Batman-Online.com

I hope nobody thinks I'm trying to start a flame war, but I need to get this off my chest.

One of the biggest problems I have with Nolan's trilogy is Batman claims to have a moral code against killing people, but then he ends up killing anyway whenever it's convenient to the story. When I first saw BB, I thought it was utterly stupid how Bruce goes from taking a stand against killing someone, but then he blows up the temple a few seconds later which kills almost everyone inside it . And I never bought the argument that Batman was never morally responsible for Ra's al Ghul's death because 1)  Batman planned to derail the train that was carrying Ra's and 2) the last few words Batman says to Ra's implies he had a choice to save him, but he decides to condemn Ra's to his death instead.

And guess what? Batman admits to killing Ra's after all!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p7vDQUnqjs‎ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p7vDQUnqjs‎)

That's right. When Talia confronts him about the death of her father in The Dark Knight Rises, Batman doesn't deny it - he justifies his reasoning for killing Ra's al Ghul because innocent people's lives were at stake.

So here is my question: why the hell couldn't Batman kill the Joker after all this time?! I have no idea what are Batman's morals in these movies; one movie shows him having no problem using lethal force to stop Ra's al Ghul, yet at the end of The Dark Knight we're supposed to believe that he is too 'incorruptible' to kill the Joker!? Even though Joker was far more deranged, deadly and sinister than Ra's ever was? And to make matters worse, Batman kills Two-Face to save Gordon's son five minutes later. Absolute nonsense.

This is yet another reason why I have very little regard for Nolan's movies and I honestly don't understand how anyone can say with a straight face that they are intelligent movies. I find it frustrating that people complain about Burton's Batman and Snyder's Superman for killing villains, yet they ignore Nolan's Batman doing the same thing. For all the faults that Burton's Batman and Man of Steel have, at least those movies' heroes don't refuse to kill one someone, and then suddenly killing someone else moments later. If people still enjoy Nolan's Batman films despite knowing they are far from perfect, then fair enough. I'm in no position to judge them because I enjoy my own share of flawed films too; after all, I'll happily admit that Burton's Batman films aren't perfect either and I thought Man of Steel was decent at best. But having said that, I'm tired of people criticising every little problem other movies have, while continuing to ignore hundreds of plot holes, contradictions and inconsistencies that this trilogy has; let alone insisting it features some of the best films ever made.

Fully agree. Burton's Batman is honest and straight to the point. No contradictions or lame loopholes.

Yes, he did:
Blow up a factory and squad of goons manufacturing chemical weapons;
Machine gun thugs who were firing upon the public, taking over a city with force;
Fire upon The Joker, who orchestrated the gassing plot;
Throw an African goon down a bell shaft in a genuine fight to the death.

I wouldn't make any excuse for any of that behaviour. He truly was a knight protecting his castle, doing what had to be done.

I've debated this so much on other forums like SHH, and you'll have people come up with some of the craziest ways to try and justify it. I always used the Ra's killing as my prime example, in how he set out to derail the train before he even got on it. He even gave Gordon the Tumbler, just so he could blow up the track, cause he knew the train was going to derail. And of course, he says it bluntly in the film, "who said anything about stopping [the train]". But the temple one was always the funniest one, IMO. "I'm no executioner.....so I'll kill you all! HUZZAH!".

I also love how he explicitly says in TDKR, "no guns:never". I guess that's cool, unless you're driving any of the vehicles that he uses, which all have guns, and of course, that helped kill Talia in the truck.  ;D

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 14 Jan  2014, 11:45
Fully agree. Burton's Batman is honest and straight to the point. No contradictions or lame loopholes.

It never bothered me that he killed villains in those movies because at least it was never explored what were his morals beforehand. Sure, it gets a little muddled when he replies "Wrong at both counts" when Catwoman claims the law doesn't apply to both of them in Returns, but at least you can argue that Batman was desperately trying to save Catwoman from herself (having said that, I wished the movie handled Batman reflecting his own ways better). Still, it's not as bad as saying "I won't be an executioner", and then cause the deaths of so many people moments later, not to mention the two other instances we've already covered in TDK and TDKR.

Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 14 Jan  2014, 18:42
I've debated this so much on other forums like SHH, and you'll have people come up with some of the craziest ways to try and justify it. I always used the Ra's killing as my prime example, in how he set out to derail the train before he even got on it. He even gave Gordon the Tumbler, just so he could blow up the track, cause he knew the train was going to derail. And of course, he says it bluntly in the film, "who said anything about stopping [the train]". 

I haven't seen the film in a long time, but here is something that I don't get:  if Gordon destroying the rails means that the train doesn't have a chance to ever reach Wayne Tower, then why does Batman even have to get on the train at all? It doesn't matter if the train's controls get broken, the train won't be going anywhere if the rails are sabotaged. So why does Batman need to distract and fight Ra's in the first place? To make sure he doesn't get out of there alive?

Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 14 Jan  2014, 18:42
But the temple one was always the funniest one, IMO. "I'm no executioner.....so I'll kill you all! HUZZAH!".

You know what I like more? We don't even know if the guy that Bruce refused to kill even survived the explosion! If anything, he should've been the one that Bruce saved from falling off the mountain, not the real Ra's.

Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 14 Jan  2014, 18:42
I also love how he explicitly says in TDKR, "no guns:never". I guess that's cool, unless you're driving any of the vehicles that he uses, which all have guns, and of course, that helped kill Talia in the truck.  ;D

And yet people complain that Batman was eager to kill in B89 and BR, and still act like the one in the trilogy had moral restraint.  Talk about denial. ::)

With the Burton films, Batman's body count isn't an issue. People decide to make it one but overlook the hypocritical nature of Nolan.

As Trav posted, Batman fired point blank at Talia's truck, killing the driver, after saying "no guns, no killing" earlier in the film. Apologists will say he was in a hurry with a nuclear weapon about to go off (yet he had time to kiss Goggle Woman, etc etc). Well, this just further cements lethal force is required in certain situations. Don't shy away from it - Nolan wanted his cake and to eat it too.

I would much rather a Batman that intends to kill, rather than some incompetent hypocrite who accidently blows up a monastery or 'indirectly' breaks a man's neck. And yeah, he killed Ras with his inaction.

Also let's remember, this is a Batman that blows civilian cars away with cannons to clear a path. What a strong moral code Nolan Bat has. When presented with a similiar situation, Keaton's Bat stopped his car, shielded it up and took the fight to the back streets.

It just doesn't bother me that Batman kills in the Burton movies, cause it's not presented to us that this is a Batman with a strict no-killing rule. But with Nolan's, he talks about it so many times, yet, he is constantly killing people. And the justifications that people come up with are mind numbingly stupid.

-Kills Ra's? Naw man, he just didn't save him. It said it in the movie!

-Kills the ninjas in the temple? Dude, that was before he was Batman. And seriously, we didn't see anybody die, so you don't know for sure if he actually killed anybody.

-Kills Two-Face? What was he supposed to do, let Gordon's son die? He had no other options, like using a Batarang to knock the gun out of his hands.

-Kills Talia and her driver? Come on man, the city was about to blow up. He had to do something!


Me:

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKkWlk5n.gif&hash=08f4d3d721eb33c988bad473179a98dcd28a47ee)

People say Batman does not kill, but that is nothing but a concept. He does kill. Batman is dark and mean. If he has to put you down, he will. But it's not like he's offing purse snatchers. Keaton's Batman kills absolute garbage. I don't hold the sanctity of chemical weapon sprayers lives all too much.

Burton's Batman has guns on his vehicles because he realises it is a war on crime. If someone crosses the line, he will too. But if Nolan Batman is so against the use of guns, why on Earth are they strapped to The Bat? It should have been a total no go zone for him - have them removed.

It is laughable.

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 15 Jan  2014, 23:47
It just doesn't bother me that Batman kills in the Burton movies, cause it's not presented to us that this is a Batman with a strict no-killing rule. But with Nolan's, he talks about it so many times, yet, he is constantly killing people. And the justifications that people come up with are mind numbingly stupid.

-Kills Ra's? Naw man, he just didn't save him. It said it in the movie!

Are they really that oblivious to the fact that not only he planned to derail the train and intended to make sure Ra's didn't get out of there alive, Batman's words actually suggest he could have saved him? Christ... :o

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 15 Jan  2014, 23:47
-Kills the ninjas in the temple? Dude, that was before he was Batman. And seriously, we didn't see anybody die, so you don't know for sure if he actually killed anybody.

Anyone who says that clearly didn't pay any attention to what was going on in that scene; the fake Ra's and many other ninjas were killed as a result of Bruce's destruction of the temple. And the fact this happened before he became Batman makes it even worse for Bruce. At the end of that scene, he doesn't even look distraught or affected about what he had done. And we're supposed to buy into his non-killing code after a move like that?!

Quote from: Travesty on Wed, 15 Jan  2014, 23:47
-Kills Two-Face? What was he supposed to do, let Gordon's son die? He had no other options, like using a Batarang to knock the gun out of his hands.

-Kills Talia and her driver? Come on man, the city was about to blow up. He had to do something!

Again, it demonstrates TDK's point about Nolan wanting to have it both ways. If Batman is prepared to consider using lethal force under dire circumstances after all, how come he allowed the Joker to kill so many people?! What is the difference between Joker reaching for his detonator to murder thousands of people, and Two-Face flipping a coin to decide whether or not to murder a child (not to mention a nuclear bomb is about to go off at the end of the third film)?! Don't these people even stop and think about this?

I really don't know which is worse; watching how badly written these pretentious movies are, or people actually eating it up as they try to come up with excuses for the most illogical scenes. Again, if people realise how absurd all of this is but still enjoy the movies, then more power to them. But I really can't believe that for movies that have become the objects of worship in the eyes of fans and critics, this entire trilogy actually has outrageous and idiotic faults that not even crap like Fantastic Four or Batman & Robin suffer from. These people need to pick a stance and stick with it: either Batman should have a non-killing policy, or he is prepared to kill villains to save lives. It CAN'T be both. And that includes the use of guns.

I guess Nolan thinks that as long as he can make a Batman movie that takes itself so seriously, and it has a ridiculously convoluted plot that includes twists and themes, even though they do not make much sense, people will accept anything and call it genius - because it's not a Joel Schumacher movie. Sadly, he's right.

I've found this picture on some meme website with a caption titled "How The Dark Knight Rises Really Should Have Ended".

(https://scontent-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1609872_10201335460654829_434466277_n.jpg?oh=bf8b0b656e9a100e2b70d917d412f3f6&oe=55BD4CDD)

;D ;D

Warning: long post.

I had an interesting yet bizarre debate with somebody awhile ago about Nolan's Batman, specifically The Dark Knight. Upon arguing how I thought Batman's sparing of the Joker was all in vain because his moral code had already been compromised before and after the fact, I was presented with the counter-argument that Batman considers himself as a soldier, and killing the Joker would've made him an executioner because the Joker was already "beaten". This person argues that Batman's "I'm no executioner" speech in Batman Begins meant that he won't rule out killing – he just won't do it in cold blood. Plus, Two-Face's death was argued to be accidental, and I was told that if Batman breaking his moral code bothered me so much, then I might as well condemn every comic that had him breaking his code instead of criticising Nolan. And get this – apparently this person thinks it's "unfair" to use Batman's murdering of Ra's al Ghul as an "excuse" to criticise the sequels, and each film should be viewed as standalone. Un-farken-believable.  ???

Here's a problem I have with these arguments:

• First of all, soldiers do NOT endanger an entire city by keeping psychotic mass-murderers alive, nor would they ever allow getting lots of people killed in the process. If Batman truly saw himself as a protector and a solder then he should've put the Joker down with his Batpod a long time ago. And what the person in question doesn't remember (or most likely disregards) is the fact that the Joker was about to blow up both boats with his own detonator and murder everyone on board, until Batman threw him off the building before saving him. I don't buy the excuse that killing the Joker would have been an execution. If anything, it would have been a justifiable homicide (if such a term even exists) had Batman let Joker fall to his death. And besides, wouldn't keeping Joker alive not only allow him to escape again, but also endanger the Dent cover-up too? This isn't like Batman trying to talk Catwoman out of killing Max Schreck in Batman Returns. Schreck was a crime boss, but he wasn't a threat to the entire town in that scene, at least not on the scale that Ledger's Joker was. Unlike Ledger's Joker, Schreck had his limitations and wasn't "an unstoppable force of nature".
  
  And even if Two-Face's death was supposed to be an accident (which I'm still not convinced that it was, at least not any more accidental than, say, Superman supposedly "murdering Zod in cold blood" in MOS), it still goes to show that lethal force is required in certain situations. You can't have it both ways.
  


• As far as the comics is concerned? The difference is that while Batman certainly killed in the comics, the ones that I've read always featured Batman taking that course of action as a last resort. Yes, he broke his rule, but he still saved Gotham in the end. So far, I've NEVER read a comic where Batman spends the majority of the plot by keeping a psychopath alive that puts the entire city in danger...only to kill another psychotic villain in the last five minutes of the same story because a hostage was in trouble. And on top of that, he covered up that villain's death in the worst possible manner by framing himself and telling a lie that's eventually exposed – easily I should add. Call me crazy, but I don't find any of that heroic at all.
  
  If anything, Batman Begins is the only Nolan film that can be arguably compared to Batman breaking his rule in the comics. Yes, he broke his rule, but at least he saved Gotham in the end. But in TDK, he suddenly upheld his meaningless rule to the detriment of the entire city for no reason, and many people died as a result. How the hell is that supposed to be heroic? Maybe that actually happened in a comic that I'm not aware of, I don't know. If it did, it seems pretty obscure and I really doubt I'd like it that much.


• And finally, regarding the frankly absurd rebuttal how it's "unfair" to condemn Nolan's whole take for his mistakes in getting Batman to murder Ra's al Ghul? Excuse me, but that's just utter BULLSH*T. Since when was it ever acknowledged by Batman in the movies – or the director himself – that killing Ra's al Ghul was a "mistake"? That's right, never. It's such a cop-out thing to say. We never saw a change in Bruce after that, and we're encouraged to turn a blind eye to all of it...yet in TDKR he defiantly tells Talia that he got her father killed to protect millions of people. Well, like what the caption in the meme above says, why didn't he apply that same course of action against the Joker then?! And then people hypocritically say that Batman's so-called moral dilemma makes for a "rich character arc". What the hell?!
  
  And it's harder to view the second film as a standalone, not only because it contradicts the first film, but it also ends on an unfinished note like The Empire Strikes Back; paving the way for events in the third movie. Isn't this supposed to be a trilogy after all? For a series that tells Batman's story from beginning to end, it lacks horribly when it comes to continuity and logic because of the contrived writing. It makes his moral triumph against the Joker rather pointless, no?

   
I don't care how arrogant this might sound: if forcing myself to enjoy these movies mean I have to murder my brain cells by ignoring these massive flaws that otherwise would've been condemned by another director in another franchise or making faulty arguments to defend them, then I think I'll stick to staying "locked in a mindset in hating these movies", thank you very much.

It's unbelievable how some people will come up with the lamest excuses to defend the obvious problems in these movies. But I guess it's my fault for wanting these movies to make sense. It is apparently too much to ask.

I'm sorry, but no. He didn't kill Ra's. Ra's stabbed the console while Batman was trying to shut it down. Ra's got himself killed. What Batman says later seems to be just him talking smack.

The temple thing, if anyone was killed, was fully accidental. He didn't do it to kill anybody.

It was the same with Two-Face's death. He didn't tackle Harvey to kill him. He did it to save Jim's son. Harvey died as a result.

The truck driver was killed inadvertently. Batman was shooting at the truck to get it to change course, but Talia forced the driver to stay in the same spot.

When Batman says he doesn't kill, he means that he doesn't choose to murder someone.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 15 Mar  2015, 02:00
I've found this picture on some meme website with a caption titled "How The Dark Knight Rises Really Should Have Ended".

(https://scontent-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1609872_10201335460654829_434466277_n.jpg?oh=bf8b0b656e9a100e2b70d917d412f3f6&oe=55BD4CDD)

;D ;D

But that doesn't apply because Joker didn't try to do the same thing that Ra's did.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
I'm sorry, but no. He didn't kill Ra's. Ra's stabbed the console while Batman was trying to shut it down. Ra's got himself killed. What Batman says later seems to be just him talking smack.

No offense, but that's just crap. If Gordon was going to sabotage the rails with the Tumbler, then Ra's has no chance of ever getting to Wayne Tower. So why did Batman even needed to get on board of the train to begin with, other than making sure that Ra's doesn't get out of there alive?

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that a) in TDKR, Batman justified to Talia that he had to kill his father when he was going to kill millions of innocent people and b) the Nolans themselves even acknowledged that Batman broke his moral code in the first two films from the official TDK Trilogy Screenplays book.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
The temple thing, if anyone was killed, was fully accidental. He didn't do it to kill anybody.

Sure, it may not have been intentional, but it still doesn't change the fact that people did die. It's ludicrous that people talk about these films have "realistic and sophisticated character development" when that scene didn't even Bruce change as a person. We don't even know that the guy Bruce refused to kill even survived for crying out loud! It's ridiculous.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
It was the same with Two-Face's death. He didn't tackle Harvey to kill him. He did it to save Jim's son. Harvey died as a result.

Well then it makes sparing of the Joker even more pointless, don't you think? Why bother trying to prove to a mass-murdering psychopath that you won't kill under the circumstances even when you're only endangering an entire town...when you end up killing another maniac when one life is in danger? Yet, people complain about Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel. At least that movie didn't make lame cop-outs like these movies did.

And furthermore, wouldn't keeping the Joker alive only risk endangering the entire Dent cover-up? Why the hell would a presumably still alive Joker go through all that effort to corrupt Dent and devastate Gotham about what he had done...only to keep quiet in jail as Batman takes the fall? Makes no sense. No way would the Joker give up that easily, especially after everything he had accomplished up to that point.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
The truck driver was killed inadvertently. Batman was shooting at the truck to get it to change course, but Talia forced the driver to stay in the same spot.

It still doesn't change the fact that lethal force is required in desperate situations. It's one thing where Batman adopts a moral code, and stays true to his beliefs even if it endagers the city, but these movies break their rules and have it both ways. It can't.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
When Batman says he doesn't kill, he means that he doesn't choose to murder someone.

Sorry, but I don't see the difference there. If Superman could be condemned for "murdering" Zod in MOS, then so should Batman in all the live action films.

Quote
But that doesn't apply because Joker didn't try to do the same thing that Ra's did.

No? The Joker was ready to trigger the bombs on both the boats and murder millions of people on board, until Batman tossed him over the building. How is does that not qualify as attempted mass murder?

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 13:19

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
I'm sorry, but no. He didn't kill Ra's. Ra's stabbed the console while Batman was trying to shut it down. Ra's got himself killed. What Batman says later seems to be just him talking smack.

