it makes sense for Batman to not kill for the reasons you listed above, but I think it's stupid that the DC universe will hate Batman for killing people, and that the JLA have an unrealistic "no-kill" policy. It's like, for example, I remember reading The Killing Joke for the first time a few years back, and I thought it was just the dumbest thing that Gordon threatened to kill Batman if he killed The Joker. Yes, Gordon gave a pretty speech justifying why he did it, and sure in the universe I guess it makes sense, but I don't live in-universe. I'm a reader looking in from the outside, living in the real world, and to me, it's just stupid. Batman runs around every night, breaking and entering, trespassing, destroying public property, stealing, assault, battery, kidnapping (which is a felony, and not just a felony, legally Police are expected to use deadly force if they find someone in the middle of kidnapping, that's how serious it is), interrogation, all of these crimes, and he's been doing it for years. But where does Gordon draw the line? "I can't allow you to kill this mass murderer." Batman's been committing crimes for years, but he tries to do something that would permanently save lives,and now he's wrong?When I read that, I felt like it was just the most idiotic thing on the planet. But it's not just Batman. Superman does it, everyone in the JLA, Marvel heroes too. It's stupid that Iron Man has done all of these horrible things that have resulted in more horrible things, and yet Captain America comes back and instantly their best buddies and team mates again? I guarantee you that in a few months it'll be like Civil War never happened, and they were never enemies. It'll be just like old times. I think it's stupid that Marvel can go and erase 50 years of continuity for Spiderman. Did they write up a justification for Spidey doing such a dumb thing? Yeah. And in-universe, it makes sense. But that doesn't mean it's not stupid out of universe.

So that's what it ultimately comes down to, and that's why I said that it's all pointless, because it's subjective. If someone reads The Killing Joke, and they agree with Gordon's speech on their own moral level, then yeah it sounds heroic, and their certaintly entitled to feel that way. But not to me. I think the majority of the "heroes" in Marvel and DC do not act heroic at all. So why should I care about Batman's explanation?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I think people need to come off from the fixation on Batman sparing Joker. To my knowledge Batman has only made one exception to the no-killing rule, and that's when he attempted to kill Darkseid in Final Crisis. And Darkseid was threatening to destroy ALL Reality. That gives you an idea of just what it takes to make Batman break his vow.

Joker killing a few thousand just doesn't cut it. It will never be enough to push Batman to murdering the Joker.

So what are you saying here? "Well it's never gonna change so why discuss it"? That doesn't make sense to me.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Long story short, it's because I think the comic books are stupid. The writing is stupid, the characters are stupid, their justifications for doing what they do, is stupid. It's all just so dumb to me. Yeah, "in-universe" it makes sense for Batman to not kill for the reasons you listed above, but I think it's stupid that the DC universe will hate Batman for killing people, and that the JLA have an unrealistic "no-kill" policy. It's like, for example, I remember reading The Killing Joke for the first time a few years back, and I thought it was just the dumbest thing that Gordon threatened to kill Batman if he killed The Joker. Yes, Gordon gave a pretty speech justifying why he did it, and sure in the universe I guess it makes sense, but I don't live in-universe. I'm a reader looking in from the outside, living in the real world, and to me, it's just stupid. Batman runs around every night, breaking and entering, trespassing, destroying public property, stealing, assault, battery, kidnapping (which is a felony, and not just a felony, legally Police are expected to use deadly force if they find someone in the middle of kidnapping, that's how serious it is), interrogation, all of these crimes, and he's been doing it for years. But where does Gordon draw the line? "I can't allow you to kill this mass murderer." Batman's been committing crimes for years, but he tries to do something that would permanently save lives,and now he's wrong?When I read that, I felt like it was just the most idiotic thing on the planet. But it's not just Batman. Superman does it, everyone in the JLA, Marvel heroes too. It's stupid that Iron Man has done all of these horrible things that have resulted in more horrible things, and yet Captain America comes back and instantly their best buddies and team mates again? I guarantee you that in a few months it'll be like Civil War never happened, and they were never enemies. It'll be just like old times. I think it's stupid that Marvel can go and erase 50 years of continuity for Spiderman. Did they write up a justification for Spidey doing such a dumb thing? Yeah. And in-universe, it makes sense. But that doesn't mean it's not stupid out of universe.

So that's what it ultimately comes down to, and that's why I said that it's all pointless, because it's subjective. If someone reads The Killing Joke, and they agree with Gordon's speech on their own moral level, then yeah it sounds heroic, and their certaintly entitled to feel that way. But not to me. I think the majority of the "heroes" in Marvel and DC do not act heroic at all. So why should I care about Batman's explanation?

if you don't like comics, though, why argue it?

I see where you're coming from, and yes, were i in Batman's position Joker would be dead, but is it outside the realm of possibility that some people just refuse to take lives no matter the cost?

That morality exists in our world too. It isn't just a fictional construct, as i'm sure you know.

Batman would be a better hero if he killed joker. Yes he would god damn it, how many lives would he have saved if he had? What possible use to society is Joker? Croc? Two-face? What possible benefit is there to keep someone alive who kills because they love the sound of screaming?

Villains would have a lot more fear struck into there hearts if they just heard Batman smoked Joker and Croc.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So what are you saying here? "Well it's never gonna change so why discuss it"? That doesn't make sense to me.
I'm saying stop harping on it.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Batman would be a better hero if he killed joker. Yes he would god damn it, how many lives would he have saved if he had? What possible use to society is Joker? Croc? Two-face? What possible benefit is there to keep someone alive who kills because they love the sound of screaming?

Villains would have a lot more fear struck into there hearts if they just heard Batman smoked Joker and Croc.

while you might like him more, i don't think you can definitively say he would be a "better hero" if he killed joker.

Originally posted by -Pr-
if you don't like comics, though, why argue it?

It's just something to talk about, for me. It's like, watching a movie that ends up sucking, and then talking about it afterward. And I didn't always dislike comics lol. Spiderman and the Hulk are my favorite characters and I've consistently read their series' since the mid 90's. I only recently stopped reading the main stream comics. Now I just read graphic novels and manga. -shrug-



Oh yeah totally. And I mean, I don't view people like that as inferior or anything, I disagree with that ideology but, to each his own, I guess.



