Saturday, November 13, 2010

Killer Batman


TIM BURTON MOVIES

Tim Burton's movies are the only Batman movies which depict Batman as a cold blooded killer. In Batman, he remotely dropped a bomb in Axis Chemicals factory in front of Joker's goons, largely decimating their numbers,

 
He guns more of them down with a machine gun
 
and soon after, he dropped one of Joker's goons into his death

In Batman Returns, he calmly sets one of the members of the Red Triangle gang on fire with cold blood

And soon after straps a bomb to another one

Keaton's Batman could be quite cruel, killing – or, in the case of the Fire Breather, maiming – a few henchmen in Burton's two films. Later, he straps a bomb to a tattooed strongman, which explodes and kills him. – IGN

Daniel Waters: We live in dark times. You can't just drop bad guys off in a spider web in front of city hall.

This portrayal harks back to Batman's original template. Batman used deadly weapons and didn't think twice about killing his enemies and criminals.

Batman was a killer from his very first appearance in Detective Comics # 27 in which can see him dropping a criminal into the vat of acid saying "A fitting ending to his kind". That , of course, wasn't his only kill in this issue

He was a grim figure in his first years, casually killing criminals, and Bob Kane liked this dark version best (Batman: The Complete History).

He used guns to take out his enemies (panel below from Detective Comics #32)
But also used other means, like for example ropes (panel below from Batman #1)
 
Or his own strength (panel below from Detective Comics #30)
And acrobatic skills , the same way as he did in the 1989 movie (panel below from Batman #4)

There is a common misconception that the reason why the early Batman killed and used guns is because he wasn't given his origins yet. This misconception is that once Batman was given his origins he hated fire weapons and vouch not to kill. That is very far from the truth. In the very same issue in which Batman is given the origins  (Detective Comics #33), he uses a gun and is also portrayed in the last panel with a smoking pistol.

 

Furthermore, very soon after, in Batman #1, he is even more vicious than in his first appearance, carrying a sidearm and using a machine gun to gun down his enemies (he did the same in the 1989 movie) - a group of men who were given growth hormones by Hugo Strange (panel below from Batman #1)


The real reason why Batman stopped killing in the comic books (the sudden change was not explained in-universe) was that the editor, Whitney Ellsworth, "decreed that in the future Batman would be forbidden to use a gun or kill anyone by other means. This ban was the first step in forming an ethical code that would stand DC in good stead "(Batman: The Complete History). 

Bob Kane: In the first year Batman was a grim vigilante who operated outside of law. (Batman and Me book)

Bill Finger: I was called on the carpet by Whit Ellsworth. (...) The editors thought that making Batman a murderer would taint his character, and mothers would object to letting their kids see and read about shootings. The new editorial policy was to get away from Batman's vigiliantism and to bring him over to the side of the law. We made him an honorary member of the police force.(Batman and Me book)

The in-universe debut of Batman's vow for no killing rule and the hate for firearms (caused by his parent's deaths) appeared as late as 1988 in Detective Comics #583 where the oath is mentioned. 

Although a no-kill moral code has been mentioned before


In 2004's The Forensic Files of Batman he can be seen taking the vow. There Bruce, while doing this research, creates a sense of principles for himself. Since a gun took away his parents, he plans never to use a firearm. And since he felt the effect of death at such an early age, he vows never to take a life. He does however, mention that he doesn't kill several times since the 80's


While Batman stopped killing for a long time (he was killing again, although occasionally ever since the late 60's), he never showed any kind of exceptional resentment or fear towards fire weapons and there's far too many examples throughout the decades to present them all, but he did use them during every age. The Golden Age:

                                                                   Detective Comics #28

Detective Comics #33

Silver age (panel below from World's Finest Comics #27)


In the 60's (Panel below from Detective Comics #327)

In the 80's (Panel below from Batman Year Two)


and 90's (panel below from Detective Comics #627)
And still uses them occasionally today (panel below from Detective Comics #710)

