|
Chaos Hippy posted:That Batman's actions are inherently extrajudicial makes the rule even more important. This is all a good point, but I was just pointing out why, if the Joker should indeed be killed, the state is incapable of doing it and would need Batman to do it if it's to be done at all.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The whole question of whether or not Batman should kill is a distraction. Batman kills and always has killed. You're dumb and wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 11:53
|
|
|
monkeu posted:You're dumb and wrong. Bravestoflamps.txt
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 12:39
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Bravestoflamps.txt "CRIMINALS CARRYING GUNS ARE FORCED INTO FIREFIGHTS BY A DUDE WHO TRIES TO PUNCH THEM!!! AMERIIIIIICAAAAAAA RUUUUUUULES!!!!
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
I think Batman should not killl because if murder is an acceptable solution to crime, there's really no reason for him to do anything but burst into rooms with machine guns and mow everyone down instead of getting into karate fights and using stealth.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I think Batman should not killl because if murder is an acceptable solution to crime, there's really no reason for him to do anything but burst into rooms with machine guns and mow everyone down instead of getting into karate fights and using stealth. If killing becomes an acceptable solution for a man of Batman's talents and means, he'd be dropping people with gas bombs, sniper rifles, and drone attacks. No reason to even put yourself at risk. He'd become the militaristic Batman army they just spent six issues fighting.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
I continue to be completely incredulous that this discussion is happening at all Yes, Batman killed in his first story. Yes, they gave him a no-kill rule retroactively. Those are facts, but I find it hard to believe that someone could argue that change wasn't for the better. Blockhouse fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
The thing is, it's all artificial. Superman is a character who's no kill rule genuinely seems like something he'd believe in, while killing fits Batman so seamlessly the movies really have no problem casually dropping it in because he's just an evolution of pulp action heroes like the Shadow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:The thing is, it's all artificial. Superman is a character who's no kill rule genuinely seems like something he'd believe in, while killing fits Batman so seamlessly the movies really have no problem casually dropping it in because he's just an evolution of pulp action heroes like the Shadow. Except it's like the 3rd thing you learn about Batman after: -Dresses like bat -Is secretly Bruce Wayne -Hates guns and killing
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Why does it matter so much that Batman doesn't kill?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Roth posted:Why does it matter so much that Batman doesn't kill? It doesn't. As I said, stories where Batman just sends his villains to jail are fine. It's the fact that DC keeps bringing it up and making it an issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Gaz-L posted:Except it's like the 3rd thing you learn about Batman after: -Dresses like bat That one depends on what is your frame of reference for the character since its status as a "hard rule" is relatively recent. Movie Batmen have never shied away of using guns or killing and during most of the bronze age Bruce was quite flippant regarding the use of lethal force on his foes. A tale in particular that stood to me from that period was O'neil's Venom where Bruce has no qualms to use a couple of islanders as live bait for sharks or causing the vilian of the story to die via drug overdose. And let's not forget that he needed of Superman talking him down of killing the Joker during Death of the Family.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:The thing is, it's all artificial. Superman is a character who's no kill rule genuinely seems like something he'd believe in, while killing fits Batman so seamlessly the movies really have no problem casually dropping it in because he's just an evolution of pulp action heroes like the Shadow. It fits Batman so poorly that one of the biggest complaints I heard (and made) about BvS was Batman suddenly being a mass murderer. It's completely out of character for any version of Batman that wasn't published in the 1930s. That the movies ignore this is irrelevant, as movies are an entirely different medium, and the people making them are not involved or invested in the comics at all. Dark_Tzitzimine posted:That one depends on what is your frame of reference for the character since its status as a "hard rule" is relatively recent. 60+ years ago is not relatively recent in a medium that has only really been around for 80-odd years. One or two demonstrably bad stories published during that period do not invalidate the dominant narrative. Batman is actively and vocally opposed to killing, and has been for as long as comics have had any semblance of continuity. If that were not the case, your favourite lovely character wouldn't have been brought back from the dead to fill the "DC's lame Punisher knockoff" niche. And yes, he's needed to be talked down a few times. This is because, as a human being with obvious emotional problems, he is prone to irrational action and poor judgment when placed in situations of extreme stress or trauma. The entire point of those scenes is that, even when he was this close to crossing the line, he was able to step back. haitfais fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
