Batman did kill in the movies. Why no outcry?

[Something Amyss]

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.

In Batman's defense, he's kind of an idiot in the Dark Knight movies.

As far as the killing goes, I don't give a damn if Batman or Superman kill, but the circumstances in MoS were dumb and contrived.

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.

Batman has a tendency to let people die. The comics, the movies, the TV shows. The bit in the first movie struck me as that. It's possible he evolved between films, of course.

Supes has had, explicitly or assumed, a "no killing" rule because he's supposed to be a paragon good guy. In stories involving Superman killing, he almost always goes down a slippery slope to villainhood. People have come to accept that any iteration of the character should be this way, which I don't agree with. I just don't like the scene.

One of the things I like about long-running characters is that they're subject to interpretation. Hell, the Batman most people seem to love is largely based upon Frank Miller's reimagining of Batman. That's not to say there's no support for his interpretation in prior works, but he went a different route from much of 70s Batman. Superman used to act a lot different, too. A lot of Spider-Fans think of Spidey in terms of the Raimi films, where he's driven by the guilt that the last words to surrogate Daddy Ben were in anger. In the original comics, Peter had a rather sappy relationship with Uncle Ben, and the only part of the murder that makes him guilty is that he had the power to stop it. Which is played up in modern versions, but not as much because ANGST! The X-Men may make a great gay metaphor now[footnote]I'm still waiting for my teleportation abilities to kick in[/footnote], but they weren't that in the first comics.

I mean, there's always an element who's going to complain about any adaptation, but I'm from the school of thought that adaptations should stand on their own. But it should still be good.

 

[Dizchu]

If I recall correctly Batman's rule is not to kill, rather than stopping the bad guys from dying (though he'll try to save them).

In Arkham City, Joker's death was his own fault and Batman had no intention of killing him. That seems to be consistent with his character. If someone is so criminally insane they cause their own demise, he's not gonna step in and rescue them.

I think that's the case with Two Face's death in The Dark Knight. His death was inevitable, the wounded Batman prioritised the safety of the Gordons over that of Harvey Dent. I don't see it being inconsistent with his character.

 

[JimB]

My point is that there was precedence.

Precedence is not an excuse. It's just precedence.

Superman 2 saw Superman kill Zod, and no one cared.

Except no one is talking about Superman 2. This is a thread about the Dark Knight being compared to Man of Steel, and bringing up a different franchise helmed by a different creative team a generation and a half ago seems like an attempt to shift the goalposts. Unless your argument is that I am not allowed to complain about Man of Steel in a thread about Man of Steel unless I complain about Superman 2 in the same breath, I don't see what this matters; but if it will appease you, then fine, the murder in Superman 2 was dumb and out of character too. Now can we talk about the movie at hand?

I admit I haven't read the comics, but why can't Superman kill Zod and remain a symbol of hope?

Because suicide is despair, the polar opposite of hope. Zod was committing suicide because he despaired of being the only Kryptonian on Earth and despaired of ever finding solace in revenge. By assisting Zod's suicide, Kal-El abandoned hope--the hope that Zod could be helped, the hope that the people would be alright, the hope that he could make Zod understand that Zod isn't alone and there's still one more Kryptonian on the planet Earth--in favor of despair.

 

[Fox12]

My point is that there was precedence.

Precedence is not an excuse. It's just precedence.

Superman 2 saw Superman kill Zod, and no one cared.

Except no one is talking about Superman 2. This is a thread about the Dark Knight being compared to Man of Steel, and bringing up a different franchise helmed by a different creative team a generation and a half ago seems like an attempt to shift the goalposts. Unless your argument is that I am not allowed to complain about Man of Steel in a thread about Man of Steel unless I complain about Superman 2 in the same breath, I don't see what this matters; but if it will appease you, then fine, the murder in Superman 2 was dumb and out of character too. Now can we talk about the movie at hand?

I admit I haven't read the comics, but why can't Superman kill Zod and remain a symbol of hope?

Because suicide is despair, the polar opposite of hope. Zod was committing suicide because he despaired of being the only Kryptonian on Earth and despaired of ever finding solace in revenge. By assisting Zod's suicide, Kal-El abandoned hope--the hope that Zod could be helped, the hope that the people would be alright, the hope that he could make Zod understand that Zod isn't alone and there's still one more Kryptonian on the planet Earth--in favor of despair.

No, the central question is whether superman is allowed to kill. OP is comparing the two films in order to highlight the question, which is whether it was okay for superman to kill zod, and if not, why was there an outcry over that film and not batman. I was simply making a similar comparison to another film with the same characters, where similar events happened. Personally, I'm okay with superman killing under certain circumstances. However, I do agree the film handled it poorly.