In the 90's however, it was established even clearer that Bruce/Batman hates guns 


And while Batman stopped killing ever since the 1943 due to becoming a kid friendly character, despite the fact that he got his moral code he resumed occasional killing starting with the late 1960's in Brave and The Bold # 83 in which he destroys a German plane using a hand grenade and uses dynamite to blow up a convoy of German soldiers as they are crossing a bridge. As Batman said while breaking his rule in Batman #420 (1988): Sometimes you have to ignore the rules. I'm not in this business to protect the rules, I serve justice. Since there's also too many instances showing Batman occasionally killing since the late 60's, here are just a few more examples from each decade

In the 30's

 Detective Comics #28

Detective Comics #29

Snapped Jabah's neck, in latter issue confirmed he killed him


Detective Comics #33. He throws a vial of sleeping gas at the pilot who crashes into a river


Detective Comics #34. Batman strangles the driver and leaves him in a car that drives off a cliff


Detective Comics #35

Detective Comics #37

Detective Comics # 39

Detective Comics # 46

Detective Comics # 47

In the 40s 

Batman #1

Batman #2

Batman #3
Batman #6 
Batman #8

Batman #15

Detective Comics #55. He sends an agent into a molten steel and in the same issue knocks off two bad guys off the airship

Batman #47

In the 60's

(panel below from Brave and The Bold # 83)
 Brave and the Bold #84 - Bruce Wayne kills a fighter pilot with a hand grenade.


In the 70's
Brave and the Bold #90. He throws an unconscious guy into a river
Batman #288. Human shield
 Batman #290
Detective Comics #423 - Batman snares a assasin with a grappling hook and hauls him off a water tower

In the 80's
 Batman #425
Batman discovers a munitions factory belonging to the Alien Alliance. It is heavily guarded by representatives from several different alien species, including members of the Thangarian race. In the end Batman blows up the factory and everyone inside by ramming a boat filled with explosives into it. Detective Comics #595 
Batman The Man Who Falls
Brave and the Bold #195. A vampire kill (one of many)
Son of the Demon
Cosmic Odyssey. He blasts one of Darkseid's soldiers
Detective Comics #509 - Batman tries to kill Cat-Man in 'Nine Lives Has the Cat' by knocking him off a boat. He then stands by and watches as Cat-Man apparrently drowns. Of course Cat-Man's nine lives allowed him to show up again in later stories. But to all intents and purposes, Batman tried to kill him at the end of this story.

Batman #420. He traps KGBeast and leaves him to starve, while contemplating on breaking the rules
Detective Comics #590 (accidental)

In the 90's
Detective Comics #613 -  accidental
In 'Family' (Legends of the Dark Knight #31, June 1992) Batman travels to the Corto Maltese to rescue Alfred from a South American racketeer named El Vato. As they are escaping El Vato's base, Alfred runs down a pair of soldiers using a stolen lorry. Batman then triggers some explosives he'd planted in a weapons depot, blowing the villains' base to smithereens and killing many of El Vato's men in the process. This was clearly a calculated and premeditated act. Right at the beginning of the comic Batman had thought to himself: "I want to kill them [...] God help me, Alfred. I may just kill tonight. If that's what it takes to save you." And indeed he did.
Legends of the Dark Knight #84 - Batman tries several times to kill the villain, a hallucinating soldier who's been driven kill crazy by military experiments. He finally succeeds in killing the solider by shooting him several times with a handgun and knocking him off a dam

In 2000's  
Batman #576
All Star Batman & Robin the Boy Wonder #1
Detective Comics #814
Detective Comics #821
Batman #673. Forces Chill to kill himself
Batman/Doc Savage #1
In Year One: Batman/Ra's al Ghul (2005) Batman intentionally kills two bad guys who are pursuing him on snowmobiles by firing a flaregun at a mountain and creating an avalanche that buries them.

