Sperg about comic books here -

[LORD IMPERATOR]

my issues with the live action movies is there has not been a single live action batman that hasn't killed someone in some way.

which seems to match your tastes, but is very much against mine.

The original Batman had no problems killing people, and to me, that's good enough.

i enjoy the comics and the world built within it i also find the comics to have significantly more heart.

I find the comics to be horribly unrealistic. Only in la-la land will you find a society that keeps sparing homicidal maniacs who have shown an aptitude for escaping prison. Either that, or a society that has its own version of the Dragon Balls.

for example I don't recall anything in any of the movies even approaching one of the scenes in the comics, where Bruce keeps a list of every single civilian who has died in Gotham due to violent crime and it's shown that since he became Batman, those deaths have dropped slowly but surely, every single year.

That's horribly hypocritical of him, since many of those deaths could be prevented if he killed some of the villains he's fought.

what happened in the movies? Christian Bale got slapped around a bit and quit being Batman for 4 years? what a hero.

Yeah, not a shining example, by any metric. Hence why I enjoy the Michael Keaton Batman more.

 

[JimiHendrix]

The original Batman had no problems killing people, and to me, that's good enough.

But that isn't the character that he is anymore and hasn't been for almost 100 years.

I find the comics to be horribly unrealistic.

you find the stories about magic and aliens and billions dressing up as animals and stalking criminals in the night unrealistic and count it as a flaw against the medium?

That's horribly hypocritical of him, since many of those deaths could be prevented if he killed some of the villains he's fought.

except the point of his character isn't to kill. why is it Batmans job to kill them? This is another thing I've never understood about people like you with these complaints. "Why doesn't Batman just kill Joker?" Why does Batman have to kill Joker? Why doesn't the state put him on death row? Why doesn't Harvey Bullock do it? Why doesn't Robin do it? Why doesn't Huntress? Jason? Clark? Everyone always points their finger at Bruce as if he needs to be judge jury and executioner for some bizarre reason. There are many flaws with why Joker doesn't just die yet for some reason everyone always lays the blame at Batman's feet as if it's his responsibility.

Yeah, not a shining example, by any metric. Hence why I enjoy the Michael Keaton Batman more.

ah yes, the Batman that burned a criminal alive with a psychotic smile on his face or blew one up with dynamite. Much better, a true hero.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

But that isn't the character that he is anymore and hasn't been for almost 100 years.

And? I find the original to be far better than the current comic adaptation.

you find the stories about magic and aliens and billions dressing up as animals and stalking criminals in the night unrealistic and count it as a flaw against the medium?

Yes. Because even in fantasy stories, they kill bad guys who can be a threat. Even in stories where there's dragons, magic gods, and fantastical races of elves, cat-men, and lizardfolk, both the good guys and the government are still willing to off someone if they're enough of a threat. At most, they might say a prayer for said individual on death row, but that wont' stop the axe from falling.

except the point of his character isn't to kill. why is it Batmans job to kill them? This is another thing I've never understood about people like you with these complaints. "Why doesn't Batman just kill Joker?" Why does Batman have to kill Joker? Why doesn't the state put him on death row? Why doesn't Harvey Bullock do it? Why doesn't Robin do it? Why doesn't Huntress? Jason? Clark? Everyone always points their finger at Bruce as if he needs to be judge jury and executioner for some bizarre reason. There are many flaws with why Joker doesn't just die yet for some reason everyone always lays the blame at Batman's feet as if it's his responsibility.

That wasn't the point of his character when he was made. And just because someone decided to make a Batman who doesn't kill, doesn't mean that every incarnation of Batman has to adhere to that dogmatic stance. Why not have both? Have several Bat-men meet, and some kill, some don't. Some kill because they were so wounded by that tragic night when their parents died, they feel like justice needs to be done, others don't, because they've invested enough in Arkham to make escape impossible.

ah yes, the Batman that burned a criminal alive with a psychotic smile on his face or blew one up with dynamite. Much better, a true hero.

Of course. He doesn't spare villains who end up slaughtering a bus full of children or even a whole city or two. He makes sacrifices for the greater good, even at the expense of his own health. Compare that to a Batman who spares homicidal nutcases just to satisfy their own moral superiority. The former is obviously better.

 

[JimiHendrix]

And? I find the original to be far better than the current comic adaptation.

that's fine, you're free to like what you like, but that's not who he is anymore. I wouldn't go into a conversation about Superman and bitch that he doesn't leap over tall buildings anymore. That's just not who the character is anymore. Times change.

Yes. Because even in fantasy stories, they kill bad guys who can be a threat. Even in stories where there's dragons, magic gods, and fantastical races of elves, cat-men, and lizardfolk, both the good guys and the government are still willing to off someone if they're enough of a threat. At most, they might say a prayer for said individual on death row, but that wont' stop the axe from falling.

and have these stories in question been running for almost 100 years? just curious. a part of the medium is that it is an endless story. that's just how it is. if you have a problem with that then you don't have a problem with the characters you have a problem with the medium. I don't like racing games. they're boring as shit. that doesn't mean racing games are badly made, it means I don't care for the medium and that's not the mediums fault.

you want a story where the villains die? read fuckin' Hellblazer.

Of course. He doesn't spare villains who end up slaughtering a bus full of children or even a whole city or two. He makes sacrifices for the greater good, even at the expense of his own health.

yeah that one nameless thug was a real criminal mastermind. he deserved to be blown up. hope batman shoots the mans parents in an alleyway next. fuck him.

Batman doesn't believe you can build a better society on the corpses of others. He believes all life is worth saving, he does his job. He stops the Joker. He stops the Penguin. He stops the Scarecrow. He turns them into the authorities. The villains escape again and this is Bruce's fault? Not the authorties? Not Jeremiah Arkhams? Bruce's? I will never understand this weird blame people have for Bruce. He should just kill the villains? Okay, where's the line? Let's kill Joker, sure. How about Mr. Freeze? He's killed people. He just wants to save his wife, but he's killed people. Should he go next? How bout Riddler? Riddler doesn't typically kill people from what I recall. Should he go? Two-Face used to be the District Attorney and did a lot of good before his disfigurement caused his psychosis. Should he die too? What about Walyon Jones? He was a circus freak who was mocked and bullied his entire life and often times just wants to be left alone, yeah he's killed people too though. Should we hunt him down as well?

Fuck it, what about Jason? Jason has killed so many people and not all of them were criminals. I'm pretty sure some innocent's died in Battle for the Cowl and Under the Red Hood. Should Jason be put down? How about Damian? Damian killed over 100 people before he was 10 years old. Should he die too?

here's a real brain twister for you, how about Tim Drake? There's a bizarre pattern where future versions of Tim are evil such as The Savior. So current Tim hasn't killed anyone yet, but an alarming amount of future versions of him have. Should Tim die now to save everyone later?

When you decide Bruce should just kill people "for the greater good" suddenly there's a long long list of people who should maybe die.

And just because someone decided to make a Batman who doesn't kill, doesn't mean that every incarnation of Batman has to adhere to that dogmatic stance. Why not have both? Have several Bat-men meet, and some kill, some don't. Some kill because they were so wounded by that tragic night when their parents died, they feel like justice needs to be done, others don't, because they've invested enough in Arkham to make escape impossible.

so you mean like the Grim Knight or any of the other dozen Dark Knight variants or the 1940's Batman which is going to be starring in a new comic coming out soon? This has been done. My problem with the movies are the movies are typically adaptions or representations of the mainstream comic characters and the mainstream Batman does not kill.

If you want to argue that Michael Keaton's Batman is an alternate version that does kill so it's fine. Okay. But then I have to ask why does he even need to be Batman? Why does he need to be Bruce Wayne? Why have the Joker? if it's an alternate version you can do so much more interesting things then just "Everything is the same but now he kills".

look at the fuckin' MCU. yeah they do their own little twists, but they are roughly adapting the 616 version of these characters. which is much the same of what the DC movies do. there's a reason every single superman movie has been Clark Kent and not fuckin' Calvin Ellis or anything. Because they're adapting the most popular version of the characters and the most popular Batman doesn't kill. Hence my problem with the movies.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

that's fine, you're free to like what you like, but that's not who he is anymore. I wouldn't go into a conversation about Superman and bitch that he doesn't leap over tall buildings anymore. That's just not who the character is anymore. Times change.

Yes. Times change. Now Batman kills again. What's wrong with that?

and have these stories in question been running for almost 100 years? just curious. a part of the medium is that it is an endless story. that's just how it is. if you have a problem with that then you don't have a problem with the characters you have a problem with the medium. I don't like racing games. they're boring as shit. that doesn't mean racing games are badly made, it means I don't care for the medium and that's not the mediums fault.

you want a story where the villains die? read fuckin' Hellblazer.