No offense, but that's just crap. If Gordon was going to sabotage the rails with the Tumbler, then Ra's has no chance of ever getting to Wayne Tower. So why did Batman even needed to get on board of the train to begin with, other than making sure that Ra's doesn't get out of there alive?

Also, you haven't addressed the fact that a) in TDKR, Batman justified to Talia that he had to kill his father when he was going to kill millions of innocent people and b) the Nolans themselves even acknowledged that Batman broke his moral code in the first two films from the official TDK Trilogy Screenplays book.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
The temple thing, if anyone was killed, was fully accidental. He didn't do it to kill anybody.

Sure, it may not have been intentional, but it still doesn't change the fact that people did die. It's ludicrous that people talk about these films have "realistic and sophisticated character development" when that scene didn't even Bruce change as a person. We don't even know that the guy Bruce refused to kill even survived for crying out loud! It's ridiculous.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
It was the same with Two-Face's death. He didn't tackle Harvey to kill him. He did it to save Jim's son. Harvey died as a result.

Well then it makes sparing of the Joker even more pointless, don't you think? Why bother trying to prove to a mass-murdering psychopath that you won't kill under the circumstances even when you're only endangering an entire town...when you end up killing another maniac when one life is in danger? Yet, people complain about Superman killed Zod in Man of Steel. At least that movie didn't make lame cop-outs like these movies did.

And furthermore, wouldn't keeping the Joker alive only risk endangering the entire Dent cover-up? Why the hell would a presumably still alive Joker go through all that effort to corrupt Dent and devastate Gotham about what he had done...only to keep quiet in jail as Batman takes the fall? Makes no sense. No way would the Joker give up that easily, especially after everything he had accomplished up to that point.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
The truck driver was killed inadvertently. Batman was shooting at the truck to get it to change course, but Talia forced the driver to stay in the same spot.

It still doesn't change the fact that lethal force is required in desperate situations. It's one thing where Batman adopts a moral code, and stays true to his beliefs even if it endagers the city, but these movies break their rules and have it both ways. It can't.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 12:37
When Batman says he doesn't kill, he means that he doesn't choose to murder someone.

Sorry, but I don't see the difference there. If Superman could be condemned for "murdering" Zod in MOS, then so should Batman in all the live action films.

Quote
But that doesn't apply because Joker didn't try to do the same thing that Ra's did.

No? The Joker was ready to trigger the bombs on both the boats and murder millions of people on board, until Batman tossed him over the building. How is does that not qualify as attempted mass murder?

Ra's stabbed the console. Not Bruce. End of story. Him sending Gordon to blow up the track was pretty clearly a just in case I don't stop it situation. I'm sure that's the way Bruce looks at it. Bruce did break his rule in a way. But it wasn't an active murder. That is why it's called Batman Begins. It's an ongoing development.

Again, that doesn't really change anything that I said. It was Bruce's folly if people did die. It's all about the intention.

I don't complain about the Superman thing.

There's a big difference between getting someone killed to save someone elses life and actively murdering somebody. Batman saves the Joker because he refuses to murder him. He probably would have gotten him killed to save the city if he needed to, but he didn't need to.

Like A.) Anyone would believe the Joker. And B.) The Joker's become obsessed with Batman by that point. I doubt that he really cares about much else at this point.

Like I said, it's all about the intention. There is a reason why people are prosecuted differently based on intentions in their actions.

Well, Superman does choose to kill Zod. But, again, that's not my issue with Superman in that movie. But again, it's all about the intention for Bruce.

Millions of people couldn't have been on those boats.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 14:04
Ra's stabbed the console. Not Bruce. End of story.

So what if he did? That still doesn't change the fact that Batman could've saved him. Him saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" more than implies he could've saved him, but instead he practically sentenced Ra's al Ghul to a fiery grave. Batman just judged someone to die.

Quote
Him sending Gordon to blow up the track was pretty clearly a just in case I don't stop it situation.

Why did Batman even need to send Gordon? Why couldn't he go destroy the tracks himself, if Ra's has nowhere else to go?

Quote
I'm sure that's the way Bruce looks at it. Bruce did break his rule in a way. But it wasn't an active murder.

If by "active murder" you mean "he didn't kill him without using your bare hands", I disagree. You can still kill someone just by condemning them to die.

And once again, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind-up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book.

Quote
That is why it's called Batman Begins. It's an ongoing development.

That's another problem...what ongoing development? The temple fiasco and the death of Ra's al Ghul doesn't change Bruce as a person, nor he Bruce ever progress without reacting to what people tell him what to do. He's never the one calling the shots - he's always depending on what someone else says to him. Furthermore, in the second film he destroys his own symbol that he intended to become an inspiration, to cover up a corrupted maniac's crimes; contradicting everything he stood for in BB. But that belongs in another topic.

Quote
Again, that doesn't really change anything that I said. It was Bruce's folly if people did die. It's all about the intention.

Well once again, Batman clearly intends to kill Ra's by refusing to save him. If you refuse to save somebody, that doesn't make you less culpable than physically snuffing them out.

Quote
I don't complain about the Superman thing.

Fair enough.

Quote
There's a big difference between getting someone killed to save someone elses life and actively murdering somebody. Batman saves the Joker because he refuses to murder him. He probably would have gotten him killed to save the city if he needed to, but he didn't need to.

Really? Batman spent the entire movie refusing to kill the Joker, even though the Joker was murdering people left right and center, and many more died as a result. From a realistic point of view, that's pretty negligent, and from a narrative point of view, it makes even less. If Batman was willing to kill of Ra's to save lives, as it was acknowledged in TDKR and TDK Screenplays book, then he should've killed the Joker when he had the chance. Nothing about his actions in these films fit the supposed psych profile they were going for.

Quote
Like A.) Anyone would believe the Joker. And B.) The Joker's become obsessed with Batman by that point. I doubt that he really cares about much else at this point.

A) Why not? Everyone believed Bane when he revealed the truth about Harvey, and the only evidence he had was a piece of paper. For all they know, he could've fabricated it! Besides, if Joker could manipulate Dent into becoming a homicidal psycho, then he's capable of anything.

B) I don't buy that either. Did you forget what the Joker said to Batman?

Quote
"Till their spirit breaks completely. Until they find out what I did with the best of them. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent, and all the heroic things he's done."

"You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."

The Joker corrupted Harvey Dent because he wanted to force everyone in Gotham to lose hope in everything once they learned that their law-abiding DA became a maniac. Him keeping his mouth shut would be too-self defeatist, and go against everything he stood for.

Quote
Millions of people couldn't have been on those boats.

Well according to that film, it suggested they were. There were no other escape routes out of Gotham, if I recall. But even if you're right, it still doesn't change the fact that the Joker was attempting to massacre countless numbers of people.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 14:48So what if he did? That still doesn't change the fact that Batman could've saved him. Him saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" more than implies he could've saved him, but instead he practically sentenced Ra's al Ghul to a fiery grave. Batman just judged someone to die.

Why did Batman even need to send Gordon? Why couldn't he go destroy the tracks himself, if Ra's has nowhere else to go?

If by "active murder" you mean "he didn't kill him without using your bare hands", I disagree. You can still kill someone just by condemning them to die.

And once again, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind-up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book.

That's another problem...what ongoing development? The temple fiasco and the death of Ra's al Ghul doesn't change Bruce as a person, nor he Bruce ever progress without reacting to what people tell him what to do. He's never the one calling the shots - he's always depending on what someone else says to him. Furthermore, in the second film he destroys his own symbol that he intended to become an inspiration, to cover up a corrupted maniac's crimes; contradicting everything he stood for in BB. But that belongs in another topic.

Well once again, Batman clearly intends to kill Ra's by refusing to save him. If you refuse to save somebody, that doesn't make you less culpable than physically snuffing them out.

Really? Batman spent the entire movie refusing to kill the Joker, even though the Joker was murdering people left right and center, and many more died as a result. From a realistic point of view, that's pretty negligent, and from a narrative point of view, it makes even less. If Batman was willing to kill of Ra's to save lives, as it was acknowledged in TDKR and TDK Screenplays book, then he should've killed the Joker when he had the chance. Nothing about his actions in these films fit the supposed psych profile they were going for.

A) Why not? Everyone believed Bane when he revealed the truth about Harvey, and the only evidence he had was a piece of paper. For all they know, he could've fabricated it! Besides, if Joker could manipulate Dent into becoming a homicidal psycho, then he's capable of anything.

B) I don't buy that either. Did you forget what the Joker said to Batman?

Quote
"Till their spirit breaks completely. Until they find out what I did with the best of them. Until they get a good look at the real Harvey Dent, and all the heroic things he's done."

"You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."

The Joker corrupted Harvey Dent because he wanted to force everyone in Gotham to lose hope in everything once they learned that their law-abiding DA became a maniac. Him keeping his mouth shut would be too-self defeatist, and go against everything he stood for.

Well according to that film, it suggested they were. There were no other escape routes out of Gotham, if I recall. But even if you're right, it still doesn't change the fact that the Joker was attempting to massacre countless numbers of people.

I did he say he kinda broke his rule. But it was a decision he made in the moment. I just don't agree that it was murder though. He let Ra's decisions get himself killed. I won't deny that he had a hand in it. But it's not the same as murder.

Why would he do that? It didn't seem like he had any idea he was going to leave Ra's to die. Otherwise he would have waited for the train to come up on that spot and blow them up right then. The train would crash. Ra's would die. The end. Bruce had two plans: Either stop the train himself, or Gordon would blow up the tracks. You have a higher chance of success if you have a plan B.

Condemning and allowing are different things. That wasn't the right thing to do certainly, but it's not murder. Having a hand in their death, yes, even killing, but it not active murder.

Yes, I did. I said that that's the way Bruce saw it. I also said he did kinda break the rule.

I was talking about the end where he allows Ra's to die. In TDK he's taken a more hardlined stance against it. Him destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. Which was the point of TDKR. There's a pretty clear arc for Bruce in TDK where he believes that the Joker's creation and/or his actions are his fault, and that's at least partially why he does that. He doesn't have a whole lot of belief in the idea of Batman anymore.

I disagree. It's certainly wrong, but that doesn't make it the same.

Huh? The Joker's actions didn't cause more deaths than Ra's at all.

A.) Who says? We don't see the reaction from any people other than the criminals and Blake. Dent was alreadya broken man. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

B.) But again, that didn't work. I actually think the Joker was pretty fine with the idea that Batman took the fall.

As if the Joker really stood for anything.

And Batman stopped him without killing him. I also do think that was meant from Batman as a refusal to give the Joker what he wanted. It also plays into his development that I talked about. He allows Ra's to die, but won't do the same with the Joker.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
I did he say he kinda broke his rule. But it was a decision he made in the moment. I just don't agree that it was murder though. He let Ra's decisions get himself killed. I won't deny that he had a hand in it. But it's not the same as murder.

Ra's al Ghul's plot was to destroy Gotham City. He did NOT intend to die along with the destruction. And if it were a suicide mission, then the movie makes even less sense than I thought it did.

When Batman refused to save Ra's, it's like he never spared that prisoner back at the temple. Bruce wouldn't execute that man because he explained he's not an executioner, that the act itself is what separates those who seek justice from deadly criminals. By saying he isn't an executioner, he was implying that he has no right to decide who lives or dies. And yet, that's exactly what happens at the end of the movie. Instead of saving Ra's al Ghul, he gives him a death sentence. That's a mindset of an executioner. By deciding who lives or dies, Batman shows that he actually isn't much better than the villains.

I just don't accept this as "not murder". It's a complete cop-out. If Batman hadn't distracted Ra's, then Ra's wouldn't have sabotaged the controls. He had no idea doing that could lead to his death. Bloody hell, Ra's thought that Bruce was going to stop the train. Saying I won't kill but I still won't save you makes absolutely no sense. You are killing him!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
Why would he do that? It didn't seem like he had any idea he was going to leave Ra's to die. Otherwise he would have waited for the train to come up on that spot and blow them up right then. The train would crash. Ra's would die. The end. Bruce had two plans: Either stop the train himself, or Gordon would blow up the tracks. You have a higher chance of success if you have a plan B.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. When Gordon got the job done, the train was still a fair bit away from the ruins. It was very possible that
Ra's could have stopped the train if he saw the wreckage from a distance. And it still doesn't explain why Batman needs to send Gordon to take the rails out. Why did Batman needed to wait for the train to get near to Wayne Tower before destroying the rails?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
Condemning and allowing are different things.

Once again, I completely disagree.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
I was talking about the end where he allows Ra's to die. In TDK he's taken a more hardlined stance against it. Him destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. Which was the point of TDKR. There's a pretty clear arc for Bruce in TDK where he believes that the Joker's creation and/or his actions are his fault, and that's at least partially why he does that. He doesn't have a whole lot of belief in the idea of Batman anymore.

Except, we are given no inferences that Bruce realized that destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. For that matter, the end of the movie has Blake saying he understood Gordon rationalizing why he thought covering up Dent's murders was a good idea at the time, despite his initial condemnation before. And Batman believing he should retire because it lead to attracting the Joker goes against everything about wanting to understand the criminal mind in BB. It goes to show he learned absolutely nothing while he was away for several years.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
Huh? The Joker's actions didn't cause more deaths than Ra's at all.

We must have been watching two completely different films then.

Remember when Batman refused to chop the Joker down at the end of that chase scene, despite the fact that Joker was shooting at cars which possibly killed the drivers occupying them? Not to mention the fact that he murdered people leading up to that street confrontation. And when Gordon apprehended Joker, not Batman, it turned out that was what Joker wanted all along and he murdered more people along the way. Including Rachel Dawes.

The Joker in this movie was way more sinister and deadlier than Ra's, and way more successful in terrorizing the whole of Gotham than Ra's ever hoped to accomplished.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
A.) Who says? We don't see the reaction from any people other than the criminals and Blake. Dent was alreadya broken man. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

We may not have seen the reaction from the whole public, but exposing the truth did lead to anarchy on the streets in that montage. Did you miss the point when Bane told everybody "You have been supplied with a false idol"? They didn't know Harvey was a broken man. It only goes to show what a brain-dead idea it was for Batman to take the fall.

And you haven't quite articulated why Joker exposing the truth wouldn't work.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
B.) But again, that didn't work. I actually think the Joker was pretty fine with the idea that Batman took the fall.

How so? If the Joker was really obsessed with Batman, then there's no way he'd allow Batman to go MIA for the next eight years, while Gotham cleans itself up during that time.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
As if the Joker really stood for anything.

Then with all due respect, you have completely missed the point about his character and what he was trying to accomplish.

Did you even read the transcript of his quotes that I posted before? Did you miss the part where he tells Batman "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."? It's in the scene if you don't believe me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZVkCDG3MA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZVkCDG3MA)

The Joker wanted Gotham to descend to anarchy. He wanted to prove to Batman that people will lose hope and embrace insanity if you threaten them and disrupt everything they believe in. When none of the boats blew each other up, Joker had an ace up his sleeve: manipulating Harvey Dent to become a crazed lunatic. He thought that corrupting the so-called "White Knight" of Gotham City would cause people to lose hope in everything they ever believed in. Which is why Batman took the fall to prevent that from happening...and betrays his confidence in people's ability to persevere any crisis like that boast scene.

Do you seriously think the Joker would go through all that trouble, only to happily give up and let the cover-up enable the Dent Act and restore peace in Gotham for eight years, while Batman goes missing through all that time?

I thought Joker wanted anarchy, not order. It's so counterproductive that it's not funny. The Joker may be deranged, but he's not a self-defeating idiot.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
And Batman stopped him without killing him. I also do think that was meant from Batman as a refusal to give the Joker what he wanted. It also plays into his development that I talked about. He allows Ra's to die, but won't do the same with the Joker.

I disagree again. Despite what we're constantly told otherwise, these movies show that Batman will resort to lethal force when the circumstances got dire. He justifies killing Ra's to Talia in TDKR because he argued lives were at stake, and does the same thing to her and Two-Face when the stakes were too high...yet he allowed the Joker situation to get things out of hand? It makes no sense. And on top of that, we don't get any inferences that Batman even regretted killing off Ra's, nor do we see in TDK that his death made him change his approach when dealing with the Joker. If anything, Batman justified killing off Ra's as a necessity!

Look, there are two ways to explore Batman's stance on killing:

A) He adopts a strict moral code. No cop-outs or trying to look for loopholes; he argues there's always a non-lethal way to save lives. Like he says to Talia claimed she had no choice but try to kill Joker in Arkham City : "There's always a choice".

B) He kills when the going gets tough to save lives.

It can't be both. The clash of ideas in these movies don't go together at all, and they only make his actions more confusing. Don't introduce a moral code and acknowledge it got broken, but still try to excuse it by arguing Batman gets away with "technicalities" or such nonsense. I have no tolerance for paying lip service to things. If Batman truly sees himself a soldier who is prepared to kill villains to protect the greater good, then he should've killed the Joker too. Otherwise, it makes that whole moral dilemma throughout TDK and the temple scene completely meaningless and only serves to play unnecessarily contrived drama.

And I'll say it for a third time, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book. I'm still waiting for a proper answer.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 27 Jun  2015, 05:44

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
I did he say he kinda broke his rule. But it was a decision he made in the moment. I just don't agree that it was murder though. He let Ra's decisions get himself killed. I won't deny that he had a hand in it. But it's not the same as murder.

Ra's al Ghul's plot was to destroy Gotham City. He did NOT intend to die along with the destruction. And if it were a suicide mission, then the movie makes even less sense than I thought it did.

When Batman refused to save Ra's, it's like he never spared that prisoner back at the temple. Bruce wouldn't execute that man because he explained he's not an executioner, that the act itself is what separates those who seek justice from deadly criminals. By saying he isn't an executioner, he was implying that he has no right to decide who lives or dies. And yet, that's exactly what happens at the end of the movie. Instead of saving Ra's al Ghul, he gives him a death sentence. That's a mindset of an executioner. By deciding who lives or dies, Batman shows that he actually isn't much better than the villains.

I just don't accept this as "not murder". It's a complete cop-out. If Batman hadn't distracted Ra's, then Ra's wouldn't have sabotaged the controls. He had no idea doing that could lead to his death. Bloody hell, Ra's thought that Bruce was going to stop the train. Saying I won't kill but I still won't save you makes absolutely no sense. You are killing him!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
Why would he do that? It didn't seem like he had any idea he was going to leave Ra's to die. Otherwise he would have waited for the train to come up on that spot and blow them up right then. The train would crash. Ra's would die. The end. Bruce had two plans: Either stop the train himself, or Gordon would blow up the tracks. You have a higher chance of success if you have a plan B.

I'm sorry but this doesn't make any sense. When Gordon got the job done, the train was still a fair bit away from the ruins. It was very possible that
Ra's could have stopped the train if he saw the wreckage from a distance. And it still doesn't explain why Batman needs to send Gordon to take the rails out. Why did Batman needed to wait for the train to get near to Wayne Tower before destroying the rails?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
Condemning and allowing are different things.

