Do Bat-fans actually like Batman, or do they actually want Az-Bat/BatPunisher?

[Erttheking]

I think people just want a less band aid solution to the Joker and other Batman villains. They keep escaping prison, keep killing, and Batman just keeps putting Joker back in Arkam Asylum despite it apparently having more holes than swiss cheese. The death penalty apparently doesn't exist in the D.C. Universe, which makes it absurd that Batman just won't snap his neck. For fuck's sake, with everything the Joker does he could do it at random during his hijinks and there's a 50% chance he'd be able to get off on a self defense plea.

The problem is just that the Joker will never stop killing and killing is presented as the ONLY way to really stop him. And since no one else seems to be physically capable of doing it, some people just want Batman to get it over with already. Or at the very least STOP CONSTANTLY SAVING HIM! Christ, Bats is probably better at saving the Joker than he is his own friends and family.

 

[Lightknight]

Batman is one of the few DC heroes where it makes sense for him to be dark and brooding. Those are primary qualities of his. I think also needs to be willing to kill but moreso out of a necessity rather than laziness or ease of doing so. Being capable of murder and yet not doing so is supposed to be Superman's role and the movies sure f'd that one up.

 

[IOwnTheSpire]

Being capable of murder and yet not doing so is supposed to be Superman's role and the movies sure f'd that one up.

But Superman has yet to murder someone in these new films. Zod wasn't murder, Doomsday wasn't murder, anyone who died during the fights he was involved with wasn't murder.

 

[Lightknight]

Being capable of murder and yet not doing so is supposed to be Superman's role and the movies sure f'd that one up.

But Superman has yet to murder someone in these new films. Zod wasn't murder, Doomsday wasn't murder, anyone who died during the fights he was involved with wasn't murder.

In this context we're talking about killing and not murder. Superheroes don't murder people regardless. They just kill or unintentionally manslaughter them.

Antiheroes murder though. They may do all kinds of illegal stuff but generally for good reasons albeit flawed execution.

 

[FPLOON]

I prefer detective Batman who could handle himself in a fight if it ever came down to it... Then again, I also prefer the voice of Kevin and/or Adam as Batman, so my mileage may vary once the 60's, 90's, and/or other specific adaptation come along...

Other than that, I still don't understand why people want the Joker to die... You can't kill a metaphorical entity constantly personified...

 

[Lightknight]

Other than that, I still don't understand why people want the Joker to die... You can't kill a metaphorical entity constantly personified...

Until DC ruins that by revealing an actual identity.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Wasn't the point of the Bat to have someone bring hope to Gotham

When was this? I've been reading comics since before Crisis on Infinite Earths came out and this hasn't been Batman's mission statement since the 70s. Superman is the one who is supposed to show us the better way and give us hope for a better world. Batman is supposed to be the one to bring fear and ass-kickings to the criminal scum.

I've seen fans who preferred Batman kill the criminal scum of Gotham.

Well, maybe Batman has to evolve. On a macro-scale, Wayne Enterprises is supposed to be this huge international conglomerate of wealth and influence.....yet Gotham is still a slum with a police force so incompetent that their commissioner recently took a turn as Batman instead of actually trying to make to police department better. I would like to see a more creative Batman who tried methods other than "punch them in the face"

On a micro-scale, this sums up a lot of the arguments.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kscfb9XzPs

This is the problem that Batman faces with killing. The Joker's killcount qualifies him for genocide. Most of the people (like Jason Todd) who say Batman should kill aren't talking about the Riddler or the Penguin. They're talking about the Joker. They're reading about a city that just can't keep their villains behind bars and one of those villains nerve-gases preschools. At what point does Batman's moral code stop taking precedence over someone's life? If Batman isn't willing to improve the city or fortify Arkham or stop the worst killers on the planet, is he really protecting anybody or is he just going through the motions?