It would have been more interesting to have Zod make a horrible mistake, and then sacrifice himself to correct it, thus earning redemption. This would bring justice to him for his former crimes while also reaffirming the message of hope. Unfortunately this would rob zack Snyder of his 40 minute cgi wank fest, so it didn't happen. So, basically, I largely agree with you. Unfortunately we're about to get more of the same.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Superman killing wasn't the issue. The two main issues were:

That scene was stupid, Zod's heat vision was moving towards the family so slowly they could have just moved AND if Superman had the strength to break Zod's neck he had the strength to hold his head in place or turn it around without killing him.

The death wasn't a big enough deal. He kills him, we get a Darth Vader "Noo!" and then it cuts straight to Superman dicking around with the military. The problem is that killing didn't seem to bother Superman at all.

With the first part, I kind of thought he realized that he HAD to kill him because Zod was never going to stop. It's not like he could have contained him.

Fully agree with the second bit though.

OT: For Harvey Dent, I always thought of that as accidental. Yes, he did kill him, but that had more to do with Harvey's back being towards a big drop than with Batman choosing to kill him. It was a split second decision to tackle him, there just happened to be nothing behind the guy.

Really, it was either: watch Harvey murder a child, or tackle him and maybe he dies.

 

[immortalfrieza]

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.

This^. Superman is pretty much the poster child of the entire No Kill policy plus is the most inflexible superhero in existence, and this is the entire reason people have such issues with it. The issue about this is the widespread image of Superman everybody has as this noble, selfless beacon of hope that never kills under any circumstances no matter how justified or how stupid it is that he doesn't, so anyone that tries to deviate from portraying the character as such even a little bit is going to catch a crapload of hate for it. Out of all superheroes Superman is easily the one that draws the most ire from fans when he's altered even a little bit, no matter how good the reasons for doing so are, any other superheroes won't catch even 1/100th as much ire for doing the same.

The ironic thing is that this image people have of Superman is completely false. Superman has killed plenty of times, especially in the precrisis period and even a few times after. Not to mention all the alien invasions and sentient robots and so forth where he kills all the time without caring at all most of the time along with most other heroes.

 

[babinro]

I recently re-watched Batman 1989 for the first time in probably 20 years and I was amazed by the Batman death count.

He drives the batmobile into a facility where goons surround the vehicle shooting at it with machine guns. Batman than proceeds to drop a BOMB on the ground. The camera pulls out to see batman driving away and the ENTIRE facility crashing down in an explosion that had to kill dozens.

Up until the gas is released in Gotham...Batman has a much higher death count than the Joker.

It's hilariously absurd.

Why did we accept it? Simply put...timing and lack of internet popularity/influence. Timing in that this was the return of superhero movies for the most part. People were just happy to see a superhero movie.

Purists to the character were probably upset by the movie but didn't have enough of a voice to be heard by the masses. I remember growing up thinking the movie was great and hearing the same from my friends at the time. No one really nitpicked the movie but we were very young then as well. We wouldn't analyze movies to begin with.

 

[happyninja42]

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.

Actually in Batman Begins, he flat out states he won't kill, when he was about to become a member of the League of Shadows. I don't recall the precise wording, and I don't think he specifically stated "I will not kill anyone ever foreverz" or whatnot, but he made a very definite statement of "no, I won't kill".

As to MysticSlayer's question of who was he modeled after, he's modeled after the Batman of the past several decades worth of "Batman Doesn't Kill" comics and mythos. He might not have started out that way originally, but he's definitely evolved into that, and has been that way for several decades.

 

[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.

Actually in Batman Begins, he flat out states he won't kill, when he was about to become a member of the League of Shadows. I don't recall the precise wording, and I don't think he specifically stated "I will not kill anyone ever foreverz" or whatnot, but he made a very definite statement of "no, I won't kill".

As to MysticSlayer's question of who was he modeled after, he's modeled after the Batman of the past several decades worth of "Batman Doesn't Kill" comics and mythos. He might not have started out that way originally, but he's definitely evolved into that, and has been that way for several decades.

Oh, shit, I cannot believe that I forgot that.

Either way, it seems more like the Batman from the Nolan films ran on an ideal that he would avoid killing someone if he was given a clear choice, which Dent's death was too spur-of-the-moment and reactionary for that, and if he could find another way to stop them that wouldn't also kill innocents, which he might have had but it was unclear how serious his injury was. In other words, ideally he wouldn't kill, but he was not entirely above killing.

 

[gunny1993]

Because it was a badass scene.