Once again, I completely disagree.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
I was talking about the end where he allows Ra's to die. In TDK he's taken a more hardlined stance against it. Him destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. Which was the point of TDKR. There's a pretty clear arc for Bruce in TDK where he believes that the Joker's creation and/or his actions are his fault, and that's at least partially why he does that. He doesn't have a whole lot of belief in the idea of Batman anymore.

Except, we are given no inferences that Bruce realized that destroying his symbol was the wrong thing to do. For that matter, the end of the movie has Blake saying he understood Gordon rationalizing why he thought covering up Dent's murders was a good idea at the time, despite his initial condemnation before. And Batman believing he should retire because it lead to attracting the Joker goes against everything about wanting to understand the criminal mind in BB. It goes to show he learned absolutely nothing while he was away for several years.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
Huh? The Joker's actions didn't cause more deaths than Ra's at all.

We must have been watching two completely different films then.

Remember when Batman refused to chop the Joker down at the end of that chase scene, despite the fact that Joker was shooting at cars which possibly killed the drivers occupying them? Not to mention the fact that he murdered people leading up to that street confrontation. And when Gordon apprehended Joker, not Batman, it turned out that was what Joker wanted all along and he murdered more people along the way. Including Rachel Dawes.

The Joker in this movie was way more sinister and deadlier than Ra's, and way more successful in terrorizing the whole of Gotham than Ra's ever hoped to accomplished.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
A.) Who says? We don't see the reaction from any people other than the criminals and Blake. Dent was alreadya broken man. Otherwise it wouldn't have worked.

We may not have seen the reaction from the whole public, but exposing the truth did lead to anarchy on the streets in that montage. Did you miss the point when Bane told everybody "You have been supplied with a false idol"? They didn't know Harvey was a broken man. It only goes to show what a brain-dead idea it was for Batman to take the fall.

And you haven't quite articulated why Joker exposing the truth wouldn't work.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
B.) But again, that didn't work. I actually think the Joker was pretty fine with the idea that Batman took the fall.

How so? If the Joker was really obsessed with Batman, then there's no way he'd allow Batman to go MIA for the next eight years, while Gotham cleans itself up during that time.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
As if the Joker really stood for anything.

Then with all due respect, you have completely missed the point about his character and what he was trying to accomplish.

Did you even read the transcript of his quotes that I posted before? Did you miss the part where he tells Batman "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you? You've got to have an ace in the hole. Mine's Harvey."? It's in the scene if you don't believe me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZVkCDG3MA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqZVkCDG3MA)

The Joker wanted Gotham to descend to anarchy. He wanted to prove to Batman that people will lose hope and embrace insanity if you threaten them and disrupt everything they believe in. When none of the boats blew each other up, Joker had an ace up his sleeve: manipulating Harvey Dent to become a crazed lunatic. He thought that corrupting the so-called "White Knight" of Gotham City would cause people to lose hope in everything they ever believed in. Which is why Batman took the fall to prevent that from happening...and betrays his confidence in people's ability to persevere any crisis like that boast scene.

Do you seriously think the Joker would go through all that trouble, only to happily give up and let the cover-up enable the Dent Act and restore peace in Gotham for eight years, while Batman goes missing through all that time?

I thought Joker wanted anarchy, not order. It's so counterproductive that it's not funny. The Joker may be deranged, but he's not a self-defeating idiot.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
And Batman stopped him without killing him. I also do think that was meant from Batman as a refusal to give the Joker what he wanted. It also plays into his development that I talked about. He allows Ra's to die, but won't do the same with the Joker.

I disagree again. Despite what we're constantly told otherwise, these movies show that Batman will resort to lethal force when the circumstances got dire. He justifies killing Ra's to Talia in TDKR because he argued lives were at stake, and does the same thing to her and Two-Face when the stakes were too high...yet he allowed the Joker situation to get things out of hand? It makes no sense. And on top of that, we don't get any inferences that Batman even regretted killing off Ra's, nor do we see in TDK that his death made him change his approach when dealing with the Joker. If anything, Batman justified killing off Ra's as a necessity!

Look, there are two ways to explore Batman's stance on killing:

A) He adopts a strict moral code. No cop-outs or trying to look for loopholes; he argues there's always a non-lethal way to save lives. Like he says to Talia claimed she had no choice but try to kill Joker in Arkham City : "There's always a choice".

B) He kills when the going gets tough to save lives.

It can't be both. The clash of ideas in these movies don't go together at all, and they only make his actions more confusing. Don't introduce a moral code and acknowledge it got broken, but still try to excuse it by arguing Batman gets away with "technicalities" or such nonsense. I have no tolerance for paying lip service to things. If Batman truly sees himself a soldier who is prepared to kill villains to protect the greater good, then he should've killed the Joker too. Otherwise, it makes that whole moral dilemma throughout TDK and the temple scene completely meaningless and only serves to play unnecessarily contrived drama.

And I'll say it for a third time, you still haven't addressed the fact that Batman addressed the fact that Batman didn't deny that he killed Ra's to save millions of people AND the Nolans admitted he did wind up breaking his rule in the TDK Screenplays book. I'm still waiting for a proper answer.

What? I didn't say that at all. I was talking about how he let Ra's decision to stab the console and stop him from stopping the train. Not that he was going to die regardless. Even if, it would be the same

That's false. An executioner doesn't decide who lives or dies. They're told to murder someone by a system of sorts. Bruce allows Ra's to die. Bruce is better because he doesn't murder them. So, he's not as bad.

No, he isn't. He didn't sabotage the train. He tried to stop it. Ra's stabbed the console to stop him. That's what happens. It's not murder.

That has no connection to what I said. But Gordon needed time to take them out. Hence why he drove ahead.

And I disagree with you.

The entire film was literally about how that was the wrong thing to do. It doesn't go against anything he said in Batman Begins. How is it? I don't know how that proves he learned nothing. But the movie never said he learned anything about being locked in prison for years. I said "partially" it was the reason he destroyed the symbol. I didn't say anything about him retiring. But another reason he did that, besides his guilt, was that he was being hunted by hunted by the police as well. I also didn't say that Bruce realized it. I said that that was the point of TDKR. We're not given the indication that Blake thinks that covering up of Dent crimes was right. He says that Gordon was right about the structures being shackles.

But he didn't kill more people than Ra's. Ra's set off a fear toxin that caused people to tear eachother apart.

That was the criminals and Bane's militia.

I never said that the Joker necessarily didn't tell anybody. But I just don't see why people would believe him.

I never said he allowed. But the Joker was locked up.

I'm sorry, but I think the Joker just spouts a bunch of nonsense to cause chaos. He often lies. But he was locked up.

Again, he didn't try to kill Two-Face. Two-Face just ended up dying as a result of Bruce actions.

I literally said that Bruce saw it that way. So, yes, I did address it. I even said that Bruce did kinda break his rule in that situation.

At no point does he kill when the going gets tough. People have died as a result of his actions, but that's not the same. He didn't try to kill Harvey when he tackled him. Just like how he didn't try to kill the driver of the truck in TDKR. It just happened as a result of the situation.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
He didn't sabotage the train. He tried to stop it. Ra's stabbed the console to stop him. That's what happens. It's not murder.

Really? Despite the fact that it was Batman's plans to sabotage the rails? Mate, Batman knew at that point once the rails were destroyed that Ra's had no hope of getting out of there alive. And he still condemned him to die. It doesn't matter if Ra's wrecked the controls himself. He wanted to destroy Gotham; it never specified that he wanted to die in it. The message in that movie for 95% of the time tells us killing is wrong. But, as you now even acknowledge, Batman "kinda" killed Ra's anyway. The line was crossed. Full stop. If people do admit he killed, then don't go on say it isn't murder, or try to make an excuse that he had a loophole. The filmmakers and fans need to be consistent: either Batman believes killing is completely wrong, or he doesn't. Period. You can't have it both ways. Trying to justify that he avoided taking responsibility in the heat of the moment is a cop-out.

And what's worse is we don't know anything how Bruce felt about ending Ra's because it's never shown - nor Ra's was never mentioned again until TDKR. He doesn't feel guilty. We can infer and assume his character development all we want, but there's nothing in these films that shows Bruce learning from his mistakes. In contrast, something like the Raimi Spider-Man films had Peter Parker learn from the error of his ways e.g. coming back from retirement, getting rid of his rage from the Symbiote and learn to forgive the Sandman. Those films have a far better grasp on character development.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
That's false. An executioner doesn't decide who lives or dies. They're told to murder someone by a system of sorts. Bruce allows Ra's to die. Bruce is better because he doesn't murder them. So, he's not as bad.

Okay then, wrong label - he's a judge AND jury. Who decided to sentenced his mentor to die. And if Ra's did deserve to die without any reservations after the fact, then it makes no logical sense for Batman to resist killing the Joker when he's a deranged madman intent on killing and terrifying as many people possible. To quote this film, Joker's "an unstoppable force of nature". Well in that case, Batman putting an entire city in danger for a meaningless principle that he didn't really believe in is reprehensible and only allows more harm and tragedy.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
That has no connection to what I said. But Gordon needed time to take them out. Hence why he drove ahead.

But that's the problem, Batman could've sabotaged the rails himself, and it would've given Ra's a chance to escape in the process. I don't believe he needed Gordon at all. And if Batman thought he had to go on board of the train to ensure Ra's didn't' die, then he shouldn't have changed in his mind in the heat of the moment.

All in all, the so-called "morals" in these movies are shoddy and badly thought out.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
The entire film was literally about how that was the wrong thing to do. It doesn't go against anything he said in Batman Begins. How is it? I don't know how that proves he learned nothing. But the movie never said he learned anything about being locked in prison for years. I said "partially" it was the reason he destroyed the symbol. I didn't say anything about him retiring. But another reason he did that, besides his guilt, was that he was being hunted by hunted by the police as well. I also didn't say that Bruce realized it. I said that that was the point of TDKR. We're not given the indication that Blake thinks that covering up of Dent crimes was right. He says that Gordon was right about the structures being shackles.

What about the fact that this arc undermined by Batman constantly changing his intentions to become a symbol all the time? I.E.:

• He says he wants to inspire people and become an incorruptible symbol for people to look up to in BB.
• But in TDK, he tells off the copycats not to interfere, despite the fact they were inspired by him.
• In TDK, he taints his own symbol, misleading everybody into believing he became a cold-blooded murderer. I would've thought that would've been
  just as devastating, if not, more - than telling the truth about Harvey since Batman was recognized as a crime-fighter...but whatever. ::)
• And then he tells Blake that anybody could be Batman."That's the whole point." No it wasn't.

And by the way, if you're talking being hunted by cops by referring the hostage scene, that too was contrived nonsense. He just went in there without trying to get in contact with Gordon or anybody to warn there were hostages, if I recall. Batman stopping the SWAT team from inadvertently would've quickly got the word out from the survivors and some of the SWAT themselves.

And don't you think Blake is empathizing  that Gordon had to cover up for Dent because of the system in the end? This is a bit of contrast from his earlier condemnation.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
That was the criminals and Bane's militia.

I find it hard to believe that it was only them. I'm sure some citizens participated, i.e. the wild party where a worried Selina Kyle was attending.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
I never said that the Joker necessarily didn't tell anybody. But I just don't see why people would believe him.

And I find that extremely hard to believe. Joker is a mastermind in manipulating people i.e. provoking Gordon's partner and turning Dent evil. He knows how to get into people's heads. He even has henchmen working for him despite the fact that he has them killed. If they could believe Bane so easily and Batman actually responsible for Dent's crimes, then they're inclined to believe in anything.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
But he didn't kill more people than Ra's. Ra's set off a fear toxin that caused people to tear eachother apart.

And how many of them actually die? I don't remember it ever being specified.

In contrast the Joker not only killed mobsters, he murdered the Judge, Comissioner Loeb, dozens of cops, and Rachel Dawes (though whether her death was of his own planning, or if it was Maroni's is unclear to me. Either way, he was still culpable for her murder). Joker didn't just lived for "chaos", he wanted to make a statement that the "best" of people - Harvey Dent - could be corrupted and he wanted to destroy the morale in the entire city for it.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
I'm sorry, but I think the Joker just spouts a bunch of nonsense to cause chaos. He often lies. But he was locked up.

You must be joking. A guy who goes through that much trouble to tear the city apart just to cause anarchy and devastation DOES NOT suddenly keep quiet and lets the city repair itself thanks to Batman taking the fall.

Otherwise, he goes from saying "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you?" to suddenly thinking "Oh well, nobody knew what Dent did and Batman covered up for him and is now missing. I'll just happily sit here in my jail cell for the rest of my life and bother people about my stupid scar stories". If that's true then what kind of villain is that?! That's nonsense. A guy who gives people that level of grief does not surrender so easily.

Like I said, the Joker may be deranged, but he's not an self-defeating idiot. It's laughably lazy, idiotic writing if that's the message that the filmmakers were trying to convey. It only diminishes him as a character. I don't buy the "chaos" excuse at all.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
Again, he didn't try to kill Two-Face. Two-Face just ended up dying as a result of Bruce actions.

And again, why did Batman take such a course of action in the first place? To save Gordon's son. An action that he could've - and should've - have taken to prevent more deaths being caused by the Joker, and stop the threat from worsening. Otherwise, what's the point of fighting crime in the first place? Especially since Batman believes people are inherently good, despite the fact that he betrays his confidence in them by taking the fall for Harvey?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
I literally said that Bruce saw it that way. So, yes, I did address it. I even said that Bruce did kinda break his rule in that situation.

Well, it's quite a turnaround compared to when you first claimed he wasn't at all culpable for his death.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
At no point does he kill when the going gets tough. People have died as a result of his actions, but that's not the same.

Hold on, didn't you say Batman did "kinda" killed Ra's? Which one is it then? Since we don't see Bruce actually think about his actions, his justifications to Talia is quite hypocritical. It only goes to show that lethal force is unavoidable, and yet, the filmmakers wanted to have it both ways by claiming Batman's actions were responsible, not himself personally. That's a complete and utter fallacy.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 15:39
He didn't try to kill Harvey when he tackled him. Just like how he didn't try to kill the driver of the truck in TDKR. It just happened as a result of the situation.

Are you serious? That's like saying Superman didn't murder Zod, his actions to snap his neck killed him. That's illogical. Superman did it to save the world, but he still killed Zod. Regardless whether he wanted to or not. Same thing with Batman.

What the hell did Batman think was going to happen when you clash onto somebody head on for both occasions. Dent was standing near a ledge for God's sake with a kid, and using bullets to stop a truck was a very lethal thing to do. He's not THAT stupid, he knows the likely consequences of his actions, and he did it to save lives. Which, for the final time, makes the entire Joker dilemma a bloody load of meaningless rubbish.

And the thing that frustrates me is that unlike other superhero movies like Burton's Batman and Avengers, everybody (myself included) knows that the heroes kill. That's not up for debate. But when it comes to Nolan's Batman, I often see so many polarizing opinions. There are several sides of the spectrum I see are:

• People who won't acknowledge at all that Batman kills.
• People who argue that Batman "kinda" killed Ra's, but not anyone else.
• People who argue that Batman did kill Ra's, but not anyone else.
• People who argue that Batman is loose on his moral code, except for somebody like "Harvey Dent".
• People who argue that Batman kills, but each film should be treated as self-contained, and it's not fair to judge them as a whole(WTF?).
• People who argue that Batman kills after all.

The fact that people are so divided when it comes to this stance really makes one question how could anyone see Nolan's films as quality storytelling.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this. None of us are convincing each other, so we might as well stop right now. We're just going around in circles here.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 27 Jun  2015, 11:23Really? Despite the fact that it was Batman's plans to sabotage the rails? Mate, Batman knew at that point once the rails were destroyed that Ra's had no hope of getting out of there alive. And he still condemned him to die. It doesn't matter if Ra's wrecked the controls himself. He wanted to destroy Gotham; it never specified that he wanted to die in it. The message in that movie for 95% of the time tells us killing is wrong. But, as you now even acknowledge, Batman "kinda" killed Ra's anyway. The line was crossed. Full stop. If people do admit he killed, then don't go on say it isn't murder, or try to make an excuse that he had a loophole. The filmmakers and fans need to be consistent: either Batman believes killing is completely wrong, or he doesn't. Period. You can't have it both ways. Trying to justify that he avoided taking responsibility in the heat of the moment is a cop-out.

And what's worse is we don't know anything how Bruce felt about ending Ra's because it's never shown - nor Ra's was never mentioned again until TDKR. He doesn't feel guilty. We can infer and assume his character development all we want, but there's nothing in these films that shows Bruce learning from his mistakes. In contrast, something like the Raimi Spider-Man films had Peter Parker learn from the error of his ways e.g. coming back from retirement, getting rid of his rage from the Symbiote and learn to forgive the Sandman. Those films have a far better grasp on character development.

Okay then, wrong label - he's a judge AND jury. Who decided to sentenced his mentor to die. And if Ra's did deserve to die without any reservations after the fact, then it makes no logical sense for Batman to resist killing the Joker when he's a deranged madman intent on killing and terrifying as many people possible. To quote this film, Joker's "an unstoppable force of nature". Well in that case, Batman putting an entire city in danger for a meaningless principle that he didn't really believe in is reprehensible and only allows more harm and tragedy.

But that's the problem, Batman could've sabotaged the rails himself, and it would've given Ra's a chance to escape in the process. I don't believe he needed Gordon at all. And if Batman thought he had to go on board of the train to ensure Ra's didn't' die, then he shouldn't have changed in his mind in the heat of the moment.

All in all, the so-called "morals" in these movies are shoddy and badly thought out.

What about the fact that this arc undermined by Batman constantly changing his intentions to become a symbol all the time? I.E.:

• He says he wants to inspire people and become an incorruptible symbol for people to look up to in BB.
• But in TDK, he tells off the copycats not to interfere, despite the fact they were inspired by him.
• In TDK, he taints his own symbol, misleading everybody into believing he became a cold-blooded murderer. I would've thought that would've been
  just as devastating, if not, more - than telling the truth about Harvey since Batman was recognized as a crime-fighter...but whatever. ::)
• And then he tells Blake that anybody could be Batman."That's the whole point." No it wasn't.

And by the way, if you're talking being hunted by cops by referring the hostage scene, that too was contrived nonsense. He just went in there without trying to get in contact with Gordon or anybody to warn there were hostages, if I recall. Batman stopping the SWAT team from inadvertently would've quickly got the word out from the survivors and some of the SWAT themselves.

And don't you think Blake is empathizing  that Gordon had to cover up for Dent because of the system in the end? This is a bit of contrast from his earlier condemnation.

I find it hard to believe that it was only them. I'm sure some citizens participated, i.e. the wild party where a worried Selina Kyle was attending.