One last example: In the Maximum Garbage storyline, Spider-Man stops a cop from shooting a temporarily weakened Carnage. Carnage recovers and then starts slaughtering people again. Do you think Spider-Man's moral decision was a comfort to everybody Carnage killed? Does Spider-man share a portion of responsibility for all of those Carnage killed because he wasn't willing to let a cop gun Carnage down?



For me, this is why I mostly avoid superhero comics now. All they really are is a puddle-deep Michael-Bay fest where costumed goofs wreck property and punch each other (and, since 2000, the "heroes" fight each other as much as they do the villains). In the end, I think people want Batman to kill because people who write superhero comics aren't capable of coming up with better story ideas. Besides, in a universe where death is a minor inconvenience, it's not like killing has any real gravitas anymore.

 

[Synigma]

I grew up watching the Animated Series and have always held that as the gold standard for Batman, so take that for what it's worth.

I have no real interest in seeing this BvS but honestly that has more to do with their version Supes than Batman. Everyone is dancing around it but let's just put it out there: The ultra-dark, violent Batman only works if Robin and/or Batgirl are dead, Joker killed them and Batman has gone crazy (and probably killed the Joker). Which lets be honest also means the Joker won. Apparently the Wayne Mansion is in ruins in the movie (again, I haven't seen BvS) which would be a huge metaphor that lends credence to this.

That's why my interest is piqued in Suicide Squad and the Joker's role in that movie. Honestly I think Suicide Squad will either bring much needed understanding to this Batman (and BvS) or it'll be the breaking point for the DC universe.

 

[Glongpre]

I think people just want a more layered Batman, a more conflicted, dare I say, mature Batman. A Batman that is shown to deal with some heavy themes.

I watched the animated comic shows in the 90's and 2000's, and they always stuck to the tried and true superhero being better than the villains by not killing. Every time. The themes were always the same (I could be wrong though, but this has always been what I got from them).

I really like when movies tread into the darker territories because it allows them to reach into themes that I haven't seen. Batman killing people? That is new and interesting to me. But I could see how purists would be furious at such a drastic change of character.
I enjoyed Nolan's Batman because it was more realistic, it made it seem more relatable(giving me an error, isn't this a word?) to me.

Maybe as I age, I want something that touches on more philosophical questions, questions that you can't really answer but are interesting to think about, or themes with lots of emotion and grey area.

 

[MCerberus]

People also thought Rorshach was the hero in The Watchmen. Some people are just dumb. I think most bat fans were upset with Batfleck shooting folk.

I'm actually amazed anyone could think anybody in that book would even remotely qualify as being heroic. As for Batfleck, as long as they address the killing in later films, like they say the events of BvS were a reminder of his core values I'm ok with it. But I suspect that would require the writer and director to actually give a shit about their characters.

I think Nite Owl's the closest the book has to the hero, the worst you can say about him is he needs to punch people to get boners... Shit, and he's the best person in that book.

Well there was NO1 who really believed in the cause and never let it turn him into a psychopath. He was rewarded with... oh god those 5 or so pages... and then the kids. As per Rorschach, I don't like how people keep simplifying him to just his behaviors. They want to believe the core of him is that you can "just" do something to get results. Getting into ending here, so

Spoiler

He sticks out to me because of how Rorschach completely took over Kovaks. After... the dog scene, he said it himself. Kovaks died. He was a husk with nothing but a bitter take on his old moral code. His heroic action was telling Manhatten to kill him. For a single second Kovaks came back and knew he couldn't keep Rorschach at bay. His true feelings and motives in his last seconds? Well like his remains on the snow, you'd only be projecting your own meanings on them.

Going back more to the topic, a lot of Bat-fans like me are kind of just tired of this whole argument as a distraction. Why is Batman never The Detective anymore? The emotionally-manipulative analytical man who is just a man. No almost-magic BECAUSE I'M BATMAN. Hell people forgive Keaton for killing because the personality is so dead-on. We just want him to be less about the man-punching. Lots of people can man-punch. Batman does more.

