Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[The Dark Knight]

Bruce doesn't know about her issue with the ice princess thing.

Of course he does. Catwoman drops down from the ceiling, fights Batman and drags the Princess to the rooftop.

By all estimations, she was actively complicit in her death and even mocks his failure to save her.

As I said, context matters. She was clearly involved in a kidnapping plot that became something she didn't intend.

He has no reason to think she hasn't already crossed that line.

Blowing up a department store is a big deal, don't you think?

Bruce had trust in Selina in TDKR because he had to. He had no other choice. He wasn't in love with her there. It wasn't choice based on love. It was a tactical decision to use someone who can help and counted on her desire to save herself, at least.

Sure. But he still ends up retiring with this woman and gives her his mother's necklace. He absolutely had feelings for her.

In this it's as simple as he tries to help someone who was complicit in the murder of civilian woman for no reason other than revenge against him.

Wait, didn't you say 'Bruce doesn't know about her issue with the ice princess thing' in this same post?

he's still a hypocrite by the same logic of saying that TDKT Batman is a hypocrite for telling Selina no guns, no killing and that he won't execute, but has killed.

Batman didn't want her to become what he is. I also see it as Bruce reclaiming a sense of 'pure justice' in that moment. By taking off his mask and revealing himself to Max and Selina, he essentially decided to retire. Crimefighting is no longer his burden. As he says, "Let's just take him to the police. Then we can go home, together."

[Dagenspear]

Bruce doesn't know about her issue with the ice princess thing.

Of course he does. Catwoman drops down from the ceiling, fights Batman and drags the Princess to the rooftop.

By all estimations, she was actively complicit in her death and even mocks his failure to save her.

As I said, context matters. She was clearly involved in a kidnapping plot that became something she didn't intend.

He has no reason to think she hasn't already crossed that line.

Blowing up a department store is a big deal, don't you think?

Bruce had trust in Selina in TDKR because he had to. He had no other choice. He wasn't in love with her there. It wasn't choice based on love. It was a tactical decision to use someone who can help and counted on her desire to save herself, at least.

Sure. But he still ends up retiring with this woman and gives her his mother's necklace. He absolutely had feelings for her.

In this it's as simple as he tries to help someone who was complicit in the murder of civilian woman for no reason other than revenge against him.

Wait, didn't you say 'Bruce doesn't know about her issue with the ice princess thing' in this same post?

he's still a hypocrite by the same logic of saying that TDKT Batman is a hypocrite for telling Selina no guns, no killing and that he won't execute, but has killed.

Batman didn't want her to become what he is. I also see it as Bruce reclaiming a sense of 'pure justice' in that moment. By taking off his mask and revealing himself to Max and Selina, he essentially decided to retire. Crimefighting is no longer his burden. As he says, "Let's just take him to the police. Then we can go home, together."

I said her issue, which I mean that the issue she took against Penguin for what he did. Bruce thinks she was apart of getting her killed.

I'm not talking about Selina. Bruce, with the info he has, has seen that she was apart of the plan to kill the ice princess and that she has no remorse for it based on her mocking his failure to save her.

I think you misunderstood my statement.

But those feelings don't matter, even if he had them. It was about how she was needed for his plan. Maybe he liked her, but that doesn't matter. She was apart of his plan, not of romantic interest in that situation.

See above.

