Batman did kill in the movies. Why no outcry?

[Product Placement]

While I agree with the criticisms of Batman (indirectly) and Superman (directly) killing in their respecting movies, I want to point out that Batman is being retconned in the upcoming Supes vs Bats film, so everything that happened in the Nolan films no longer matters. For all we know the version of Batman, that the writers are cooking up for the new film, is someone who has never let his guard down with the "no kill rule" and it's precisely for that reason that he does not trust Superman and wants to figure out a way to stop him.

 

[TristanBelmont]

Let's not forget this is Christopher Nolan North, so nobody is expecting all that much loyalty to the comics when he flat-out has disdain for them.

 

[happyninja42]

snip

snip

snip

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.

True, considering he was happy to shoot live rockets into the streets of Gotham in The Dark Knight, blowing up cars left and right. Plenty of opportunity for collateral damage. I dunno, I have personal issues with the No Kill Hero thing that is in place for Superman and Batman. I find it increasingly irrational and unrealistic, and that it frequently causes more problems than it solves. They seem to stand on it because of some fear that otherwise they will be considered bad guys/tyrants. But eh, I've beat that dead horse in other threads, I don't want to rehash it here.

I think Nolan tried to make as realistic of a character as he could, considering the template of "Emotionally unstable 1% Rich Guy decides to put on a costume and be a vigilante" It's inherently silly if you actually think about it.

 

[Product Placement]

I think Nolan tried to make as realistic of a character as he could, considering the template of "Emotionally unstable 1% Rich Guy decides to put on a costume and be a vigilante" It's inherently silly if you actually think about it.

Actually, it's funny you should say that, because that's exactly what was going through Christian Bale's head, when he was auctioning for the part. It was actually what lead him to use that silly voice. Here's the interview where he explains it:

It's not a youtube video, and I have no idea how or if it's even possible to embed this over here, so a link will have to do. [http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:980017/cp~vid%3D980017%26uri%3Dmgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A980017]

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Different context.

in MOS the situation was stupidly executed to why he'd be so upset after killing Zod, let alone the all that collateral. Clark could have covered his eyes, bit him, not screamed like a baby. overall it was unconvincing.

Batman it's a mixed bag, even Die Hard Batfans won't justify all the Killing in the Burton movies and the only reason it might get a pass is because it's a mix of the early Batman (with a gun) and the mid80s dark bat. But even then he stuffed a bomb in a clowns undies threw him over the edge then walked away (like a boss), I would agree that's a problem.

In Batman Begins i'm okay with how Ra's died because it was by his own hand, Two-Face was an accident. Though an unnecessary one because why could Batman had thrown a Batarang or used his grapple?

 

[happyninja42]

I think Nolan tried to make as realistic of a character as he could, considering the template of "Emotionally unstable 1% Rich Guy decides to put on a costume and be a vigilante" It's inherently silly if you actually think about it.

Actually, it's funny you should say that, because that's exactly what was going through Christian Bale's head, when he was auctioning for the part. It was actually what lead him to use that silly voice. Here's the interview where he explains it:

It's not a youtube video, and I have no idea how or if it's even possible to embed this over here, so a link will have to do. [http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:980017/cp~vid%3D980017%26uri%3Dmgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A980017]

Can't watch that clip 'cause I'm at work, but it doesn't surprise me if that was what he was going for. xD

Different context.

in MOS the situation was stupidly executed to why he'd be so upset after killing Zod, let alone the all that collateral. Clark could have covered his eyes, bit him, not screamed like a baby. overall it was unconvincing.

Eh, personally I didn't have a problem with him screaming at killing Zod, because it was killing the last Kryptonian other than himself. And for a child who had just learned that his people existed, and never having time to actually learn about them before killing them, that sort of "what have I done" reaction seemed reasonable to me. My issue however is how casually he blew up a ship full of embryonic Kryptonians who had done nothing wrong at all In all the discussions about the morality of MOS, nobody ever seems to mention this point, and I really don't understand it. Personally, of the two situations, him killing Zod is way more justified than enacting genocide on a race of infants. Yeah, the way the Zod Scene was shot was sort of lame, but assuming that the humans really couldn't escape, then he at least had a reason to use lethal force. The stuff with the ship....there was no reason for that. And besides, Superman killed Zod in Superman 2 as well, but that never seems to be pointed out either.