Why? You've never discussed something that you don't like?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I only recently stopped reading the main stream comics. Now I just read graphic novels and manga. -shrug-


I remember you saying something along the lines of it feelslike i've read the same stuff again when it comes to the newer Spider-Man comics

Strange because from the recent stories i've been reading from it to do with the Gauntlet its new to me.

I haven't picked up a Spidey comic since last December, so, I'm not upto date on what's going on.

But, yeah one of the reasons I don't read them anymore is because the plots are redundant.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It's just something to talk about, for me. It's like, watching a movie that ends up sucking, and then talking about it afterward. And I didn't always dislike comics lol. Spiderman and the Hulk are my favorite characters and I've consistently read their series' since the mid 90's. I only recently stopped reading the main stream comics. Now I just read graphic novels and manga. -shrug-



Oh yeah totally. And I mean, I don't view people like that as inferior or anything, I disagree with that ideology but, to each his own, I guess.



Why? You've never discussed something that you don't like?

you really should try some dc stuff. as marvel has been getting progressively worse with stuff like hulk, dc has been getting progressively better with green lantern and the like. some good stuff there.

Originally posted by -Pr-
you really should try some dc stuff. as marvel has been getting progressively worse with stuff like hulk, dc has been getting progressively better with green lantern and the like. some good stuff there. I've been heavily considering it. I read Identity Crisis for the first time a few weeks ago; was absolutely blown away. Really just thinking of which series to start following.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I've been heavily considering it. I read Identity Crisis for the first time a few weeks ago; was absolutely blown away. Really just thinking of which series to start following.

The same guy who did Identity Crisis did some work on JLA. His arc was the "Tornado's Path". A bit slow but i really liked it.

Originally posted by -Pr-
you really should try some dc stuff. as marvel has been getting progressively worse with stuff like hulk, dc has been getting progressively better with green lantern and the like. some good stuff there.

You're just hating on how great Fraction is

Originally posted by jalek moye
You're just hating on how great Fraction is

if by great, you mean shit, then yes, i am.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I've been heavily considering it. I read Identity Crisis for the first time a few weeks ago; was absolutely blown away. Really just thinking of which series to start following.

I've read that and enjoyed it but of course then you have the stupidness of people giving a shit about mind-wiping a rapist who was boasting to do it again.

Have you read infinite crisis?

You're dodging again, and making excuses. I'm not going to post a wall of text for you.

What points was I dodging? Thats funny because I thought thats what you were doing. I should have done what I was going to do in the first place, ignore you.

Ok I'm going to give you a little while to respond.

The reason Batman gets this kind of pressure to go lethal, is because he is viewed as equal to Gotham P.D. in the city( though the department wouldn't admit that.) Spider Man & Daredevil don't have that kind of pressure to cross the line. And they have the Punisher willing to go where they wouldn't.
If only DC had stuck it out with Jason Todd, instead of just making him insane. He could have been the Punisher at DC.

Originally posted by Deadline
What points was I dodging? Thats funny because I thought thats what you were doing. I should have done what I was going to do in the first place, ignore you.

Ok I'm going to give you a little while to respond.

i already responded to your comments and it wasn't enough for you. i don't know what else you want from me.

Originally posted by roughrider
The reason Batman gets this kind of pressure to go lethal, is because he is viewed as equal to Gotham P.D. in the city( though the department wouldn't admit that.) Spider Man & Daredevil don't have that kind of pressure to cross the line. And they have the Punisher willing to go where they wouldn't.
If only DC had stuck it out with Jason Todd, instead of just making him insane. He could have been the Punisher at DC.

he will be. give it time.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i already responded to your comments and it wasn't enough for you. i don't know what else you want from me.



Look I tell you what I'm just going to lay your post out when I have time and explain what a mess it is i'll let other people decide. Clearly you have a problem admitting when you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally posted by Deadline
Look I tell you what I'm just going to lay your post out when I have time and explain what a mess it is i'll let other people decide. Clearly you have a problem admitting when you don't know what you're talking about.

facepalm

yes, because i'm the one with the problem. please.

Originally posted by Deadline
Look I tell you what I'm just going to lay your post out when I have time and explain what a mess it is i'll let other people decide. Clearly you have a problem admitting when you don't know what you're talking about. durpalm

Deadline, stop bashing PR.

like some said charecters change over time so does it matter if the batman in the films is not like the batman in the comics the films are a diffrent take on batman then the comics are

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

Originally posted by darthmaul1
Batman must of Killed at least one person in the dark knight, when he crushed the garbage truck with the batmobile.

I doubt it. Chris Nolan and the rest of the crew understand the characters' personalities. So I doubt they would have Batman kill anyone.

Ra's Al Ghul's death wasn't a direct kill either. Was it a stupid decision for Batman to leave him on that train to die? I guess so. But was it direct killing? No.

A lot of people also say that he killed Two-Face in The Dark Knight. I guess I could see that as a kill. But it was an accidental kill so it doesn't count.

Originally posted by mindbomb
like some said charecters change over time so does it matter if the batman in the films is not like the batman in the comics the films are a diffrent take on batman then the comics are

Actually, the Batman films (all of them) are supposed to be ADAPTATIONS. So you can't just do whatever you want to them. Are you allowed to make some changes? Of course you are (no adaptation stays 100% true to the source material). But are you allowed to make any major changes the break the rules of the characters' personalities? No.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Actually, the Batman films (all of them) are supposed to be ADAPTATIONS. So you can't just do whatever you want to them. Are you allowed to make some changes? Of course you are (no adaptation stays 100% true to the source material). But are you allowed to make any major changes the break the rules of the characters' personalities? No.

This guy really needs to read your opening post on this thread again.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
This guy really needs to read your opening post on this thread again.

Me or mindbomb?

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Actually, the Batman films (all of them) are supposed to be ADAPTATIONS. So you can't just do whatever you want to them. Are you allowed to make some changes? Of course you are (no adaptation stays 100% true to the source material). But are you allowed to make any major changes the break the rules of the characters' personalities? No.

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.