Why can't the villains die in superhero works? Practically the DCAU heroes look ineffective as fuck because they couldn't put the villains down, or at least, put them permanently in a jail that can't be broken out of rather easily.

Well, I can read the original Batman, or watch the 1989 Batman or the modern Ben Affleck Batman.

yeah that one nameless thug was a real criminal mastermind. he deserved to be blown up. hope batman shoots the mans parents in an alleyway next. fuck him.

Much better than Batman sparing some asshole supervillain who has no problem nuking a city. Injustice Gods Among Us showed how that story ended.

Batman doesn't believe you can build a better society on the corpses of others. He believes all life is worth saving, he does his job. He stops the Joker. He stops the Penguin. He stops the Scarecrow. He turns them into the authorities. The villains escape again and this is Bruce's fault? Not the authorties? Not Jeremiah Arkhams? Bruce's? I will never understand this weird blame people have for Bruce. He should just kill the villains? Okay, where's the line? Let's kill Joker, sure. How about Mr. Freeze? He's killed people. He just wants to save his wife, but he's killed people. Should he go next? How bout Riddler? Riddler doesn't typically kill people from what I recall. Should he go? Two-Face used to be the District Attorney and did a lot of good before his disfigurement caused his psychosis. Should he die too? What about Walyon Jones? He was a circus freak who was mocked and bullied his entire life and often times just wants to be left alone, yeah he's killed people too though. Should we hunt him down as well?

That's modern Batman. Old Batman has no problems killing, and I don't see a long line of people willing to condemn him.

A lot of people that we put down are just people following orders because their religious or national authority told them that we were the bad guys. Does that make their lives less precious than some nut from Arkham who thought that decorating the streets with people's entrails is fun?

Fuck it, what about Jason? Jason has killed so many people and not all of them were criminals. I'm pretty sure some innocent's died in Battle for the Cowl and Under the Red Hood. Should Jason be put down? How about Damian? Damian killed over 100 people before he was 10 years old. Should he die too?

Depends. If they're willing to repent and focus their energies on killing criminals, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be spared. But some villains cannot, or will not repent. What do we do with them? Send them to the Feds and hope the Feds kill them, even though they didn't do so 15 times in a row?

here's a real brain twister for you, how about Tim Drake? There's a bizarre pattern where future versions of Tim are evil such as The Savior. So current Tim hasn't killed anyone yet, but an alarming amount of future versions of him have. Should Tim die now to save everyone later?

Those future versions should die, but the current is, as you said, hadn't killed anyone yet. My problem is with those who keep sparing supervillains who have already killed people again and again, and show no signs of repentance.

When you decide Bruce should just kill people "for the greater good" suddenly there's a long long list of people who should maybe die.

And? Maybe the reason why Gotham is still a shithole despite decades of Bruce being Batman is because he hasn't gotten his hands dirty enough. If he's going to be such a softie, he's better off hanging the cowl and passing the job on to someone more mentally grounded.

so you mean like the Grim Knight or any of the other dozen Dark Knight variants or the 1940's Batman which is going to be starring in a new comic coming out soon? This has been done. My problem with the movies are the movies are typically adaptions or representations of the mainstream comic characters and the mainstream Batman does not kill.

For a good reason: the mainstream comic versions have been sucking for quite some time, even before the SJWs moved in. They became more and more the domain of older comics fans, while most kids moved on to cartoons and manga because comics were too static and confusing. So of course, any successful movie franchise with superheroes is going to need a beginning, middle and end, and they need to deviate from the way the mainstream comic heroes have been doing. Especially since you're not appealing to diehard fans, but to the average Joe who won't understand Batman sparing the Joker for the 15th time in a row.

If you want to argue that Michael Keaton's Batman is an alternate version that does kill so it's fine. Okay. But then I have to ask why does he even need to be Batman? Why does he need to be Bruce Wayne? Why have the Joker? if it's an alternate version you can do so much more interesting things then just "Everything is the same but now he kills".

Why not? The original Batman killed. Why does every Batman have to adhere to the no-kill code, when the original didn't? And who gives a shit about the modern comics, when they haven't been that important for decades, and the original comic Batman killed people? There's a reason why the average runt on the street cares more about video games, anime, cartoons, and movies, but not western mainstream superhero comics, because those have worn out their welcome for years.

Here's a better question: why did they have to make the no-kill-code guy Batman to begin with? Why not make Batman Jr. or another Batman who doesn't kill, and let the Bruce Wayne Batman remain the killer, just like in the original?

look at the fuckin' MCU. yeah they do their own little twists, but they are roughly adapting the 616 version of these characters. which is much the same of what the DC movies do. there's a reason every single superman movie has been Clark Kent and not fuckin' Calvin Ellis or anything. Because they're adapting the most popular version of the characters and the most popular Batman doesn't kill. Hence my problem with the movies.

The original Superman is Clark Kent. The original Batman is a Bruce Wayne who kills. I see no problem here. As far as I'm concerned, the no-kill-code Batman is the aberration, and the original, which is represented well by Michael Keaton and Ben Affleck, is the superior version.

 

[JimiHendrix]

Yes. Times change. Now Batman kills again. What's wrong with that?

explained later in my post. The current mainstream Batman does not kill. if five, ten, fifteen years from now it changes. I will not agree with the change, but that will be how the character changes and I will accept that. But for now, that hasn't happened.

Why can't the villains die in superhero works? Practically the DCAU heroes look ineffective as fuck because they couldn't put the villains down, or at least, put them permanently in a jail that can't be broken out of rather easily.

because it is an endless story and the villains are recognized and beloved. Joker is the most popular comic book villain to ever exist. Period. It doesn't matter what the story calls for. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. Joker is not going away, neither is any other villain, because they have to be in more stories. That is just the nature of the medium.

As I stated if you would like a story where villains die, there are many others that have beginnings middles and ends. Manga's entire selling point is the fact they have this. Hellblazer has this. So many different stories have this. Batman doesn't. That's just the rules of the game.

Much better than Batman sparing some asshole supervillain who has no problem nuking a city. Injustice Gods Among Us showed how that story ended.

and Injustice was an alternate universe. If that Batman had killed Joker I wouldn't have had a problem with it. That Batman could've been a child molestor for all I care. the fact Joker hasn't nuked an entire city in the mainstream universe kinda shows that's not how the story ends.

you're also still fixated on this notion that Batman holds sole responsibility for all of this and must be the executioner. for some reason.

That's modern Batman. Old Batman has no problems killing, and I don't see a long line of people willing to condemn him.

modern Batman. you mean the only Batman that exists right now? you mean who the character is for the current time being?

You don't see a long line of people willing to condemn 1940's Batman because he doesn't fucking exist anymore. I ain't seein' a long line of people talkin' about the fat wannabe detective version of Alfred Pennyworth either, mate or the red headed circus acrobat Jason Todd.

A lot of people that we put down are just people following orders because their religious or national authority told them that we were the bad guys. Does that make their lives less precious than some nut from Arkham who thought that decorating the streets with people's entrails is fun?

we? i haven't killed anyone. what? if you're using real life reasoning to apply why comic book characters should die, then uh, Bruce should be in fucking prison?

did you really just ask me if some real life person with religious/governmental differences from me has a life worth less than a comic book gangster? am i reading this correctly?

Depends. If they're willing to repent and focus their energies on killing criminals, then I see no reason why they shouldn't be spared.

somethin' tells me you're a big fan of the Punisher.

What do we do with them? Send them to the Feds and hope the Feds kill them, even though they didn't do so 15 times in a row?

yeah. because it's not up to Bruce as a private citizen to decide who lives and who dies. that is an unreasonable amount of power for any one human to have and it's kind of the reason why in real life we've given that power strictly to the Government and even then it's not universal. many states do not have the death penalty.

Those future versions should die, but the current is, as you said, hadn't killed anyone yet. My problem is with those who keep sparing supervillains who have already killed people again and again, and show no signs of repentance.

ah, so we can't hold people accountable for their future actions? Interesting you say that. There was a version of Batman who gained control of the Mobius Chair. He became the God of Knowledge and began preemptively arresting criminals. He explained to Gordon that these people would have committed the crimes. They hadn't yet. But they would have. Is that fair? by your own reasoning these people were innocent. They hadn't done anything yet. So was Batman wrong here? Or should Tim die?

people are either innocent until they commit crimes, or they're guilty of the crimes they will commit. so do we kill innocent ol Tim? What a slippery slope killing is when you decide it's the right thing to do, innit?