And I find that extremely hard to believe. Joker is a mastermind in manipulating people i.e. provoking Gordon's partner and turning Dent evil. He knows how to get into people's heads. He even has henchmen working for him despite the fact that he has them killed. If they could believe Bane so easily and Batman actually responsible for Dent's crimes, then they're inclined to believe in anything.

And how many of them actually die? I don't remember it ever being specified.

In contrast the Joker not only killed mobsters, he murdered the Judge, Comissioner Loeb, dozens of cops, and Rachel Dawes (though whether her death was of his own planning, or if it was Maroni's is unclear to me. Either way, he was still culpable for her murder). Joker didn't just lived for "chaos", he wanted to make a statement that the "best" of people - Harvey Dent - could be corrupted and he wanted to destroy the morale in the entire city for it.

You must be joking. A guy who goes through that much trouble to tear the city apart just to cause anarchy and devastation DOES NOT suddenly keep quiet and lets the city repair itself thanks to Batman taking the fall.

Otherwise, he goes from saying "You didn't think I'd risk losing the battle for the soul of Gotham in a fist fight with you?" to suddenly thinking "Oh well, nobody knew what Dent did and Batman covered up for him and is now missing. I'll just happily sit here in my jail cell for the rest of my life and bother people about my stupid scar stories". If that's true then what kind of villain is that?! That's nonsense. A guy who gives people that level of grief does not surrender so easily.

Like I said, the Joker may be deranged, but he's not an self-defeating idiot. It's laughably lazy, idiotic writing if that's the message that the filmmakers were trying to convey. It only diminishes him as a character. I don't buy the "chaos" excuse at all.

And again, why did Batman take such a course of action in the first place? To save Gordon's son. An action that he could've - and should've - have taken to prevent more deaths being caused by the Joker, and stop the threat from worsening. Otherwise, what's the point of fighting crime in the first place? Especially since Batman believes people are inherently good, despite the fact that he betrays his confidence in them by taking the fall for Harvey?

Well, it's quite a turnaround compared to when you first claimed he wasn't at all culpable for his death.

Hold on, didn't you say Batman did "kinda" killed Ra's? Which one is it then? Since we don't see Bruce actually think about his actions, his justifications to Talia is quite hypocritical. It only goes to show that lethal force is unavoidable, and yet, the filmmakers wanted to have it both ways by claiming Batman's actions were responsible, not himself personally. That's a complete and utter fallacy.

Are you serious? That's like saying Superman didn't murder Zod, his actions to snap his neck killed him. That's illogical. Superman did it to save the world, but he still killed Zod. Regardless whether he wanted to or not. Same thing with Batman.

What the hell did Batman think was going to happen when you clash onto somebody head on for both occasions. Dent was standing near a ledge for God's sake with a kid, and using bullets to stop a truck was a very lethal thing to do. He's not THAT stupid, he knows the likely consequences of his actions, and he did it to save lives. Which, for the final time, makes the entire Joker dilemma a bloody load of meaningless rubbish.

And the thing that frustrates me is that unlike other superhero movies like Burton's Batman and Avengers, everybody (myself included) knows that the heroes kill. That's not up for debate. But when it comes to Nolan's Batman, I often see so many polarizing opinions. There are several sides of the spectrum I see are:

• People who won't acknowledge at all that Batman kills.
• People who argue that Batman "kinda" killed Ra's, but not anyone else.
• People who argue that Batman did kill Ra's, but not anyone else.
• People who argue that Batman is loose on his moral code, except for somebody like "Harvey Dent".
• People who argue that Batman kills, but each film should be treated as self-contained, and it's not fair to judge them as a whole(WTF?).
• People who argue that Batman kills after all.

The fact that people are so divided when it comes to this stance really makes one question how could anyone see Nolan's films as quality storytelling.

Anyway, I'm done talking about this. None of us are convincing each other, so we might as well stop right now. We're just going around in circles here.

I never said Batman kinda killed Ra's. I said he kinda broke his rule. There's a difference. He didn't cross the line full stop. It was half stop. Bruce does believe that killing his wrong. The fact that people have died because of his decisions doesn't change that. Again, I stated that if Bruce wanted to kill Ra's he could have pulled to the rails in the Batmobile and shot them out just as the train was coming, but he didn't. Ra's wouldn't have had time to stop. But that isn't what happened, because it was a plan b to Bruce's plan a, which was "Stop the train". He didn't need Gordon at all if all he wanted to do was blow out the rails and kill Ra's.

Probably because he isn't concerned with it because he didn't actually kill Ra's. I'm not gonna say that the end of Batman Begins was handled very well, Goyer wrote too much of the script for that, but it wasn't a huge issue. Bruce does quote Ra's though.

Deciding that someone doesn't deserve to live isn't the same as killing someone. Bruce does believe that killing is wrong and he holds true to that in this case.

As I said above: "if Bruce wanted to kill Ra's he could have pulled to the rails in the Batmobile and shot them out just as the train was coming, but he didn't. Ra's wouldn't have had time to stop. But that isn't what happened, because it was a plan b to Bruce's plan a, which was "Stop the train". He didn't need Gordon at all if all he wanted to do was blow out the rails and kill Ra's."

I don't see how.

Yeah. That's what he says.
They were also running around with guns shooting at people without any protective equipment. He tells the guy that. But it obviously wasn't his intention from the beginning that a bunch of people put on copycat Batman costumes and fight crime at the time. He says something to that effect to Alfred. I think it's standard Batman attitude. He's always had concerns about people running out as vigilantes, especially if they're reckless.
Bruce believed Batman had done more harm than good at that time. He consistently praises Harvey Dent for the fact he's a hero who doesn't wear a mask and still managed to accomplish what he accomplished. Some people had even turned against him.
I think you misinterpret the meaning of that line. He's saying anybody could be a hero like Batman, though not exactly like him. It goes back to him being an inspiration. The idea of a mask makes it so you can implant the idea that anybody could be as heroic as Batman. It could be anybody who was doing that.

I was talking about him being hunted by the cops after he took the fall for Dent's murder. I meant, and I apologize if it came off different than that way, that Bruce's guilt over the situation and being hunted by the cops is what caused him to retire. But I do think that was an unnecessary scene.

I don't believe so.

What makes you think that that was regular citizens? Selina, who was actually broken out of Blackgate as well, is dressed normally. It only stands to reason that the other criminals would be too. But that doesn't mean that regular people weren't there, you're right. But they probably had few qualms before that with this kind of behavior.

He is not. He manipulated an angry man into trying to beat him up and an already psychologically unsound man into becoming even more psychologically unsound. There's nothing masterful about it. They pretty much say or show that the Joker's goons are afraid of him or crazy.

We actually don't get an idea about what the general people in Gotham believe regarding Batman. It seems there are some people that don't believe he did it. With Bane, we also don't get an idea about what the regular people believe. We just see the prisoners and his men going along with it.

I don't see how the fear toxin didn't cause more deaths than the Joker.

I said that he may have told people. But I don't see why anybody would believe him. But regardless I don't think he has any real beliefs.

Intentions do matter in actions. He didn't tackle Harvey with the intention of killing him. He tackled a guy who was going to shoot a child. To stop him from shooting a child. It wasn't like he was trying to kill him. He was just trying to stop him. But that ended up killing him. Yes, I do think Bruce broke his rule here. But he didn't do it intentionally and it doesn't contradict his beliefs. Because he had no intention of killing Harvey when he tackled him.

I didn't mean he wasn't at all culpable when I said that, and I'm sorry if it came off that way. He had a hand in Ra's death. There's no denying that. And I believe Bruce believes that he did as well.

I didn't say that. I said he kinda broke his rule. Which isn't the same as killing when the going gets tough. Lethal force isn't and never will be unavoidable. But it can be a thing that happens. That doesn't mean you can't avoid it most of the time. But avoidable all the time? I highly doubt it. But Bruce does pretty well in his intentions. Which is the point. It happening accidentally doesn't negate the fact that he has a rule about it. The fact is someone getting killed because of actions is different than killing. If they're accidental. Bruce has never used lethal force with the intention of it being lethal to someone. And intentions do matter with actions.

Clark didn't murder Zod. He killed him to save a family.

No, it doesn't. He wasn't thinking about what would happen other stopping him.

Spider-Man doesn't kill in the Raimi trilogy. But Webb Spider-Man does, with no qualms. Another reason I dislike it. If the hero is a sociopath how am I supposed to like him/her? I like to pretend Burton's Batman doesn't kill. It's really the only way I can not want him locked in a mental ward. And I like those films.

That's not how that works.

Heh, Batman very much killed Ra's. He told Gordon to blow the tracks, and when Ra's talked about stopping the train, Batman clearly said, "who said anything about stopping?". He put Ra's in a death trap, and didn't save him on purpose. It was all very much premeditated.

Quote from: Travesty on Sat, 27 Jun  2015, 16:21
Heh, Batman very much killed Ra's. He told Gordon to blow the tracks, and when Ra's talked about stopping the train, Batman clearly said, "who said anything about stopping?". He put Ra's in a death trap, and didn't save him on purpose. It was all very much premeditated.

If Bruce wanted to kill Ra's he could have pulled to the rails in the Batmobile and shot them out just as the train was coming, but he didn't. Ra's wouldn't have had time to stop. He would have died. The Microwave Emitter would've been stopped. The End. But that isn't what happened, because it was a plan b to Bruce's plan a, which was "Stop the train". He didn't need Gordon at all if all he wanted to do was blow out the rails and kill Ra's.

I'm going by what the movie has explicitly shown us, and what both the Nolan brothers have acknowledged themselves. What you're doing, is trying your hardest to conform your own ideas of what you think/hope was in the movie, but was never there. Basically, you're filling in the blanks to try and fit your false narrative.

I'm sorry, but all evidence is contradictory to your claims.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 28 Jun  2015, 14:53
I'm going by what the movie has explicitly shown us, and what both the Nolan brothers have acknowledged themselves. What you're doing, is trying your hardest to conform your own ideas of what you think/hope was in the movie, but was never there. Basically, you're filling in the blanks to try and fit your false narrative.

I'm sorry, but all evidence is contradictory to your claims.

I have no idea what they really say. But it doesn't matter. If they say that, then they're wrong. I'm saying what happens in the films.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu6wAtx7.gif&hash=9741d8662989d2e5869a2dfb16766fb18ef3c53c)

Quote from: Travesty on Mon, 29 Jun  2015, 16:39
(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu6wAtx7.gif&hash=9741d8662989d2e5869a2dfb16766fb18ef3c53c)

I did admit that he broke his when he killed Harvey. But it was accidental. It doesn't negate his rule by any means though. I do this with all Batman movies.

Personally, I don't see Dent's death as accidental at all.

If Batman did end up killing his former ally without actually intending to, I'd like to think Nolan would have made a huge deal out of it or would've made this clear (i.e. Batman throws batarang, Dent stumbled back towards the edge. Batman tries to save him, but fails. Dent goes over and falls to his death). Then, Batman would feel some sort of guilt over it in the aftermath.

Instead, the movie just shows Batman tackling Two-Face over the side to save the kid. Dent dies. Batman and Gordon stand over his body before he runs off. Not once (in either TDK's ending or any of TDK Rises) does Bruce/Batman express any regret over Dent getting killed in the process of saving James Jr.

Not to mention there's screenwriter Jonathan Nolan's confession in The Dark Knight Trilogy screenwriting book (as seen in Laughing Fish's signature) saying that Batman did break his one rule in the film.

It might not be outright murder, like Keaton shoving a bomb down a clown's pants in Batman Returns, but the movie makes it seem more like a "It was him vs. the kid" situation, as opposed to "I was just trying to save the kid. Dent wasn't supposed to die too."

I side with Laughing Fish on the fickle nature of Batman's one rule in the trilogy- either Batman has a strict moral code and follows it through the movies or, like in the Burton films, he doesn't have that code and kills criminals if he's forced to choose between them and innocent lives.

Instead, we've got Bruce arguing with Ra's over executing criminals...only to abandon him to his death on the train, Batman telling Joker about his one rule...only to kill Dent to save James Jr., and Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing"...only to shoot at Talia's truck, take out her driver at 3:09,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2cydZgUaqE

...and cause her fatal crash.

You can't have Batman talk all about his code and then kill people and skirt over the contradictions. If the point in dealing with Ra's, Two-Face, or Talia was for Batman to cross that line, how come there was little to no exploration of that? I don't mind Batman establishing his one rule and then having to break it, so long as the story actually goes into the ramifications of that. Bruce quitting being Batman before TDK Rises would've made way more sense if it was out of guilt for causing Dent's death and breaking his one rule.

Crossing my fingers that Snyder does this better with Affleck's Batman.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu,  2 Jul  2015, 21:37
Personally, I don't see Dent's death as accidental at all.

If Batman did end up killing his former ally without actually intending to, I'd like to think Nolan would have made a huge deal out of it or would've made this clear (i.e. Batman throws batarang, Dent stumbled back towards the edge. Batman tries to save him, but fails. Dent goes over and falls to his death). Then, Batman would feel some sort of guilt over it in the aftermath.

Instead, the movie just shows Batman tackling Two-Face over the side to save the kid. Dent dies. Batman and Gordon stand over his body before he runs off. Not once (in either TDK's ending or any of TDK Rises) does Bruce/Batman express any regret over Dent getting killed in the process of saving James Jr.

Not to mention there's screenwriter Jonathan Nolan's confession in The Dark Knight Trilogy screenwriting book (as seen in Laughing Fish's signature) saying that Batman did break his one rule in the film.

It might not be outright murder, like Keaton shoving a bomb down a clown's pants in Batman Returns, but the movie makes it seem more like a "It was him vs. the kid" situation, as opposed to "I was just trying to save the kid. Dent wasn't supposed to die too."

I side with Laughing Fish on the fickle nature of Batman's one rule in the trilogy- either Batman has a strict moral code and follows it through the movies or, like in the Burton films, he doesn't have that code and kills criminals if he's forced to choose between them and innocent lives.

Instead, we've got Bruce arguing with Ra's over executing criminals...only to abandon him to his death on the train, Batman telling Joker about his one rule...only to kill Dent to save James Jr., and Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing"...only to shoot at Talia's truck, take out her driver at 3:09,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2cydZgUaqE

...and cause her fatal crash.

You can't have Batman talk all about his code and then kill people and skirt over the contradictions. If the point in dealing with Ra's, Two-Face, or Talia was for Batman to cross that line, how come there was little to no exploration of that? I don't mind Batman establishing his one rule and then having to break it, so long as the story actually goes into the ramifications of that. Bruce quitting being Batman before TDK Rises would've made way more sense if it was out of guilt for causing Dent's death and breaking his one rule.

Crossing my fingers that Snyder does this better with Affleck's Batman.

I did say that Batman broke his rule. But it just doesn't play for Batman to think "I am going to tackle Harvey to save Jim's son and that will kill Harvey." Not only does that not play with someone's natural thought process, or how the scene plays out, it's also OOC. It was a pretty clear "I have to save the kid" situation. He wasn't thinking about Harvey. It was a completely impulsive action. That's why they had him beaten with a pipe by the Joker, had him attacked by dogs, had him take down a SWAT Team, and then had him shot. It was all to get him into the situation where all he could do was tackle Harvey to save the boy. He wasn't trying to kill the driver. For all intents and purposes he didn't even know he was killed at all. Letting someone die isn't the same as killing them. Neither is someone getting killed accidentally because of something someone else did.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu,  2 Jul  2015, 21:37
Not once (in either TDK's ending or any of TDK Rises) does Bruce/Batman express any regret over Dent getting killed in the process of saving James Jr.

I had an argument with another poster on this forum last year who used a fallacious argument by claiming if Batman killed Dent on purpose, it also would've meant that he tried to kill the boy too. I thought I tried to explain to him that Batman's actions were intentional, not out of vengeance, but he did it to save the kid. It fell on the guy's deaf ears though. The apologist in question had the nerve to argue "Nolan made one mistake in killing Ra's, but it was something he got right in the next two films, yet you still complain. He can't win." What's just as aggravating is he said that it's unfair to condemn Batman's confusing actions all because he killed "deliberately" once killed in BB...which is the biggest load of apologist rubbish I've ever read. It is a flaw if the director fails to address these inconsistencies and make Batman's character change as a result.

Anyway, I even suggested why didn't Batman take a more cautious approach under the situation, hell I even used your Batarang suggestion as an example, and his excuse was that he was too injured and tired following the Joker's assault. Which I find very hard to believe because if his Batsuit can't protect him from bodily harm and gunshot wounds, how the hell can it enable him to survive a fall from a skyscraper building and crash on top of a car when he saved Rachel?!

Another excuse this poster said that Batman did show subtle signs of remorse for killing Dent by calling him a hero, and supposedly looking sad for a moment. To me, it looked more like Batman was breathing heavily from his injuries he sustained from the fall in the end. But even if that was the case, I find it quite odd that he quickly regains composure when talking to Gordon as he frames himself for everything Dent did and then escapes. What annoys me is the poster twisted Batman's remarks in calling Dent a hero as a sign to show he didn't mean to kill him. If that guy was telling the truth, he would've realized that Batman called him that because he decided to take the fall for him and protect his so-called "White Knight" reputation. He took that course of action immediately after listening to Gordon's worries that Dent's work would get dismissed and release all the crooks from jail if the truth was discovered by everybody in Gotham (and with due respect to Dagenspear here, that was exactly what the Joker hoped to achieve in his plan to corrupt Dent in the first place - to create more chaos. Which is why Batman made that decision to frame himself - to prevent that from happening). And like you said, at no point in the end of the film, or in TDKR, did he ever show any regrets over his death. Just like he didn't show any regrets killing Ra's - in fact, his justification to Talia says otherwise! So it makes his handling of the Joker situation that much harder to comprehend.

The whole gist of the guy's point was that Batman accidentally killing Dent was supposed to represent Batman's greatest failure. That's all well and good, but Nolan failed to adapt that according to the rules he set for the character. If Batman sees himself as a soldier, then he needed to be more consistent in his stance towards killing. Don't look for lame loopholes and hope nobody in the audience will call out on your hypocrisy. Nolan may have fooled the average movie public desperate for darker attempt at a Batman film, but some of us are smart enough to understand that these are legitimate flaws to complain about.

Quote
Crossing my fingers that Snyder does this better with Affleck's Batman.

Speaking of BvS, it really makes me wonder if Snyder's decision for Superman to kill Zod in MOS in that manner was his way of one-upping Nolan. I'm eager to see if they will fulfill their promise that Superman will further develop from that incident and his reaction to stopping Zod won't be swept under the rug, as Goyer claimed immediately after MOS was released.

Now with that out of the way, I'm going back to my self-imposed exile from this thread.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri,  3 Jul  2015, 09:48

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Thu,  2 Jul  2015, 21:37
Not once (in either TDK's ending or any of TDK Rises) does Bruce/Batman express any regret over Dent getting killed in the process of saving James Jr.

