A Stupid Argument

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.