I know it's a lil off topic, but I was just curious.

And? Maybe the reason why Gotham is still a shithole despite decades of Bruce being Batman is because he hasn't gotten his hands dirty enough. If he's going to be such a softie, he's better off hanging the cowl and passing the job on to someone more mentally grounded.

last time he passed off the cowl to someone willing to kill it didn't go great. Just ask ol Azrael.

that's another thing people who don't understand Batman fail to understand. Bruce isn't a God. He has a lot of money, but Gotham is home to millions and is corrupt on almost every single Governmental layer, from the police to the local Government and you think some billionaire can just walk in and fix all of it? Do you have any idea how much actual work Bruce does for Gotham? the amount of charities? The schools? the hospitals? the medicine? He has literally offered jobs to thugs on the street to try and help them turn their lives around and you say he isn't doing enough? Bit unreasonable, innit? There is only so much one can do, by the way, I said earlier the death count in Gotham has continually dropped year to year, so Batman is actually makin' a difference, as stated in the comics.

but yeah I'm sure your idea where he kills all the villains then has to face off against Gordon and the GCPD will end in a utopia. so many great civilizations have been built on the ashes of others, yeah?

For a good reason: the mainstream comic versions have been sucking for quite some time, even before the SJWs moved in. They became more and more the domain of older comics fans, while most kids moved on to cartoons and manga because comics were too static and confusing. So of course, any successful movie franchise with superheroes is going to need a beginning, middle and end, and they need to deviate from the way the mainstream comic heroes have been doing. Especially since you're not appealing to diehard fans, but to the average Joe who won't understand Batman sparing the Joker for the 15th time in a row.

i honestly don't know what you're talking about. Remind me, did Christian Bale murder Heath Ledger at the end of The Dark Knight? Is that why he died? Pretty sure he captured Joker and sent him to Arkham and there weren't riots in the streets about how Batman keeps letting him get away with it, yeah?

and yeah, movies are different from comics, they have a beginning middle and end. comics do not. comics are endless. Batman existed before I was born and may very well exist after I'm dead and I'm fine with that.

Why not? The original Batman killed. Why does every Batman have to adhere to the no-kill code, when the original didn't? And who gives a shit about the modern comics, when they haven't been that important for decades, and the original comic Batman killed people

you're really hung up on a character who no longer exists. 1940's Batman has been dead for like, eighty fuckin' years? Only recently is he being brought back in comics.

So why not? Because that's not who Batman is. Which is a point I've been bringing up over and over and you seem to be ignoring. Your complaints are akin to bitching about Kryptonite. Why does Kryptonite exist? Original Superman didn't have a weakness to Kryptonite. So why is there Kryptonite?

Here's a better question: why did they have to make the no-kill-code guy Batman to begin with? Why not make Batman Jr. or another Batman who doesn't kill, and let the Bruce Wayne Batman remain the killer, just like in the original?

I didn't write the comics mate, you'd have to ask Bob Kane or Bill Finger, pretty sure that was their choice. If you want the answer though it's because they realized villains like the Joker were good and were better kept around instead of being killed off. Why they decided to do that with their character? It's their character mate. I ain't the man to ask. Go grab a shovel and find yer answers.

The original Superman is Clark Kent. The original Batman is a Bruce Wayne who kills. I see no problem here. As far as I'm concerned, the no-kill-code Batman is the aberration, and the original, which is represented well by Michael Keaton and Ben Affleck, is the superior version.

the original Superman couldn't fly and had no weakness to Kryptonite, he also didn't have heat vision I believe. So you agree Henry Cavil's Superman is dogshit then?

Alfred was originally a fat wannabe detective, so every movie version of him has been garbage, correct?

lemmie tell you, worst part of Batman vs Superman was how Lex Luthor didn't steal any god damn pies. It's like they didn't even read the comics, mate.

character's evolve, they change over time. i'm sorry you've apparently been transplanted from the 1940s and are suffering culture shock, but Batman is not a character who kills, the very foundation of his character has been built on that for at least the last 60 years. It is one of the defining points of his character. you're free to dislike that, I don't give a shit. But that's who he is now and any movies trying to adapt him that have him kill, are failing to faithfully adapt the character.

but here. I'll play your game. Let's pretend that Batman should kill. Okay. He kills Joker. He kills Freeze. He kills Penguin he kills all of his villains. Now what? We make more villains then kill them too? Or does the comic end? I've never understood the end goal of people with your viewpoint. Where do the comics go? He just kills all the villains, we make more, he kills them too, which only again perpetuates the cycle, or the comic ends?

Joker Kills 400 people. Batman kills Joker. Neo Joker kills 400 people. Batman kills Neo Joker. Alpha Joker kills 400 people. Batman kills Alpha Joker.

this is better than just Joker escaping continually?

also just as an aside, let's take a look at Punisher. Frank Castle is a character who is BASED off killing criminals. That's his POINT. Has he killed Jigsaw yet? How about Barracuda? The Russian? Weird how even a character who's entire point is killing criminals can't seem to kill his own rogues gallery. I wonder why that is.

ps. don't think I didn't notice you avoided my question about why this is Batmans fault, why he has to be the executioner, I brought that point up several times and you avoided answering it, instead deflecting with "but that's MODERN batman" yeah and you're blaming modern Batman for not killing people.

 

[Cyber Bowling]

There's a whole lot of text walls I won't even pretend to have read, but in typical internet fashion, I'll toss in my two cents anyway.

Original Batman did kill, this is true, but I wouldn't call it a character staple or anything as much as it is a super early adaptation. Characters can certainly change with the times, but I'd argue the window of Batman killing was significantly smaller than the huge stretch of comics where he doesn't kill. I actually just did a quick google search and it looks like Batman only killed people in the first year of comics, compared to roughly 80 years of not killing.

There have also been a few stories here and there where they've played with the idea of Batman indirectly killing people, but for better or worse, these are usually retconned or outright ignored. And sometimes, appear to be unintended/situations where the writers didn't really think things through. In any event, with 80ish years of not killing, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's a pretty big part of his character and not something that is just going to change with the times.

IMO, I like that DC tends to have a strict no kill limit for their heroes. Or, at the very least, I like that they pick a lane and stick with it. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief when reading comics, but it really pushes the limits when you have strict no kill characters interacting with characters who do kill. One side ends up feeling really out of character.

As far as adaptations and stuff go, I think that's more up to personal tastes. I prefer when they stick to the source material, but I don't think writers are beholden to it. But, I would probably question why they wanted to write said character in the first place if they want to go in a radically different direction with it.

 

[JimiHendrix]

There's a whole lot of text walls I won't even pretend to have read, but in typical internet fashion, I'll toss in my two cents anyway.

Original Batman did kill, this is true, but I wouldn't call it a character staple or anything as much as it is a super early adaptation. Characters can certainly change with the times, but I'd argue the window of Batman killing was significantly smaller than the huge stretch of comics where he doesn't kill. I actually just did a quick google search and it looks like Batman only killed people in the first year of comics, compared to roughly 80 years of not killing.

There have also been a few stories here and there where they've played with the idea of Batman indirectly killing people, but for better or worse, these are usually retconned or outright ignored. And sometimes, appear to be unintended/situations where the writers didn't really think things through. In any event, with 80ish years of not killing, I don't think it's a stretch to say that it's a pretty big part of his character and not something that is just going to change with the times.

IMO, I like that DC tends to have a strict no kill limit for their heroes. Or, at the very least, I like that they pick a lane and stick with it. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief when reading comics, but it really pushes the limits when you have strict no kill characters interacting with characters who do kill. One side ends up feeling really out of character.

As far as adaptations and stuff go, I think that's more up to personal tastes. I prefer when they stick to the source material, but I don't think writers are beholden to it. But, I would probably question why they wanted to write said character in the first place if they want to go in a radically different direction with it.

cant believe you refused to read my 400 page essay on why joker and batman are queer icons.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Spoiler: BATMAN KILLING?

explained later in my post. The current mainstream Batman does not kill. if five, ten, fifteen years from now it changes. I will not agree with the change, but that will be how the character changes and I will accept that. But for now, that hasn't happened.

It's already changed. The new mainstream Batman isn't the one from the comics, but the one from the films, since comics have fallen into obscurity while films, especially the Zack Snyder Justice League, are more popular. And the Batman there has no problems killing.