I had an argument with another poster on this forum last year who used a fallacious argument by claiming if Batman killed Dent on purpose, it also would've meant that he tried to kill the boy too. I thought I tried to explain to him that Batman's actions were intentional, not out of vengeance, but he did it to save the kid. It fell on the guy's deaf ears though. The apologist in question had the nerve to argue "Nolan made one mistake in killing Ra's, but it was something he got right in the next two films, yet you still complain. He can't win." What's just as aggravating is he said that it's unfair to condemn Batman's confusing actions all because he killed "deliberately" once killed in BB...which is the biggest load of apologist rubbish I've ever read. It is a flaw if the director fails to address these inconsistencies and make Batman's character change as a result.

Anyway, I even suggested why didn't Batman take a more cautious approach under the situation, hell I even used your Batarang suggestion as an example, and his excuse was that he was too injured and tired following the Joker's assault. Which I find very hard to believe because if his Batsuit can't protect him from bodily harm and gunshot wounds, how the hell can it enable him to survive a fall from a skyscraper building and crash on top of a car when he saved Rachel?!

Another excuse this poster said that Batman did show subtle signs of remorse for killing Dent by calling him a hero, and supposedly looking sad for a moment. To me, it looked more like Batman was breathing heavily from his injuries he sustained from the fall in the end. But even if that was the case, I find it quite odd that he quickly regains composure when talking to Gordon as he frames himself for everything Dent did and then escapes. What annoys me is the poster twisted Batman's remarks in calling Dent a hero as a sign to show he didn't mean to kill him. If that guy was telling the truth, he would've realized that Batman called him that because he decided to take the fall for him and protect his so-called "White Knight" reputation. He took that course of action immediately after listening to Gordon's worries that Dent's work would get dismissed and release all the crooks from jail if the truth was discovered by everybody in Gotham (and with due respect to Dagenspear here, that was exactly what the Joker hoped to achieve in his plan to corrupt Dent in the first place - to create more chaos. Which is why Batman made that decision to frame himself - to prevent that from happening). And like you said, at no point in the end of the film, or in TDKR, did he ever show any regrets over his death. Just like he didn't show any regrets killing Ra's - in fact, his justification to Talia says otherwise! So it makes his handling of the Joker situation that much harder to comprehend.

The whole gist of the guy's point was that Batman accidentally killing Dent was supposed to represent Batman's greatest failure. That's all well and good, but Nolan failed to adapt that according to the rules he set for the character. If Batman sees himself as a soldier, then he needed to be more consistent in his stance towards killing. Don't look for lame loopholes and hope nobody in the audience will call out on your hypocrisy. Nolan may have fooled the average movie public desperate for darker attempt at a Batman film, but some of us are smart enough to understand that these are legitimate flaws to complain about.

He didn't kill Ra's. Someone not saving someone else isn't killing.

I didn't say that the Joker didn't want to cause chaos. I think I said exactly that.

Batman has never used a batarang to stop someone from using a gun. That also carries the risk of the kid being shot, because Harvey had the gun at the kid's head and any kind of action like that could cause the gun to go off.

I said that Bruce did probably see it that way. It doesn't change the fact that allowing someone to die isn't the same as killing. And now that I think about it, why would Bruce even try to argue with Talia about it? Like, "I didn't kill him, I just didn't save him" would suddenly change her mind?

QuoteI did say that Batman broke his rule. But it just doesn't play for Batman to think "I am going to tackle Harvey to save Jim's son and that will kill Harvey." Not only does that not play with someone's natural thought process, or how the scene plays out, it's also OOC.

Look, we can both agree he did this to save the kid. But, based on his reactions afterwards, he had to have considered Harvey was going to get killed in the process.

The fact that he never reacts to Harvey's death with any sort of surprise or remorse is a big indicator that this wasn't an accidental death.

Hell, Batman felt guilt over Rachel dying and Harvey getting scarred, even though neither of those were his fault at all.

If he didn't know Harvey was going to get killed when saving James Jr., wouldn't he have felt guilt, too? Especially considering that this guy was a former ally and that Bruce played a way more direct role in his death than his scarring.

QuoteHe wasn't trying to kill the driver. For all intents and purposes he didn't even know he was killed at all.

Am I supposed to buy that Batman was directly firing bullets and explosives at the van...and didn't think anyone would actually get killed by them in the process?

QuoteHe didn't kill Ra's. Someone not saving someone else isn't killing.

While I agree that not saving someone isn't the same as killing him, I'm with Travesty in that Batman played way more of a role in Ra's getting killed than just escaping the train. Just because it wasn't his original plan doesn't change the fact that he still made a choice, in those moments, to deliberately leave Ra's on a train that was about to derail and crash, with no means of escaping. To me, that's not the same thing as just "not saving someone."

QuoteBatman has never used a batarang to stop someone from using a gun.

Are we talking the Nolan movies or the comics?

'Cause in the comics, one of the primary uses of the batarang is to disarm opponents.

And if we're specifically talking about Batman using a batarang on a villain in a hostage situation, that's still something he did in comics like Under the Hood, where he used a batarang/shuriken on Jason Todd when he had a gun to the Joker's head and stopped him from shooting Joker.

QuoteAnd now that I think about it, why would Bruce even try to argue with Talia about it? Like, "I didn't kill him, I just didn't save him" would suddenly change her mind?

Isn't Talia's whole motivation, based off of blaming Batman for her father's death?

If I were that situation and I didn't feel any responsibility over Ra's al Ghul's death, then "I didn't kill your father" would be the first thing I'd say. Instead, he justifies it.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Fri,  3 Jul  2015, 17:57

QuoteI did say that Batman broke his rule. But it just doesn't play for Batman to think "I am going to tackle Harvey to save Jim's son and that will kill Harvey." Not only does that not play with someone's natural thought process, or how the scene plays out, it's also OOC.

Look, we can both agree he did this to save the kid. But, based on his reactions afterwards, he had to have considered Harvey was going to get killed in the process.

The fact that he never reacts to Harvey's death with any sort of surprise or remorse is a big indicator that this wasn't an accidental death.

Hell, Batman felt guilt over Rachel dying and Harvey getting scarred, even though neither of those were his fault at all.

If he didn't know Harvey was going to get killed when saving James Jr., wouldn't he have felt guilt, too? Especially considering that this guy was a former ally and that Bruce played a way more direct role in his death than his scarring.

It just doesn't play. Even if he did mean to kill Harvey, how does him not feeling guilt make that true? Wouldn't he feel guilt regardless? I don't know. It just doesn't seem like something that needs to be said.

Quote

QuoteHe wasn't trying to kill the driver. For all intents and purposes he didn't even know he was killed at all.

Am I supposed to buy that Batman was directly firing bullets and explosives at the van...and didn't think anyone would actually get killed by them in the process?

Actually yes. As far as everything plays out, Bruce was trying to redirect the truck, get it to change paths.

Quote

QuoteHe didn't kill Ra's. Someone not saving someone else isn't killing.

While I agree that not saving someone isn't the same as killing him, I'm with Travesty in that Batman played way more of a role in Ra's getting killed than just escaping the train. Just because it wasn't his original plan doesn't change the fact that he still made a choice, in those moments, to deliberately leave Ra's on a train that was about to derail and crash, with no means of escaping. To me, that's not the same thing as just "not saving someone."

And how would Batman have given Ra's a means of escaping? He couldn't glide out with Ra's while it was crashing. But I don't agree. It was wrong, yes. But killing? No.

Quote

QuoteBatman has never used a batarang to stop someone from using a gun.

Are we talking the Nolan movies or the comics?

'Cause in the comics, one of the primary uses of the batarang is to disarm opponents.

And if we're specifically talking about Batman using a batarang on a villain in a hostage situation, that's still something he did in comics like Under the Hood, where he used a batarang/shuriken on Jason Todd when he had a gun to the Joker's head and stopped him from shooting Joker.

I was talking about Nolan Batman. Which, take that as a flaw however you like, but it is something that these films never used.

Quote

QuoteAnd now that I think about it, why would Bruce even try to argue with Talia about it? Like, "I didn't kill him, I just didn't save him" would suddenly change her mind?

Isn't Talia's whole motivation, based off of blaming Batman for her father's death?

If I were that situation and I didn't feel any responsibility over Ra's al Ghul's death, then "I didn't kill your father" would be the first thing I'd say. Instead, he justifies it.

I don't see why he would try to explain it any other way. She obviously knew he was involved. Him saying that could've just agitated her more and he was trying to keep her from pushing the button. I'm not saying this is the reason, but why would he try to explain it any other way?

QuoteIt just doesn't play. Even if he did mean to kill Harvey, how does him not feeling guilt make that true? Wouldn't he feel guilt regardless? I don't know. It just doesn't seem like something that needs to be said.

The movie presents it that Harvey had to die for him to save the kid. From Batman's perspective, I'd say the lack of guilt points to his mindset being "I did what I had to do to save the boy." Similar to his perspective on Ra's's death, that he did what he had to do because Ra's was going to kill thousands of innocent people.

If it was an accident, he would've been surprised and dismayed that Dent was killed. He wasn't.

If the Nolans really wanted to convey that Dent's death was an accident, then they would have found a clear way to convey that. A line of dialogue. A different version of his death where that was clear.

They didn't. I really see no evidence in the film pointing to Dent's death being the result of an accident or that Batman had no idea that Dent would get killed in the process of saving James Jr.

QuoteActually yes. As far as everything plays out, Bruce was trying to redirect the truck, get it to change paths.

Hey, it'd be one thing if he fired bombs a few feet in its path, to force it to stop and change paths, the truck accidentally flipped, and then the guy got killed.

But that's not what happened. He directly fired lethal weapons onto the truck. Yes, he was trying to stop it, that's obvious, but how could he NOT think that someone would die from that in the process? I don't buy it for a second. Nolan's Batman isn't the smartest version of the character, but he can't be that dumb.

QuoteAnd how would Batman have given Ra's a means of escaping? He couldn't glide out with Ra's while it was crashing. But I don't agree. It was wrong, yes. But killing? No.

This actually makes me wonder if we'd be debating this scene so much if he had said, "I won't kill you. But I can't save you."

My thing is...these movies come from the mind of the Nolans and if they wanted Batman to try to enforce his rule, they would've written a way in.

I could be wrong on this, but I believe the original draft actually had the fight on top of the train, in which case, Batman could've used his grappling hook on a building and taken Ra's with him if he wanted to. They could've tried that. They could've tried a bunch of different ways, too, or made it seem that Batman couldn't have taken Ra's out without dying in the train himself.

They didn't do any of this because that's not what they wanted. They wanted Batman to choose to leave Ra's in a deathtrap that he set up. Everything in this and TDK Rises points to Batman being responsible for Ra's al Ghul's death.

QuoteI was talking about Nolan Batman. Which, take that as a flaw however you like, but it is something that these films never used.

So he hadn't done it in the films before. That doesn't mean they couldn't have used that option.

QuoteI don't see why he would try to explain it any other way. She obviously knew he was involved. Him saying that could've just agitated her more and he was trying to keep her from pushing the button. I'm not saying this is the reason, but why would he try to explain it any other way?

He just got betrayed by a woman he was falling for, with a knife in his ribs and his city about to get blown up. I doubt he'd be thinking that way at all in the moment and again, if the Nolans wanted to clarify that Batman wasn't responsible for the death, they would've had him say so.

Plus there's really nothing he does in the scene itself to keep her from pushing that button, other than ask questions and get exposition from her. She even pushes it and the only reason the city doesn't burn is 'cause of Gordon. So if trying not to agitate her was the main factor and he was trying to stop her from blowing everything up too, then it was really poorly handled.

Look, you already agree with us that Batman broke his rule in the movies, so I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point.

The original point from Laughing Fish was that the Nolans failed to properly explore Batman's hypocritical actions or the potential consequences of the rule-breaking on Batman's character once he does it.

If Batman's one rule was so important to him, how come it never bothers him in any of the three films when he breaks it?

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat,  4 Jul  2015, 04:34The movie presents it that Harvey had to die for him to save the kid. From Batman's perspective, I'd say the lack of guilt points to his mindset being "I did what I had to do to save the boy." Similar to his perspective on Ra's's death, that he did what he had to do because Ra's was going to kill thousands of innocent people.

If it was an accident, he would've been surprised and dismayed that Dent was killed. He wasn't.

If the Nolans really wanted to convey that Dent's death was an accident, then they would have found a clear way to convey that. A line of dialogue. A different version of his death where that was clear.

They didn't. I really see no evidence in the film pointing to Dent's death being the result of an accident or that Batman had no idea that Dent would get killed in the process of saving James Jr.

Hey, it'd be one thing if he fired bombs a few feet in its path, to force it to stop and change paths, the truck accidentally flipped, and then the guy got killed.

But that's not what happened. He directly fired lethal weapons onto the truck. Yes, he was trying to stop it, that's obvious, but how could he NOT think that someone would die from that in the process? I don't buy it for a second. Nolan's Batman isn't the smartest version of the character, but he can't be that dumb.

This actually makes me wonder if we'd be debating this scene so much if he had said, "I won't kill you. But I can't save you."

My thing is...these movies come from the mind of the Nolans and if they wanted Batman to try to enforce his rule, they would've written a way in.

I could be wrong on this, but I believe the original draft actually had the fight on top of the train, in which case, Batman could've used his grappling hook on a building and taken Ra's with him if he wanted to. They could've tried that. They could've tried a bunch of different ways, too, or made it seem that Batman couldn't have taken Ra's out without dying in the train himself.

They didn't do any of this because that's not what they wanted. They wanted Batman to choose to leave Ra's in a deathtrap that he set up. Everything in this and TDK Rises points to Batman being responsible for Ra's al Ghul's death.

So he hadn't done it in the films before. That doesn't mean they couldn't have used that option.

He just got betrayed by a woman he was falling for, with a knife in his ribs and his city about to get blown up. I doubt he'd be thinking that way at all in the moment and again, if the Nolans wanted to clarify that Batman wasn't responsible for the death, they would've had him say so.

Plus there's really nothing he does in the scene itself to keep her from pushing that button, other than ask questions and get exposition from her. She even pushes it and the only reason the city doesn't burn is 'cause of Gordon. So if trying not to agitate her was the main factor and he was trying to stop her from blowing everything up too, then it was really poorly handled.

Look, you already agree with us that Batman broke his rule in the movies, so I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point.

The original point from Laughing Fish was that the Nolans failed to properly explore Batman's hypocritical actions or the potential consequences of the rule-breaking on Batman's character once he does it.

If Batman's one rule was so important to him, how come it never bothers him in any of the three films when he breaks it?

I never said he had no idea. I said that he wasn't thinking about killing Harvey, he was thinking about saving the kid. It wasn't his intention. But it's a result. A result he may have been aware of, but wasn't his direct concern. He knew Harvey. He felt responsible for Harvey's situation. He would feel guilt regardless. The entire film lays out Batman's rule and how he might have to break it. Bruce himself even says that Batman can't endure this and he sees what he would have to become to stop men like him. It's all there. Even Batman at the end looks broken. They wanted him to be put into a position where his rule would be broken.

He wasn't trying to stop it. It was stated that he was trying to redirect it. Lucius told him that he had to get the bomb back to the reactor to keep it from blowing up. He wasn't trying to kill the guy, he didn't know the guy died. It's as simple as that.

Being partially responsible isn't the same thing as killing. He didn't kill. So, it wasn't a real breaking of the rule.

That's exactly why. They've never introduced that as a method of his.

Falling for? Not at all. But I did say that I wasn't saying that that was the reason. It was just a thought.

Yes, he did. But it wasn't something he set out to do.

Because he doesn't do it in all three films. He didn't murder Ra's. He didn't know that that driver was killed and he didn't kill Talia and there was very clear consequences for Harvey in both TDK and TDKR.

QuoteThat's exactly why. They've never introduced that as a method of his.

They still introduced Batarangs. I really doubt "We've never had Batman use the batarang in that specific scenario" was what was stopping them, in a movie full of Batman using tactics and gadgets he hadn't used in the previous film.

They did what they did because they wanted Batman to break his rule. You and I both agree on this.

Whether you think it was well done or I think it was contrived is subjective.

QuoteA result he may have been aware of, but wasn't his direct concern.

I keep agreeing with you that Batman was doing it to protect the kid. All I'm saying is that Harvey's death just didn't accidentally happen. That's not how the film presents it in the last five minutes.

Batman had to have been aware of the result of what he was doing. You've just acknowledged that.

You've also acknowledged that Batman broke his rule in the ending.

Let's agree on these things and move on.

QuoteHe knew Harvey. He felt responsible for Harvey's situation. He would feel guilt regardless.

So why doesn't he have guilt in the movies, then? The fact that he doesn't feel guilt is the flaw that Laughing Fish and I have been bringing up.

After a whole movie's build-up, Batman's not shown as having any guilt or personal feelings towards breaking the one rule in taking out Harvey at the end or in any of The Dark Knight Rises.

See my next response for more on this.

Quotethere was very clear consequences for Harvey in both TDK and TDKR.

What consequences from killing Harvey?

The ending of TDK and TDK Rises come about because Joker turned Harvey into Two-Face and Batman decided to take the blame for his crimes, with Gordon aiding him.

Harvey being dead plays a role, yes, but the specific action of Batman killing him had nothing to do with those things.

Harvey could've been shot to death by Gordon or committed suicide at the end of TDK and the story still could've gone the same way with Batman taking the blame for his crimes and going on the run, because Gotham's White Knight got corrupted and Batman & Gordon didn't want anyone knowing the truth about Two-Face.

Hell, they were a ton of people who didn't think Two-Face was even dead at the end of TDK, which shows that the Nolans could've even done the same ending with Harvey being alive.

The only thing I can think of that fits your interpretation is that the cops, like Foley, bring up that Batman killed Harvey Dent.

But that's only because they didn't know about his crimes as Two-Face and once Gotham learns what really happened and that Batman did it to save the boy, Batman's no longer considered a menace. Again, what happens in TDK Rises has much more to do with the Two-Face cover-up than with Batman killing him.

If Bruce had quit being Batman because he broke the rule, then that would be a consequence that carried over to the third film.

If Batman spent TDK Rises being haunted by Dent's death and afraid of taking another life, that would be another consequence.

There are probably other scenarios I haven't thought of that would convey this, too, but nothing like this happened. Everything that happened was because of the cover-up.

QuoteHe wasn't trying to stop it. It was stated that he was trying to redirect it. Lucius told him that he had to get the bomb back to the reactor to keep it from blowing up. He wasn't trying to kill the guy, he didn't know the guy died. It's as simple as that.

My mistake, then- he was trying to redirect it, not stop it. It still doesn't change anything I said. .