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". I know, I'm just saying, I got no beef with you

Originally posted by mindbomb
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

I never said Burton got the inspiration from the Batman of the golden age. If you read the original comics, Batman was still very different from the Burton films. He was more of a pulp character and he killed in self defense only or when he thought it was necessary (similar to the Shadow; Batman was originally based on him). He also used a gun. There was no Alfred, the batmobile was different, and the Joker was more of a tactical serial killer/terrorist. Vicki Vale always suspected Bruce Wayne of being Batman.

The only thing Burton's Batman and the Golden Age Batman have in common is the fact that they both kill. Besides that, everything else is different. And even their way of killing was completely different too. Whenever people defend Burton's films as being valid adaptations with the whole "Batman killed in his first year of publication", that would be the same as France cancelling all of their sport tournaments except hockey while Canada had no sport tournaments but hockey tournaments for the past 20 years. Does this mean that France was inspired by Canada to cancel all of their tournaments? No. It is just a coincidence they both made this decision (France and Canada both have more than just hockey tournaments. I was only giving an example of what I meant. I know it is a very crappy example but you get the point).

I don't know if you know this but when Batman was first created, he was based heavily off the Shadow. Detective Comics #27 was actually a retelling of the Shadow's first appearance. Batman got rid of his gun when he became his own character (people say he stopped killing due to censorship but it was actually because of both reasons).

but if it was not for the first batman no batman comic would ever exist
you saying that a story should follow the continuity of another earyer story leads to the conclusion that all stories should follow the original continuity of the first story

Originally posted by mindbomb
but if it was not for the first batman no batman comic would ever exist
you saying that a story should follow the continuity of another earyer story leads to the conclusion that all stories should follow the original continuity of the first story

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that if a franchise wants to follow the continuity of an earlier age of comics, I am ok with that. But I never said all stories should follow the first continuity that first existed.

Batman Begins>Batman 89
The Dark Knight>Batman Returns

/thread

Originally posted by Darth Martin
Batman Begins>Batman 89
The Dark Knight>Batman Returns

/thread

Agreed.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Me or mindbomb?

Dude you should know I met Mindbomb.Like all Burton apologists he is desperatly grasping at straws which again is normal for Burton apologists to avoid admiiting the truth that the burton films are a disgrace to the comic and his character.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude you should know I met Mindbomb.Like all Burton apologists he is desperatly grasping at straws which again is normal for Burton apologists to avoid admiiting the truth that the burton films are a disgrace to the comic and his character.

it isn't being an apologist to like what is considered to be at the very least a decent movie.

being a troll, though...

Originally posted by -Pr-
it isn't being an apologist to like what is considered to be at the very least a decent movie.

being a troll, though...

yeah thats what you are,a troll who cant stand to hear the truth.

no an apologist is someone who ignores the evidence and facts such as yourself that keaton was a horrible casting choice for the role and how Burton raped to death his character and the comicbook. Ive seen too many times in the past from our discussions how you always grasp at straws to try to avoid admitting that to be the truth. bye.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
yeah thats what you are,a troll who cant stand to hear the truth.

no an apologist is someone who ignores the evidence and facts such as yourself that keaton was a horrible casting choice for the role and how Burton raped to death his character and the comicbook. Ive seen too many times in the past from our discussions how you always grasp at straws to try to avoid admitting that to be the truth. bye.

i love how you talk about "evidence", "truth" and "facts" when you present none, and try to claim your opinion is somehow fact. i also love how anyone that even dares to disagree with you (for good reason) is automatically branded an apologist, though in all honesty i'd rather be an apologist than a blind troll.

so yeah.

Parker, your irrational hatred isn't evidence or fact. There have been too many incarnations of Batman over the years to make a movie exactly true to the comics.

If you can't post without trolling then don't post here. Any more problems and it will be a warning. Thanks.

what about him calling me a troll? He started it with the name calling just for stating the truth how that comicbook raped to death the source material and his character.I assume you have read the comic.because as most batman fans that have,know that to be true. I fail to see how stating the truth of how a movie was not faihful to a comicbook to be trolling either. example. unlike Keaton, Bale was a great casting choice because he had the right physical build and was tall like Bruce wayne is SUPPOSED to be.not half bald and short.
He didnt kill people in cowardly ways in the movie either,neither did he in the comicbooks.The Burton films did that.those are FACTS.I fail to see how pointing those facts out proving Burton raped to death the materal is trolling.

It's the manner in which you present your information, not the information itself, that's the problem.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
what about him calling me a troll? He started it with the name calling just for stating the truth how that comicbook raped to death the source material and his character.I assume you have read the comic.because as most batman fans that have,know that to be true. I fail to see how stating the truth of how a movie was not faihful to a comicbook to be trolling either. example. unlike Keaton, Bale was a great casting choice because he had the right physical build and was tall like Bruce wayne is SUPPOSED to be.not half bald and short.
He didnt kill people in cowardly ways in the movie either,neither did he in the comicbooks.The Burton films did that.those are FACTS.I fail to see how pointing those facts out proving Burton raped to death the materal is trolling.

The problem isn't that you hate the Burton movies. I personally don't care what you like or hate. The problem is that you see it as your divine right to rag on and bash those that don't share your point of view. That, and whatever else you do, IS trolling. You can disagree if you want, but I really don't care.

Also, newsflash: The Nolan movies aren't exactly comic accurate either.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
what about him calling me a troll? He started it with the name calling just for stating the truth how that comicbook raped to death the source material and his character.I assume you have read the comic.because as most batman fans that have,know that to be true. I fail to see how stating the truth of how a movie was not faihful to a comicbook to be trolling either. example. unlike Keaton, Bale was a great casting choice because he had the right physical build and was tall like Bruce wayne is SUPPOSED to be.not half bald and short.
He didnt kill people in cowardly ways in the movie either,neither did he in the comicbooks.The Burton films did that.those are FACTS.I fail to see how pointing those facts out proving Burton raped to death the materal is trolling. I never said you called anybody a troll. I said you were trolling. The only sentence in my post which used the letters T R O L L together was "If you can't post without trolling..." I've been at th is game long enough to decipher posts laced with remarks used to incite others.

If you say that you weren't trolling, then I guess I'll take your word as the honorable truth.

batmanwave

Originally posted by -Pr-
it isn't being an apologist to like what is considered to be at the very least a decent movie.

being a troll, though...