Batman it's a mixed bag, even Die Hard Batfans won't justify all the Killing in the Burton movies and the only reason it might get a pass is because it's a mix of the early Batman (with a gun) and the mid80s dark bat. But even then he stuffed a bomb in a clowns undies threw him over the edge then walked away (like a boss), I would agree that's a problem.

Yeah, I personally don't care if they have Batman kill to some degree. This Holy Decree that fans seem to have about that particular moral trait (which has changed over the years), has been the cause of more fan rage than anything. If a director/writer wants to portray them in a way that makes it sensible for them to be willing to kill if necessary, then I have zero issue with it.

In Batman Begins i'm okay with how Ra's died because it was by his own hand, Two-Face was an accident. Though an unnecessary one because why could Batman had thrown a Batarang or used his grapple?

I think that was mostly an issue of "because the plot demanded it". Sadly, lots of movies have these plot holes, and sometimes there just isn't any good answer beyond. "The director wanted it to end this way, therefor it did"

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

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.

But what about the lack of superheroes or villains at Superman's level?

This isn't the comic books. humanity hasn't been dealing with superbeings for decades now. This isn't the movies either and Superman has a device to rob him of his powers just because he might feel a little angsty.

Zod would not stop. Zod didn't care. And Supes did not have anyplace that would restrain him.

I get other posers saying that Supes is now a paragon of hope and truth. But part of that hope is that he'd find a way with everything at his disposal. He doesn't have to kill in the comics because if he doesn't have anything in Kryptonian sciences, Bats, Mr Terrific, the Atom, Martian Manhunter, Cyborg, anyone else in the super family, Captain Marvel, The Green Lanterns... ANYONE could come up and say "Here, I saw your fight. Use this"

Supes faced a madman alone. One of the only beings as powerful as him. Zod didn't want to be reasoned with. He just wanted to punish someone he never met for things he never done.

There have been plenty of times I had to put on a face because people needed it. Was Supes doing that now? I can't say. But sometimes you have your back against the wall and there isn't a choice you just never explored. Sometimes, you just need to go through with what you have.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Different context.

in MOS the situation was stupidly executed to why he'd be so upset after killing Zod, let alone the all that collateral. Clark could have covered his eyes, bit him, not screamed like a baby. overall it was unconvincing.

Eh, personally I didn't have a problem with him screaming at killing Zod, because it was killing the last Kryptonian other than himself. And for a child who had just learned that his people existed, and never having time to actually learn about them before killing them, that sort of "what have I done" reaction seemed reasonable to me. My issue however is how casually he blew up a ship full of embryonic Kryptonians who had done nothing wrong at all In all the discussions about the morality of MOS, nobody ever seems to mention this point, and I really don't understand it. Personally, of the two situations, him killing Zod is way more justified than enacting genocide on a race of infants. Yeah, the way the Zod Scene was shot was sort of lame, but assuming that the humans really couldn't escape, then he at least had a reason to use lethal force. The stuff with the ship....there was no reason for that. And besides, Superman killed Zod in Superman 2 as well, but that never seems to be pointed out either.

I know in the Donner cut they get taken away by the Popo but without it it does look like he killed them. But i'm a fa of "No Body? No Death" And it is the Fortress of Solitude, it clearly has a bunch of Kryptnian tech, you can assume he simply trapped them as easily as you can logically assume he killed them.

As for MOS... I want to agree but I don't get how you can go from "Okay dad I know what I must do" -fly jesus styley- then "Kryton had it's chance" to "wah! I killed a genocidal murderer" and you know what? I'd be okay with that IF like you mentioned the fact that he ended Krytonian embreos wasn't glossed over, and if the action wasn't so over the top and more desperate for Zod and him (IE battle damage) than an oviously battered and exhausted Superman could pull that off. But it wasn't, the fact Clark had to end one race to save another was barely acknowledged in the film so why would the viewers?