If a cop fires on a car with a criminal in it, his primary concern is to stop that criminal from getting away or hurting anyone else, but he knows in the back of his head that the guy inside could get shot and killed from his gun. That's common sense.

And if that guy does get shot and killed, wouldn't you say the cop killed that criminal? He didn't murder him, sure, and he did it for a good cause to protect others, but he still took the other man's life.

What you're arguing is that Batman never committed murder- which is killing with malicious intent.

In which case, I agree. Batman didn't murder Two-Face, the driver, or Talia.

But he did commit manslaughter- which is killing without malicious intent and is what the cops are forced to commit in the scenario I outlined above.

Manslaughter is still killing. People, like Talia and the driver, still lost their lives because of him, even if his intentions were simply to stop the criminals and protect the innocent. Which would be fine...if the movies hadn't beaten us over the head with Batman saying he doesn't kill.

He does. And when he does it, nothing happens, making all the fuss about his "one rule" feel like wasted time.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sat,  4 Jul  2015, 19:10They still introduced Batarangs. I really doubt "We've never had Batman use the batarang in that specific scenario" was what was stopping them, in a movie full of Batman using tactics and gadgets he hadn't used in the previous film.

They did what they did because they wanted Batman to break his rule. You and I both agree on this.

Whether you think it was well done or I think it was contrived is subjective.

I keep agreeing with you that Batman was doing it to protect the kid. All I'm saying is that Harvey's death just didn't accidentally happen. That's not how the film presents it in the last five minutes.

Batman had to have been aware of the result of what he was doing. You've just acknowledged that.

You've also acknowledged that Batman broke his rule in the ending.

Let's agree on these things and move on.

So why doesn't he have guilt in the movies, then? The fact that he doesn't feel guilt is the flaw that Laughing Fish and I have been bringing up.

After a whole movie's build-up, Batman's not shown as having any guilt or personal feelings towards breaking the one rule in taking out Harvey at the end or in any of The Dark Knight Rises.

See my next response for more on this.

What consequences from killing Harvey?

The ending of TDK and TDK Rises come about because Joker turned Harvey into Two-Face and Batman decided to take the blame for his crimes, with Gordon aiding him.

Harvey being dead plays a role, yes, but the specific action of Batman killing him had nothing to do with those things.

Harvey could've been shot to death by Gordon or committed suicide at the end of TDK and the story still could've gone the same way with Batman taking the blame for his crimes and going on the run, because Gotham's White Knight got corrupted and Batman & Gordon didn't want anyone knowing the truth about Two-Face.

Hell, they were a ton of people who didn't think Two-Face was even dead at the end of TDK, which shows that the Nolans could've even done the same ending with Harvey being alive.

The only thing I can think of that fits your interpretation is that the cops, like Foley, bring up that Batman killed Harvey Dent.

But that's only because they didn't know about his crimes as Two-Face and once Gotham learns what really happened and that Batman did it to save the boy, Batman's no longer considered a menace. Again, what happens in TDK Rises has much more to do with the Two-Face cover-up than with Batman killing him.

If Bruce had quit being Batman because he broke the rule, then that would be a consequence that carried over to the third film.

If Batman spent TDK Rises being haunted by Dent's death and afraid of taking another life, that would be another consequence.

There are probably other scenarios I haven't thought of that would convey this, too, but nothing like this happened. Everything that happened was because of the cover-up.

My mistake, then- he was trying to redirect it, not stop it. It still doesn't change anything I said.

If a cop fires on a car with a criminal in it, his primary concern is to stop that criminal from getting away or hurting anyone else, but he knows in the back of his head that the guy inside could get shot and killed from his gun. That's common sense.

And if that guy does get shot and killed, wouldn't you say the cop killed that criminal? He didn't murder him, sure, and he did it for a good cause to protect others, but he still took the other man's life.

What you're arguing is that Batman never committed murder- which is killing with malicious intent.

In which case, I agree. Batman didn't murder Two-Face, the driver, or Talia.

But he did commit manslaughter- which is killing without malicious intent and is what the cops are forced to commit in the scenario I outlined above.

Manslaughter is still killing. People, like Talia and the driver, still lost their lives because of him, even if his intentions were simply to stop the criminals and protect the innocent. Which would be fine...if the movies hadn't beaten us over the head with Batman saying he doesn't kill.

He does. And when he does it, nothing happens, making all the fuss about his "one rule" feel like wasted time.

Everything in fiction is contrived. Everything is constructed to reach a conclusion in the story. I just don't see Batman being able to use that in this scenario because that is not what the character or story dictated. Batman's physical state, his methods, the scenario, Harvey's placement of the gun.

Breaking the rule doesn't negate the rule or the importance of it. And him being aware of it doesn't mean that was his intention.

As I understand it, and forgive me if I misinterpreted your meaning, you've said that his lack of guilt is a reasoning for why he killed him on purpose. And I don't see how those two connect. With the intention or not he would still feel guilt. Him, to you, not feeling guilt doesn't mean he did or didn't do it on purpose. I do think that's what he felt though. But guilt, I don't believe in these movies, is the reason he doesn't kill. I think it's a rejection of the idea that killing is acceptable, because his parents were killed. Even if he does it unintentionally, I don't think that means he believes that any less.

Batman has stated the he's not an executioner. That's his goal. I just don't think that someone getting killed because of your unintentional actions and killing are the same thing. It's why I don't believe Batman killed the Joker really in Batman 89.

QuoteIt's why I don't believe Batman killed the Joker really in Batman 89.

I'll give you props for being consistent in your views. Most of the time, I see people saying that Batman killed in the Burton films and didn't in the Nolan movies.

Personally, I think the Burton Batman had less of a direct hand in Joker and Penguin's deaths than Nolan's Batman did in the deaths we're discussing.

QuoteBreaking the rule doesn't negate the rule or the importance of it.

What? What's the point of the rule if nothing happens or affects him when he breaks it? If it's not a big deal for him to break it, then yes, that completely negates the rule and the importance of it.

Quotejust don't think that someone getting killed because of your unintentional actions and killing are the same thing.

Then I hope you don't work in law because someone getting killed because of your unintentional actions is the exact definition of involuntary manslaughter, which is still a form of killing.

Quoteinvoluntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another human

Quote
Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html

In the cases of Two-Face and Talia and the driver- were they killed? Yes.

Was Batman tackling Dent off the edge of a building dangerous to Dent? Was shooting bullets and explosives at Talia and the driver dangerous to them? Absolutely.

Did Batman know those acts would be a threat to them? He had to, unless he actually has no basic understanding of the fact that tackling someone off a building or shooting at someone's truck would put them at risk. In which case, he's pretty much this parody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byycwl8qgc

Again, your argument is that Batman commits involuntary manslaughter in these movies.
And involuntary manslaughter, by definition, is a form of killing.

And even if you don't agree that it was involuntary manslaughter (even though that's exactly what you outlined), you already agreed that Batman broke his rule in the trilogy.
And his rule is "no killing."

So, essentially, you've already agreed that Batman killed.

In which case, I don't see what else we have to argue about. I've said everything I wanted to say in this thread anyway.

Quote from: BatmAngelus on Sun,  5 Jul  2015, 18:36I'll give you props for being consistent in your views. Most of the time, I see people saying that Batman killed in the Burton films and didn't in the Nolan movies.

Personally, I think the Burton Batman had less of a direct hand in Joker and Penguin's deaths than Nolan's Batman did in the deaths we're discussing.

What? What's the point of the rule if nothing happens or affects him when he breaks it? If it's not a big deal for him to break it, then yes, that completely negates the rule and the importance of it.

Then I hope you don't work in law because someone getting killed because of your unintentional actions is the exact definition of involuntary manslaughter, which is still a form of killing.

In the cases of Two-Face and Talia and the driver- were they killed? Yes.

Was Batman tackling Dent off the edge of a building dangerous to Dent? Was shooting bullets and explosives at Talia and the driver dangerous to them? Absolutely.

Did Batman know those acts would be a threat to them? He had to, unless he actually has no basic understanding of the fact that tackling someone off a building or shooting at someone's truck would put them at risk. In which case, he's pretty much this parody:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1byycwl8qgc

Again, your argument is that Batman commits involuntary manslaughter in these movies.
And involuntary manslaughter, by definition, is a form of killing.

And even if you don't agree that it was involuntary manslaughter (even though that's exactly what you outlined), you already agreed that Batman broke his rule in the trilogy.
And his rule is "no killing."

So, essentially, you've already agreed that Batman killed.

In which case, I don't see what else we have to argue about. I've said everything I wanted to say in this thread anyway.

If you want to take the films without any real desire to see Batman or superheroism in them, then yes, Batman killed in the Burton films. He pulled that guy into the belltower and he put a bomb on that guy and he got blown up. Which is worse than anything Nolan's Batman does. Personally, I don't want to do that.

The point of a rule isn't that there's a consequence to it. It's that it's what's right.

Something being a form of killing isn't direct killing.

Yeah. Batman broke his rule by getting Harvey killed accidentally. Which was the point. But I don't agree that he actively killed him.

It is interesting how we're reduced to arguing over intent and squabbling over degrees. The very fact of that concedes the point.

Batman kills in the Nolan films in spite of taking moral stands against doing so.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 14 Aug  2015, 02:05
It is interesting how we're reduced to arguing over intent and squabbling over degrees. The very fact of that concedes the point.

Batman kills in the Nolan films in spite of taking moral stands against doing so.

It doesn't negate his rule. Having a moral stance, doesn't mean it's something that you end up doing inadvertently.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 14 Aug  2015, 04:47It doesn't negate his rule. Having a moral stance, doesn't mean it's something that you end up doing inadvertently.

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 15 Aug  2015, 19:11
Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

This debate about killing with intent has got me thinking about the very first episode of Batman Beyond. In the beginning, we see an aging Batman suddenly suffering a heart attack while in combat, and he's forced to use a gun to defend himself from a crook. Batman didn't even fire the gun and only scared the crook away, but he was so ashamed that he had to resort to using the same weapon that murdered his parents and retired from personally fighting crime forever. Why? Because Batman had a "no-gun" rule. According to him, it didn't matter if he had no choice and his own life was at stake. He armed himself with a weapon he promised to never use, and felt extremely guilty for it. He couldn't forgive himself, and declared "Never Again!" as he closed the Batcave down, and wouldn't go back down there until he met Terry McGinnis decades later.

Now the Nolan trilogy fans might ask: what's your point? My point is that there must be consequences to breaking your own promises. And from a narrative point of view, there must be consequences for Batman breaking his rules if you make his moral code an important plot point. Bruce Wayne in the DC Animated Universe made a vow to never use guns no matter the circumstances. And the consequences of breaking that vow - regardless whether he wanted to or not - led him to giving up being a crimefighter. As BatmAngelus said earlier on: what's the point of having a rule if there aren't any consequences? If breaking your own rule doesn't really affect you, then yes, it does negate the rule and its importance.

You're correct, Laughing Fish, and as a fan of Batman Beyond, I can add that Bruce was getting old at that time, and he had already been through a lot as Batman, including falling out with Robin and Batgirl, but he never stopped being Batman until he saw himself forced to take the gun in order to defend himself.

Good post, Laughing Fish. I'm a big fan of Burton's films obviously, but the BTAS/Beyond version of Batman continues to show all other incarnations how it's done.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 15 Aug  2015, 19:11

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 14 Aug  2015, 04:47It doesn't negate his rule. Having a moral stance, doesn't mean it's something that you end up doing inadvertently.

Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

But the character isn't the one doing that.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 15 Aug  2015, 23:48

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 15 Aug  2015, 19:11
Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

This debate about killing with intent has got me thinking about the very first episode of Batman Beyond. In the beginning, we see an aging Batman suddenly suffering a heart attack while in combat, and he's forced to use a gun to defend himself from a crook. Batman didn't even fire the gun and only scared the crook away, but he was so ashamed that he had to resort to using the same weapon that murdered his parents and retired from personally fighting crime forever. Why? Because Batman had a "no-gun" rule. According to him, it didn't matter if he had no choice and his own life was at stake. He armed himself with a weapon he promised to never use, and felt extremely guilty for it. He couldn't forgive himself, and declared "Never Again!" as he closed the Batcave down, and wouldn't go back down there until he met Terry McGinnis decades later.

Now the Nolan trilogy fans might ask: what's your point? My point is that there must be consequences to breaking your own promises. And from a narrative point of view, there must be consequences for Batman breaking his rules if you make his moral code an important plot point. Bruce Wayne in the DC Animated Universe made a vow to never use guns no matter the circumstances. And the consequences of breaking that vow - regardless whether he wanted to or not - led him to giving up being a crimefighter. As BatmAngelus said earlier on: what's the point of having a rule if there aren't any consequences? If breaking your own rule doesn't really affect you, then yes, it does negate the rule and its importance.

It doesn't. Because rules aren't there to follow because of consequences or guilt or shame. It's for you to know what's right and follow them. Bruce set forth a rule because he knew it was right. It wasn't about consequences. But I'm sure Bruce did feel guilt for killing Harvey inadvertently.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat, 15 Aug  2015, 19:11
Well and good... but a lot of us had to live through pre- and post-Begins hype about how this rebooted Batman never flagrantly, carelessly took lives the way previous onscreen incarnations did. There was a lot of vitriol about that. Now the best the Nolan side can argue is lack of intent or an imperfect ability to live to his own ideals.

Few of them seem to argue that his hands don't have blood on them anymore... which is a big change considering the rhetoric flying around ten years ago.

I'm revisiting this because now the pathetic fuss over Batman killing in BvS has seen some people return to their lousy reasoning that lack of intent should absolve any guilt or responsibility, specifically in defense of TDKT. sh*t, can you imagine if somebody tried to defend themselves with that retarded reasoning after running somebody over?

"Yes Constable, I realise that pedestrian died immediately after he got hit by my car, and I wasn't looking when it happened because I was speeding at 100km/h...but I didn't mean for it to happen, so I didn't really kill him."

Good luck trying to explain that to the cops.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give me a person who intends to kill and does, over a man who doesn't intend to kill and does. I'm all about competency.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed,  2 Nov  2016, 09:22
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Give me a person who intends to kill and does, over a man who doesn't intend to kill and does. I'm all about competency.

As much as I ridicule the fanboys for their stupidity and hypocrisy, I blame people in the comic book industry for enabling this attitude. I can't expect much from fanboys - they're hopeless and can't think for themselves. But people like Neal Adams, Dennis O'Neill and Mark Waid should know better. Especially Adams and O'Neill because they've written their own stories where Batman kills too.

Then again, I heard that Adams thought Batman succeeded in killing Superman in BvS, so it makes you wonder if he actually bothered to watch the film.

Generally speaking, there is no left or right anymore. There's simply THE CORRECT WAY OF THINKING. And I don't care if you're homeless and sleeping under a bridge, or an esteemed and long respected comic writer living in a plush penthouse. If your opinion is stupid, I'll say so. No one is off limits. Batman is not the Punisher, but lives are still lost in his crusade. BvS made it painstakingly clear that Batman's methods had changed due to his sense of apathy and lost sense of control. But the facts don't matter for the anti BvS buffoons. May they suffer the same fate as BR's strongman.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  3 Nov  2016, 09:32
BvS made it painstakingly clear that Batman's methods had changed due to his sense of apathy and lost sense of control. But the facts don't matter for the anti BvS buffoons. May they suffer the same fate as BR's strongman.

What's more pitiful to me is had Zack Snyder (or anyone else for that matter) directed TDKT and then said in an interview "Batman says he has one rule, but he winds up breaking it anyway" like Jonathan Nolan did, people would've tore him apart for having no regard for storytelling. The haters would say "OMG, Hack Snyder made a mistake and didn't bother to fix it, he clearly thinks the audience are idiots!" and "What was the point if the rule didn't really matter to Batman? Why didn't he kill the Joker then? WTF is wrong with you Snyder? Why did you waste two hours saying Batman won't kill but he actually does anyway? f*** you, Hack!". And they would've been justified in doing so.

But because the film is directed by Christopher Nolan, it's not a big deal. At worst, these people will desperately make up lame excuses instead. Yet, these very same people dismissively suggest the producers are "trying to correct the mistakes in BvS" by promising to explore Batman's actions in Justice League. Disgraceful.

As you once said, you can never underestimate anyone who is willing to like or dislike something. It's scary.

Double standards are at play.

I don't like saying it, but I'm going to say it again. The haters of Snyder and BvS simply don't care about the contradictions of their argument. It's pure competitive juice running through their veins. They don't want the replacement of Nolan to succeed, or be as loved. It's sour grapes. Much like how you wish an old company goes down the drain if you leave on bad terms. But that's okay. I'll be here fighting the good fight.

Oh, and #dumpkelloggs

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu,  1 Dec  2016, 02:44What's more pitiful to me is had Zack Snyder (or anyone else for that matter) directed TDKT and then said in an interview "Batman says he has one rule, but he winds up breaking it anyway" like Jonathan Nolan did, people would've tore him apart for having no regard for storytelling. The haters would say "OMG, Hack Snyder made a mistake and didn't bother to fix it, he clearly thinks the audience are idiots!" and "What was the point if the rule didn't really matter to Batman? Why didn't he kill the Joker then? WTF is wrong with you Snyder? Why did you waste two hours saying Batman won't kill but he actually does anyway? f*** you, Hack!". And they would've been justified in doing so.

I doubt it and no they wouldn't. Because having a rule doesn't mean it won't get broken. The rule does matter. The point is that personal issue of whether he can keep to it at all times. But that doesn't negate it. The context is key to how it's broken. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  3 Nov  2016, 09:32Generally speaking, there is no left or right anymore. There's simply THE CORRECT WAY OF THINKING. And I don't care if you're homeless and sleeping under a bridge, or an esteemed and long respected comic writer living in a plush penthouse. If your opinion is stupid, I'll say so. No one is off limits. Batman is not the Punisher, but lives are still lost in his crusade. BvS made it painstakingly clear that Batman's methods had changed due to his sense of apathy and lost sense of control. But the facts don't matter for the anti BvS buffoons. May they suffer the same fate as BR's strongman.

Of course he's not Punisher, seemingly. The Punisher, as far as I know, has never tried to murder a for all intents and purposes innocent man. I don't see how the "why" of him killing people with no regard and trying to murder a for all intents and purposes innocent man in cold blood should matter to them. He still did it and the movie doesn't care that he did.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu,  1 Dec  2016, 05:55
Double standards are at play.

I don't like saying it, but I'm going to say it again. The haters of Snyder and BvS simply don't care about the contradictions of their argument. It's pure competitive juice running through their veins. They don't want the replacement of Nolan to succeed, or be as loved. It's sour grapes.

If people simply prefer Nolan's films for entertainment value and don't hold them up to a grandiose standard of excellence, fine. So be it. It's not an opinion I share, but it's a lot more reasonable than calling them "cerebral", "masterpieces" or even "great".