Again, just because some dudes who came in decades after Batman was invented came up with him having a no-kill-code, doesn't mean all Batman authors should be beholden to that. The original comic Batman wasn't, why should every form of Batman be forced into that mold?

because it is an endless story and the villains are recognized and beloved. Joker is the most popular comic book villain to ever exist. Period. It doesn't matter what the story calls for. It doesn't matter what you think. It doesn't matter what I think. Joker is not going away, neither is any other villain, because they have to be in more stories. That is just the nature of the medium.

And that's why the medium has become less and less popular as time goes on. The story doesn't make any sense. Maybe if the Joker was just a joke villain who barely kills people, I can understand Batman not killing him. Or maybe if he gets away because he's smart enough to flee every time Batman foils his plans. But him being repeatedly sent to a revolving-door prison? I'm pretty sure that by this point, he's killed more people than the average terrorist leader. Not only would Uncle Sam not spare him, but they would probably order Batman or someone else to kill him.

As I stated if you would like a story where villains die, there are many others that have beginnings middles and ends. Manga's entire selling point is the fact they have this. Hellblazer has this. So many different stories have this. Batman doesn't. That's just the rules of the game.

Nope. These nonsensical rules came in decades after the character was invented. Batman has gone on for years being OK with killing people. Why shouldn't he be allowed to do so again? Because some comic fans would get pissy over it? The comic fanbase is shrinking to the point where it's downright comical. Meanwhile, anime and manga where the good guys have no problems spacing the bad guys are becoming such worldwide sellers that one manga outsells the entire western comic industry.

You can always use magic or whatever nonsense the heroes use to come back from the dead to revive the villains anyways. If Superman can do it, so can comic villains. Or just have the heroes fail to kill them. There's your answer as to how you can have villains come back again after heroes kill them or try to kill them.

and Injustice was an alternate universe. If that Batman had killed Joker I wouldn't have had a problem with it. That Batman could've been a child molestor for all I care. the fact Joker hasn't nuked an entire city in the mainstream universe kinda shows that's not how the story ends.

The Joker did try to blow up a city in the mainstream universe. The Regime universe just showed you a world where he succeeded.

you're also still fixated on this notion that Batman holds sole responsibility for all of this and must be the executioner. for some reason.

Because the Gotham City authorities are too weak-willed. If they had the balls to sentence the Joker or any of those supervillains to death, then I'd be OK with Batman having a no-kill-code and being just someone who just goes around arresting people.

Besides, Batman already tortures and maims people. I'm sure more than a few people he's tortured would be wishing they were dead.

modern Batman. you mean the only Batman that exists right now? you mean who the character is for the current time being?

Batfleck/Michael Keaton Batman, yes.

You don't see a long line of people willing to condemn 1940's Batman because he doesn't fucking exist anymore. I ain't seein' a long line of people talkin' about the fat wannabe detective version of Alfred Pennyworth either, mate or the red headed circus acrobat Jason Todd.

So? People still condemn things from the past that they consider racist, sexist, or problematic. Like Confederate Generals who died over a century ago.

we? i haven't killed anyone. what? if you're using real life reasoning to apply why comic book characters should die, then uh, Bruce should be in fucking prison?

Not if he kills crooks who are trying to kill him. The law would identify that as self-defense and that'd be legal. More legal than kidnapping and torturing crooks, which Batman does in the comics.

did you really just ask me if some real life person with religious/governmental differences from me has a life worth less than a comic book gangster? am i reading this correctly?

Comic books try to depict a realistic universe, no? That even behind all those superpowers, fantasy elements, and alien stuff, it's still a lived-in world, yes? Then YES, I am asking you such a question.

somethin' tells me you're a big fan of the Punisher.

So? I like heroes who go beyond the Punisher. I'm more of a sci-fi guy, and the heroes I like (Luke Skywalker, Master Chief, Commander Shepard, Amuro Ray, Optimus Prime, Samus Aran) have left behind MOUNTAINS of corpses on their way to real battles. And they're far less screwed-up than the Punisher is.

You don't see Luke Skywalker crying a river over Grand Moff Tarkin's death. Granted, if he can sense good in someone, he'll try to redeem them, but if he can't save someone, he has no problem bisecting them with a lightsaber or blowing them up with his X-Wing. And he's based on the standard hero archetype for the west, a hero beloved by millions for decades. And yes, many of his adventures are in comic format, so that would make him just as much a comic hero as he is a movie hero. And yet no one cares that he sent a million souls to the next world in his first fucking movie, or the fact that he keeps killing people in other comics and films.

yeah. because it's not up to Bruce as a private citizen to decide who lives and who dies. that is an unreasonable amount of power for any one human to have and it's kind of the reason why in real life we've given that power strictly to the Government and even then it's not universal. many states do not have the death penalty.

Many states also aren't dealing with criminals who are just as bad, if not worse, than the average terrorist scum that Uncle Sam puts down without an ounce of shame. Also, yes, again, if Bruce Wayne as Batman killed a criminal who was trying to use lethal force against him, that's killing in self-defense, which is legal in so many places around the world, it's not even funny.

ah, so we can't hold people accountable for their future actions? Interesting you say that. There was a version of Batman who gained control of the Mobius Chair. He became the God of Knowledge and began preemptively arresting criminals. He explained to Gordon that these people would have committed the crimes. They hadn't yet. But they would have. Is that fair? by your own reasoning these people were innocent. They hadn't done anything yet. So was Batman wrong here? Or should Tim die?

Yes. Because they can still do something different as compared to the future. Or they can be talked out of or stopped from doing something stupid. And again, I'm not talking about people who kill in the future, I'm talking about supervillains who kill NOW, who keep escaping all forms of confinement, who have no desire to repent and no chance to turn a new leaf. They're a lost cause. You've got a better chance converting Emperor Palpatine to the Light Side than successfully containing the Joker.

people are either innocent until they commit crimes, or they're guilty of the crimes they will commit. so do we kill innocent ol Tim? What a slippery slope killing is when you decide it's the right thing to do, innit?

No. Again, they're innocent until they commit crimes. We're talking about villains who already have killed.

I know it's a lil off topic, but I was just curious.

It was horribly off-topic, because it doesn't deal with villains who have already killed and who show no signs of stopping.

last time he passed off the cowl to someone willing to kill it didn't go great. Just ask ol Azrael.

Then he should pick someone else.

that's another thing people who don't understand Batman fail to understand. Bruce isn't a God. He has a lot of money, but Gotham is home to millions and is corrupt on almost every single Governmental layer, from the police to the local Government and you think some billionaire can just walk in and fix all of it? Do you have any idea how much actual work Bruce does for Gotham? the amount of charities? The schools? the hospitals? the medicine? He has literally offered jobs to thugs on the street to try and help them turn their lives around and you say he isn't doing enough? Bit unreasonable, innit? There is only so much one can do, by the way, I said earlier the death count in Gotham has continually dropped year to year, so Batman is actually makin' a difference, as stated in the comics.

And it's all failing. He's doing the equivalent of putting duct tape on a ship with holes from cannonballs. If he cleared up the streets by killing all the violent criminals, that would do a lot more than just offering concessions to thugs or charities. That, or maybe he should invest in sending those supervillains to prisons which cannot be broken out of. He's got billions, he can afford it. Or, he can afford to bribe or persuade a jury to execute a supervillain. The way Batman works, he's far less effective than fucking Rudy Giuliani. And Gotham is still a shithole after all of Batman's activities, so all his actions are barely making a dent.

but yeah I'm sure your idea where he kills all the villains then has to face off against Gordon and the GCPD will end in a utopia. so many great civilizations have been built on the ashes of others, yeah?

The law in most states and countries would have no problems if you killed someone in self-defense. So no, in a realistic case, Gordon and the GCPD wouldn't give a shit if Batman killed the Joker or some other supervillain. In fact, they'd probably thank Bruce for cleaning up the streets for them. They fire lethal bullets at crooks anyways. Why should they care if someone else kills these freaks in self-defense?

i honestly don't know what you're talking about. Remind me, did Christian Bale murder Heath Ledger at the end of The Dark Knight? Is that why he died? Pretty sure he captured Joker and sent him to Arkham and there weren't riots in the streets about how Batman keeps letting him get away with it, yeah?

That was the Joker's first movie in that trilogy. The Batman comics, on the other hand, have the Joker repeatedly doing evil shit and getting spared for years.

and yeah, movies are different from comics, they have a beginning middle and end. comics do not. comics are endless. Batman existed before I was born and may very well exist after I'm dead and I'm fine with that.