At first I had a problem with the death but on closer inspection the things leading to it was ended up being inconsequential.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I dunno, I have personal issues with the No Kill Hero thing that is in place for Superman and Batman. I find it increasingly irrational and unrealistic, and that it frequently causes more problems than it solves. They seem to stand on it because of some fear that otherwise they will be considered bad guys/tyrants.

To me, the most annoying aspect is that Superman and Batman often don't seem to struggle with their morals (granted, this depends on which iteration of them you are talking about). I'd rather have heroes that felt like they actually struggled with that kind of decision, even if they ultimately come to the same conclusion. I actually gives a chance to explore the thought process rather than just quickly saying, "Stare not into the abyss...Oh, and don't mind all the carnage they keep creating."

But, anyways, there are some clear business decisions behind it. It allows them to keep using the same villains, which cuts down on workload and keeps a sense of familiarity, and it also doesn't run the risk of alienating the younger audience because their parents won't approve of a hero that snaps people in half. I just sort of wish that they'd find a better way of merging it with the business decision more often.

 

[JimB]

Zod would not stop. Zod didn't care. And Supes did not have any place that would restrain him.

Zod had already stopped. If he'd actually, genuinely wanted to kill anyone, all he had to do was turn his gaze. He chose not to because he was holding those people hostage so Kal-El would meet his demand of killing him, and like an idiot, Kal-El gave in to Zod's unspoken demand.

I get other posers saying that Supes is now a paragon of hope and truth.

I hope that's a typo.

 

[FirstNameLastName]

I don't really have a problem with it. Although I'm not a fan of the comics, and I'm only slightly partial to the movies.

But lets face facts here, despite the number of justifications and explanations, despite how much they try to weave it into the character and the narrative, the no kill rule really wasn't designed to enhance the character, it was designed to serve two purposes:
1. Making the comics more acceptable for children.
2. Provide a flimsy reason why the superheroes don't just end their conflicts once and for all, rather than put countless lives at risk when the villain inevitably returns for round two. (Not that being dead will stop them from coming back anyway.)

The no kill rule is really rather stupid, and I've long since stopped caring too much about purity of film adaptions, even for books that i do care about, so i say good riddance.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

I dunno, I have personal issues with the No Kill Hero thing that is in place for Superman and Batman. I find it increasingly irrational and unrealistic, and that it frequently causes more problems than it solves. They seem to stand on it because of some fear that otherwise they will be considered bad guys/tyrants.

To me, the most annoying aspect is that Superman and Batman often don't seem to struggle with their morals (granted, this depends on which iteration of them you are talking about). I'd rather have heroes that felt like they actually struggled with that kind of decision, even if they ultimately come to the same conclusion. I actually gives a chance to explore the thought process rather than just quickly saying, "Stare not into the abyss...Oh, and don't mind all the carnage they keep creating."

But, anyways, there are some clear business decisions behind it. It allows them to keep using the same villains, which cuts down on workload and keeps a sense of familiarity, and it also doesn't run the risk of alienating the younger audience because their parents won't approve of a hero that snaps people in half. I just sort of wish that they'd find a better way of merging it with the business decision more often.

Sup and Bats of the Timm verse is most likely the best example that you describe.
Batman is always on the edge and panics less and better stays away from falling while Sups is soo far from it, he can barely handle being pushed and overreacts, like when ever Darkseid is involved he'll take what ever opportunity he can to end him. But Batman resists to a fault even when Joker goes nuts.

 

[CaitSeith]

Because Batman used to kill in his movies. Check the Batman movie from Tim Burton and you'll see.

 

[SweetShark]

Because I want to be as much simplistic as possible, here is my answer:

There are no witnesses.
So Batman never killed someone to the eyes of the public.