Although the modern age Batman kills mostly for self defense,

that's not always the case, as also illustrated by some panels above. When the enemy seems to dangerous to be kept alive, Batman does what's necessary. Some examples:
  
Batman #271 (1976)
 Batman #337 (1981)

In Batman: Legends of the Dark Knight # 54, a demon called Osric Drood gains power by draining Batman's blood, and as he explains, he can only sustain his energy using murderers' blood. By the end of the story Bruce wonders if he would save the man he had killed in self defense if he had a chance

 .........................................................
MICHAEL KEATON'S KILL COUNT: 20
.........................................................

JOEL SCHUMACHER MOVIES 
 Throughout Batman Forever Batman keeps talking about how killing criminals is wrong and is trying to pass that view on to Robin. At the end he throws coins at Two-Face causing him to lose balance and fall to his death. 


However, taking into consideration the running anti-killing theme in the movie and what Batman is teaching Robin, it's most likely that this death was accidental and Batman just wanted to distract Two Face. Since he barely caught Chase and Robin despite being ready for it and jumping in immediately after them, there was no chance in saving Two-Face once he tripped.

VAL KILMER'S KILL COUNT: 1
GEORGE CLOONEY'S KILL COUNT: 0 
 .........................................................

CHRISTOPHER NOLAN MOVIES 

Christopher Nolan's movies present a Batman whose moral code is as strong as in Joel Schumacher's Batman movies. 
In Batman Begins, the explosive chain reaction that Bruce started caused many deaths (8 onscreen) but they most likely weren't intended. Bruce wanted to have a distraction to escape and weaken the League of Shadow ninjas, but the fire caused more than he counted on.
By the end of the movie Batman lets Ra's Al Ghul die by leaving him in a racing train whose controls has been disabled 
In The Dark Knight Batman saves Joker from certain death but soon after kills Two-Face by throwing him and himself off the ledge. 
This is apparently an unplanned kill as well. Two-Face was standing close to the edge and Batman jumped at him trying to stop him from killing Gordon's son. He only had one hand to hold on and one to grab the boy

Jonathan Nolan: He has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. 
Christopher Nolan: He breaks it
David Goyer: In the first two
(The Dark Knight Trilogy: The Complete Screenplays)

CHRISTIAN BALE'S KILL COUNT: 10
 .........................................................

Majority of the credit should go to fellow Batman historian Silver Nemesis

63 comments:

  1. I knew that he killed in the beginning but I thought it was an isolated incident. Great read, great read. I learned a lot reading this blog

    ReplyDelete
  2. Funny how in Forever and TDK TwoFace dies the same way by falling, with the coin landing and all

    ReplyDelete
  3. Im not sure if Bale didnt intend to kill the ninjas. He knew that hes gonna blow the place up and that its filled with people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It wasnt intended. Dont forget JUST before he started the fire he was talking about not being an executioner and that was the reason why he started the fire in the first place - he didnt want to kill that guy. All he wanted was a chaos for distraction, it just all went bad for the Shadow troops. And obviously he didnt want to kill Dent either in neither Forever nor TDK. Thats why killing Ghul ruins everthing and IM sure Nolan regrets it now after the no kill rule was made into such important thing in TDK. If you allow somebody to die by omission of action its killing. If someone with asthma needs their medicine and you wont pass it to them, thats killing. And thats what Batman did to Ghul.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. absolutely not - Ra's Al Ghul was on a suicide mission to destroy Gotham. He had enough time to escape that train (this is the guy who effin TRAINED Batman! If Bats could've done it, so could he).

      Bale-Bats remains free from murder.

