Batman did kill in the movies. Why no outcry?

[Rush Syks]

Spoilers for the Nolan Batmans and Man of Steel

Okay, I'm talking about the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, because I just rewatched all three of them and it occured to me how in every movie someone dies, even though Batman could have saved them. Even worse he actually killed one guy directly and willingly. Figured out who I mean?

But first some background. I for one liked Man of Steel, which seems to make me a minority among fans. Yes, it might be a little moody and dark, but if we talk about the destruction of one planet and the possible extinction of humankind, this seems somehow appropiate. Marvel has a different approach that works as well, but I for one don't think either approach is superior. The biggest problem most people seem to have, however, was the fact that Superman killed Zod (btw. what should he have done anyway? He had no access to Phantom Zone tech and Zod would have stayed superhuman...).

This example is only to show that I don't mind this whole no killing thing as much because if you make a self contained movie universe instead of a never ending comic book series, you can make such a decision a central plot point without having to care about it for 60 years and longer...

So who was killed by Batman? Harvey Dent/Two face. The one guy who was (in the movie) a victim. The one who probably would have stopped killing anyway. He was casually thrown down to his death in order to save one (!) person. Whereas for the Joker, who was responsible for dozens of deaths in the movie alone, Batman risked getting killed himself instead of hitting him with his bike which would have probably saved a couple of people and only injured the joker, not even killing him.

So why was nobody ever so annoyed about it? Especially when I look at the bigger comic book fans (example on this site: Movie Bob).

 

[Dark Knifer]

I think his death was meant to be accidental but with someone with as much training as batman should have been able to restrain him pretty easily as he was uninjured from the gunshot since he wears armor so I thought the same thing. I think it was the intent to be seen as accidental but it didn't look that way.

It is surprising Bob hasn't mentioned it to my knowledge since he seems to be on a dc hate spree ever since man of steel came out.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Ive always felt the no kill thing is a MUCH bigger deal with superman than with Batman. Superman refusing to kill is the reason Lex Luthor or 90% of villains that go up against superman have any chance whatsoever of achieving their villanous goals, So I think they should definitely make him stick to that rule moving forward if they want him to face anything below kryptonian in raw power(like Batman...) I can see the Zod thing working if its treated as a super traumatic event(Superman just genocided his own people, maybe he gets a chance to bring them back later but from his POV thats a fact) an event that makes him swear never to kill again.

Batman refusing to kill was terrible though. I always thought Harveys death was accidental, but I was really rankled when he went all "I dont have to save you" In the first one. YES YOU DO BATMAN!!!

Cmon, thats just flat out killing him Batman.

 

[HardkorSB]

I think it's like this:
After Batman kills Dent, he becomes a wanted criminal for the sake of protecting the image of the man he killed and is forced to hide. He stops being Batman for years.
After Superman kills Zod, he kisses Lois and gets a happy ending, he's smiling in the very next scene, destroying government property and there's even a lame joke about how hot he is.
Those are 2 completely different things.

 

[Lilani]

Batman seems a darker character than Superman, more driven by pain and loss and vengeance. Perhaps comic book fans were aware of his no-kill philosophy, but the average moviegoer weren't, and so to most it seemed more in character. But many people even with only a cursory knowledge of Superman were aware of his no-kill thing, and he's not quite so "dark," so it didn't seem as in character.

 

[Jux]

Who is Nolan's Batman even modeled after? Batman didn't always have his 'no kill' rule. Realisticially, Nolan's Batman, that started off as an origin story, might simply not have progressed to the point where he reached the 'no killing' phase of his career.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Dent's death seemed more accidental than plainly breaking a dude's neck.
Not that I care much for Sups killing anyway.

Who is Nolan's Batman even modeled after? Batman didn't always hav his 'no kill' rule. Realisticially Nolan's Batman, that started off as an origin story, might simply not have progressed to the point where he reached the 'no killing' phase of his career.

Hear hear.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Who is Nolan's Batman even modeled after? Batman didn't always have his 'no kill' rule. Realisticially, Nolan's Batman, that started off as an origin story, might simply not have progressed to the point where he reached the 'no killing' phase of his career.

Well, he definitely seemed to reach the "no kill" point by The Dark Knight Rises, but I don't think there was necessarily anything said in the first two films about a no-kill philosophy. Granted, there were minor hints, but I don't think he was openly dedicated to the idea of not killing anyone by that point. It seems more like Dent's death is what eventually pushed him to being dedicated to not killing anyone.

 

[Rush Syks]

Who is Nolan's Batman even modeled after? Batman didn't always have his 'no kill' rule. Realisticially, Nolan's Batman, that started off as an origin story, might simply not have progressed to the point where he reached the 'no killing' phase of his career.

Well, during the interrogation the joker says something like "You have one rule and I want you to break it". The movie made a pretty big deal out of batman not killing the Joker, saving him from falling and all that. So yeah, he was supposed to be in the no killing phase.