 

[Super Cyborg]

This year I finally saw all three of the Batman movies, and I didn't care for it overall. It was really jarring when he just Rhas A Gul (don't know how to spell his name) die. No Batman, you could've easily saved him, but you let him die. You contradicted your rule you stated when training, about not killing, because as you stated "the only difference between us and them is that we don't kill". While the third was the worst, I kind of like it the best because it actually entertained me more than the other two.

As for Superman, I haven't seen the movie myself, but I heard it was the writing more than the fact it happened, but it might be both for me. I've never liked Super Man, and having watched the Justice League and Young Justice shows in the past year, he seems to be a character that can't be written consistently power wise. The whole super powered, nigh invincible boy scout that can do no wrong, or else he goes completely evil always rubbed me the wrong way. The only time I could stand Superman was in Young Justice, only because he was there to give Super Boy's story, which is so much more interesting.

I won't go any further, as the rant I could go on would be massive, and would be way off topic. Basically, don't care for the Batman movies, and I will never watch a Super Man movie, because he is never interesting to me, even in movies people claim he is interesting in.

 

[happyninja42]

I dunno, I have personal issues with the No Kill Hero thing that is in place for Superman and Batman. I find it increasingly irrational and unrealistic, and that it frequently causes more problems than it solves. They seem to stand on it because of some fear that otherwise they will be considered bad guys/tyrants.

To me, the most annoying aspect is that Superman and Batman often don't seem to struggle with their morals (granted, this depends on which iteration of them you are talking about). I'd rather have heroes that felt like they actually struggled with that kind of decision, even if they ultimately come to the same conclusion. I actually gives a chance to explore the thought process rather than just quickly saying, "Stare not into the abyss...Oh, and don't mind all the carnage they keep creating."

But, anyways, there are some clear business decisions behind it. It allows them to keep using the same villains, which cuts down on workload and keeps a sense of familiarity, and it also doesn't run the risk of alienating the younger audience because their parents won't approve of a hero that snaps people in half. I just sort of wish that they'd find a better way of merging it with the business decision more often.

Oh I know, and I've stated as much in other threads on this subject. I get it from the marketing standpoint, in that you need the recurring villains that fans know and love to maintain a reader base. I get it, really. But it doesn't change the fact that this creates an ever increasing problem (in my eyes anyway), in the narrative of the story.

And just to make it clear, I don't have a problem with the heroes making the choice to not kill, I personally am a pacifist, and hate violence and conflict. But for me personally, I don't limit myself to never killing someone, because some situation might arise where I have to make that choice, and I'm personally fine with that possibility. I will live my life as best I can, without harming anyone, but I reserve the right to use lethal force to save myself, someone I love, or to prevent someone else from causing further destruction/harm to innocents around me. And to handicap heroes with this Absolute Rule that "X never kills people", really irks me. Especially when you consider the threats they are going up against are sometimes cosmic threats that could literally obliterate our planet.

My personal view on it has always been, people like Superman, using kid gloves against vanilla threats (thugs, bank robbers, mugers, etc) is pretty reasonable. To him, it's like a box of puppies growling at him, and tugging on his shoelaces. There is no need to stomp them to death to prevent them from causing harm. But when the threat is something exponentially greater, then the forms of dealing with them should scale as well.

 

[RavingSturm]

I think Nolan tried to make as realistic of a character as he could, considering the template of "Emotionally unstable 1% Rich Guy decides to put on a costume and be a vigilante" It's inherently silly if you actually think about it.

Actually, it's funny you should say that, because that's exactly what was going through Christian Bale's head, when he was auctioning for the part. It was actually what lead him to use that silly voice. Here's the interview where he explains it:

It's not a youtube video, and I have no idea how or if it's even possible to embed this over here, so a link will have to do. [http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:uma:video:mtv.com:980017/cp~vid%3D980017%26uri%3Dmgid%3Auma%3Avideo%3Amtv.com%3A980017]

ChrisB's pretty much on the dot. You'd have to be crazy to walk around in batsuit. The 80's Batman's was hinted at being crazy more than once. This is why the Burton Batman worked well for me. Michael Keaton was good at playing the psychotic Batman. The Nolan movies tried to make it about being this symbol thing and some of the results are pretty awkward in some parts like when Batman lectures Joker about people willing to believe in good or telling Catwoman no killing explicitly. These scenes were just heavy handed, hammy and awful to watch.