      - Nave 'Torment'

      Delete
  5. I agree, I strongly believe that the deaths of 2 Two-Faces and League of Shadow ninjas were unintentional

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brillant post! :)

    People need to stop thinking that killer Batman in the Tim Burton films is unfaithful to the comics. Also, even though he has a rule of not killing in the other films but still the rule is not programmed into him like some robot at least he makes mistakes that are very human such as throwing the coins as a means of distraction but it ends up killing Two-Face, running to save Gordon's son but Two-Face falls off the ledge due to his own aggressive force against Batman trying to save the kid, recklessly burning the temple that ends up killing 8 and not saving Ra's Al Ghul from the train due to being fed up that he let him live by saving him from the burning temple before.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I wouldnt say burning the temple was reckless. I think Batman in BB was a mirror image of the modern Batman - sometimes killing, but trying not to when possible (the posts proves that he's still killing from time to time) and not making a huge deal out of it like some fans after misinterpreting TDK. After TDK it was blown out of proportion

    ReplyDelete
  8. None of the movies are really faithful to the comics, they all have numerous and major differences and none of the movie stand out as being much more faithful than the others. Perhaps the 89 movie is the closest one. Still, its the quality that counts, not following the source

    ReplyDelete
  9. Burton was very faithful to the original Detective Comis Batman as he was created, Schumacher and Nolan based their versions on the modern take on the character. I enjoy having both in movies

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great piece.

    One small correction- the Monster Men from Batman #1 were created by Dr. Hugo Strange, not Dr. Death.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ah, that's right. Thanks for the correction

    ReplyDelete
  12. He always only killed when it was necessary. Many people make it seem as though he wildly killed people like the Punisher does or something or as if he killed a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Most often he killed out of necessity but sometimes he simply killed when he didnt have to like in those Batman #271 and Batman #337 examples. And Mignola's story confirms that Batman is a murderer, otherwise Drood wouldnt be able to feed on him

    ReplyDelete
  14. You forgot that in TDK Batman kills the garbage truck driver, there's no way anyone can survive that impact

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hmm, perhaps. But if the truck driver could be count as a kill, then some of the cops in Begins would have to be as well. Many cop cars were smashed and squashed with people inside them. I agree that in reality people would most likely get killed in those situations, but Im not sure if thats what they intended for Batman in the movies

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually Alfred mentions that it was a miracle no one was seriously hurt (apparently despite all the accidents and mayhem no one actually died).

      Delete
  16. Whoa, early Batman even killed cops

    ReplyDelete
  17. ^ I think youre referring to Batman #2, but that wasnt really Batman, it was someone dressed up as him. I removed the panel to avoid anymore confusions

    ReplyDelete
  18. As far as Batman being a murderer goes, I think the Burton films handled it perfectly. Batman didn't go out of his way to kill anyone, but in situations where it was him or them... in the first one, fighting in the belltower, in the second, the clown and the dynamite (though that might get a little murkier).

    It's wholly unrealistic to think no one would ever die due to a Batman encounter - Frank Miller's Batman: Year One deals with this with the kid falling off the roof. It happens, physics. Batman managed to save him. If he'd been fighting nine guys or whatever, he wouldn't have been able to. The occasional fatality is a lot more realistic than none at all, which is something the Nolan films should have heavily embraced and did not.

    Superman, maybe, can get away with never killing anyone because he's, you know, Superman. He can do all sorts of stuff. Batman kicks and punches people and hits them with non-lethal projectiles. Lol. If Nolan really wanted to do a realistic Batman movie, he should have Batman taser some guy and have the guy die from the taser. Then Wayne Industries could develop an actual non-lethal taser....

    ReplyDelete
  19. The whole no killing thing was given waaay too much attention in TDK. In BB he killed when necessary and in TDK its ridiculous. So he killed Al Ghul cause the guy contributed to his parents death and wanted to wipe out Gotham, yet he kept alive a guy who is insane , killed numerous cops and his beloved girlfriend and caused the evacuation of the entire city almost blowing up two ships full of people and who brought a complete chaos and fear to Gotham. Go figure