I'd go out on a limb and say The Question has been a better Batman than most Batmen of late.

edit- good example of what really works. Old well, Heart of Ice from TAS. Batman punches some thugs, gets his ass handed to him by Freeze, an inherently ridiculous villain with a Shakespearean back-story. By applying his knowledge of heat-differentials he's able to stop Victor (included, bad one-liner and shit-eating grin) before using the collected evidence to get Mark Hammil arrested and then contemplate the inherent evils of society he's not sure how to fix.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Going back more to the topic, a lot of Bat-fans like me are kind of just tired of this whole argument as a distraction. Why is Batman never The Detective anymore? The emotionally-manipulative analytical man who is just a man. No almost-magic BECAUSE I'M BATMAN. Hell people forgive Keaton for killing because the personality is so dead-on. We just want him to be less about the man-punching. Lots of people can man-punch. Batman does more.

I'd go out on a limb and say The Question has been a better Batman than most Batmen of late.

edit- good example of what really works. Old well, Heart of Ice from TAS. Batman punches some thugs, gets his ass handed to him by Freeze, an inherently ridiculous villain with a Shakespearean back-story. By applying his knowledge of heat-differentials he's able to stop Victor (included, bad one-liner and shit-eating grin) before using the collected evidence to get Mark Hammil arrested and then contemplate the inherent evils of society he's not sure how to fix.

A +1 to you, good sir. I had forgotten that part myself. This is another thing that has been missing from Batman. Ever since Crisis, Batman has become less and less of a detective. They used to devote whole sections of Batman comics to HOW he figures out where the bad guys are and what they're doing. Now, he just kinda crashes through windows and punches people. Sometimes, he'll explain it as he's punching people but it kinda comes out as this weird train of logic that would make the Superfriends Batman blush.

 

[Saltyk]

I am fine with Batman breaking bones and harming criminals. Part of the idea is that criminals are afraid of him. Giving them slaps on the wrists would not make them afraid of him.

However, Batman should not kill. To do that means crossing a line. To become like the man who killed his parents. Batman should not kill. Simply because he needs to be better than that. Better than Joe Chill.

In the same way, Superman should not kill. He is so Over-Powered that the minute he starts killing, all troubles should be over. Lex is dead. Joker is dead. Deathstroke is dead. Every villain on Earth is dead. Think of Injustice.

 

[WonkyWarmaiden]

Look, I grew up watching Batman: The Animated Series so that's the standard I hold all these Batman movies to and none have matched it so far.

When I hear that Bats kills people in BvS I just shake my head in anger because,to me, that should be the one thing that separates Batman from other heroes. The fact that he's surrounded by some of the most dark and twisted minds on the planet yet he refuses to just end them and throws them into prison instead, knowing they'll probably escape eventually and he'll have to do it all over again the next night.

What Batman has become in the movies is not something I can watch. The writers aren't using him to be the World's Greatest Detective or acknowledging that he's almost as mentally unstable as some of his villains and that he sees aspects of himself in them. All the writers want to do is hype up how much of a badass he is and make him punch people because they're too unoriginal to do anything interesting with him.

I hate to say it but I think Daredevil is the best live action Batman we're going to get if DC/WB keeps this terrible interpretation of the character going.

 

[Jux]

People also thought Rorshach was the hero in The Watchmen. Some people are just dumb. I think most bat fans were upset with Batfleck shooting folk.

I was more upset that he was an unthinking goon, completely devoid of the tactical/detective genius that has come to define the character over 70 something years.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

At what point does Batman's moral code stop taking precedence over someone's life?

All that blood on his hands is just more of that brood-fuel he loves so much.

I know not killing is supposed to show that he is better, but would it kill him to break the bag guy's arms and legs, put them in traction for 18 months, maybe even a coma? The civilians would still be alive and his no kill record would be spotless.

 

[Kolby Jack]

After all the dark and gritty, I really want someone to do a Batman movie styles after the sixties TV show. They've gone about as far as they can with serious, so why not go the other way?

To be fair, they ARE doing a Lego Batman Movie. It's no Adam West, but it IS a silly, campy Batman movie.