 

[RavingSturm]

I dunno, I have personal issues with the No Kill Hero thing that is in place for Superman and Batman. I find it increasingly irrational and unrealistic, and that it frequently causes more problems than it solves. They seem to stand on it because of some fear that otherwise they will be considered bad guys/tyrants.

To me, the most annoying aspect is that Superman and Batman often don't seem to struggle with their morals (granted, this depends on which iteration of them you are talking about). I'd rather have heroes that felt like they actually struggled with that kind of decision, even if they ultimately come to the same conclusion. I actually gives a chance to explore the thought process rather than just quickly saying, "Stare not into the abyss...Oh, and don't mind all the carnage they keep creating."

But, anyways, there are some clear business decisions behind it. It allows them to keep using the same villains, which cuts down on workload and keeps a sense of familiarity, and it also doesn't run the risk of alienating the younger audience because their parents won't approve of a hero that snaps people in half. I just sort of wish that they'd find a better way of merging it with the business decision more often.

Oh I know, and I've stated as much in other threads on this subject. I get it from the marketing standpoint, in that you need the recurring villains that fans know and love to maintain a reader base. I get it, really. But it doesn't change the fact that this creates an ever increasing problem (in my eyes anyway), in the narrative of the story.

And just to make it clear, I don't have a problem with the heroes making the choice to not kill, I personally am a pacifist, and hate violence and conflict. But for me personally, I don't limit myself to never killing someone, because some situation might arise where I have to make that choice, and I'm personally fine with that possibility. I will live my life as best I can, without harming anyone, but I reserve the right to use lethal force to save myself, someone I love, or to prevent someone else from causing further destruction/harm to innocents around me. And to handicap heroes with this Absolute Rule that "X never kills people", really irks me. Especially when you consider the threats they are going up against are sometimes cosmic threats that could literally obliterate our planet.

My personal view on it has always been, people like Superman, using kid gloves against vanilla threats (thugs, bank robbers, mugers, etc) is pretty reasonable. To him, it's like a box of puppies growling at him, and tugging on his shoelaces. There is no need to stomp them to death to prevent them from causing harm. But when the threat is something exponentially greater, then the forms of dealing with them should scale as well.

The no killing thing is a throwback to the old CCA and a reaction to all those murderous anti-heroes who popped up in the 90's imho.

 

[bluepotatosack]

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.

Actually, Batman does have a self-imposed no killing rule. Superman does not. There was actually a recent Adventures of Superman issue where it showed Joker going to Metropolis to meet big red for the first time. Joker planted bombs all over the city, Supes kept him talking long enough, accusing Superman of being vague and such, so he could locate them all. Then he just collected them and brought them back to Joker daring him to set them off. He calmly told Joker it would only kill himself as grabbing any falling debris would be a simple matter for Superman. Joker balked at this, trying to tell him that Superman doesn't kill people. Superman's response was pretty badass to be honest.

"Batman doesn't kill people. I just generally don't. Like you said, I'm vague."

 

[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.

Actually, Batman does have a self-imposed no killing rule. Superman does not. There was actually a recent Adventures of Superman issue where it showed Joker going to Metropolis to meet big red for the first time. Joker planted bombs all over the city, Supes kept him talking long enough, accusing Superman of being vague and such, so he could locate them all. Then he just collected them and brought them back to Joker daring him to set them off. He calmly told Joker it would only kill himself as grabbing any falling debris would be a simple matter for Superman. Joker balked at this, trying to tell him that Superman doesn't kill people. Superman's response was pretty badass to be honest.

"Batman doesn't kill people. I just generally don't. Like you said, I'm vague."

Superman could be bullshitting there. Both Superman and Batman have plenty of scenarios where they imply they will kill to intimidate and coerce, just they don't mention their threats are hollow. What are people supposed to think when Batman dangles baddies off the sides of buildings?