    ReplyDelete
  20. I never understood why Batman killing a few guys in the movies was that big of a deal. I agree with Good Ash about the Burton films. He fights crime, people. He's not the Punisher, but he's not a buy scout either.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Great read! I would object to some of the examples though: in Detective 27 Batman throws the gangster in the vat in self-defense: he has a gun and is gonig to shoot Batman, who just punches him, with no intention to kill him. Some other panels you posted show similar situations.
    Oh, and in Detective 32 he shoots a vampire (read what he says: "You will not harm any mortal being again"), so I am not sure if that counts as killing, since vampires are already dead.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Glad you enjoyed the read. Re: DC#27, Batman didnt make any attempt and didnt reveal any intentions to save the guy (as oppose to remakes of the story), plus his line seals the fact that he simply let him die. Also, in examples shown when his victims break necks by falling etc, he also doesnt show any regrets or intentions to save them, and all this coupled with the fact that he kills in cold blood in different early issues make it more or less clear that he intended to kill those people or at least thought he "got lucky" when they snapped their necks or got impaled.

    Re: DC#32, I guess thats arguable, but he still ends someone's existence by shooting him with a gun point blank, human or not. Its like killing Amygdala for example

    ReplyDelete
  23. Batman should kill more. It would make alote of sense to kill say joker. It would save alote more lives in the long run and he could retire sooner if he just slaughtered his enemies like 3 men 1 hammer or sumfin

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cops kill. Soldiers kill. It doesnt make them, evil for Christ sake, its just natural part of life and what comes with defending innocent and fighting criminals. Sometimes (and often) its impractical to arrest or to leave the enemy alive . The "no kill under any circumstances" kill is ridiculous and cartoonish and not what the real world is about

    ReplyDelete
  25. B89, Begins and TDK get it right. Deaths may happen as a result in realistic situation ... but Batman never went in with the premeditated intent to kill someone. Joker maybe in B89. He said it, but he didn't really do it. I mean he punched him over a wall, but I can let it slide a little bit. The deaths in Begins were due to happenstance. Bruce had to escape overwhelming odds so he blows up the training facility. That is completely logical and believable. Dent's death wasn't Batman's intent. He was saving a little boy as his first priority. Batman almost fell to his death as well. They all were in danger in that scene.

    In Returns? Well yea, he deliberetly kills a man in the most vicious caliber way.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well again, its the earliest Batman. I really dont have a preference either way. I like the cold killer Batman who doesnt take crap and I also like the realistic Batman of Nolan who kills when necessary and when its impractical to arrest or capture. What I dont like is Schumacher's "never kill ever ever" because its completely unrealistic. I like that one comment someone made, that cops and soldiers kill and there will always be casualties in a war. Does not make cops evil or doomed souls. Try not to kill, but sometimes its necessary when fighting evil and lunatics and mass murderers

    ReplyDelete
  27. By the way Bruce Wayne kills someone in "the Man Who Falls"

    ReplyDelete
  28. The Burton Batman is someone insane, so that I felt fit the character. You can never know what hes gonna do or why he does some things. Hes truly a lunatic like Norman Bates is, and thats one of the things I loved about Burton's Batman, that a bad guy who looks scary as is crazy is actually a good guy. At the same time I like the real life and logical approach of a guy who acts like a soldier, and kills when must and walks that fine line as you said it. Only in cartoons can a guy be a defender or crime fighter and not kill anyone. Ninja Turtles and Captain Planet for example....and Schumacher's Batman

    ReplyDelete
  29. Yea, Burton's Batman is insane ... a better description I'd say is neurotic ... because he can control himself in different settings, but even then that one kill w/ the bomb to me is still out of character, even for the insane Batman they had established. Well the bad ass version of the Ninja Turtles kill ... and do it well. True ninjas. Ever read the Mirage comics? They slightly touched on it in the 2003 tv show ... but in the comics the Turtles were bad asses. Even decapitating the Shredder. Off topic, but cool none the less. Yea, Shumacher's Batman is a clown. A cartoon. Of course in realistic or even surreal settings where we are supposed to believe these threatning and dangerous actions are going to take place ... people are going to be hurt or die. It's only believable.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I thought this interview was pretty interesting.





    http://www.ina.fr/ardisson/lunettes-noires-pour-nuits-blanches/video/I08039496/auto-interview-michael-keaton.fr.html

    ReplyDelete
  31. Here's part One,

    Just copy and paste.

    http://www.ina.fr/ardisson/lunettes-noires-pour-nuits-blanches/video/I08039495/auto-interview-michael-keaton.fr.html

    ReplyDelete
  32. I still fail to see why you counted Begins, he never killed Ra's Al Ghul(real one)

    When on the train Batman says this specifically.