 

[Joccaren]

I like the dark and gritty tone. The bleakness of the more modern Batman movies and such, and how they seem to take themselves a bit more seriously. As much as the 80s not really serious batman was entertaining, it was also pretty cheesy and awkward sometimes, which doesn't really work as much in modern times.

That said, I prefer Bat as a... Not Pacifist, but a no-kills sort of guy. Whilst you deride the Arkham games for their Brutality, and I can kind of see why with the Brutal fight moves, they've always maintained that Bat just knocks the enemy out, never kills anyone. Hell, in city that was a big point for Bat - in the end, he accidentally kills Joker [More to the point, Joker destroys the cure and Batman ends up the only one that gets cured], and he's really sad and sorry about it, sombrely carrying his corpse out to the crowd outside as if he had failed.

Batman shouldn't be goofy and 80s cringy, not these days. It doesn't really seem appropriate given the zeitgeist these days, but that doesn't mean he has to go around killing and being a horrid vigilante. Anyone who thinks Bats should kill has entirely missed the point. Giving him amazing destructive gadgets and brutal Kung-Fu moves is great, and honestly results in better fight scenes than the old flailing at each other, but the strength of giving them to him is in seeing how he uses them to only save lives, not end them - unlike the villains he faces who use the same tools for evil. And that's an important lesson - not necessarily one I think the movies or games have addressed terribly well recently, but one that the Grimdark Batman approach can still teach - that any tool can be used for good, or bad. Its who you give that tool to and how they use it that matters.

As hinted at above though, the movies do a pretty poor job of doing this, and they often miss the whole greatest detective side of things as well, which is disappointing. In some ways a good Batman movie could almost be done if you got Robert Downey Jnr's Sherlock Holme's movies, set them in Gothem, and turned everyone batshit insane. A cross between those movies and modern Batman movies could actually be interesting, but I doubt we'd see something like that with Hollywood's current directing crop.

 

[Cicada 5]

I love Batman to bits, and I do love it when superheroes get a bit brutal (the Arkham games & the Daredevil series are spot on; the combat is visceral).

Killing is beyond the pale. I consider Az-Bat and Punisher to be hypocrites, and as worth putting down as the other criminals.

Torturing and beating up downed enemies are much more deplorable than killing in defense of one self and others. And considering the brutality of Bruce's fighting style, which could actually result in deaths in real life, Bruce comes across as a hypocrite himself.

 

[Silvanus]

Torturing and beating up downed enemies are much more deplorable than killing in defense of one self and others. And considering the brutality of Bruce's fighting style, which could actually result in deaths in real life, Bruce comes across as a hypocrite himself.

Well, when you say "killing in defence of oneself and others"; Batman will tend to find a way to accomplish the same defence without lethal force. He considers the use of lethal force deplorable when the outcome can be accomplished by other means.

And, though the fighting style and brutality may result in deaths in real life, they haven't done so in the comics. It's part of the suspension of disbelief. We're supposed to believe this is an incredible master of forethought and martial arts, who can reliably do what he does without killing anybody. We're also supposed to believe that the Punisher, despite his overwhelming use of armaments, has never accidentally killed an innocent. Both are... well, unlikely in the real world. So is a giant purple man who eats planets.

 

[Dunc2j]

I have always thought of Batman himself as framing. As much as people seem to want to shit on them these days the Nolan trilogy used this perfectly. Yes the three films tie together but the films themselves can be watched standalone and each carry their own theme.

Begins:Fear (scarecrow, Bruce using his own fear against criminals)
Dark Knight:Anarchy (joker, corrupt cops)
Risesain (Bains mask, Bruce's back etc)

The idea being that as a symbol of hope Batman can help Gotham conquer fear, control anarchy and overcome pain. If batman just started offing criminals left and right the idea of hope goes out the window, at least for me.

With that in mind as some have already stated Batman has and will again go through many interpretations based on the story the writer wants to tell. There is no one fit's all batman, and really that would be boring anyway. I'm totally fine with a more vigilante take on batman on film. It's fresh.