I agree with you. Despite Burton's film being a terrible adaptation of Batman, it is ok as just a movie. I can't say the same thing about Batman Returns though. It was a terrible Batman adaptation but also a terrible movie IMO. Batman Forever was an ok Batman adaptation and an ok movie in general. It was a pretty good mix of the campy Batman and the dark Batman. Batman & Robin was just terrible. And I haven't seen the 60's movie so I can't comment on that.

Originally posted by Badabing
Parker, your irrational hatred isn't evidence or fact. There have been too many incarnations of Batman over the years to make a movie exactly true to the comics.

If you can't post without trolling then don't post here. Any more problems and it will be a warning. Thanks.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Also, newsflash: The Nolan movies aren't exactly comic accurate either.

Whenever someone adresses the Burton films as bad Batman adaptations, a few people always say "Nolan's films aren't 100% true to the comics either."

Newsflash: There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS ENTIRE PLANET that stays 100% true to the source material. In fact, I will go as far as saying that I will take back everything I said about the Burton films if someone can find me an adaptation that is 100% faithful to the original source material. It is IMPOSSIBLE to make an adaptation be 100% true to the source material.

When making an adaptation, the most important part is the basics of the personalities of the characters and the basics of their powers and abilities. Nolan's films have both of those things. All of the characters have the same personality and powers/abilities as in the comics. The only character that I would say was altered a little too much was Ra's Al Ghul because they never specify whether or not he was immortal. But I still wouldn't say he was completely far off. He was pretty good because:

1) He still had the same personality that Ra's Al Ghul had in the comics.
2) They never fully specified if Ra's was mortal or immortal. They hinted Ra's immortality a few times throughout the movie. Plus, Ra's has a reputation for being a mysterious liar in the comics. He always lies to Batman and never even revealed all of his secrets to Batman or anyone else. So there is a chance that Ra's was immortal in Batman Begins but never told Bruce about the Lazarus Pits.

Back on topic: With the exception of the whole immortality thing of Ra's in Batman Begins, all of the other characters' personalities and powers/abilities are as close to the comics as possible in live-action. An adaptation doesn't have to be 100% faithful as long as they get these basics right. Burton failed at getting the basics and personalities of the characters right while Nolan succeeded. THAT is the difference.

Burton didn't base his Batman on the canon comics, though; and both movies were almost twenty years apart.

You're looking for a fight where there isn't one.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
Dude you should know I met Mindbomb.Like all Burton apologists he is desperatly grasping at straws which again is normal for Burton apologists to avoid admiiting the truth that the burton films are a disgrace to the comic and his character.

The people on these forums that like the Burton films are NOT Burton Apologists. I have encountered a lot of Burton Apologists on other websites in the past. And they were some of the WORST and most DISCUSTING trolls I have ever seen. They would have done ANYTHING to insult people that disagreed with their opinion and proceeded to even harass them. Burton Apologists are people with no lives that dedicate their life to doing anything to prop up Burton's films and bring down Nolan's films. You have never encountered a real Burton Apologist. The people we argue with daily on these forums are nowhere near being Burton Apologists. They are just normal people.

And why would you call the people on this forum trolls? I disagree with them too and I don't think they're trolls though.

You need to reread through the last page of your thread and see what was said to me before I said that.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
You need to reread through the last page of your thread and see what was said to me before I said that.

Oh, I see. Pr called you a troll. I could kinda understand why you were pissed at him. He also told me that I am here to pick a fight. And that kinda pissed me off too since I am not here to pick a fight.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Burton didn't base his Batman on the canon comics, though; and both movies were almost twenty years apart.

You're looking for a fight where there isn't one.

Burton didn't base his movies on ANY Batman comics. And why does it matter if the films are 20 years apart? Is that an excuse to completely take away from the source material? The first two Superman films were great adaptations of the character. And they came out a decade before Burton's films. And even though Superman Returns came out 20 - 30 years after Superman 1 and 2, the movie was still a terrible adaptation of Superman and the first two films were far more accurate.

My point is that a movie being old should not be an excuse for a comic book film to not be accurate to the comics (except if it was made in the mid 1970s or before that; special effects weren't good back then).

I'm here looking for a fight where there isn't one? It is actually the vice versa that is happening: I am NOT here looking for a fight where there IS one.

When I started this thread, I had no intentions of turning it into a Burton films vs. Nolan films comparison thread. It made this thread because I was curious to find out why everyone was using Batman's first 8 - 10 issues of him killing people as an excuse for Batman to kill in Burton's films (and it is not like the Burton films were based on the first issues of Batman where he killed). But after that, the people commenting here turned this thread into a Burton vs. Nolan comparison thread. And if I was here looking for a fight, I wouldn't tell Mr Parker to stop calling you a troll.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Burton didn't base his movies on ANY Batman comics. And why does it matter if the films are 20 years apart? Is that an excuse to completely take away from the source material? The first two Superman films were great adaptations of the character. And they came out a decade before Burton's films. And even though Superman Returns came out 20 - 30 years after Superman 1 and 2, the movie was still a terrible adaptation of Superman and the first two films were far more accurate.

My point is that a movie being old should not be an excuse for a comic book film to not be accurate to the comics (except if it was made in the mid 1970s or before that; special effects weren't good back then).

I'm here looking for a fight where there isn't one? It is actually the vice versa that is happening: I am NOT here looking for a fight where there IS one.

When I started this thread, I had no intentions of turning it into a Burton films vs. Nolan films comparison thread. It made this thread because I was curious to find out why everyone was using Batman's first 8 - 10 issues of him killing people as an excuse for Batman to kill in Burton's films (and it is not like the Burton films were based on the first issues of Batman where he killed). But after that, the people commenting here turned this thread into a Burton vs. Nolan comparison thread. And if I was here looking for a fight, I wouldn't tell Mr Parker to stop calling you a troll.

he based it on Frank Miller's work.

My mention of the gap in the years was to illustrate the fact that sensibilities have changed, both in comics and in movies.

Agreed on Returns. I hated the thing.

Fair enough on the fight part, but I seriously disagree when people say that Burton didn't adapt anything of the Batman mythos properly.