    ''I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.''

    It doesn't count as a kill. No matter how you look at it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I think one of the posters summed it up well saying: "If you allow somebody to die by omission of action its killing. If someone with asthma needs their medicine and you wont pass it to them while theyre suffocating and just watch them, thats killing. And thats what Batman did to Ghul. "

    ReplyDelete
  34. It didn't seem like Killing to me, killing seems like an action directly tied to the person. or indirectly caused, in my mind he didn't kill him. He just let him die but oh well whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Well, a situation like this is legally considered a murder. Its like someone's drowning in a pool and theres a guy standing on the ledge just staring at that person instead of giving him a hand

    ReplyDelete
  36. Even though in the Burton films Batman would kill, in the Animated Series he sweared never to kill.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I find it odd that these properties who in print do not take lives as often as say, the Shadow or the Spider, end up doing so in recent film adaptations. Particularly, considering how the Spider and the Shadow did not remain in continous publication in the 1950's the way these more overtly juvenile properties did. Say what you will about the pulp heroes, but they did not child sidekicks with pixie shoes and shaved legs, or run around in spandex.

    The same goes for chastity disappearing in these adaptations, a trend that started with Superman II it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Burton's Batman straped a bomb to a thug.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The reason why Batman doesn't kill is because he thinks it wouldn't make him any better than the criminals he fights. Also, he says death is the easy way out.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The no-kill rule is pretty much essential to Batman, because it's the only way to justify the continuing lives of his rogue's gallery. Joker alone has killed practically the equivalent of a small country by now.

    The smart thing to do would be to slaughter the hell out of all of Arkham's most notorious inmates and save many future lives, but that would mean no more Batman adventures. I'm very surprised to see that he's still occasionally killing nowadays. However, I noticed that one of the 2000's examples was from Frank Miller's god-awful All Star Batman and Robin, which is a separate continuity. Are all those other newer examples from the mainstream universe, or are they elseworld stories as well?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I prefer the darker, killer Batman of the early comics and the Burton films. It makes the character a more tragic figure and it makes sense having him somewhat psychotic. No one who dresses up like a Bat and fights crime is 100% sane.

    ReplyDelete
  42. ''Well, a situation like this is legally considered a murder. Its like someone's drowning in a pool and theres a guy standing on the ledge just staring at that person instead of giving him a hand''

    However...
    In the case of Ra's. He created the situation of the barreling train that couldn't be stopped. He fully intended to die in the pursuit of his goals.

    Batman didn't really kill him. He would have died anyway

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly - he was the one who destroyed the control panels, making it impossible for batman to destroy the train, but aside from that technicality, Ra's was on a suicide mission to destroy gotham.

      it isn't batman's responsibility to stop someone like Ra's from saving himself. Ra's could've saved his own hide from the moment Batman says "who says anything about stopping it" and when he leaves and he jsut stands there, frozen, accepting his death. He had problems, and yes Batman did derail the train to save the city, but ra's was planning on succumbing to an explosion that took the city with him from the beginning.

      - Nave 'torment'

      Delete
  43. This blog entry should get updated. In The Dark Knight Rises, Batman was going full force when he was shooting missiles and explosives at the vehicle that was carrying the bomb. Batman murdered the driver that obviously got shot to death and this caused Talia to lose control of the vehicle, crash and die.