That doesn't change anything. It's all the same. We can use context for many situations for TDKT too, but that isn't looked for by some members here. The same principles apply to both. It's hypocrisy, no matter what, by the same measures you provide. Worse than that, with that statement, he's allowing an accomplice to murder and someone who blew up a building to go free. A contradiction of previous actions against criminals. Feelings or not, it's no different. In TDKR Batman tells Selina no guns, no killing and the context of that is that there's no reason for it. The context of every kill in TDKT is that Bruce is faced with situations that killing someone is a consequence of saving someone or even the city. The Laughing Fish would then likely take issue with Batman not killing the Joker, but the context of that situation is that he was never in a position where killing the Joker was a consequence of saving someone or the city. And like was said, this Batman has stated an issue against himself being an executioner. I can sit here and tell you what I think the context of the scenes in BR are, but if for one context is ignored, the same applies to BR. I think that the context is that Bruce has seen what obsession with revenge has done to Selina and sees the reflection of himself in her and what he's done and could become in her and tries to save himself from that by saving her. But he can't. Hence his melancholy attitude at the end. He's lost and has no promise for his future, thinking of himself as just as bad as Selina was. In Batman Forever he's given up on being Batman and that's why. But again, this is the context of the situation as I see it. Same with TDKT. So, does context matter or not? Different rules can't be given for one than for the other. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

I'm not talking about Selina. Bruce, with the info he has, has seen that she was apart of the plan to kill the ice princess and that she has no remorse for it based on her mocking his failure to save her.

Yes. And I'm saying his love for Selina outweighed any negative behavior she was involved in.

But those feelings don't matter, even if he had them. It was about how she was needed for his plan. Maybe he liked her, but that doesn't matter. She was apart of his plan, not of romantic interest in that situation.

Nonetheless, he forgave her involvement in the criminality that very nearly killed him. His feelings about her did matter.

It's hypocrisy, no matter what, by the same measures you provide.

Batman taking a step back to assess his past behavior gives the scene a different context. He's deciding to hang up his cowl right then and there with an all or nothing gamble to woo Selina. That's my stance. He's either saying what he needs to say, or he can finally see he lost his way.

[Dagenspear]

I'm not talking about Selina. Bruce, with the info he has, has seen that she was apart of the plan to kill the ice princess and that she has no remorse for it based on her mocking his failure to save her.

Yes. And I'm saying his love for Selina outweighed any negative behavior she was involved in.

But those feelings don't matter, even if he had them. It was about how she was needed for his plan. Maybe he liked her, but that doesn't matter. She was apart of his plan, not of romantic interest in that situation.

Nonetheless, he forgave her involvement in the criminality that very nearly killed him. His feelings about her did matter.

It's hypocrisy, no matter what, by the same measures you provide.

Batman taking a step back to assess his past behavior gives the scene a different context. He's deciding to hang up his cowl right then and there with an all or nothing gamble to woo Selina. That's my stance. He's either saying what he needs to say, or he can finally see he lost his way.

That just makes him a worse hero than Baleman is claimed to be and still a hypocrite, by the measures you provide. I don't take to that. He didn't love her. His feelings were based on his desire to save her and thus save himself, as I see it.

His feelings meant nothing to the situation. He had a perception of her that she had more to her, but that wasn't based on his feelings. It was based on his analysis of her as a person. She was the most useful tool and he counted on her wanting to save herself.

There's context matters in TDKT too, but yet he's viewed negatively, while BR Bruce isn't. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Dark Knight]

That just makes him a worse hero than Baleman is claimed to be and still a hypocrite

Nah. Baleman is incompetent and kills when he doesn't intend to. That's not the case with Keaton.

He didn't love her. His feelings were based on his desire to save her and thus save himself, as I see it.

It's both, as I see it.

His feelings meant nothing to the situation. He had a perception of her that she had more to her, but that wasn't based on his feelings. It was based on his analysis of her as a person. She was the most useful tool and he counted on her wanting to save herself.

....and he had strong feelings for her too.

There's context matters in TDKT too, but yet he's viewed negatively, while BR Bruce isn't.

Keaton's Batman is at the end of the line when he appeals to Selina. He's reflecting on what he's done. Bale's Batman is in the middle of an ongoing career when he's breaking the 'one rule' he proclaims to have.

[Dagenspear]

Nah. Baleman is incompetent and kills when he doesn't intend to. That's not the case with Keaton.

It's both, as I see it.

....and he had strong feelings for her too.

Keaton's Batman is at the end of the line when he appeals to Selina. He's reflecting on what he's done. Bale's Batman is in the middle of an ongoing career when he's breaking the 'one rule' he proclaims to have.