Firstly, I honestly believe he got the supernatural element down near perfectly. In the movie people actually see Batman as a mythical figure. I'm not going to say it's something that Nolan lacked because his approach was very different, but it's something i've always liked about the character and I think it was represented very well in 89.

Second, is Gotham. For me Burton's approach and vision of the city is exactly what i'd want from a Gotham in a movie. It's dark, it's grimey; it's almost a warped vision of what a city should be. It actually helps hammer home just how hard Batman has to work to keep the city safe, even if it's only a little bit at a time.

Third is Nicholson's Joker. I f*cking love that character, and I love Nicholson's performance. He moves between playful, almost reasonable at times to straight up psycho like the flick of a switch. Yes, you can say they didn't follow the comics with his origin and the like, but for me they got the spirit of the character as close to how i'd ideally like it to be on the big screen.

Now, lastly, the killing thing. I've argued in other threads that it's a vital part of the character and shouldn't be changed for naught. I've been called all sorts of names for it too, but I honestly believe that he shouldn't kill.

On the other hand: Batman has been killing people for decades. It's only a relatively new thing that he's not a killer. He was by no means as bad as the Punisher, but to act like he hasn't killed since that long ago is just silly imo.

He was a killer. Even though he liked to be indirect about it and it was rare, he was still responsible for deaths even up to this decade. Yes, they got less and less prominent as time went on, and if you compared Burton's Batman to the comics of today he'd look ridiculous.

For his time, though? Burton wasn't that far off.

And if you want to put the killing part aside? I think Keaton did a great job as Batman. His Bruce even had his moments. Was it Reeve level in it's brilliance? No, but for me even to this day, he brings a quality to Bruce and Batman that i still find interesting.

Burton clearly based Batman on the Dark Knight Returns. Nolan isn't always consistent with comics either.

Originally posted by Deadline
Burton clearly based Batman on the Dark Knight Returns. Nolan isn't always consistent with comics either.

No, he didn't. Burton's Batman is nothing like the Batman from The Dark Knight Returns. The Batman in The Dark Knight Returns NEVER killed anyone at any point throughout the book. And don't tell me he killed the Joker. Batman didn't kill the Joker. Read the book again. The Joker committed suicide to frame Batman for murder.

Originally posted by -Pr-
he based it on Frank Miller's work.

My mention of the gap in the years was to illustrate the fact that sensibilities have changed, both in comics and in movies.

Agreed on Returns. I hated the thing.

Fair enough on the fight part, but I seriously disagree when people say that Burton didn't adapt anything of the Batman mythos properly.

Firstly, I honestly believe he got the supernatural element down near perfectly. In the movie people actually see Batman as a mythical figure. I'm not going to say it's something that Nolan lacked because his approach was very different, but it's something i've always liked about the character and I think it was represented very well in 89.

Second, is Gotham. For me Burton's approach and vision of the city is exactly what i'd want from a Gotham in a movie. It's dark, it's grimey; it's almost a warped vision of what a city should be. It actually helps hammer home just how hard Batman has to work to keep the city safe, even if it's only a little bit at a time.

Third is Nicholson's Joker. I f*cking love that character, and I love Nicholson's performance. He moves between playful, almost reasonable at times to straight up psycho like the flick of a switch. Yes, you can say they didn't follow the comics with his origin and the like, but for me they got the spirit of the character as close to how i'd ideally like it to be on the big screen.

Now, lastly, the killing thing. I've argued in other threads that it's a vital part of the character and shouldn't be changed for naught. I've been called all sorts of names for it too, but I honestly believe that he shouldn't kill.

On the other hand: Batman has been killing people for decades. It's only a relatively new thing that he's not a killer. He was by no means as bad as the Punisher, but to act like he hasn't killed since that long ago is just silly imo.

He was a killer. Even though he liked to be indirect about it and it was rare, he was still responsible for deaths even up to this decade. Yes, they got less and less prominent as time went on, and if you compared Burton's Batman to the comics of today he'd look ridiculous.

For his time, though? Burton wasn't that far off.

And if you want to put the killing part aside? I think Keaton did a great job as Batman. His Bruce even had his moments. Was it Reeve level in it's brilliance? No, but for me even to this day, he brings a quality to Bruce and Batman that i still find interesting.

Burton's Batman is nothing like the Batman from The Dark Knight Returns. The Batman in The Dark Knight Returns NEVER killed anyone at any point throughout the book. And don't tell me he killed the Joker. Batman didn't kill the Joker. Read the book again. The Joker committed suicide to frame Batman for murder.

I do agree that the atmosphere was very good in Batman (1989). It was a very good gothic look to Gotham City. Although I hated how they changed the atmostphere in Batman Returns (it was way too dark in Batman Returns).

The problem with Jack's Joker isn't that he isn't acted well. In fact, Jack did a VERY good portrayal of the Joker. But the reason why the Joker was not true to the comics in Batman (1989) is because he wasn't written the say way he was written in the comics. A mob boss who is an artist, holds a grudge against Batman, and is afraid of death? That is not the Joker. Despite the Joker being acted very well, it didn't work out due to him being poorly written (which is Tim Burton's fault, not Jack's).

Batman killed for decades? You're probably talking about all of the people that Batman's enemies killed because Batman didn't kill them. Well personally, I don't see Batman as a killer just because he doesn't kill people that cause chaos like the Joker. But that is just my opinion.

Double post.

i was simply tring to make the point that just because a new batman is drastically diffrent from the old doesnt make him any less of a "true" batman
with that being said i do perfer the dark knight to batman(89) but i think people assume wrongly that just because a new movie comes out it automatically make the older one obsolete

Originally posted by mindbomb
i was simply tring to make the point that just because a new batman is drastically diffrent from the old doesnt make him any less of a "true" batman
with that being said i do perfer the dark knight to batman(89) but i think people assume wrongly that just because a new movie comes out it automatically make the older one obsolete

So your whole point is that Batman (1989) is a good movie on its own despite it not being a good adaptation, right? If that is your point, then most people here (including myself) agree with you. I clearly remember saying on this thread that I do enjoy the 1989 film as a movie on its own. And other people have said that too. So if that is your point, then most people here were agreeing with you all along.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
So your whole point is that Batman (1989) is a good movie on its own despite it not being a good adaptation, right? If that is your point, then most people here (including myself) agree with you. I clearly remember saying on this thread that I do enjoy the 1989 film as a movie on its own. And other people have said that too. So if that is your point, then most people here were agreeing with you all along.

true. the movie just needs to be called The Punisher instead of Batman since his actions of killing criminals resembled The Punisher and not Batmans.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Burton's Batman is nothing like the Batman from The Dark Knight Returns. The Batman in The Dark Knight Returns NEVER killed anyone at any point throughout the book. And don't tell me he killed the Joker. Batman didn't kill the Joker. Read the book again. The Joker committed suicide to frame Batman for murder.