Yeah, and the Batman before our time was killing people, without the GCPD or members of the audience getting pissy about it. So?

you're really hung up on a character who no longer exists. 1940's Batman has been dead for like, eighty fuckin' years? Only recently is he being brought back in comics.

Except as we discussed, he's very much alive in the films. Michael Keaton Batman has no problems killing, and neither does Ben Affleck Batman. And people aren't shitting bricks about them, they were well-loved. Michael Keaton's Batman was a cultural icon that helped revive interest in the character after the age of the Batman show, and Ben Affleck Batman was one of the few universally-loved things from the Zack Snyder DC cinematic universe.

So why not? Because that's not who Batman is. Which is a point I've been bringing up over and over and you seem to be ignoring. Your complaints are akin to bitching about Kryptonite. Why does Kryptonite exist? Original Superman didn't have a weakness to Kryptonite. So why is there Kryptonite?

No. Because the original Batman, as well as film versions of him, have no problems killing. You arbitrarily stating that Batman shouldn't kill is disproven by the fact that the original Batman does kill. The no-kill-code was an arbitrary rule inserted to placate moral guardians and lazy comic book writers.

I didn't write the comics mate, you'd have to ask Bob Kane or Bill Finger, pretty sure that was their choice. If you want the answer though it's because they realized villains like the Joker were good and were better kept around instead of being killed off. Why they decided to do that with their character? It's their character mate. I ain't the man to ask. Go grab a shovel and find yer answers.

And why do you get pissy when Batman in the films kills people? That's Tim Burton or Zack Snyder's film. If they want Batman to kill people the way the original Batman did, then that's their decision.

the original Superman couldn't fly and had no weakness to Kryptonite, he also didn't have heat vision I believe. So you agree Henry Cavil's Superman is dogshit then?

No. Because those are just peripheral attributes, whereas the no-kill-code Batman makes no sense when the villains kill people on a regular basis. If Batman was dealing with the likes of comic relief villains like Team Rocket from Pokemon, then the no-kill-code would actually make sense.

character's evolve, they change over time. i'm sorry you've apparently been transplanted from the 1940s and are suffering culture shock, but Batman is not a character who kills, the very foundation of his character has been built on that for at least the last 60 years. It is one of the defining points of his character. you're free to dislike that, I don't give a shit. But that's who he is now and any movies trying to adapt him that have him kill, are failing to faithfully adapt the character.

So? Why should they be beholden to that? The people who made the no-kill-code Batman weren't beholden to the original character who does kill. The people who now want to make a Batman who does kill should, in the same vein, be not beholden to comics where he doesn't kill. The people who think that it's one of Batman's defining traits that he doesn't kill either just wants their version of Batman to be the only version in public consciousness, or didn't do enough research. Either way, it's selfish as fuck.

Why not have both types of Bat-men, as I said? Have some that do kill, because they realize they cannot contain these evil villains, and have some that do not because they're dealing with losers who can barely kill a house cat, let alone another human being. This is why the DCAU made so much more sense than the Batman comics-because the villains barely killed, if they did so at all. So it makes sense that Batman wouldn't kill them either, because they're usually a joke below his pay grade.

but here. I'll play your game. Let's pretend that Batman should kill. Okay. He kills Joker. He kills Freeze. He kills Penguin he kills all of his villains. Now what? We make more villains then kill them too? Or does the comic end? I've never understood the end goal of people with your viewpoint. Where do the comics go? He just kills all the villains, we make more, he kills them too, which only again perpetuates the cycle, or the comic ends?

Joker Kills 400 people. Batman kills Joker. Neo Joker kills 400 people. Batman kills Neo Joker. Alpha Joker kills 400 people. Batman kills Alpha Joker.

this is better than just Joker escaping continually?

Again, you can just have Batman and the lawmen FAIL to kill the Joker. The two try to kill each other and fail to do so for 40 years, despite all the damage the bad guys do to the city. It's the unstoppable force meeting the immovable object. Ditto for the other villains. You can make them smart enough to retreat when things go to shit and they realize they've lost the battle.

That, and superheroes come back from the dead all the time in comics anyways. If Superman can do it, why not the supervillains? Shit, there's already a mechanism for that in the Batman universe with the Lazarus Pit. Considering that most of the Rogues' Gallery of Batman are half-insane anyways, why not just have a rogue splinter-group of the League of Shadows/Asssassins who REALLY hate Batman go around, collecting the villains that he and the GCPD kill, and revive them with their own custom-made version of the Lazarus Pit?

also just as an aside, let's take a look at Punisher. Frank Castle is a character who is BASED off killing criminals. That's his POINT. Has he killed Jigsaw yet? How about Barracuda? The Russian? Weird how even a character who's entire point is killing criminals can't seem to kill his own rogues gallery. I wonder why that is.

Because he fails at killing them? Again, I've got no problems with heroes who at least made the effort to try and kill the bad guy.

ps. don't think I didn't notice you avoided my question about why this is Batmans fault, why he has to be the executioner, I brought that point up several times and you avoided answering it, instead deflecting with "but that's MODERN batman" yeah and you're blaming modern Batman for not killing people.

Because the modern governments that Batman turns over the criminals to are too soft. If they actually sent Joker or the other villains to death row, I'd be perfectly fine with Batman being a beat cop who just goes around arresting people.

IMO, I like that DC tends to have a strict no kill limit for their heroes. Or, at the very least, I like that they pick a lane and stick with it. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief when reading comics, but it really pushes the limits when you have strict no kill characters interacting with characters who do kill. One side ends up feeling really out of character.

My point exactly. If we're dealing with Team Rocket or with hoodlums who hit up grocery stores, then I'd gladly accept a hero with a no-kill code. If we're dealing with supervillains who are worse than Nazis or Al-Qaeda, that's where I draw the line. They're worse than people whom we usually put six feet under anyways, and I won't lose any sleep if the heroes put them down. Plus, it is legal in most states and countries to kill in self-defense, so even the law wouldn't care if Batman put some freak who tried to kill him or other people six feet under.

As far as adaptations and stuff go, I think that's more up to personal tastes. I prefer when they stick to the source material, but I don't think writers are beholden to it. But, I would probably question why they wanted to write said character in the first place if they want to go in a radically different direction with it.

Again, that's what I agree with. Authors should typically stick to source material, but they shouldn't be beholden to it. Just as the authors who made the no-kill-code Batman make him be radically different than the original Batman who DOES kill, so too should future authors and script-writers be allowed to make other Batmen who could kill and are not beholden to that silly rule when dealing with guys far worse than the average asshole whom civilization would want you to put six feet under.

 

[GranDuke]

Decision was made to move Batman into no-kill territory when he was still being written and drawn by his creators.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Decision was made to move Batman into no-kill territory when he was still being written and drawn by his creators.

And now, they're bringing back the Batman who kills.

Again, why not have both? We're not saying that you have to get rid of the no-kill-code Batman, just let us have our killer Batman and give him the time of day. He's just as legitimate, and deserving of respect and attention. In the comics, we had a Batman who kills and a Batman who doesn't kill. It makes sense that we have the same in the mainstream consciousness as well.

We can have the DCAU-style Batman who deals with losers that barely kill people by sending these crooks to revolving-door prisons, while also having another Batman act more like the original, who kills villains that have no problems racking up large body counts of innocent people. It makes the story unrelatable and unrealistic if they keep sparing people who have no problems being mass-murderers, whereas if they have villains who only cause some moderate damage and barely kill anyone, it would make sense that these villains would be spared.

This explains why the DCAU is more prevalent and more well-loved than the actual comics. They're a lot less edgelord-y with their villains, who at most, just cause a ruckus now and then before they get beaten up by Batman and cuffed by the GCPD. Which makes sense why Batman would rather send them to jail instead of killing them. The worst thing the Joker did there was torture and brainwash young Robin, and he died for that. With everyone else, they rob banks, rough up places, then they get beaten up and sent to Arkham, with little to no casualties whatsoever. It makes sparing them all the more believable when the worst thing they do is hold people up, steal things, and cause some property damage. Whereas very few societies in the world would spare mass-murdering psychopaths.

 

[Newman's Lovechild]

I have to hand it to you guys. This is some top notch, grade A sperging about comic books, here.

@JimiHendrix

also just as an aside, let's take a look at Punisher. Frank Castle is a character who is BASED off killing criminals. That's his POINT. Has he killed Jigsaw yet? How about Barracuda? The Russian?

I thought he did. Two of them, anyway. With Frank, it's not 'did he kill them?' but 'how long did he take to kill them?'

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

I have to hand it to you guys. This is some top notch, grade A sperging about comic books, here.