    Batman was able to stop the tractor trailer that the Joker was driving without the use of missiles and explosives, he could've shot the tires flat. If Batman did not miss the incoming vehicle and blew it up then the bomb could've gone off prematurely and destroyed Gotham along with many Gotham citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Theres a lot of articles I need to update after TDKR's release, but as of now as much as Id want to theres just no time for me to do it. But itll happen

    ReplyDelete
  45. A few thoughts:

    In regards to the League of Shadows fight in BB , the explosions were not shown to explicitly kill any of the ninjas. Remember the comic book mantra: no body, no death. The Ra's decoy is a likely exception, as you see the flaming debris crush him. You can also make the argument that the real Ra's didn't die in the train crash. The audience sees the train crash, but we do not see the man die.

    This is a frequent trope in comic book writing.

    I prefer the Nolan movies. Batman is given a strict moral code, which serves an important narrative purpose. It limits his behavior, and it gives us a story. If Batman could just kill bad guys as he pleases, we would have ten-minute long movies. Bad guy shows up, Batman shoots him in the face, the end. There would be no story.

    It gives our hero a heroic flaw: limiting his behavior while giving him an admirable quality. If Batman killed his enemies, what would separate him from the Joker? They would just be two psychos in funny suits (Michael Keaton version). It's really the only thing separating him on a moral level from the people he opposes.

    And with a scant few exceptions (mostly from the early years before he was well established), Batman in the comic books does not kill either. I wonder how many of these panels showing him killing happened in what context. There are numerous examples of him going out of his way to stop the murder of a super-villain.

    And that's another part of the rationale: these are people. Even the Joker is a person. Does he lose his rights just because he breaks a law? Even if that law is murder? Does he have the right not to be brutally murdered? And who has the right to decide when his life ends? These themes come up in the comics more times than I can count.

    Granted, most comic book heroes do not apply the "don't kill" rule to non-humans. Even Spider-Man and Cyclops (different company, I know, but the principle is applied exactly the same here) has used brutally deadly force against things like the Brood, Skrulls, and various monsters.

    And for the guys who are complaining about "realism": nobody watches fiction for its realism. Nobody. There's plenty of realism in real life.

    Also, I have never heard of a case where NOT saving a person's life has been considered a murder legally. Not in America, anyway. In fact, getting involved can get you sued. Truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "In regards to the League of Shadows fight in BB , the explosions were not shown to explicitly kill any of the ninjas. Remember the comic book mantra: no body, no death. The Ra's decoy is a likely exception, as you see the flaming debris crush him. You can also make the argument that the real Ra's didn't die in the train crash. The audience sees the train crash, but we do not see the man die."

      This isn't the comics though, and its highly implied he died. Even Talia in Rises confirmed this. Ra's did haunt him in Rises as a hallucination, but that was that. He's dead. Dead as hair. Anyone saying he survived is just deluding themselves.

      "And for the guys who are complaining about "realism": nobody watches fiction for its realism. Nobody. There's plenty of realism in real life."

      This sounds like a smug reason excuse to the logical inconsistencies in these movies which do aim for some sort of realism(regardless of how exaggerated things seem). Plus there are plenty of very realistic fiction out there.

      Delete
    2. What difference does it make if they died or not, it would still be attempted murder, its not like "Oops, didn't know the explosion could kill people!", Bruce isn't retarded like that.

      Delete
  46. I think Batman has killed Ras Al Ghul at least twice in the comics, before being resurected in later issues.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @ Gotham Streets

    I know you get a lot of flak from certain sections of Bat-fandom for posting these FACTS. I just want to say you're doing a great job. Just ignore those crazed Bat-Nazis. It's your blog and you can post whatever the hell you want on it...