 

[Spider RedNight]

I'll second some other posts on this thread; they treated Harvey's death as serious and life-changing for both the city and Batman as he took the blame for an accident and the death of a beloved city hero. Yeah, he did bad things but if Batman just decided to save the guy that actually did work for the city and not his capricious girlfriend, the unfortunate implications wouldn't have happened. So it's Batman's fault and he realizes that this is a BIG DEAL.


With Superman, not only does he represent the idealistic "perfect guy" but the message wasn't as seriously treated. There wasn't time to talk or reflect or show how Superman felt after, it was just "kill - NO - happy again". Felt rushed and that him killing his arch-nemesis is no big deal. Batman "can" get away with it because he's just a darker character than Superman.


(No I don't know what I'm on about SHUT UP)

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Honestly I've gotta agree that Dent's death always seemed accidental to me due to how desperate of a situation it was. But yeah the "I don't have to save you" felt really kinda forced in the first movie considering how big of a deal the no killing rule was to the second movie.

Also, the third movie actually has a few cases where Batman does just flagrantly murder Bane's mooks. I just tend to ignore it because that movie was shit anyways.

Also also, people were up in arms that Superman killed Zod? I just assumed Sups was allowed to kill and that scene was really confusing to me.

 

[JimB]

So why was nobody ever so annoyed about it?

A mortal man who'd just been shot in the gut tackles a guy who has a gun to a child's head, and the tackle accidentally kills the man. It would be nice if the scene had showed that Batman tried to save him, but since he was so weak from blood loss he could barely hold on to the rafter he was hanging from, and thereafter could barely walk to the Battercycle (I know it has a real name, but I like mine better), I think we can combine his weakness with his explicitly stated refusal to kill in the previous movie and earlier in the Dark Knight to assume the death was unintentional.

Kal-El, on the other hand...

Okay, I'm gonna geek out here for a second, and I won't blame you if you don't stick with me on this, but I promise this is going somewhere.

In the comics, or at least the comics prior to Nu52, Superman is a metaphor for hope. The single best example of this I can think of is the ending of the first book of the miniseries Kingdom Come. A preacher is berating an angel for being unable or unwilling to offer humanity hope; berating God by proxy, in essence, just before Superman shows up to give the world hope again. God Himself, the Holy Trinity, I Am That I Am, cannot give humanity hope, but Superman can. That is a powerful fucking message, you know?

I know that the Kal-El of Man of Steel is not the Superman of the comics I grew up with, but both of them share an immense power that leaves them free of the mortal weaknesses which drive us to crimes of necessity or crimes of passion, or which at least should (I am still disgusted by Kal-El robbing a man of his livelihood and inflicting thousands of dollars of property damage to the innocent owners of an unrelated bar to pay a man back for the minor irritation of having beer poured into Kal-El's hair) do so. The reasons I am offended by Kal-El killing Zod are threefold. The first, as you can guess from the above paragraph, is that I think it is based on a shameful misunderstanding of the character. The second is that it was completely unnecessary: Kal-El was winning the fight, and could have kept winning. There was no reason he couldn't have, say, covered Zod's eyes with his hands and suffered a few blisters on his palm while continuing to beat Zod up. The third is that Kal-El was very, very stupid in that scene. Zod could have killed those bystanders any time he wanted to, but he was trying to commit suicide by driving Kal-El to kill him. Kal-El should have tried to reach behind Zod's pain and help him, not murder him to prevent him from murdering people he was clearly never going to murder, but instead he killed a man because the formula of summer blockbusters said he had to.

Compared to all that, I don't even care about the happy ending everyone else is so mad about. It's still a valid reason to be pissed off because it's shitty storytelling, don't get me wrong, but on a comparative scale, that sin doesn't even ping my radar.

 

[Fox12]

Spoilers for the Nolan Batmans and Man of Steel

Okay, I'm talking about the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, because I just rewatched all three of them and it occured to me how in every movie someone dies, even though Batman could have saved them. Even worse he actually killed one guy directly and willingly. Figured out who I mean?

But first some background. I for one liked Man of Steel, which seems to make me a minority among fans. Yes, it might be a little moody and dark, but if we talk about the destruction of one planet and the possible extinction of humankind, this seems somehow appropiate. Marvel has a different approach that works as well, but I for one don't think either approach is superior. The biggest problem most people seem to have, however, was the fact that Superman killed Zod (btw. what should he have done anyway? He had no access to Phantom Zone tech and Zod would have stayed superhuman...).

This example is only to show that I don't mind this whole no killing thing as much because if you make a self contained movie universe instead of a never ending comic book series, you can make such a decision a central plot point without having to care about it for 60 years and longer...

So who was killed by Batman? Harvey Dent/Two face. The one guy who was (in the movie) a victim. The one who probably would have stopped killing anyway. He was casually thrown down to his death in order to save one (!) person. Whereas for the Joker, who was responsible for dozens of deaths in the movie alone, Batman risked getting killed himself instead of hitting him with his bike which would have probably saved a couple of people and only injured the joker, not even killing him.

So why was nobody ever so annoyed about it? Especially when I look at the bigger comic book fans (example on this site: Movie Bob).