And by this measure, Batkeaton is a poor hero whose willing to let an accomplice to the murder of a civilian woman get off scot free because he likes her. If Baleman is that by your measure, I'll take that in him killing criminals as a consequence of trying to save people unintentionally over letting an accomplice to the murder of a civilian woman get off scot free. If we're using this logic. Which I'd rather not.

It can't be. He barely knows her. He can't love her really. Bruce even says in Batman Forever that he's never been in love before.

He barely knew her. He doesn't have strong feelings for her. Feelings, maybe, but not strong ones. But those didn't matter in his decision.

His one rule is against execution as he states it. And the context is still there. If one is wrong, then by the same measure, so is the other.

[The Dark Knight]

And by this measure, Batkeaton is a poor hero whose willing to let an accomplice to the murder of a civilian woman get off scot free because he likes her. If Baleman is that by your measure, I'll take that in him killing criminals as a consequence of trying to save people unintentionally over letting an accomplice to the murder of a civilian woman get off scot free. If we're using this logic. Which I'd rather not.

Keaton's Batman never professed to be perfect or have a moral code, unlike the holier than thou Nolan version. Incidentally, Baleman, along with Gordon, are liars and TDK Rises makes a point of it. And while we're at it, Baleman was willing to let Selina, a criminal, clear her criminal record via the Clean Slate USB which he provided.

It can't be. He barely knows her. He can't love her really. Bruce even says in Batman Forever that he's never been in love before.

He knows her more than Baleman knows Nolanverse Selina, that's for sure.

He barely knew her. He doesn't have strong feelings for her. Feelings, maybe, but not strong ones. But those didn't matter in his decision.

You're right - he barely knew her. They shared only a couple of scenes together. And yet he gives her his mother's necklace and retires with her. Go ahead and say he doesn't have strong feelings for her, but the final scene of the film proves you wrong.

His one rule is against execution as he states it.

This whole killing/execution technicality is a mess.

[The Laughing Fish]

And by this measure, Batkeaton is a poor hero whose willing to let an accomplice to the murder of a civilian woman get off scot free because he likes her. If Baleman is that by your measure, I'll take that in him killing criminals as a consequence of trying to save people unintentionally over letting an accomplice to the murder of a civilian woman get off scot free. If we're using this logic. Which I'd rather not.

Dagenspear, you're not being honest here. A while ago, I shared my opinion about the "Wrong on both counts" line in another thread, and this was your reply:

Me and Max? No, this and Max.

Ah yes. The ballroom party scene.

I had a debate with somebody on this forum who argued that this scene demonstrates how hypocritical Bruce is because he asks Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?", despite the fact that he's a lethal guardian of the entire city. In my opinion, I always perceived this scene as Bruce playing the clueless facade. He's aware that Max did something to Selina, but he can't begin to investigate what happened, and since her erratic mood came by surprise, he's trying to make sure that Selina doesn't get anybody else's attention at the party. But I still think his "Wrong at both counts!" line in the end is hypocritical. Forget about the fact that he kills, Batman is shown to be above the law just by being a crimefighter alone.

I disagree. Selina in Batman Returns reflects Bruce's obsession with revenge how it can ultimately lead to self-destruction, mentally. That moment is a realization, I believe, of him connecting the dots of just how similar they are, which is where he gets to the point where he tells her later that they're the same. He tries to save her from herself at the end of the day, but realizes that he can't after she ultimately chooses vengeance over a life of some kind. This is what leads him into the tired of being Batman and how he's alone because of it attitude that he's in in Batman Forever. It's because he's witnessed his own self-destruction through Selina. It's pretty interesting really. Selina also doesn't say they're above the law. She says the law doesn't apply them. It's a nice moment where Bruce, having realized via Selina, sees just how off the rails he's gone, and tells her that that's wrong. He's trying to course correct, by saving them both. But she rejects it. Which, again, leads to where he's at in Batman Forever.