But once again, they're kidding themselves if they keep holding this Batman on a high moral pedestal. Just because he says "I have one rule" and "I'm no executioner", it doesn't absolve him from any responsibility for the deaths he causes. Actions speak louder than words. Which is something some people have seemed to have forgotten, or never understood to begin with.

Of course, this is made even more messy when Batman justifies his decision to kill Ra's al Ghul, which makes his actions even more confusing and meaningless. But my point stands.

"I'm no executioner, therefore, I shall kill you all!!!!"

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  7 May  2017, 13:44If people simply prefer Nolan's films for entertainment value and don't hold them up to a grandiose standard of excellence, fine. So be it. It's not an opinion I share, but it's a lot more reasonable than calling them "cerebral", "masterpieces" or even "great".

But once again, they're kidding themselves if they keep holding this Batman on a high moral pedestal. Just because he says "I have one rule" and "I'm no executioner", it doesn't absolve him from any responsibility for the deaths he causes. Actions speak louder than words. Which is something some people have seemed to have forgotten, or never understood to begin with.

Of course, this is made even more messy when Batman justifies his decision to kill Ra's al Ghul, which makes his actions even more confusing and meaningless. But my point stands.

I've come around a small amount on the Nolanverse. That's partly because it's over now, as I've said.

But you hit upon a legitimate flaw of the trilogy. And honestly, it's so obviously ripe for character development. Had Batman said to Blake at some point during TDKRises something like "I didn't kill those cops. I never kill. Or I try to never kill anyway. But truth is there's no way around it sometimes. I'm not proud of it but" blah blah blah, so on and so forth.

For a guy who's basically ready to die, Bruce is alarmingly dishonest with himself through a fair bit of TDKRises. One moment of sober, honest introspection on his part would've gone a long way for me.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun,  7 May  2017, 13:44But once again, they're kidding themselves if they keep holding this Batman on a high moral pedestal. Just because he says "I have one rule" and "I'm no executioner", it doesn't absolve him from any responsibility for the deaths he causes. Actions speak louder than words. Which is something some people have seemed to have forgotten, or never understood to begin with.

Of course, this is made even more messy when Batman justifies his decision to kill Ra's al Ghul, which makes his actions even more confusing and meaningless. But my point stands.

Quote from: Travesty on Sun,  7 May  2017, 16:48"I'm no executioner, therefore, I shall kill you all!!!!"

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon,  8 May  2017, 00:00But you hit upon a legitimate flaw of the trilogy. And honestly, it's so obviously ripe for character development. Had Batman said to Blake at some point during TDKRises something like "I didn't kill Dent. I never kill. Or I try to never kill anyway. But truth is there's no way around it sometimes. I'm not proud of it but" blah blah blah, so on and so forth.

For a guy who's basically ready to die, Bruce is alarmingly dishonest with himself through a fair bit of TDKRises. One moment of sober, honest introspection on his part would've gone a long way for me.

ex·e·cu·tion
ˌeksəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: execution
2.
the carrying out of a sentence of death on a condemned person.

kill1
kil/
verb
1.
cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).

They aren't the same thing. Bruce never said he'd never kill. He said that he won't become an executioner. And Bruce didn't execute Ra's. Ra's stabbed the train console and was apart of getting himself killed. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Here's two more definitions to add to your pile.

Incompetent: not competent; lacking qualification or ability; incapable.
Dumb: lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.

Baleman was a joke. In his apparent effort not to kill anybody he killed plenty of people.
Batfleck intends to kill and he does. Baleman doesn't intend to kill and he does. And Batfleck is meant to be the danger?
Those two children sitting in the backseat of the car in TDK are alive by the grace of God.
If Baleman told me 'don't worry, I won't hurt you', I'd be sweating bullets.

When Baleman wasn't getting people killed like a clueless buffoon, he had his mouth open like a sedated senior citizen. And when he spoke it was like gargling marbles. His fighting style was underwhelming at best.

Have a very great day! God bless you!

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  8 May  2017, 04:35
When Baleman wasn't getting people killed like a clueless buffoon, he had his mouth open like a sedated senior citizen. And when he spoke it was like gargling marbles.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fhi3VlGq.jpg&hash=94015685dc531ff32072975d3de8cefc6357401d)

lol, "he didn't kill Ra's"?

Batman: Hey Gordon, here's keys to the Batmobile, I need you to blow the tracks, so the train is derailed. Cool?

Ra's: ....and that's why you can't stop this train.
Batman: Who said anything about stopping?
<Batman flies out of the train, leaving Ra's to die in the death trap he created>



See, it's even easy for someone like you to understand. No amount of semantics can get you out of this. Hope that helps, and have a great day.

Satan bless you!

Quote from: Travesty on Mon,  8 May  2017, 15:53lol, "he didn't kill Ra's"?

Batman: Hey Gordon, here's keys to the Batmobile, I need you to blow the tracks, so the train is derailed. Cool?

Ra's: ....and that's why you can't stop this train.
Batman: Who said anything about stopping?
<Batman flies out of the train, leaving Ra's to die in the death trap he created>

See, it's even easy for someone like you to understand. No amount of semantics can get you out of this. Hope that helps, and have a great day.

Satan bless you!

Ra's Al Ghul stabbed the console. He's the one who sealed his fate. But I never said in this particular conversation that Batman didn't kill Ra's. I said he didn't execute him, which is in accordance with his stated rule. Batman certainly had a hand in Ra's death, by it being his plan to blow out the tracks. For all intents and purposes, his plan was to stop the train and Ra's prevented that, which put him on a track to plan B. Bruce was apart of killing him, but he didn't execute him.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon,  8 May  2017, 04:35Here's two more definitions to add to your pile.

Incompetent: not competent; lacking qualification or ability; incapable.
Dumb: lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.

Baleman was a joke. In his apparent effort not to kill anybody he killed plenty of people.
Batfleck intends to kill and he does. Baleman doesn't intend to kill and he does. And Batfleck is meant to be the danger?
Those two children sitting in the backseat of the car in TDK are alive by the grace of God.
If Baleman told me 'don't worry, I won't hurt you', I'd be sweating bullets.

When Baleman wasn't getting people killed like a clueless buffoon, he had his mouth open like a sedated senior citizen. And when he spoke it was like gargling marbles. His fighting style was underwhelming at best.

Have a very great day! God bless you!

Batman never said that he wouldn't kill people. Yes, Batfleck is the danger, because Baleman never tried to murder in cold blood a for all intents and purposes innocent man. Like it or not, our world has structures of rules that dictate guilt. Intention to kill is dictated as worse than unintentional killing. In truth the only people Baleman did kill, intentionally or unintentionally, was a man who was about to murder a child and a number of admitted terrorists. He never set out, with malice of forethought, to murder someone had done nothing directly wrong by legal standards. Batfleck set out to murder someone who'd helped prevent the deaths of billions of people and did directly with malice of forethought kill many others to achieve this goal, needlessly. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

If Batman wanted Ras to live, he would've saved him. He didn't.

Quote from: Travesty on Mon,  8 May  2017, 15:53
See, it's even easy for someone like you to understand. No amount of semantics can get you out of this. Hope that helps, and have a great day.

It would be most unwise to underestimate the power of the Semantics King.

Quote from: Travesty on Mon,  8 May  2017, 15:53
Satan bless you!

:P

I'm not a religious person in the slightest. The only 'religious' policy I follow is Fair Game from the money making cult that is Scientology. It's a con job of an organization but any policy that says enemies "may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" gets my tick of approval. That's the only good thing going for it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  9 May  2017, 10:25If Batman wanted Ras to live, he would've saved him. He didn't.

For all intents and purposes, he didn't want him alive.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue,  9 May  2017, 10:25
It would be most unwise to underestimate the power of the Semantics King.

Ahhh, Semantics King, aka, Lord TattleTale. Yes, it would be most unwise, indeed. For he acts of that of a 12 year old, who tries to punish thee, with quips to higher ups, because he can't handle his own. Yes, I have run into him on multiple of forums.

Batman wanted Ras Al Ghul dead. If someone is getting bashed up and you can do something to stop it, but willingly choose to do nothing, you're condoning the violence. That's how I see it. One of the messages of Batman Begins is "what chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Batman did nothing.

He wanted to save the murderer at the LOS base. So by that reasoning, he should have wanted to save Ras as well.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 12 May  2017, 06:29Batman wanted Ras Al Ghul dead. If someone is getting bashed up and you can do something to stop it, but willingly choose to do nothing, you're condoning the violence. That's how I see it. One of the messages of Batman Begins is "what chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Batman did nothing.

He wanted to save the murderer at the LOS base. So by that reasoning, he should have wanted to save Ras as well.

I view the matter in a pretty similar way. If Batman intended to pull Ra's off the train, he would've pulled Ra's off the train. Batman makes a philosophical distinction between actively taking Ghul's life vs. passively taking it... but either way, he's still taking Ghul's life.

It does show Batman learning from his mistakes. He saved Ra's earlier in the movie and that ended up not being such a good idea. So in similar circumstances, he opted not to save him... but the end result is Ghul is just as dead as he would've been if Batman had personally throttled the life from his body.

Batman killed Ra's in Batman Begins. And the hell of it is I think he was right to do it. But I don't see why we can't all acknowledge that's what happened in Batman Begins.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 12 May  2017, 07:07
I view the matter in a pretty similar way. If Batman intended to pull Ra's off the train, he would've pulled Ra's off the train. Batman makes a philosophical distinction between actively taking Ghul's life vs. passively taking it... but either way, he's still taking Ghul's life.

It does show Batman learning from his mistakes. He saved Ra's earlier in the movie and that ended up not being such a good idea. So in similar circumstances, he opted not to save him... but the end result is Ghul is just as dead as he would've been if Batman had personally throttled the life from his body.

Batman killed Ra's in Batman Begins. And the hell of it is I think he was right to do it. But I don't see why we can't all acknowledge that's what happened in Batman Begins.

While I don't like BB by any means, I consider it as the lesser of the three evils, in the sense that Batman's actions actually saved Gotham. Yes, he was a hypocrite and a reckless buffoon. But the ends justified the means. His justification to kill Ra's for trying to eradicate the city made sense, which is the reason why this thread exists in the first place.

What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

Let's face it, the only reason the whole fake moral dilemma was forced in that movie was because Nolan wanted Batman to take the fall for Two-Face. If Batman was more consistent and honest about himself, he would've ran the Joker over with his Batpod, and the second half of the movie would never have happened (shame, the movie actually would've been salvaged otherwise).

And to think people say Zack Snyder is such a worthless director, but claim Nolan films is so much better. Absolute fools, I say.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 12 May  2017, 13:55

What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

Let's face it, the only reason the whole fake moral dilemma was forced in that movie was because Nolan wanted Batman to take the fall for Two-Face. If Batman was more consistent and honest about himself, he would've ran the Joker over with his Batpod, and the second half of the movie would never have happened (shame, the movie actually would've been salvaged otherwise).

And that's one reason why these movies are a bit irritating, at times. They keep contradicting themselves, and like you said, do so for plot conveniences. In BB he kills Ra's and a TON of LOS ninjas, but in TDK he keeps talking about his no-kill rule. Or in TDK, he wants to retire, and says Gotham needs a hero with a face, and then cut to TDKR, he tells Blake that he needs to wear a mask if he wants to be doing this hero stuff. In BB he says Gotham  needs to have a theatrical hero be a symbol, and then in TDK, he says that Harvey is more affective, cause he's the symbol he could never be(even though he could as Bruce Wayne). Or when he's talking about not using guns, but keeps using them on all of his vehicles, etc. And seriously, who trains for 7+ years, to then retiring in about a year?

And these are huge plot points for the character arcs, but they're constantly contradicting themselves with no explantation at all, other than to serve the plot of a particular movie.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 12 May  2017, 13:55What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

It's not usually any of my business to be a Nolan apologist.

But I'll say that the Joker's situation was different from Ra's. It wasn't possible to arrest Ra's. He was on the train and the police were all trapped in the Narrows. Ra's would never allow himself to be taken alive anyway. Batman made the best choice he could under those circumstances.

With the Joker, the police were already on the scene. To Batman's thinking, locking the Joker securely enough in the right room might be enough to permanently end his threat.

The other thing is that the Joker maybe doesn't WANT Batman to kill him... but would still regard it as a moral victory if Batman did kill him.

So in the short term, I can see where Batman might've thought allowing the Joker to live after TDK might've been the best idea. Not perfect but not terrible under the circumstances.

Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 12 May  2017, 16:38
And these are huge plot points for the character arcs, but they're constantly contradicting themselves with no explantation at all, other than to serve the plot of a particular movie.

As I said before, if any other director did this, they would've been crucified. But because Nolan is hyped up as the GOAT director, the so-called "saviour" of the Batman franchise, he's allowed to get away with it. People really need to take off their rose-tinted glasses.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 12 May  2017, 20:23
It's not usually any of my business to be a Nolan apologist.

But I'll say that the Joker's situation was different from Ra's. It wasn't possible to arrest Ra's. He was on the train and the police were all trapped in the Narrows. Ra's would never allow himself to be taken alive anyway. Batman made the best choice he could under those circumstances.

With the Joker, the police were already on the scene. To Batman's thinking, locking the Joker securely enough in the right room might be enough to permanently end his threat.

The other thing is that the Joker maybe doesn't WANT Batman to kill him... but would still regard it as a moral victory if Batman did kill him.

So in the short term, I can see where Batman might've thought allowing the Joker to live after TDK might've been the best idea. Not perfect but not terrible under the circumstances.

I completely disagree. The Joker proved himself to be an unstoppable maniac who was capable of anything. Literally, anything. Bloody hell, Batman and the cops couldn't find him when he was running rampant for a year, or however long it was established at the start of the film, and Joker progressively got even more dangerous to the point neither Batman or the cops could handle him. If all else, he actually succeeded a lot more than Ra's al Ghul ever hoped to accomplish.

After all, if this guy could escape from jail AND manipulate people to his own advantage i.e. provoking Gordon's partner in order to escape jail and miraculously brainwashing Two-Face into becoming a murderer, then what's guaranteed to stop him from escaping and killing again? And better yet, how could Batman even consider the thought of taking the fall for Two-Face if the Joker is still alive? As I said, he's a manipulator, and would do anything to finish what he started. If Heath Ledger were still alive today and replayed the role in TDKR, there's no doubt in my mind the Joker would play a prominent role.

And let's not bullsh*t ourselves, Batman was already tainted before he met the Joker. You think it actually makes sense that the same guy who justified his actions for condemning Ra's al Ghul to a death trap in order to save millions of innocent people...now suddenly wants to win some pointless "moral" battle against an even more dangerous threat, which accomplishes nothing but putting an entire city in harm's way? I'll say it again and much louder: BULLSH!T.

If anything, these films drive the point home that being Batman is a terrible idea if he can't be consistent in his approach.

Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 12 May  2017, 05:57Ahhh, Semantics King, aka, Lord TattleTale. Yes, it would be most unwise, indeed. For he acts of that of a 12 year old, who tries to punish thee, with quips to higher ups, because he can't handle his own. Yes, I have run into him on multiple of forums.

If you don't want consequences, don't commit negative actions. I'm not hostile to you. You have no reason to be to me.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 12 May  2017, 07:07I view the matter in a pretty similar way. If Batman intended to pull Ra's off the train, he would've pulled Ra's off the train. Batman makes a philosophical distinction between actively taking Ghul's life vs. passively taking it... but either way, he's still taking Ghul's life.

It does show Batman learning from his mistakes. He saved Ra's earlier in the movie and that ended up not being such a good idea. So in similar circumstances, he opted not to save him... but the end result is Ghul is just as dead as he would've been if Batman had personally throttled the life from his body.

Batman killed Ra's in Batman Begins. And the hell of it is I think he was right to do it. But I don't see why we can't all acknowledge that's what happened in Batman Begins.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 12 May  2017, 06:29Batman wanted Ras Al Ghul dead. If someone is getting bashed up and you can do something to stop it, but willingly choose to do nothing, you're condoning the violence. That's how I see it. One of the messages of Batman Begins is "what chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Batman did nothing.

He wanted to save the murderer at the LOS base. So by that reasoning, he should have wanted to save Ras as well.

No, he didn't. He wanted to not execute him and get out of what he'd just discovered was a terrorist organization that he'd just learned was going to destroy Gotham. The good men statement was against corruption. Not that he could get him out.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 12 May  2017, 13:55While I don't like BB by any means, I consider it as the lesser of the three evils, in the sense that Batman's actions actually saved Gotham. Yes, he was a hypocrite and a reckless buffoon. But the ends justified the means. His justification to kill Ra's for trying to eradicate the city made sense, which is the reason why this thread exists in the first place.

What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

Let's face it, the only reason the whole fake moral dilemma was forced in that movie was because Nolan wanted Batman to take the fall for Two-Face. If Batman was more consistent and honest about himself, he would've ran the Joker over with his Batpod, and the second half of the movie would never have happened (shame, the movie actually would've been salvaged otherwise).

And to think people say Zack Snyder is such a worthless director, but claim Nolan films is so much better. Absolute fools, I say.

His issue was with execution, not killing. He's never in the same position with Joker as he was with Ra's.

Quote from: Travesty on Fri, 12 May  2017, 16:38And that's one reason why these movies are a bit irritating, at times. They keep contradicting themselves, and like you said, do so for plot conveniences. In BB he kills Ra's and a TON of LOS ninjas, but in TDK he keeps talking about his no-kill rule. Or in TDK, he wants to retire, and says Gotham needs a hero with a face, and then cut to TDKR, he tells Blake that he needs to wear a mask if he wants to be doing this hero stuff. In BB he says Gotham  needs to have a theatrical hero be a symbol, and then in TDK, he says that Harvey is more affective, cause he's the symbol he could never be(even though he could as Bruce Wayne). Or when he's talking about not using guns, but keeps using them on all of his vehicles, etc. And seriously, who trains for 7+ years, to then retiring in about a year?

And these are huge plot points for the character arcs, but they're constantly contradicting themselves with no explantation at all, other than to serve the plot of a particular movie.

He's against execution, not killing. He realized the hero with a face didn't work. That was a point of TDK. Another point of TDK is Bruce thinking that Batman does more harm than good. He says that. It's apart of his reflection of the events that occur in the movie. He tells Selina not to use guns to kill people. He never says he's against guns. No one ever said he trained for 7 years. What you call contradictions are just things some don't seem to want to look at.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 12 May  2017, 20:23It's not usually any of my business to be a Nolan apologist.

But I'll say that the Joker's situation was different from Ra's. It wasn't possible to arrest Ra's. He was on the train and the police were all trapped in the Narrows. Ra's would never allow himself to be taken alive anyway. Batman made the best choice he could under those circumstances.

With the Joker, the police were already on the scene. To Batman's thinking, locking the Joker securely enough in the right room might be enough to permanently end his threat.

The other thing is that the Joker maybe doesn't WANT Batman to kill him... but would still regard it as a moral victory if Batman did kill him.