I do agree that the atmosphere was very good in Batman (1989). It was a very good gothic look to Gotham City. Although I hated how they changed the atmostphere in Batman Returns (it was way too dark in Batman Returns).

The problem with Jack's Joker isn't that he isn't acted well. In fact, Jack did a VERY good portrayal of the Joker. But the reason why the Joker was not true to the comics in Batman (1989) is because he wasn't written the say way he was written in the comics. A mob boss who is an artist, holds a grudge against Batman, and is afraid of death? That is not the Joker. Despite the Joker being acted very well, it didn't work out due to him being poorly written (which is Tim Burton's fault, not Jack's).

Batman killed for decades? You're probably talking about all of the people that Batman's enemies killed because Batman didn't kill them. Well personally, I don't see Batman as a killer just because he doesn't kill people that cause chaos like the Joker. But that is just my opinion.

i said he was inspired by miller's work. i didn't say he copied it letter for letter. he was also inspired by alan moore's work too.

i actually think the joker was a good adaptation, but thats me.

also, what do you mean he was afraid of batman?

no, im talking about the deaths batman was responsible for. batman has been responsible for deaths even going up to the 80s. sure, it wasn't that common, but it happened.

and even if he hadn't been responsible, i really think that people letting something like that ruin a movie for them (with so many memorable scenes) is, tbh, silly.

in 1989, batman was a good adaptation of the character for me. nowadays it wouldn't be, but for it's time, i think it was.

it's the same with chris reeve as superman. if you took nowadays comics and put them against reeve the donner movies would look silly by comparison.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
true. the movie just needs to be called The Punisher instead of Batman since his actions of killing criminals resembled The Punisher and not Batmans.

facepalm

Originally posted by -Pr-
i said he was inspired by miller's work. i didn't say he copied it letter for letter. he was also inspired by alan moore's work too.

i actually think the joker was a good adaptation, but thats me.

also, what do you mean he was afraid of batman?

no, im talking about the deaths batman was responsible for. batman has been responsible for deaths even going up to the 80s. sure, it wasn't that common, but it happened.

and even if he hadn't been responsible, i really think that people letting something like that ruin a movie for them (with so many memorable scenes) is, tbh, silly.

in 1989, batman was a good adaptation of the character for me. nowadays it wouldn't be, but for it's time, i think it was.

it's the same with chris reeve as superman. if you took nowadays comics and put them against reeve the donner movies would look silly by comparison.

Well, I could kinda see Batman severly torturing criminals in TDKR as an inspiration for Batman '89. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that Burton's Batman is BASED on TDKR. As for The Killing Joke, I completely disagree with you on that. I don't see anything in Batman '89 that is based on The Killing Joke or inspired by The Killing Joke.

He wasn't afraid of Batman. He was afraid of dying. When he was about to fall off the ladder and fall to his death (after Batman tied him to a gargoyle with his grapple gun), he was afraid that he was going to fall and die. The Joker is VERY out of character in that scene. In the comics, it is clearly specified that the Joker doesn't care about himself at all and that he would willingly kill himself just to screw with Batman's head (like when he killed himself in TDKR to frame Batman for murder). The Joker shouldn't be afraid of death because he doesn't care about himself at all.

Whenever Batman was responsible for a death, it was accidental. It wasn't the same thing as killing them on purpose.

I don't think it would have ruined the movie. I thought it would have worked well. Plus, people picture "a shadowy dark vigilante figure" when they picture Batman. The general public usually doesn't care if Batman kills or not. I think there would have still been many memorable scenes even if Batman didn't kill.

The first two Superman films portrayed the characters accurately (except Lex Luthor; he was way too comical).

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Well, I could kinda see Batman severly torturing criminals in TDKR as an inspiration for Batman '89. But I wouldn't go as far as saying that Burton's Batman is BASED on TDKR. As for The Killing Joke, I completely disagree with you on that. I don't see anything in Batman '89 that is based on The Killing Joke or inspired by The Killing Joke.

He wasn't afraid of Batman. He was afraid of dying. When he was about to fall off the ladder and fall to his death (after Batman tied him to a gargoyle with his grapple gun), he was afraid that he was going to fall and die. The Joker is VERY out of character in that scene. In the comics, it is clearly specified that the Joker doesn't care about himself at all and that he would willingly kill himself just to screw with Batman's head (like when he killed himself in TDKR to frame Batman for murder). The Joker shouldn't be afraid of death because he doesn't care about himself at all.

Whenever Batman was responsible for a death, it was accidental. It wasn't the same thing as killing them on purpose.

I don't think it would have ruined the movie. I thought it would have worked well. Plus, people picture "a shadowy dark vigilante figure" when they picture Batman. The general public usually doesn't care if Batman kills or not. I think there would have still been many memorable scenes even if Batman didn't kill.