@JimiHendrix



I thought he did. Two of them, anyway. With Frank, it's not 'did he kill them?' but 'how long did he take to kill them?'

Just because they're still alive doesn't mean that the Punisher wasn't trying to kill them. After all, to err is human.

 

[JimiHendrix]

The new mainstream Batman isn't the one from the comics, but the one from the films, since comics have fallen into obscurity while films, especially the Zack Snyder Justice League, are more popular. And the Batman there has no problems killing.

Again, just because some dudes who came in decades after Batman was invented came up with him having a no-kill-code, doesn't mean all Batman authors should be beholden to that. The original comic Batman wasn't, why should every form of Batman be forced into that mold?

straight up untrue. batman being in a few movies where he kills because people don't know how to write Batman does not make him the "mainstream" batman. There is 80 years worth of him not killing. a few bad movies does not change this.

The story doesn't make any sense.

makes perfect sense to me, i have explained numerous times to you, using both in universe and meta reasons as to why this is the way it is.

Nope. These nonsensical rules came in decades after the character was invented. Batman has gone on for years being OK with killing people.

source?

"Batman, American comic strip superhero created for DC Comics by writer Bill Finger and artist Bob Kane. Batman debuted in May 1939 in Detective Comics"

"Less than a year after Batman debuted, DC Comics made it a general rule that he would not use lethal force or guns."

https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/2/18292128/batman-no-killing-rule-zack-snyder

Batman | Story, TV Show, Movies, Actors, & Facts

Batman, American comic book superhero created for DC Comics by writer Bill Finger and artist Bob Kane. One of DC’s most profitable and enduring characters, Batman debuted in May 1939 in Detective Comics no. 27 and has since appeared in thousands of books, magazines, strips, cartoons, and films.

www.britannica.com

you're just straight up wrong.

There's your answer as to how you can have villains come back again after heroes kill them or try to kill them.

so we make the heroes incompetent either way, awesome idea.

Comic books try to depict a realistic universe, no?

no.

Besides, Batman already tortures and maims people.

not usually no, he relies on fear to "torture" people. he is not in the habit of removing fucking fingers or anything, no.

Batfleck/Michael Keaton Batman, yes.

so the batman who showed up in 2 movies and has already been replaced and a batman who hasn't existed for near 30 years? that's the mainstream Batman now? so if Robert Pattinson's Batman comes out and doesn't kill, by your reasoning that's mainstream again, cool.

You don't see Luke Skywalker crying a river over Grand Moff Tarkin's death. Granted, if he can sense good in someone, he'll try to redeem them, but if he can't save someone, he has no problem bisecting them with a lightsaber or blowing them up with his X-Wing. And he's based on the standard hero archetype for the west, a hero beloved by millions for decades. And yes, many of his adventures are in comic format, so that would make him just as much a comic hero as he is a movie hero. And yet no one cares that he sent a million souls to the next world in his first fucking movie, or the fact that he keeps killing people in other comics and films.

i don't care? who gives a shit about luke skywalker? i'm not talking about luke skywalker. i don't give a fuck what luke skywalker does. you seem to have this bizarre notion that because I am against Batman killing that I dislike all comic book characters who kill? My favorite character is John Constantine and he leaves behind him mountains of dead of both good and bad. i don't give a fuck about what Luke Skywalker does. this isn't part of the conversation.

So? People still condemn things from the past that they consider racist, sexist, or problematic. Like Confederate Generals who died over a century ago.

you are once again comparing real life events to comic books. i have something to say to you but i am going to say it at the end of my post.

More legal than kidnapping and torturing crooks, which Batman does in the comics.

source

And it's all failing

no it's not, as per the comics. death rates are lowering, not rising.

And people aren't shitting bricks about them, they were well-loved.

uh? batman vs superman is often considered one of the worst superhero movies ever made? it is comical how fucking garbage it is. it was one of the funniest movie watching experiences i've ever had.

someone else earlier also pointed out how Tim Burtons Batman movie is a trash adaptation and yeah, it is.

The no-kill-code was an arbitrary rule inserted to placate moral guardians and lazy comic book writers.

source

And why do you get pissy when Batman in the films kills people? That's Tim Burton or Zack Snyder's film.

already explained why

So? Why should they be beholden to that?

"why should people who make an adaption of the character be beholden to who the character is?"

iunno man, it's a mystery.

The people who now want to make a Batman who does kill should, in the same vein, be not beholden to comics where he doesn't kill.

i mean, they did? all the movie versions of batman kill, obviously they're not beholden. that's why all the movie versions are dogshit. they're free to make what they want, they've just chosen to make dogshit.

Again, you can just have Batman and the lawmen FAIL to kill the Joker. The two try to kill each other and fail to do so for 40 years, despite all the damage the bad guys do to the city.

so incompetence.

custom-made version of the Lazarus Pit?

not how lazarus pits work.

I've got no problems with heroes who at least made the effort to try and kill the bad guy.

i do not care what you have problems with.

just let us have our killer Batman and give him the time of day. He's just as legitimate, and deserving of respect and attention

no he isn't.



i am tired of this conversation which brings me to the point I was going to mention earlier. You seem autistic. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean you legitimately seem autistic. You continually compare real life terrorists/nazi's to comic book characters, legitimately asked me if I think a real life terrorists life is worth less than a comic book thug, you seem to struggle very hard with the concept of morality, having a very strict black/white view. Bad guys deserve to die and if good guys don't kill them then they're bad guys too.

such a view is common from people with autism.

i am not going to change the mind of, nor do i care for the opinion of, special ed students.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

straight up untrue. batman being in a few movies where he kills because people don't know how to write Batman does not make him the "mainstream" batman. There is 80 years worth of him not killing. a few bad movies does not change this.

Then what does that make the original Batman who does kill? A bad character?

makes perfect sense to me, i have explained numerous times to you, using both in universe and meta reasons as to why this is the way it is.

No it doesn't. The problem with comics is that they want to adhere to Saturday Morning cartoon morality while having edgelord bad guys who are mass-murderers. Not only is Batman not killing mass-murdering supervillains unrealistic, but the state sparing them is also unrealistic, since most, if not all societies will send such criminals to death row as soon as possible. Or to the deepest prison in their arsenal, and throw away the key.

source?

"Batman, American comic strip superhero created for DC Comics by writer Bill Finger and artist Bob Kane. Batman debuted in May 1939 in Detective Comics"

"Less than a year after Batman debuted, DC Comics made it a general rule that he would not use lethal force or guns."

https://www.polygon.com/2019/4/2/18292128/batman-no-killing-rule-zack-snyder

Batman | Story, TV Show, Movies, Actors, & Facts

Batman, American comic book superhero created for DC Comics by writer Bill Finger and artist Bob Kane. One of DC’s most profitable and enduring characters, Batman debuted in May 1939 in Detective Comics no. 27 and has since appeared in thousands of books, magazines, strips, cartoons, and films.

www.britannica.com

you're just straight up wrong.

Batman was killing people all the way up to 1968, with the issue of The Brave and the Bold, #84. He blew up a plane and a bridge, killing soldiers and pilots. That's like what, almost thirty years after he was made?

so we make the heroes incompetent either way, awesome idea.

They're already incompetent yahoos who can't put an end to the villains. At least make it so that they're not idiotic enough to spare villains who commit mass-murder.

no.

Not according to how comic books try to relate and tie the characters to the real world, they're not.

not usually no, he relies on fear to "torture" people. he is not in the habit of removing fucking fingers or anything, no.

Batman breaks people's bones and limbs all the time. That's the kind of torture even Gitmo interrogators aren't allowed to do.

And yes, kidnapping people and using psychological torture on them is still illegal in comparison to killing in self-defense, which is legal. People, including lawmen, would be more tolerant of a Batman who kills villains in self-defense than one who kidnaps criminals and uses psychological torture as a weapon against them.

so the batman who showed up in 2 movies and has already been replaced and a batman who hasn't existed for near 30 years? that's the mainstream Batman now? so if Robert Pattinson's Batman comes out and doesn't kill, by your reasoning that's mainstream again, cool.

By mainstream, I mean the current Batman that people have. Out of the Batman archetypes that we have, the Michael Keaton and the Ben Affleck Batman both kill people, whereas the Christopher Nolan Batman is OK with leaving people to die if they're evil, like he did with Ra's Al Ghul.

i don't care? who gives a shit about luke skywalker? i'm not talking about luke skywalker. i don't give a fuck what luke skywalker does. you seem to have this bizarre notion that because I am against Batman killing that I dislike all comic book characters who kill? My favorite character is John Constantine and he leaves behind him mountains of dead of both good and bad. i don't give a fuck about what Luke Skywalker does. this isn't part of the conversation.