How much Adderall do you guys think B-man takes? Is it regular or extended release? Is he compliant about doing a follow up with the doc every few months or is he just cooking up meth in the cave?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Blockhouse posted:I continue to be completely incredulous that this discussion is happening at all He doesn't even kill in the first story. Batman punched a guy, he fell in the acid tank, and then Batman wasn't sorry he was dead. Besides, that was the Earth-Two Batman. This Batman we got now is an entirely different guy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Chaos Hippy posted:60+ years ago is not relatively recent in a medium that has only really been around for 80-odd years. One or two demonstrably bad stories published during that period do not invalidate the dominant narrative. Batman is actively and vocally opposed to killing, and has been for as long as comics have had any semblance of continuity. If that were not the case, your favourite lovely character wouldn't have been brought back from the dead to fill the "DC's lame Punisher knockoff" niche. More like 20 years or so. That is exactly my point. The character has been around for more than 75 years and only in the last period of those, the no killing rule has been really important. I'd say tha came in the heels of Jean Paul's tenure as Batman. Moreover, for the bulk of the people that grew with Burton's movies. They don't see Batffleck's actions as a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The no-kill rule is just a fiction intended to make him friendlier. The problem is that people have internalized it, to the point of holding it up as a half-assed moral precept. This causes some doublethink. The healthy thing to do is to admit that you enjoy stories about a violent vigilante dressed as a bat. Killing really is wrong though, I don't feel like that's half-assed. It's pretty uncontroversial. And I dunno about the rest of you guys, but I like stories about nice Batman. Hence the avatar where he is playing basketball with Superman. Dark_Tzitzimine posted:More like 20 years or so. That is exactly my point. The Burton movies have Batman's plane shooting some guys down, almost as an aside. The Nolan movies are far more recent and have explicit plot points surrounding Batman's refusal to kill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Chaos Hippy posted:It fits Batman so poorly that one of the biggest complaints I heard (and made) about BvS was Batman suddenly being a mass murderer. It's completely out of character for any version of Batman that wasn't published in the 1930s. That the movies ignore this is irrelevant, as movies are an entirely different medium, and the people making them are not involved or invested in the comics at all. Only if you take it as a religious rule, as some Batfans do. It doesn't really change Batman's character or motivations as long as he's not going out of his way to slaughter ala the Punisher. D_T is right this time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:
You can say that if you want, but you'd be wrong. The days of "A fitting end for his lot!" kill crazy pulp hero were very shortlived. Obviously in the days of the Comics Code, nobody in tights was killing their opponents, but somewhere in that period it became a core part of Batman. It's definitely not a thing that's only happened for like 20 years. And yes I grew up on Burton's Batman, I know it's a very inaccurate portrayal of the character even though it's one of my favorite movies. Comic book movies have changed a huge amount since 1989. You can be faithful to the characters now and trust audiences to follow you. Batfleck was a huge step back in the quality of Batman in every way except visually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Only if you take it as a religious rule, as Batman does. And most of the people who've written Batman, and the company that publishes Batman comics. The movies are literally the only venue where Batman killing hasn't consistently been seen as wildly out of character. Even then, the Nolan movies explicitly walked back from that portrayal (even if "I don't have to save you" is kind of a flimsy excuse.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Chaos Hippy posted:And most of the people who've written Batman, and the company that publishes Batman comics. The movies are literally the only venue where Batman killing hasn't consistently been seen as wildly out of character. Even then, the Nolan movies explicitly walked back from that portrayal (even if "I don't have to save you" is kind of a flimsy excuse.) "Except Batman, the people who write Batman, and the company that owns Batman, except when they don't, and when they do with flimsy excuses". The movies are only kind of weird, like "huh, doesn't Batman not kill?". I've always considered it kind of an amusing disconnect but nothing that makes Batman less Batman. It's completely different than Superman lasering bank robbers to ash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:You can say that if you want, but you'd be wrong. The days of "A fitting end for his lot!" kill crazy pulp hero were very shortlived. Obviously in the days of the Comics Code, nobody in tights was killing their opponents, but somewhere in that period it became a core part of Batman. It's definitely not a thing that's only happened for like 20 years. As a focus of his character it is. How much relevance is given changes accordingly to the period. quote:And yes I grew up on Burton's Batman, I know it's a very inaccurate portrayal of the character even though it's one of my favorite movies. Comic book movies have changed a huge amount since 1989. You can be faithful to the characters now and trust audiences to follow you. Batfleck was a huge step back in the quality of Batman in every way except visually. Nah, Batfleck was the best Batman on cinema by a country mile. It combines perfectly comic book silliness with the pseudo realism of the DCEU. But more than anything, it humanized him as a very flawed man being overwhelmed by the reality of the world he belongs an that thanks to his meeting with Superman founds hope again. Bale was good, but his take was very differently. One that fit the story Nolan was interested on tell but nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:"Except Batman, the people who write Batman, and the company that owns Batman, except when they don't, and when they do with flimsy excuses". As has already been explained in a few different ways, "doesn't kill" is one of the top 3 defining characteristics of Batman. Killing absolutely makes him less Batman. The only way it differs from Superman eye-lasering bank robbers is that Batman doesn't have eye lasers. A Batman who kills isn't Batman, he's Punisher with a more ridiculous outfit. Decades of published material reinforce this, and if you still don't understand that I'll have to assume it's because you don't want to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