Source: http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3055.msg43647#msg43647

As you can see for yourself, you wrote that Keaton's Batman had reflected his own self-destructive desire for vengeance and tried to save Catwoman from going down the same path as he did. So I find your unfavourable comparison with Bale's Batman to be quite disingenious.*

Also, you're doing yourself a huge disservice by now suggesting Bale's Batman never had a no-kill rule. I'll post you the full transcript of what the Nolans and David Goyer were talking about in the official screenplay book:

Jonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

David Goyer: Well, in the first, it's a kind of yes and no, I think you're referring to Ra's al Ghul, when Batman says, 'I won't kill you, but I won't save you'.

Christopher Nolan: Yeah, he gets by on a technicality with that one.

Jonathan Nolan: He does, but I remember calling you up at one point - I think you'd already shot the scene - and I said, 'You know what, I'm not sure...I'm not so sure about that one.' What I loved about that in the fullness of three films, is that it looks like there's an evolution, as you were saying.

Christopher Nolan: I didn't know Batman didn't kill people when I signed on for the project. It was David [Goyer] who broke that news. And I was like, 'How do you make that work?' I said to the MPAA on The Dark Knight: 'Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a contemporary action film where the protagonist doesn't carry a gun? Doesn't kill people?' But I think that's an important part of why he's a mythic figure, rather than just a conventional action protagonist. It's actually a very important reason why I've stayed interested for so long in his story, because you have to deal with somebody wrestling that it seems important to wrestle with. So there is great stock placed in life in the way there is in real life.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

This proves two things:

1) The creators did emphasise that Batman did have a no-kill rule - and broke it - in their trilogy, and you're wrong to argue otherwise.
2) The creators themselves are inconsistent with what they say. It's quite dubious of Nolan to suggest Batman got away on a technicality of killing Ra's al Ghul, when in Rises he has Batman justifies that killing him was necessary to save millions of innocent people. Nolan and Goyer's answer in the screenplay book is just not an intellectually honest answer, and it completely bypasses the lapse in logic of why I started this thread: if killing maniacs like Ra's, Talia and Two-Face is unavoidable and even necessary, then why didn't he apply the same course of action against the Joker? What was the whole point of that whole bogus moral conflict in TDK if it accomplished nothing but putting Gotham City in harm's way? Where the hell was the evolution to the change in Batman's character, when none of the films show us not even one scene where the deaths of his enemies affect him? If you argue that he didn't mean to do it, that's a complete and utter cop-out, and you'll only unintentionally make him look like a sociopath. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your argument makes no sense at all if you keep insisting on this.

If you argue that the Nolans' quotes were a mistake and Batman justifying to kill Ra's is a flaw which affects TDKR, you're not helping Christopher Nolan's cause because as the writer and director of these movies, he should be aware of following his logic straight. If he can't do that, then he's a terrible writer, as are his brother and David Goyer.

I shouldn't even have to write this, considering the movies emphasised Batman doesn't kill, despite his actions. If the writers themselves acknowledging that Batman referred to having a no-kill rule - let alone acknowledged him breaking it - isn't enough to dissuade you, then I pity you.

Take care, and look after yourself.

EDIT: I meant to say disingenious instead of ingenious. Damn me and my typos. 

[johnnygobbs]

I've noticed some discussion of the Ice Princess here.  Can some of the defenders of Batman Returns please reassure me about Batman excusing Catwoman's complicity in her death simply because he loved her, which is Dagenspear's argument?  I don't want to agree with Dagenspear, but I'd like to hear more robust arguments than "Batman excused Catwoman helping Oswald kill the Ice Princess because he was in love".  A real hero wouldn't do that, unless he somehow thought the Ice Princess deserved her fate or was a lesser human. [giveup]

Thank you.