I don't understand people's dislike of superman killing Zod. I had many problems with that film, but this was not one of them. I don't tend to support war or violence in the real world, but I'm by no means a pacifist, and there are times where killing is permissible or even ethical. Do people forget that superman killed Zod in the original movie? Christopher reeves crushes his hand into dust and throws him down a pit. Then Lois gets in on the action, and pushes the female cryptonian to her death. We have two major characters killing their foes, and the films actually celebrated this. At least man of steel tried to make the moment traumatic for super man, which I can respect. Keep in mind he's also destroying his own race. I think the issue was that man of steel was far darker and more violent, and the action more brutal. It may felt out of place for some people, even though the events weren't inherently different from the old films.

As for batman, the dent scene always bothered me. Not because I'm against batman killing, but because preserving life was so CENTRAL to the theme. In fact, it was the focal point of the film. Now, if Nolan was cynical and he was trying to show that ethics couldn't exist in batmans world, then it could have worked, but that's not what he did. It felt like an oversight. Now, it can be argued that it was accident, and that batman was desperate, but when a pivotal scene betrays the theme of your story then you need to revisit it. Killing a figure head and then propping up his image in order to manipulate the masses doesn't come across as ethical or idealistic, which is what the film was going for. Superman, on the other hand, never explored this theme, and so killing zod didn't feel like a betrayel of his character. It was a great film, but dent dying me was far more bothersome then Zod dying. It wasn't really necessary, and could have been achieved in other ways.

What bothered me most in man of steel was the wanton destruction caused by superman and Zod. We see superman destroy a fuel depot and a train station in smallville, and the central fight in metropolis caused untold destruction, and would have killed thousands. It doesn't make sense for superman to fight him there, and we know he could have lured him out because they fight in space before returning to metropolis. Now, the avengers and every single transformers movie do the same thing. The original transformers even had them lure their enemies into an occupied city filled with civilians and witnesses, maximizing casualties. However, there is a central difference between theses films that I think makes all the difference. Transformers was stupid, and the action was essentially cartoon action. The people dying didn't really matter, they were faceless. Man of steel, on the other hand, was trying to be something more. This is commendable, but Snyder can't set up a believable world, make visual ties to 9/11, and then proceed to needlessly destroy an entire city. He fails to take tone into consideration, and attempts to eat his cake and have it too. This is recurring problem with the director, since he tends to glorify violence in order to appear edgy. This was particularly bad in watchmen, which was originally suppose to critique and condemn the violence. It was there for a reason, but Snyder didn't understand that. His understanding of violence is juvenile, and he's essentially a frank miller fanboy. Prepare to more of this in the future.

Edit: fucking auto correct. I fixed some of it, but I really hate this feature on my phone.

 

[JimB]

Do people forget that Superman killed Zod in the original movie?

I don't know what that has to do with anything. Do people forget that Superman killed Zod in the comics, and that his guilt over this pushed him into a psychosis where he invented a split personality for himself?

For what it's worth, though, I do agree about the wanton destruction point you make.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Presumably because over the years there have been many different interpretation of Batman ranging from the goofy to the untra grim and gritty. Some with the no kill policy and some without. Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns Batman certainly didn't have a No Kill policy. Superman on the other hand has always been a symbol of truth, justice, hope, etc etc. and his no kill policy has remained constant ever since his original conception, so him suddenly killing the villain comes as a much bigger shock. That's just my guess anyway.

 

[verdant monkai]

Because 60% of the people watching the film are not fans of the comics, they don't know who Bruce Wayne is, think Robin is some kind of bird and that Batman has always had a crush on some woman who he revealed his secret identity to. The recent Batman movies are stupid and so is anyone who announces they are a massive fan of whatever super hero they went to see one movie of.

 

[Fox12]

Do people forget that Superman killed Zod in the original movie?

I don't know what that has to do with anything. Do people forget that Superman killed Zod in the comics, and that his guilt over this pushed him into a psychosis where he invented a split personality for himself?

For what it's worth, though, I do agree about the wanton destruction point you make.

My point is that there was precedent. Superman 2 saw superman kill Zod, and no one cared. In that situation Zod had been robbed of his powers, and was human. Superman could have taken him to jail to await trial for war crimes, where he would have gone through the criminal justice system. Instead he kills him, and the film treats this like a victory. It's strange to put the original 1970's films on a pedastool and then criticize man of steel. Zod had his powers in that scene, and couldn't really be restrained. I hated the darker nature of the film, and supermans disregard for civilian life, but I thought the scene at least worked. Dent could have been restrained, but Zod couldn't have.

I admit I haven't read the comics, but why can't superman kill Zod and remain a symbol of hope? They were on even footing, so I wouldn't consider it an undue use of force, like it was in superman 2.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I'm actually surprised their wasn't a bigger outcry to him letting Raz Al Ghoul die, since in other media he's gone out of his way to save bad guys who have tried to kill and nearly killed themselves with their own schemes.

I don't know if it was mentioned in the movie, but Ra's al Ghul is effectively immortal due to the Lazarus Pits. He can die and just come right back later.