And I don't give a flying fuck about your obsession with unrealistic heroes that don't kill mass-murdering psychopaths. If America and the world can embrace a hero who in his first movie, sent a million souls to the next world to stop a greater catastrophe, then why can't I?

you are once again comparing real life events to comic books. i have something to say to you but i am going to say it at the end of my post.

Comic books keep relating themselves to real life. If they took place in a fantasy la-la-land which has nothing to do with the real world, then I'll be all for unrealistic stories.

source

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#Examples_of_justifiable_homicide_in_the_United_States

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture

Killing bad guys who try to kill people, AKA justifiable homicide, is LEGAL. Torture is not.

no it's not, as per the comics. death rates are lowering, not rising.

Gotham still has the third highest crime rate in the DC cities.

Especially since Batman put the organized mobsters out of office, the "crazies" like the Joker, Firefly, Scarecrow, or Victor Zsasz all start showing up and committing more violent crimes than racketeering, prostitution, or drugs. None of those nutjobs would have been tolerated when the crime families were still around. Crime families kept crime a controlled business for decades, then Batman comes in, knocks down the crime families and puts them out of business, and the crooks counter by backing crazies like the Joker who commit bigger and bigger crimes just to get Batman's attention. In short, Batman replaced controlled crime which mostly focused on economic wealth with chaotic criminals who rack up body counts like crazy and kill people brazenly. Batman's effect on Gotham is more negative, than positive.

Consider for a second, the effect of Batman: he stirs up a hornet's nest, but then he won't swat one. Batman could easily put the crazies down, but he won't, and he keeps sending them to Arkham, which has proven to be a complete failure in keeping the crooks in prison. Maybe he should tell the Feds to send them to Gitmo. Or put them down for good. Again, killing those who were going to kill you or others is perfectly legal in American law, and in many other parts of the world.

uh? batman vs superman is often considered one of the worst superhero movies ever made? it is comical how fucking garbage it is. it was one of the funniest movie watching experiences i've ever had.

Yes, and the one thing people liked about it was Ben Affleck Batman. Even I was surprised at how I liked him there, I expected him to be horrible.

someone else earlier also pointed out how Tim Burtons Batman movie is a trash adaptation and yeah, it is.

And yet it was an iconic film that millions loved, and it brought life to a franchise that hasn't really been important since the old Batman TV show ended. Not only that, but it also inspired the DCAU Batman, which was also good.

So compared to the comics, the Tim Burton Batman was a far superior version.

source

Comics Code Authority Guidelines, which included:

"Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, the gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated."

"Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader."

already explained why

Again, that's their film, and their Batman. Why can't everyone just chill and have their version of Batman? I enjoyed both the DCAU and Tim Burton Batman versions, for very different reasons. The former was a good Saturday Morning Cartoon hero, the latter was a good example of a grimdark hero coming to terms with his inner demons.

"why should people who make an adaption of the character be beholden to who the character is?"

iunno man, it's a mystery.

The character was a murderer when he first showed up, and he was killing people all the way up to 1968.

i mean, they did? all the movie versions of batman kill, obviously they're not beholden. that's why all the movie versions are dogshit. they're free to make what they want, they've just chosen to make dogshit.

The Dark Knight Trilogy version does his best not to kill. Granted, he fails now and then, but at least he tries.

so incompetence.

Again, superheroes are already incompetent fools for sparing mass-murdering psychopaths repeatedly. It's like throwing Josef Mengele into a revolving-door prison.

not how lazarus pits work.

So? Comics can always change that, or make a new version of the Lazarus Pit that functions differently.

i do not care what you have problems with.

And I don't care about your problems with killer Batmen either. Shit, back in the 90s, I adored both the DCAU Batman and the Tim Burton one. The former doesn't kill, the latter does. There's room for both.

no he isn't.

Yes he is. Just as the original Batman was deserving of respect, he was still a killer, but also still a hero and an icon.

i am tired of this conversation which brings me to the point I was going to mention earlier. You seem autistic. I don't mean that as an insult. I mean you legitimately seem autistic. You continually compare real life terrorists/nazi's to comic book characters, legitimately asked me if I think a real life terrorists life is worth less than a comic book thug, you seem to struggle very hard with the concept of morality, having a very strict black/white view. Bad guys deserve to die and if good guys don't kill them then they're bad guys too.

That's because comic books keep relating themselves to real life. Batman lives in an American city. Batman comics live in a very realistic world. Unlike Superman who spends his time punching Darkseid in the face, or Thor who battles ancient gods, Batman deals with the very real problem of urban crime. POORLY.

Again, if the bad guys are just yahoos who rough people up, cause property damage, and rarely kill people, then I'm OK with sparing them. It's the whole "we cannot kill mass-murdering psychopaths!" argument that I have a problem with.

 

[Cyber Bowling]

The current movie version of Batman, or to be more specific, the Synder version of Batman, is in my mind an example of why you really need to pick a lane. With what we're shown, that Batman is okay with killing no name criminals. Neat. But, then when you have him dealing with named criminals who are needed in other movies/interacting with Batman in flashback scenes he doesn't kill them or even give em the ol' bat-brand. Not neat. In a weird way, for me at least, it actually takes me out of the story more than Batman not killing Joker or Penguin or whoever else in the comics.

When it comes to suspension of disbelief, I think consistency is pretty important. I'll pretty much accept whatever world/plot the writers throw at me as long as they're consistent about it. Of course, just accepting something doesn't necessarily mean it is good, but I'll at least see where they're going with it. And, that isn't to say there can't be change or evolution, especially for characters with 20+ years of history and writers behind them.

Circling back to Batman, it would be incredibly inconsistent to suddenly have the character start killing, and even more inconsistent if a writer tried to insist it was a canon thing for Batman to do because in 1939 there was a handful of stories where he killed. It could be done, but I'd argue even if it happened and stuck, the "mainstream Batman" everyone is familiar with would still be the no kill version. Kind of like how the mainstream Alfred always worked for the Waynes/helped raise Bruce when originally Bruce hired him as an adult. Or Peter and MJ being the canon couple even though there were plenty of other girls introduced before MJ/stretches in modern comics where he and MJ weren't together.

Anyway, could a Batman who murders people work? I'd argue in the main universe, short of a crisis level retcon, no. And even if there was some kinda retcon, it wouldn't stick and would just lead to some unsatisfying conclusion where a future writer is forced to retcon the original retcon and come up with some other convoluted explanation where it wasn't Batman killing, but actually Norman Osborn somehow switching comic universes and working with the Scarecrow to make goblin based fear bombs that caused Batman to hallucinate. But, an alternate universe interpretation? Let him get a green lantern ring or be bitten by a vampire or whatever else that allows him to rack up a body count.

 

[JimiHendrix]

Then what does that make the original Batman who does kill? A bad character?


No it doesn't. The problem with comics is that they want to adhere to Saturday Morning cartoon morality while having edgelord bad guys who are mass-murderers. Not only is Batman not killing mass-murdering supervillains unrealistic, but the state sparing them is also unrealistic, since most, if not all societies will send such criminals to death row as soon as possible. Or to the deepest prison in their arsenal, and throw away the key.


Batman was killing people all the way up to 1968, with the issue of The Brave and the Bold, #84. He blew up a plane and a bridge, killing soldiers and pilots. That's like what, almost thirty years after he was made?


They're already incompetent yahoos who can't put an end to the villains. At least make it so that they're not idiotic enough to spare villains who commit mass-murder.


Not according to how comic books try to relate and tie the characters to the real world, they're not.


Batman breaks people's bones and limbs all the time. That's the kind of torture even Gitmo interrogators aren't allowed to do.

And yes, kidnapping people and using psychological torture on them is still illegal in comparison to killing in self-defense, which is legal. People, including lawmen, would be more tolerant of a Batman who kills villains in self-defense than one who kidnaps criminals and uses psychological torture as a weapon against them.


By mainstream, I mean the current Batman that people have. Out of the Batman archetypes that we have, the Michael Keaton and the Ben Affleck Batman both kill people, whereas the Christopher Nolan Batman is OK with leaving people to die if they're evil, like he did with Ra's Al Ghul.


And I don't give a flying fuck about your obsession with unrealistic heroes that don't kill mass-murdering psychopaths. If America and the world can embrace a hero who in his first movie, sent a million souls to the next world to stop a greater catastrophe, then why can't I?