[Dagenspear]

Keaton's Batman never professed to be perfect or have a moral code, unlike the holier than thou Nolan version. Incidentally, Baleman, along with Gordon, are liars and TDK Rises makes a point of it. And while we're at it, Baleman was willing to let Selina, a criminal, clear her criminal record via the Clean Slate USB which he provided.

In that scene he prefesses to have a stronger moral code than he has and takes on a similar holier than thou approach. Exactly right for Baleman and Oldordon and the movie knows that. BR doesn't, by your logic. Yes, he was willing to let Selina go after she helped stop a nuclear bomb from destroying the city. Not saying it's right, but has more going for it than living happily ever after with an accomplice to a civilian murder, while also stating that they're wrong for saying that the law applies to them both.

He knows her more than Baleman knows Nolanverse Selina, that's for sure.

Not really. Bruce has done his research on her in TDKR. He knows just as much, if not more, than BR Bruce knows about Selina. I think in that movie even Selina knows more about him than he does her.

You're right - he barely knew her. They shared only a couple of scenes together. And yet he gives her his mother's necklace and retires with her. Go ahead and say he doesn't have strong feelings for her, but the final scene of the film proves you wrong.

The finale scene of the film is a time a jump. Call it what you want, but it's not a single date and oh let's live happily ever after after we made out once and I told you about my ex.

This whole killing/execution technicality is a mess.

It's what the movie has Batman say.
[/quote]

And by this measure, Batkeaton is a poor hero whose willing to let an accomplice to the murder of a civilian woman get off scot free because he likes her. If Baleman is that by your measure, I'll take that in him killing criminals as a consequence of trying to save people unintentionally over letting an accomplice to the murder of a civilian woman get off scot free. If we're using this logic. Which I'd rather not.

Dagenspear, you're not being honest here. A while ago, I shared my opinion about the "Wrong on both counts" line in another thread, and this was your reply:

Me and Max? No, this and Max.

Ah yes. The ballroom party scene.

I had a debate with somebody on this forum who argued that this scene demonstrates how hypocritical Bruce is because he asks Selina "Who the hell do you think you are?", despite the fact that he's a lethal guardian of the entire city. In my opinion, I always perceived this scene as Bruce playing the clueless facade. He's aware that Max did something to Selina, but he can't begin to investigate what happened, and since her erratic mood came by surprise, he's trying to make sure that Selina doesn't get anybody else's attention at the party. But I still think his "Wrong at both counts!" line in the end is hypocritical. Forget about the fact that he kills, Batman is shown to be above the law just by being a crimefighter alone.

I disagree. Selina in Batman Returns reflects Bruce's obsession with revenge how it can ultimately lead to self-destruction, mentally. That moment is a realization, I believe, of him connecting the dots of just how similar they are, which is where he gets to the point where he tells her later that they're the same. He tries to save her from herself at the end of the day, but realizes that he can't after she ultimately chooses vengeance over a life of some kind. This is what leads him into the tired of being Batman and how he's alone because of it attitude that he's in in Batman Forever. It's because he's witnessed his own self-destruction through Selina. It's pretty interesting really. Selina also doesn't say they're above the law. She says the law doesn't apply them. It's a nice moment where Bruce, having realized via Selina, sees just how off the rails he's gone, and tells her that that's wrong. He's trying to course correct, by saving them both. But she rejects it. Which, again, leads to where he's at in Batman Forever.

Source: http://www.batman-online.com/forum/index.php?topic=3055.msg43647#msg43647

As you can see for yourself, you wrote that Keaton's Batman had reflected his own self-destructive desire for vengeance and tried to save Catwoman from going down the same path as he did. So I find your unfavourable comparison with Bale's Batman to be quite ingenious.

I still very much perceive it that way. I'm using this individuals logic here in this view. My point is that if the perception is one way for one it should be the same for the other. But I still very much see it the way I typed it there.

Also, you're doing yourself a huge disservice by now suggesting Bale's Batman never had a no-kill rule. I'll post you the full transcript of what the Nolans and David Goyer were talking about in the official screenplay book:

Jonathan Nolan: He [Batman] has this one rule, as the Joker says in The Dark Knight. But he does wind up breaking it. Does he break it in the third film?