The first two Superman films portrayed the characters accurately (except Lex Luthor; he was way too comical).

i think they used killing joke for joker's portrayal, but without knowing the full details it's only speculation.

what part convinced you that he felt fear? his screams when he fell? even if we take that part and say "sure, he was afraid" it's still an abnormally small part of his role in the movie for me and in no way tarnishes the performance.

it wasn't accidental. sometimes it was, yes, but it wasn't accidental when batman used a henchman as a human shield to block penguin's gun umbrella, or when he locked kgbeast in an underground bunker only to answer when someone asked what had happened "you don't have to worry about him anymore". it wasn't accidental when he caused a helicopter to crash with both pilots inside.

again, it's not a quality the modern batman possesses, but batman back then? most certainly, even as a rarity.

that isn't what i meant, but you are right in a sense. i don't think the relatively small parts where he kills people ruin the movie (even if we measure it against modern batman). so not killing people would have the same effect for me. it doesn't change the movie for me.

the first two superman movies portrayed the superman of THAT time correctly. you can't weigh them against current superman. it's the same with batman 89 and returns for me.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
So your whole point is that Batman (1989) is a good movie on its own despite it not being a good adaptation, right? If that is your point, then most people here (including myself) agree with you. I clearly remember saying on this thread that I do enjoy the 1989 film as a movie on its own. And other people have said that too. So if that is your point, then most people here were agreeing with you all along.


no im saying that just because it is diffrent does not make it a bad adaptation
being a good adaptation does not mean you have to be a clone of the source

Originally posted by mindbomb
no im saying that just because it is diffrent does not make it a bad adaptation
being a good adaptation does not mean you have to be a clone of the source

Correct! Ding ding ding! We have a winner, Gotham By Gaslight, Red Rain, and Thrillkiller, tell him what he's won!

Yeah, Burton didn't make the movie exactly like the comic book was, but let's look at the positives: Elfman's score is still the most iconic score for Batman, the Batmobile is still the most iconic (outside of Adam West's Batmobile), Burton's original Gotham City (from 1989) is possibly the best setting for Batman ever, and the suit looked extremely cool (I really want to buy a replica somewhere)

Could his movies have been better? Yeah (let's start with more Billy Dee as Harvey Dent, more Batman scenes, and Joker not killing Bruce's parents and go from there), but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid interpretation. This is fiction, it can be taken many different ways, you know.

Personally, I love the aesthetics of Burton's Batman. Had he had someone who knew what they were doing writing for him (Sam Hamm wasn't that great. His second script was awful), it'd be the best Batman ever, imo (plot and story are the only things lacking, for me)

Originally posted by spidermanrocks

The first two Superman films portrayed the characters accurately (except Lex Luthor; he was way too comical).

correct. The first two superman movies did what the Burton Batman films failed to do,portray the characters accurately with the exception of Lex Luther just like you said.Burton should also never be allowed to cast a comicbook movie.Not only did that idiot screwup Batman with the casting of keaton who was so physically wrong for the part as well as not even coming close to resembling the role,but if it had been up to him to direct Superman,he would have made a mockery of the casting choice of Superman as well in the fact that he was originally slated to direct Superman and his casting choice was going to be another balding actor.Nicholas Cage. Thank God that never transpired.Too bad Batman 89 had to.

Originally posted by -Pr-
i think they used killing joke for joker's portrayal, but without knowing the full details it's only speculation.

what part convinced you that he felt fear? his screams when he fell? even if we take that part and say "sure, he was afraid" it's still an abnormally small part of his role in the movie for me and in no way tarnishes the performance.

it wasn't accidental. sometimes it was, yes, but it wasn't accidental when , or when he locked kgbeast in an underground bunker only to answer when someone asked what had happened "you don't have to worry about him anymore". it wasn't accidental when he caused a helicopter to crash with both pilots inside.

again, it's not a quality the modern batman possesses, but batman back then? most certainly, even as a rarity.

that isn't what i meant, but you are right in a sense. i don't think the relatively small parts where he kills people ruin the movie (even if we measure it against modern batman). so not killing people would have the same effect for me. it doesn't change the movie for me.

the first two superman movies portrayed the superman of THAT time correctly. you can't weigh them against current superman. it's the same with batman 89 and returns for me.

Actually, Burton said one the DVD commentary of Batman (1989) that The Killing Joke is the only Batman comic he ever read (at least back then) and that it was the main influence for the movie. So it is not speculation. It is a fact that Burton was claiming he used The Killing Joke as an inspiration. But he obviously lied since there is NOTHING in Burton's movie that is inspired by the book.

Yes, it was only a small part. But that is only an example. I could list more scenes like that from the movie that the Joker just wouldn't do. Does it tarnish the performance? No. But it tarnishes the character.

What are you talking about when you're saying "back then"? Are you referring to the 1940s comics or the comics that from the 80s?

Yes, the first two Superman films portrayed the Superman of THAT time correctly. But the Burton films did NOT portray the Batman of THAT time correctly (if you read the comics from the 80s and 90s, they weren't like the Burton films).

Originally posted by mindbomb
no im saying that just because it is diffrent does not make it a bad adaptation
being a good adaptation does not mean you have to be a clone of the source

Actually, it does. Being different = Bad adaptation. The definition of the word adaptation is "making changes to fit the screen while still staying as true to the source material as possible". It does not mean that you could change the characters however you want.

Being a good adaptation doesn't mean you have to be a clone of the source. It means staying as true to the source material as possible. Are you allowed to make changes? Of course. But there is a LIMIT to how far you can take it.

And just because Batman '89 isn't a good adaptation doesn't mean that it is a bad movie in general. It's actually a pretty good movie.

Originally posted by Bat Dude
Correct! Ding ding ding! We have a winner, Gotham By Gaslight, Red Rain, and Thrillkiller, tell him what he's won!

Yeah, Burton didn't make the movie exactly like the comic book was, but let's look at the positives: Elfman's score is still the most iconic score for Batman, the Batmobile is still the most iconic (outside of Adam West's Batmobile), Burton's original Gotham City (from 1989) is possibly the best setting for Batman ever, and the suit looked extremely cool (I really want to buy a replica somewhere)

Could his movies have been better? Yeah (let's start with more Billy Dee as Harvey Dent, more Batman scenes, and Joker not killing Bruce's parents and go from there), but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid interpretation. This is fiction, it can be taken many different ways, you know.

Personally, I love the aesthetics of Burton's Batman. Had he had someone who knew what they were doing writing for him (Sam Hamm wasn't that great. His second script was awful), it'd be the best Batman ever, imo (plot and story are the only things lacking, for me)

I agree with your first and last paragraph. I kinda agree with your middle paragraph but not to a full extent. Burton's film was a pretty good movie but it had a lot of room for improvement as a Batman movie, that is true.