Simple

 

[RavingSturm]

Batman's lack of super powers equates to a lack of control. Its not his fault if he's forced to used human shields or pick who he saves first. Batman being forced to kill directly or by omission is just being realistic based on his lack of power set.Superman can walk up to someone shooting point-blank at him and just stick his finger into the gun barrel. In Flashpoint, Superman just cups a bomb in his hands to muffle the explosion.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Not eating a bullet for someone does not make you a murderer, just means you skipped one heroic action... and Bats skips quite a few in the latest movies. If you intend to pin every death of Gotham on him because he was not somehow magically there to save everyone then I'm pretty sure he needs to be classified a genocidal maniac.

As for Man of Steel... if people find Zod's death the worst part then they must have slept through the whole movie. Don't get me wrong the art department really earned their money on that, visuals are just amazing. But whoever wrote that asinine script should be going home empty handed, it was just absolutely moronic, even cartoons have better writing nowadays.

 

[Vivi22]

That scene was stupid, Zod's heat vision was moving towards the family so slowly they could have just moved AND if Superman had the strength to break Zod's neck he had the strength to hold his head in place or turn it around without killing him.

So he could stand there holding onto Zod for what? However many years it would take for him to die of natural causes? You can't just throw someone that's as powerful as Superman in prison. It was either kill him or he would not stop until Superman and the human race were dead.

I'm not sure why this is even a point of contention when his stated reason for living at that point was to literally kill the species Superman chose to protect over his own people.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

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 was always annoyed with it. Nolan is not a bad filmmaker by any means, but he is completely incapable of creating any kind of moral narrative. This happened in Rises as well, when he told Catwoman not to kill, but then 20 minutes later is firing his bat-gatling guns at a moving vehicle which is speeding through a densely populated area. While no one may have died, that was on pure luck rather than any moral philosophy. The Dark Knight was perplexing to me as well, as it was basically in favor of Plato's "Noble Lie," the concept that societies and certain classes need to be lied to in order for society to function. Slavoj ?i?ek explains this better than I could:


In the end, the Nolan trilogy is just not as good as so many people make it out to be, and I do not think these films will stand the test of time.

EDIT:
In the end, I do not think this is about Nolan and the other filmmakers deciding to follow or not follow the "no killing" philosophies of their source material. Rather, this is simply about sloppy film making that cannot even comprehend that such a philosophy could exist.

 

[TT Kairen]

That scene was stupid, Zod's heat vision was moving towards the family so slowly they could have just moved AND if Superman had the strength to break Zod's neck he had the strength to hold his head in place or turn it around without killing him.

Okay, and then what? Hold him there forever? This fight will go on for eternity, costing countless lives and destroying everything. Zod stated that his one remaining goal was destroying as much stuff as possible. The Phantom Zone was already closed and inaccessible at this point, and no restraining system on Earth could contain Zod. There was no option. Sure, he could have not killed him right then, but eventually the only outcome is one of them dies.

I've heard people criticize the ending for it being written in such a way where there was no other option, and thus exposes my main problem with no-kill rules. It's completely impractical in any realistic sense, and the only reason they get away with it is because the writers contrive situations for it to work.

 

[Kenbo Slice]

Because in the eyes of fanboys Christopher Nolan can do no wrong and is a God amongst other pleb directors.

 

[Saltyk]

I remember in the Justice League cartoon Superman clearly stated that there are times the others should stand back as he is nigh invulnerable and he can handle punishment they they can't. To me that should explain a lot about who Superman is.

He's the type to take a blow to save others. To sacrifice of himself for the world. He is a symbol of hope and what men should aspire to.

That Superman would have placed himself in front of Zod to protect the innocent civilians rather than kill Zod. That Superman would never choose to kill even to save others.

Instead, Superman broke Zod's neck. Completely ruining any idea of Hope in the movie.

Let's allow HISHE to explain it.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

The scene with Zod felt like it should have been the pay off to an ongoing theme, like he knows killing Zod is the right thing to do but that doesn't make it easy for a man who has been a lifelong pacifist because he could kill buildings if he threw a tantrum.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I can't speak for others, but what I found really silly about the whole Supes killing Zod was that it was played as this shocking moment where Superman had to kill, because apparently it's so against his ideals. The problem is that we haven't seen Superman be heroic or idealistic at any point in the movie. Okay, maybe a little, but that amount pales in comparison to the complete disregard he's had for human safety up till that point. All he's been doing is smashing through likely inhabited buildings like a fucking maniac, and now he's all like 'Oh no, people are in danger!'

Adding to this that during the scene in question, those four people in danger of Zod's heat vision could've just moved out of the way by climbing that 8-foot high mount of rubble. And if Supes had the strength to snap Zod's neck he could've just pulled him over. And maybe if thousands of civilians hadn't already been killed by the terraforming just recently, the idea of four innocent bystanders being at risk would've felt a bit more pressing.

Not that I hate the movie, I actually quite like it just because if big and dumb it is.