Comic books keep relating themselves to real life. If they took place in a fantasy la-la-land which has nothing to do with the real world, then I'll be all for unrealistic stories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide#Examples_of_justifiable_homicide_in_the_United_States

https://www.hrw.org/news/2003/03/11/legal-prohibition-against-torture

Killing bad guys who try to kill people, AKA justifiable homicide, is LEGAL. Torture is not.


Gotham still has the third highest crime rate in the DC cities.

Especially since Batman put the organized mobsters out of office, the "crazies" like the Joker, Firefly, Scarecrow, or Victor Zsasz all start showing up and committing more violent crimes than racketeering, prostitution, or drugs. None of those nutjobs would have been tolerated when the crime families were still around. Crime families kept crime a controlled business for decades, then Batman comes in, knocks down the crime families and puts them out of business, and the crooks counter by backing crazies like the Joker who commit bigger and bigger crimes just to get Batman's attention. In short, Batman replaced controlled crime which mostly focused on economic wealth with chaotic criminals who rack up body counts like crazy and kill people brazenly. Batman's effect on Gotham is more negative, than positive.

Consider for a second, the effect of Batman: he stirs up a hornet's nest, but then he won't swat one. Batman could easily put the crazies down, but he won't, and he keeps sending them to Arkham, which has proven to be a complete failure in keeping the crooks in prison. Maybe he should tell the Feds to send them to Gitmo. Or put them down for good. Again, killing those who were going to kill you or others is perfectly legal in American law, and in many other parts of the world.


Yes, and the one thing people liked about it was Ben Affleck Batman. Even I was surprised at how I liked him there, I expected him to be horrible.


And yet it was an iconic film that millions loved, and it brought life to a franchise that hasn't really been important since the old Batman TV show ended. Not only that, but it also inspired the DCAU Batman, which was also good.

So compared to the comics, the Tim Burton Batman was a far superior version.


Comics Code Authority Guidelines, which included:

"Scenes of excessive violence shall be prohibited. Scenes of brutal torture, excessive and unnecessary knife and gunplay, physical agony, the gory and gruesome crime shall be eliminated."

"Inclusion of stories dealing with evil shall be used or shall be published only where the intent is to illustrate a moral issue and in no case shall evil be presented alluringly, nor so as to injure the sensibilities of the reader."


Again, that's their film, and their Batman. Why can't everyone just chill and have their version of Batman? I enjoyed both the DCAU and Tim Burton Batman versions, for very different reasons. The former was a good Saturday Morning Cartoon hero, the latter was a good example of a grimdark hero coming to terms with his inner demons.


The character was a murderer when he first showed up, and he was killing people all the way up to 1968.


The Dark Knight Trilogy version does his best not to kill. Granted, he fails now and then, but at least he tries.


Again, superheroes are already incompetent fools for sparing mass-murdering psychopaths repeatedly. It's like throwing Josef Mengele into a revolving-door prison.


So? Comics can always change that, or make a new version of the Lazarus Pit that functions differently.


And I don't care about your problems with killer Batmen either. Shit, back in the 90s, I adored both the DCAU Batman and the Tim Burton one. The former doesn't kill, the latter does. There's room for both.


Yes he is. Just as the original Batman was deserving of respect, he was still a killer, but also still a hero and an icon.


That's because comic books keep relating themselves to real life. Batman lives in an American city. Batman comics live in a very realistic world. Unlike Superman who spends his time punching Darkseid in the face, or Thor who battles ancient gods, Batman deals with the very real problem of urban crime. POORLY.

Again, if the bad guys are just yahoos who rough people up, cause property damage, and rarely kill people, then I'm OK with sparing them. It's the whole "we cannot kill mass-murdering psychopaths or we become as bad as them!" argument that I have a problem with.

i didn't read any of this and i'm just going to rate you autistic, since you are, I also notice you didn't respond to my pointing that out. enjoy the short bus.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

i didn't read any of this and i'm just going to rate you autistic, since you are, I also notice you didn't respond to my pointing that out. enjoy the short bus.

Whatever. Have a pleasant night.

The current movie version of Batman, or to be more specific, the Synder version of Batman, is in my mind an example of why you really need to pick a lane. With what we're shown, that Batman is okay with killing no name criminals. Neat. But, then when you have him dealing with named criminals who are needed in other movies/interacting with Batman in flashback scenes he doesn't kill them or even give em the ol' bat-brand. Not neat. In a weird way, for me at least, it actually takes me out of the story more than Batman not killing Joker or Penguin or whoever else in the comics.

When it comes to suspension of disbelief, I think consistency is pretty important. I'll pretty much accept whatever world/plot the writers throw at me as long as they're consistent about it. Of course, just accepting something doesn't necessarily mean it is good, but I'll at least see where they're going with it. And, that isn't to say there can't be change or evolution, especially for characters with 20+ years of history and writers behind them.

Circling back to Batman, it would be incredibly inconsistent to suddenly have the character start killing, and even more inconsistent if a writer tried to insist it was a canon thing for Batman to do because in 1939 there was a handful of stories where he killed. It could be done, but I'd argue even if it happened and stuck, the "mainstream Batman" everyone is familiar with would still be the no kill version. Kind of like how the mainstream Alfred always worked for the Waynes/helped raise Bruce when originally Bruce hired him as an adult. Or Peter and MJ being the canon couple even though there were plenty of other girls introduced before MJ/stretches in modern comics where he and MJ weren't together.

Anyway, could a Batman who murders people work? I'd argue in the main universe, short of a crisis level retcon, no. And even if there was some kinda retcon, it wouldn't stick and would just lead to some unsatisfying conclusion where a future writer is forced to retcon the original retcon and come up with some other convoluted explanation where it wasn't Batman killing, but actually Norman Osborn somehow switching comic universes and working with the Scarecrow to make goblin based fear bombs that caused Batman to hallucinate. But, an alternate universe interpretation? Let him get a green lantern ring or be bitten by a vampire or whatever else that allows him to rack up a body count.

Even the DCAU Batman was ready to kill the Joker after he saw what the guy did to Robin:

"I'll break you in two!"

And that Batman was one of the BEST examples of the no-kill-code Batman.

Which means that yes, even the most restrained Batman has his limits.

 

[Cyber Bowling]

Whatever. Have a pleasant night.



Even the DCAU Batman was ready to kill the Joker after he saw what the guy did to Robin:

"I'll break you in two!"

And that Batman was one of the BEST examples of the no-kill-code Batman.

Which means that yes, even the most restrained Batman has his limits.

I mean, yeah, Batman has been ready to kill a character tons of times in stories. Heck, if we're going with animated Batman examples to prove that, I'd probably go with the speech he gives from Under the Red Hood, because it shows that he does have that side, but also why he doesn't give into it.

I get that you want Batman to kill. Believe me, you've made it abundantly clear. But, you gotta face reality, that's not in character for mainstream Batman. I 10000% agree it is not what would happen in the real world, because DC is pretty far removed from what actually happens in reality. Batman especially has been moving pretty far from reality lately, for better or worse (arguably worse IMO) with all the Batman Who Laughs stuff.

One of the reasons I personally don't want to see another "should Hero X kill" story is how often they've been overdone lately. To use another Batman example, it's like how people were disappointed with Joker War because it came out right around the same time as Three Jokers, which itself came out somewhat close to another Joker centric plot. If I remember right, it was even touched on again in Tom King's run. At least it was with Bane instead of the Joker, so I guess that's kind of new. I'm sure this is an exaggeration, but it feels like every 3 writers or so, someone gets the "original" idea of really exploring Batman's psyche, only for it to end up hitting the exact same notes as the slew of other stories that did the exact same thing.

To use a non-Batman example, look what happened when they tried to drastically alter Superman in the new 52. It was so badly received, they did multiple retcons to bring the "mainstream" version of Superman back. But, they found a way to evolve the character by making him a dad. It worked better than fundamentally altering the character because, well, that character wasn't Superman. This is still the Superman we know, but we're seeing him in a different light and watching him naturally grow and respond to new challenges instead of just throwing him into a plotline where he's dating Wonder Woman.

Now, if we're talking what if stories, an "Injustice but with Batman" story could be neat. Although, I'd parrot my previous argument about why it would be bad to do it now since we've had an onslaught of "Batman but evil" characters with all the Dark Multiverse stuff. And if the new Batman movie wants to go the killer Batman route, more power to it. But, that doesn't make it the main/canon version of Batman.

 

[JimiHendrix]

Now, if we're talking what if stories, an "Injustice but with Batman" story could be neat.

feel like that's just dangerously close to why we got BWL, honestly.