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
Actually, Burton said one the DVD commentary of Batman (1989) that The Killing Joke is the only Batman comic he ever read (at least back then) and that it was the main influence for the movie. So it is not speculation. It is a fact that Burton was claiming he used The Killing Joke as an inspiration. But he obviously lied since there is NOTHING in Burton's movie that is inspired by the book.

Yes, it was only a small part. But that is only an example. I could list more scenes like that from the movie that the Joker just wouldn't do. Does it tarnish the performance? No. But it tarnishes the character.

What are you talking about when you're saying "back then"? Are you referring to the 1940s comics or the comics that from the 80s?

Yes, the first two Superman films portrayed the Superman of THAT time correctly. But the Burton films did NOT portray the Batman of THAT time correctly (if you read the comics from the 80s and 90s, they weren't like the Burton films).

late, but:

i was speaking about any other comics that might have been used for inspiration, not the killing joke itself.

what tarnishes the character, exactly?

batman up until the crisis might not have been the punisher, but he was responsible for a fair few deaths, and even post crisis he's had a few instances where he's been directly responsible for deaths.

i disagree. the burton movies did take licenses, but for me they portrayed the spirit of the characters as they were in that decade.

Originally posted by -Pr-
late, but:

i was speaking about any other comics that might have been used for inspiration, not the killing joke itself.

what tarnishes the character, exactly?

batman up until the crisis might not have been the punisher, but he was responsible for a fair few deaths, and even post crisis he's had a few instances where he's been directly responsible for deaths.

i disagree. the burton movies did take licenses, but for me they portrayed the spirit of the characters as they were in that decade.

The fact that he isn't written as he is in the comics. A mob boss who is an artist and holds a grudge against Batman? That is not the Joker's character. There were some scenes with dark comedy (which is the type of comedy that the Joker is supposed to have) but there were more Joker one-liners than dark comedy with the Joker. Only a few scenes had good dark comedy (such as the "I'm glad you're dead!" scene, when he kills Bob, and when he kills that guy with a pen). Other than that, the Joker in Burton's film is pretty much the Silver Age Joker except that he kills people. Also, the Joker trying to prove that he is the superior "freak" is NOT something that he would want to do. In the comics, the Joker believes that Batman is equally as insane as he is and wants to prove this to Batman. And the Joker doesn't care about himself at all. He would willingly laugh at his own death or commit suicide just to screw with peoples' heads. Him being afraid of dying makes no sense and contradicts this. Another problem with the Joker is that Burton tries to explain his character. The story is more told from the Joker's point of view rather than from Batman's point of view. We know exactly everything about the Joker in that movie. We know the cause of his insanity and where he comes from and the writers of that film even gave him a full name. A very important aspect about the Joker's character in the comics is that he is very mysterious. No one knows what caused him to be driven insane, where he originated from, what his reasons and intentions are, and what his full name is. The Joker is probably one of the most mysterious comic book characters of all time and this is completely ignored in...on second though, it is more than just ignored. Since we know almost everything about the Joker in that film, he is the exact OPPOSITE of mysterious. And I do not like that.

I'm not dissing Jack's performance. I thought Jack did a great job. Jack did a good job in that film but the problem was the script. The script wrote the Joker's character very poorly and inaccurate to the comics (which is Burton's fault, not Jack's).

The deaths that Post-Crisis Batman was responsible for happened for one of the following two reasons:
1) They were accidental deaths, where Batman's intention wasn't to kill the person but it accidentaly happened. Accidental deaths don't count and don't contradict the character.
2) They occured due to Batman not killing his villains and then his villains would later escape from Arkham and kill some people. Batman is not directly responsible for the murders that the Joker causes. Him sparing his villains that later commit more crimes is different from him directly killing his enemies by throwing them off rooftops (which is what he does in the Burton franchise).

By Burton's films capturing the "spirit of the comics", are you talking about the Burton films giving the same feeling and mood as the comics? In that case, I understand what you're saying and I see where you're coming from. But if you're trying to say that Burton's films are like the comics of the 80's and early 90's, then I disagree with you.

Another thing I forgot to add about Jack's Joker is that he doesn't feel as if he is Batman's greatest foe in Burton's film. He just felt like another villain. The Joker is supposed to be the villain that causes so much crap happening to Batman (mentally torturing him in a way). Other than him killing Batman's parents, he didn't affect Batman that much. Once again, this is Burton's fault and not Jack's.

His origin is also done poorly. When he was Jack Napier, he was one person. And after he falls in the vat of chemicals and resurfaces, he is the exact same person that he was before except that he laughs more. To me, that is just bad writing.

other than killing his parents? thats a pretty big other than dont you think i mean the death of his parents is what made him batman without that he would be a drastically diffrent person
i agree about the chemical vat not changing him enough

Originally posted by mindbomb
other than killing his parents? thats a pretty big other than dont you think i mean the death of his parents is what made him batman without that he would be a drastically diffrent person
i agree about the chemical vat not changing him enough

In comics, a superhero's arch-enemy is supposed to be one of the biggest challenges that the hero ever faced. During the film, the Joker didn't feel as one of the toughest challenges that Batman would have to face in his entire career. In the movie, he didn't feel as if he was one of the biggest threats to Gotham (which is how the Joker is mostly seen as). As for him killling his parents, that took place before he became the Joker (when he was supposedly "normal" despite him not changing after the chemical vat incident).

Originally posted by spidermanrocks
In comics, a superhero's arch-enemy is supposed to be one of the biggest challenges that the hero ever faced. During the film, the Joker didn't feel as one of the toughest challenges that Batman would have to face in his entire career. In the movie, he didn't feel as if he was one of the biggest threats to Gotham (which is how the Joker is mostly seen as). As for him killling his parents, that took place before he became the Joker (when he was supposedly "normal" despite him not changing after the chemical vat incident).

He changed, definitely.

As Jack Napier, he was your typical run-of-the-mill gangster, maybe he had a little more of a screw loose than most, but overall, he was mostly interested in inheriting Grissom's empire and stealing his girl.

As the Joker, this guy just loved killing and being the star of the show. Being #1, being the guy in the headlines, being better than Batman. That was one of the plot points in their film. Joker kept trying to "1 up" Batman. Remember when he complained Batman was stealing his press?