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hi, thanks for the comment. yes, theres a certain part of Bat "fans" who really take an issue with blog not being one sided. A lot of people who were spreading or believing in all those internet myths about Batman movies arent happy about presenting facts contrary to some popular beliefs and they believe the only legitimate blog is the one which praises one side and critiques the other. Objectivity and positivity isnt much welcomed. Unfortunately Ive read a lot of comments from people who said they cant think well of many batman movies because they associate them with those extremists. I just hope theres enough vocal Bat fans online who can prove to the general movie and comic fans that we're not all like that

    What I find funny is that except for the Rachel Dawes article, not one post or statement is my opinion. Every statement and sentence I post is supported by either quote, panels or both

    ReplyDelete
  49. Wait wait, someone is actually criticizing this blog? For what? Like you said, everything is confirmed with panels and sources. Some people would never cease to amaze me

    ReplyDelete
  50. @anon

    Oh yes. They're out there all right. I'm a member on a certain forum where GA posts. I've seen him get a lot of crap from Bat-Nazis there for posting this stuff.

    The ignorance of younger Bat-fans is also pretty frightening. The older ones KNOW very well that he was conceived as a pure anti-hero with no inhibitions toward dealing with other psychos. But they want to bury that part of his history because it doesn't fit their views, and they try keeping it from the younger ones as much as possible. Well, thanks to this blog that is much getting harder to do!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Not only that but newer fans think batman killed only in the first few issues, while in fact, he killed throughout his entire career and occasionally still kills

    ReplyDelete
  52. Don't forget that in the first movie Batman actually caused the death of the Joker, so Keaton's kill count rises to 21

    ReplyDelete
  53. Is Batman really a psychopath like a Norman Bates, though? I reject that idea completely. Crazy? Maybe. Probably. Yeah. But psycho killer? No way. If Batman were a psychopath he wouldn't give two sh!ts about justice or stamping out evil. He would be completely self-interested. And if he killed it would not be for empathic reasons like protecting innocent people. A psychopathic Batman would only kill/fight those who did something directly to/against him or those who got in the way of his selfish plans.

    Batman is a freak. That is what he has in common with his villains. But many of them are psychopaths. Batman is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't agree. Being a psychopath doesn't mean that he won't care about justice and such. After all, Batman acts out of revenge. He wants to avenge his dead parents. So he's not really doing it out of justice, but more as a way to fulfill his psychotic needs.
      In this optic, he can be depicted as a psychopath.

      If you take Tim Burton's Batman, this is even stronger by the fact that Joker is the man that killed his parents. Batman has a purpose. His behavior towards him changes radically when he learns that. He start killing people after he discovers that Joker is his parent's killer. In that movie, he is as close to a psycho-killer as it gets.

      What's sure is that the writer's opinion of Batman greatly influences his personality. As it has been mentioned, some writers will make Batman almost like a cartoon where he won't kill under any circumstances, but others will sometimes defy that rule while other will make a point to break the rule. Miller is a good example of that.

      Our personal opinions of Batman are almost irrelevant at this point. He has been depicted in so many different ways that it's stupid to argue which Batman is the right one. None is. Which one we prefer is the only thing we can talk about.

      Delete
  54. The cover blurb on Detective #423 (1972) said that Batman had "sworn to never use a gun." Batman #259 (1974) implied that Bruce Wayne had a phobia of guns ever since witnessing a shoot-out (between the Shadow and a gang of bank robbers) when he was a child. Apparently, Denny O' Neil decided that seeing his parents shot by a mugger would not be enough to give Bruce a negative attitude toward firearms, but witnessing a gunfight (in which no one got hurt except the villains) somehow would be. My impression is that DC implemented the "no kill" rule when they realized that most of their readers were kids. The "no guns" policy became more prominent because of political correctness.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Some people say that if the hero kills, he is no better than the villains. But the law recognizes the concept of justifiable homicide. If an armed robber kills the victim, it's murder. If the victim shoots and kills the robber in self-defense, it's justified. There is also a difference between killing in self-defense or in defense of others (when the attacker poses an imminent threat) and executing a criminal in cold blood.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Some fans don't consider the Brave & Bold stories canonical, since Bob Haney's scripts were often inconsistent with the other titles. But, afaik, DC never explicitly said that they were not in continuity.

    ReplyDelete