My argument is that Batman shouldn't kill but it becomes an issue when you state over and over that Batman won't kill even though the comic book industry and fandom is obsessed with continuity and establishing that the Joker murders a million people and breaks out every week. No one is saying Batman 66 should slit Cesar Romero's throat, because that series knew what it was and played it straight instead of trying to add gritty realism while still maintaining viable future story possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Yeah, the issue lies in modern DC's love of upping the stakes with body counts that make real life tragedies seem quaint.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:As a focus of his character it is. How much relevance is given changes accordingly to the period. Ben is a great Batman, agreed. That's kind of what I meant by visually, his costume was great and his performance was great, but the way he is written and directed is a big step back for the character. And even after he realizes what he's become, and vows to be a good dude again, hes still a murderous violent rear end in a top hat. He's learned nothing, he's just killing the 'right' people now. I don't blame Affleck for this, it's Goyer and Snyder mostly. I think the solo Batfleck movie is going to be real good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:Killing really is wrong though, I don't feel like that's half-assed. It's pretty uncontroversial. In the Nolan movies, Batman just straight up lies about not killing. Off the top of my head, he kills League assassins, Ra's Al Ghul, Harvey Dent, and Talia Al Ghul.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
He doesn't loving kill Ras. That's very explicit.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:In the Nolan movies, Batman just straight up lies about not killing. Off the top of my head, he kills League assassins, Ra's Al Ghul, Harvey Dent, and Talia Al Ghul. There's the subtext, where Batman's actions recklessly or negligently lead to people's deaths, and then there's the text, where Batman is straight up refusing to execute a criminal because he thinks it's morally wrong to do so and putting himself in danger because of it, and actively saving The Joker rather than letting him die by his hand.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:He doesn't loving kill Ras. That's very explicit. He doesn't kill Dent either. Though Lamps definition of kill is really broad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:36
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:He doesn't kill Dent either. Though Lamps definition of kill is really broad. Hey, whatever hoops need to be jumped through to pretend Batman v Superman wasn't a tire fire, he'll gladly do it.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
I almost can't believe that people don't realize that Batman's no-kill code is about him not intentionally going out of his way to kill people with lethal force.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:There's the subtext, where Batman's actions recklessly or negligently lead to people's deaths, and then there's the text, where Batman is straight up refusing to execute a criminal because he thinks it's morally wrong to do so and putting himself in danger because of it, and actively saving The Joker rather than letting him die by his hand. That's not really a subtext/text division. Also make no mistake, I love friendly Batman. I love rear end in a top hat Batman too, and psychotic Batman, and weird Batman, and even lame Batman. Lurdiak posted:He doesn't loving kill Ras. That's very explicit. CharlestheHammer posted:He doesn't kill Dent either. Though Lamps definition of kill is really broad.  He leaves Ra's on a runaway train, which kills him. He tackles Dent off a building, which kills him. Dark_Tzitzimine posted:And let's not forget that he needed of Superman talking him down of killing the Joker during Death of the Family. 
BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
If inaction doesn't count as killing, why does he go out of his way to save villains? He saves villains when their deaths wouldn't in anyway be his fault. It's completely up to the writer's whims. It's stupid and arbitrary. It's a dumb dilemma to exist at all, but some motherfuckers always trying to ice skate uphill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:That's not really a subtext/text division. It is, because you're making the argument that if you watch the movie closely Batman is a murderer (when the most you can really say is that Batman is negligent) while the movie's about Batman not killing. The movies explicitly want to be about Batman not killing. These are big, thematic moments of the movies where Batman makes the choice to not kill and differentiate himself from characters who do kill. BravestOfTheLamps posted:He leaves Ra's on a runaway train, which kills him. Batman also stood by while his parents were shot by Joe Chill, killing them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Narratively Batman doesn't kill because it makes his stories plausible. If Batman weren't opposed to killing, I don't really see how any of his villains could inconvenience him. Two Face is robbing the 2nd National Bank on 2nd Street on a Tuesday? Send the Batplane and just gatling gun him on his way out. A Batman that kills is a poor interpretation of Batman. Batfleck included even if I liked his acting in Batman v Superman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
SonicRulez posted:Narratively Batman doesn't kill because it makes his stories plausible. If Batman weren't opposed to killing, I don't really see how any of his villains could inconvenience him. Two Face is robbing the 2nd National Bank on 2nd Street on a Tuesday? Send the Batplane and just gatling gun him on his way out. A Batman that kills is a poor interpretation of Batman. Batfleck included even if I liked his acting in Batman v Superman. Roth posted:Batman's no-kill code is about him not intentionally going out of his way to kill people e:clarified BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
I'm sure this made a lot of sense in your mind but What
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
A Batman that kills a bunch of people indirectly/accidentally and shrugs it off is worse than Bat-Punisher. Then he looks incompetent. Nolan's Batman looked like a goof so much in that series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:34 |
|
|
Travis343 posted:I'm sure this made a lot of sense in your mind but What I'm really lost as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 22:16
|
|