Christopher Nolan: He breaks it in...

Jonathan Nolan: ...the first two.

David Goyer: Well, in the first, it's a kind of yes and no, I think you're referring to Ra's al Ghul, when Batman says, 'I won't kill you, but I won't save you'.

Christopher Nolan: Yeah, he gets by on a technicality with that one.

Jonathan Nolan: He does, but I remember calling you up at one point - I think you'd already shot the scene - and I said, 'You know what, I'm not sure...I'm not so sure about that one.' What I loved about that in the fullness of three films, is that it looks like there's an evolution, as you were saying.

Christopher Nolan: I didn't know Batman didn't kill people when I signed on for the project. It was David [Goyer] who broke that news. And I was like, 'How do you make that work?' I said to the MPAA on The Dark Knight: 'Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a contemporary action film where the protagonist doesn't carry a gun? Doesn't kill people?' But I think that's an important part of why he's a mythic figure, rather than just a conventional action protagonist. It's actually a very important reason why I've stayed interested for so long in his story, because you have to deal with somebody wrestling that it seems important to wrestle with. So there is great stock placed in life in the way there is in real life.

Source: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&pg=PR8&dq=But+he+does+wind+up+breaking+it.&hl=en&sa=X&ei

This proves two things:

1) The creators did emphasise that Batman did have a no-kill rule - and broke it - in their trilogy, and you're wrong to argue otherwise.
2) The creators themselves are inconsistent with what they say. It's quite dubious of Nolan to suggest Batman got away on a technicality of killing Ra's al Ghul, when in Rises he has Batman justifies that killing him was necessary to save millions of innocent people. Nolan and Goyer's answer in the screenplay book is just not an intellectually honest answer, and it completely bypasses the lapse in logic of why I started this thread: if killing maniacs like Ra's, Talia and Two-Face is unavoidable and even necessary, then why didn't he apply the same course of action against the Joker? What was the whole point of that whole bogus moral conflict in TDK if it accomplished nothing but putting Gotham City in harm's way? Where the hell was the evolution to the change in Batman's character, when none of the films show us not even one scene where the deaths of his enemies affect him? If you argue that he didn't mean to do it, that's a complete and utter cop-out, and you'll only unintentionally make him look like a sociopath. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Your argument makes no sense at all if you keep insisting on this.

If you argue that the Nolans' quotes were a mistake and Batman justifying to kill Ra's is a flaw which affects TDKR, you're not helping Christopher Nolan's cause because as the writer and director of these movies, he should be aware of following his logic straight. If he can't do that, then he's a terrible writer, as are his brother and David Goyer.

I shouldn't even have to write this, considering the movies emphasised Batman doesn't kill, despite his actions. If the writers themselves acknowledging that Batman referred to having a no-kill rule - let alone acknowledged him breaking it - isn't enough to dissuade you, then I pity you.

Take care, and look after yourself.

Christopher's Nolan's wrong. That isn't in the movie at all. His view doesn't matter if it's not reflected in the movie itself. Bruce's rule is stated by himself to be against being an executioner. I've thought otherwise myself, but I was wrong too then. Nolan doesn't get to say otherwise. Maybe this makes him not a very good filmmaker, I don't care. It doesn't change the movie that's made. That is consistent, even if the director isn't. I don't care about helping Nolan. I've seen most of his movies and I only really legitimately liked TDKT and Inception. Defending his filmmaking abiities doesn't interest me.

Batman in TDK was never in a position where killing Joker was a consequence of saving people. The situation has never been the same in any of the movies where he has killed someone. But even if his rule was about being against killing that wouldn't change the fact that a rule being broken doesn't negate the rule. And again, even if that were true, then it still doesn't apply to the Joker situation, because he was never in the same position to accidentally kill him or get him killed. You have no argument there.

Thank you very much.