So in the short term, I can see where Batman might've thought allowing the Joker to live after TDK might've been the best idea. Not perfect but not terrible under the circumstances.

Exactly. Thank you. Batman is specific about his rule and his methods in TDKT. He doesn't straight up execute people. But he's willing to kill in situations where he's there's immediate danger otherwise. He never claims to have a no kill rule. His statement rule in BB is, "I will not become an executioner." Have a very great day! God bless you all!

The argument is actually very simple;

add up the number of motor vehicles destroyed by Batman as collateral damage in each batfilm. I guarantee the three batfilms with the most civilian vehicles destroyed by Batman were all in the Nolan trilogy. You could make the argument that maybe there wasn't a single civilian or police officer in the dozens if not hundreds of cars destroyed by Baleman but you can't possibly tell me that Bale ensured that each and every vehicle he pancaked was unoccupied, Therefore Bale assumed the risk of killing civilians and police officers.

At least Keaton and Bales characters should have known by the end of their films how many people they killed and neither killed anyone unintentionally during any of the films. The only people they killed were thugs who meant it.

Bale likely killed plenty of innocent people and the worst part is that his character has no clue how many innocent deaths he has caused.


I kind of like to think that if any of the other Batmen did unintentionally harm a civilian, they would do what they could to protect them. Superheroes aren't just about fighting bad guys, they help people in need from any danger, human or otherwise. Baleman only seemed interested in helping people he knew. The only time I recall Bale's character helping an individual he never met was tossing a coat to a homeless man.
For films which

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 27 May  2017, 15:28
The argument is actually very simple;

add up the number of motor vehicles destroyed by Batman as collateral damage in each batfilm. I guarantee the three batfilms with the most civilian vehicles destroyed by Batman were all in the Nolan trilogy. You could make the argument that maybe there wasn't a single civilian or police officer in the dozens if not hundreds of cars destroyed by Baleman but you can't possibly tell me that Bale ensured that each and every vehicle he pancaked was unoccupied, Therefore Bale assumed the risk of killing civilians and police officers.

At least Keaton and Bales characters should have known by the end of their films how many people they killed and neither killed anyone unintentionally during any of the films. The only people they killed were thugs who meant it.

Bale likely killed plenty of innocent people and the worst part is that his character has no clue how many innocent deaths he has caused.


I kind of like to think that if any of the other Batmen did unintentionally harm a civilian, they would do what they could to protect them. Superheroes aren't just about fighting bad guys, they help people in need from any danger, human or otherwise. Baleman only seemed interested in helping people he knew. The only time I recall Bale's character helping an individual he never met was tossing a coat to a homeless man.
For films which

This is completely reaching and not backed up by the films themselves. It's a massive hypothetical. It's like me saying that Batkeaton straight committed a terrorist attack on that chemical plant and showed no regard for the fact that some people there could have simply been civilians just working or that he didn't care about civilian life as he was shooting at the Joker's men in 89, or that Batfleck straight killed Lexcorp's security guards, because we don't see the break in and we don't see that he didn't kill people. That would be completely nonsensical of me to do. If we have to use those kinds of situations, then we don't have an argument. I take what the movies give me. TDKT didn't show me Bruce carelessly killing civilians and didn't show him lacking care for life. It showed him being reckless in his pursuit of saving Rachel, which the movie then crapped on him for and blowing up parked cars with no one in them. The Burton movies didn't show me that Bruce blew up tons of regular workers. It showed him blowing up a chemical plant housing chemicals that the Joker was using to kill people with and had his goons in. BvS didn't show me that Bruce went in and killed anyone in his way to get to the kryptonite. It showed that he had broken in and stolen the kryptonite. It's an assumption that can't be used. But what BvS does show me is that Bruce is completely willing and with pleasure it seemed to kill a for all intents and purposes innocent man of the offchance he could be evil at some point in the future. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: riddler on Sat, 27 May  2017, 15:28
The argument is actually very simple;

add up the number of motor vehicles destroyed by Batman as collateral damage in each batfilm. I guarantee the three batfilms with the most civilian vehicles destroyed by Batman were all in the Nolan trilogy. You could make the argument that maybe there wasn't a single civilian or police officer in the dozens if not hundreds of cars destroyed by Baleman but you can't possibly tell me that Bale ensured that each and every vehicle he pancaked was unoccupied, Therefore Bale assumed the risk of killing civilians and police officers.

At least Keaton and Bales characters should have known by the end of their films how many people they killed and neither killed anyone unintentionally during any of the films. The only people they killed were thugs who meant it.

Bale likely killed plenty of innocent people and the worst part is that his character has no clue how many innocent deaths he has caused.


I kind of like to think that if any of the other Batmen did unintentionally harm a civilian, they would do what they could to protect them. Superheroes aren't just about fighting bad guys, they help people in need from any danger, human or otherwise. Baleman only seemed interested in helping people he knew. The only time I recall Bale's character helping an individual he never met was tossing a coat to a homeless man.
For films which

Haha, I think you forgot to finish a sentence there! ;)

Regarding the collateral damage, the films did make it clear that Bale didn't kill innocent people when he committed collateral damage. Alfred made it clear in BB by saying "It's a miracle that no one was killed". But to me, that's besides the point. My problem with Batman's collateral damage in the first two films* is it goes against his intention to become an "inspiring symbol". How can anyone take that seriously if you're putting innocent bystanders in harm's way? And most importantly, how can anyone call this realistic? You expect me to believe that cops in the real world would want to work with somebody who led them in a violent car chase that nearly had them killed? Never mind the fact that no cop would ever co-operate with a vigilante - especially in a town that's as corrupt as Gotham.

The recklessness is another aspect that's out of character for Bale's Batman. And the worst thing is none of the films, like the inconsistent no-kill stance, ever questions this behaviour, as if we're supposed to ignore this and believe Bale is absolutely all good because we're told to think that way. At least BvS had the media and Clark Kent questioning Batman's methods and reinforce this Batman has become a shadow of his former self.

*NOTE: I say first two films because he hardly appeared in Rises.

Sure, Danny Elfman's music plays a big part, but I never saw Batman blowing up Axis Chemicals or mopping up Joker's goons with the batwing guns as horrific acts. I've always seen them as heroic acts...hell, triumphant acts. The last act of B89 is Batman being the alpha male. He's protecting the public from a situation that got out of control. Axis is blown up, Joker's balloons are taken away and Joker's goons are dispatched. He takes his girl back from The Joker, and finally, The Joker is defeated once and for all. There's nothing left of the Joker or his criminal empire by the end of the film. For a film that apparently was still being written on the fly, it's incredible how well B89 turned out.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 28 May  2017, 04:52Sure, Danny Elfman's music plays a big part, but I never saw Batman blowing up Axis Chemicals or mopping up Joker's goons with the batwing guns as horrific acts. I've always seen them as heroic acts...hell, triumphant acts.

They were necessary. The poisons had to be destroyed. Simply stopping production wouldn't be enough. The factory had to be destroyed.

The goons were legally and morally cooperative in the poisoning of Gotham City, a terrorist act which claimed hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives. Their fiery punishment was just... and very probably a preview of what waited for them in the afterlife.

Had the police possessed the intel and the means, they might've stormed the factory... and dozens of them would've been killed in the ensuing shootout. Batman saved the city the cost of a full-scale SWAT operation (which is no small consideration considering the dire circumstances Gotham faced in B89) and also saved police lives (an issue even more relevant today than ever). He did the job bigger, better, faster and cheaper than the police probably would've been able to do. And the only casualties were no loss to society.

Heroic? Triumphant? Yeah, those sound just about right.

I think Batman has to offer something the police force doesn't. He's not a cop. He's not part of the system. He's his own man operating outside of the law. So if he's just going to do the same old thing as the police force, he may as well join the police force. As you rightly say, the police would've probably raided Axis Chemicals again, ala the beginning of the film, which resulted in the death of Eckhart and others. Batman must have different equipment and methods compared to the police force to justify his existence. He will often do what they can't or won't. The police wouldn't get authorization to level a facility that size. But Batman doesn't need anyone's permission. He just does it and nobody can stop him.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 28 May  2017, 00:18
Haha, I think you forgot to finish a sentence there! ;)

Regarding the collateral damage, the films did make it clear that Bale didn't kill innocent people when he committed collateral damage. Alfred made it clear in BB by saying "It's a miracle that no one was killed". But to me, that's besides the point. My problem with Batman's collateral damage in the first two films* is it goes against his intention to become an "inspiring symbol". How can anyone take that seriously if you're putting innocent bystanders in harm's way? And most importantly, how can anyone call this realistic? You expect me to believe that cops in the real world would want to work with somebody who led them in a violent car chase that nearly had them killed? Never mind the fact that no cop would ever co-operate with a vigilante - especially in a town that's as corrupt as Gotham.

There's a point where realism in a movie about Batman can only apply so far. It being realistic in its most basic levels doesn't mean it can be in every way. Though property damage doesn't take away from being a hopeful symbol either way.

QuoteThe recklessness is another aspect that's out of character for Bale's Batman. And the worst thing is none of the films, like the inconsistent no-kill stance, ever questions this behaviour, as if we're supposed to ignore this and believe Bale is absolutely all good because we're told to think that way. At least BvS had the media and Clark Kent questioning Batman's methods and reinforce this Batman has become a shadow of his former self.

Literally no one questioned Batman killing criminals in BvS. But it isn't OOC for Baleman. His actions have collateral is very in line with the flawed human approach his character is given. And when he does make huge mistakes like the recklessness in the batmobile situation that crushed the fronts of some police cars and flooded into traffic, the movie does take him to task for it with Alfred's lines. Baleman's character never had a no kill rule. His behavior is questioned all throughout TDK. Harvey literally calls him an outlaw and says that he will have to answer for his crimes one day. There are people up in arms to have him brought in. Rachel directly questions him, saying that his actions in letting Harvey take the fall aren't heroic at all. Batman directly questions himself in TDK quite a bit as well.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 28 May  2017, 10:39
Baleman's character never had a no kill rule.

Nonsense.

Batman: I have one rule.
The Joker: Oh, then that's the rule you'll have to break to know the truth.
Batman: Which is?
The Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.
The Joker: And tonight you're gonna break your one rule.
Batman: I'm considering it.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 28 May  2017, 11:21

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sun, 28 May  2017, 10:39
Baleman's character never had a no kill rule.

Nonsense.

Batman: I have one rule.
The Joker: Oh, then that's the rule you'll have to break to know the truth.
Batman: Which is?
The Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.
The Joker: And tonight you're gonna break your one rule.
Batman: I'm considering it.

There's no statement in that dialogue against killing. Here's his stated rule in Batman Begins:

BRUCE: I will not become an executioner.

Maybe the writers and director intended something different from this situation, but that's on their lackings and not in the movie. Execution is different than killing. I used to think he had a no kill rule. But after going through the movies, I recognize that he never states such a rule. Killing is certainly not something he practices, but he never states a rule against it. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

More nonsense. It's widely known Batman's 'one rule' relates to killing and it's the exact phrase Baleman uses. Arguing anything to the contrary is spinmantics. Baleman also says "no guns, no killing" - and he's guilty of both.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 29 May  2017, 02:07More nonsense. It's widely known Batman's 'one rule' relates to killing and it's the exact phrase Baleman uses. Arguing anything to the contrary is spinmantics. Baleman also says "no guns, no killing" - and he's guilty of both.

I tend to agree. The films don't make distinctions there.

Bruce in Begins says "I won't be an executioner". In TDK, he says he only has one rule... which, elliptically, can only be taking life in general. As you say, in TDKRises it's more blunt yet when he says "No killing".

If Nolan cast his version of Batman as someone who will take life under a certain array of circumstances but not willy-nilly as the mood strikes him, I think the movies could be evaluated in terms of when it is or isn't appropriate for Batman to take life.

But they don't.

On the contrary, as you know, they rather starkly say that he won't take life. A fine and noble moral line, I suppose. But his selective violation of that rule makes him a hypocrite. Fine and dandy since some amount of hypocrisy is built into most incarnations of Batman anyway. But all of those have some mitigating factor to them which allows audiences to savor his hypocrisy rather than be distracted by it.

Taking life in the Nolan trilogy is different. No clarification is ever offered, no remorse is ever expressed and very little heed is ever paid to the fact that (A) Batman has one rule and (B) Batman has repeatedly broken his one rule.

And as you know well, I don't think even think he was out of line in breaking that rule. But he still set that rule and then he broke that rule. Very little is ever made of those two undeniable facts in the films. As it stands, Batman is very much of the "Do as I say, not as I do" school in the Nolan trilogy but it isn't done in a way that benefits the material.

Sad, really.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 29 May  2017, 05:34I tend to agree. The films don't make distinctions there.

Bruce in Begins says "I won't be an executioner". In TDK, he says he only has one rule... which, elliptically, can only be taking life in general. As you say, in TDKRises it's more blunt yet when he says "No killing".

If Nolan cast his version of Batman as someone who will take life under a certain array of circumstances but not willy-nilly as the mood strikes him, I think the movies could be evaluated in terms of when it is or isn't appropriate for Batman to take life.

But they don't.

On the contrary, as you know, they rather starkly say that he won't take life. A fine and noble moral line, I suppose. But his selective violation of that rule makes him a hypocrite. Fine and dandy since some amount of hypocrisy is built into most incarnations of Batman anyway. But all of those have some mitigating factor to them which allows audiences to savor his hypocrisy rather than be distracted by it.

Taking life in the Nolan trilogy is different. No clarification is ever offered, no remorse is ever expressed and very little heed is ever paid to the fact that (A) Batman has one rule and (B) Batman has repeatedly broken his one rule.

And as you know well, I don't think even think he was out of line in breaking that rule. But he still set that rule and then he broke that rule. Very little is ever made of those two undeniable facts in the films. As it stands, Batman is very much of the "Do as I say, not as I do" school in the Nolan trilogy but it isn't done in a way that benefits the material.

Sad, really.

Bruce never says he won't take a life. That's the point. If Nolan meant otherwise, he's wrong. Because that's not in the movie. The claim that he has that rule isn't canon in the series. Of course TDK does evaluate when it is or it isn't in some way. Hence his killing of Harvey, when that's the only way to save the Jim's son in that moment. He won't kill the Joker because he's never in the exact same position with him as with Harvey. His claims to Selina are to her. But, to rebut how all of them have a mitigating factor: In Batman Returns, Selina pulls out a gun and says she's gonna kill Max. Bruce is disgusted and asks, "Who do you think you are?" And then at the end when Selina tells him that the law doesn't apply to people like him or us, Bruce responds, "Wrong on both counts." Both of these are hypocritical of him and the movie never claims that he is. He's treated as morally upright.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 29 May  2017, 02:07More nonsense. It's widely known Batman's 'one rule' relates to killing and it's the exact phrase Baleman uses. Arguing anything to the contrary is spinmantics. Baleman also says "no guns, no killing" - and he's guilty of both.

I can only state what the movies state and they never state no killing for his rule. He tells that to Selina, due to her own uses in that situation. He never makes a claim about himself. Call it hypocritical if you must. But he never claims that he has that rule. You're reading what hasn't been written. Semantics is a branch of logic concerned with meaning. So the attempt to make into something negative doesn't apply here.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 29 May  2017, 07:09
I can only state what the movies state and they never state no killing for his rule. He tells that to Selina, due to her own uses in that situation. He never makes a claim about himself.

The film heavily implies Batman has a strong anti-gun policy.....even though he uses them.

"About that whole guns thing, I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do."

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 29 May  2017, 07:09
Call it hypocritical if you must.

I will because it is.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 29 May  2017, 07:09
You're reading what hasn't been written. Semantics is a branch of logic concerned with meaning. So the attempt to make into something negative doesn't apply here.

What's the one rule then? That he will only eat chocolate donuts at 9.09am? Is that the rule that Batman is considering to break when he's angrily holding the Joker by the throat? If you want to play games with the meaning of executioner, go ahead. But Batman's one rule has always been clear cut in the other media. No killing, as he states to Catwoman in TDK Rises.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Mon, 29 May  2017, 08:11The film heavily implies Batman has a strong anti-gun policy.....even though he uses them.

"About that whole guns thing, I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do."

That's a flaw in the movie, because every version of Batman that I've seen has been accepting of law enforcement and their use of guns. Though that line could be interpreted as guns for killing for Selina's case. But that's not stated in the movie. Of course, Batman never states that either for his own perception on guns. Not that that takes away the flaw.

QuoteI will because it is.

Sure.

QuoteWhat's the one rule then? That he will only eat chocolate donuts at 9.09am? Is that the rule that Batman is considering to break when he's angrily holding the Joker by the throat? If you want to play games with the meaning of executioner, go ahead. But Batman's one rule has always been clear cut in the other media. No killing, as he states to Catwoman in TDK Rises.

In other media. The Nolan movies go the execution route, by Batman's statement. I would say that the rule he considers breaking is executing him, by the movie's continuity on his rule.

So let me get this straight: you're saying it's fine for Batman to kill people, because he "never had a rule about that", but he can't execute people, because that was stated in the movie?

Is this what you're saying?

Quote from: Travesty on Mon, 29 May  2017, 16:22So let me get this straight: you're saying it's fine for Batman to kill people, because he "never had a rule about that", but he can't execute people, because that was stated in the movie?

Is this what you're saying?

I'm saying what the movie said. At the moment I'm not stating it's morality. My point is that it's not contradicted by the continuity of his rule as it's defined. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Mon, 29 May  2017, 05:34
I tend to agree. The films don't make distinctions there.

Bruce in Begins says "I won't be an executioner". In TDK, he says he only has one rule... which, elliptically, can only be taking life in general. As you say, in TDKRises it's more blunt yet when he says "No killing".

If Nolan cast his version of Batman as someone who will take life under a certain array of circumstances but not willy-nilly as the mood strikes him, I think the movies could be evaluated in terms of when it is or isn't appropriate for Batman to take life.

But they don't.

On the contrary, as you know, they rather starkly say that he won't take life. A fine and noble moral line, I suppose. But his selective violation of that rule makes him a hypocrite. Fine and dandy since some amount of hypocrisy is built into most incarnations of Batman anyway. But all of those have some mitigating factor to them which allows audiences to savor his hypocrisy rather than be distracted by it.

Taking life in the Nolan trilogy is different. No clarification is ever offered, no remorse is ever expressed and very little heed is ever paid to the fact that (A) Batman has one rule and (B) Batman has repeatedly broken his one rule.

And as you know well, I don't think even think he was out of line in breaking that rule. But he still set that rule and then he broke that rule. Very little is ever made of those two undeniable facts in the films. As it stands, Batman is very much of the "Do as I say, not as I do" school in the Nolan trilogy but it isn't done in a way that benefits the material.

Sad, really.

Despite my criticisms of the many hypocrisies in this series, I've got to admit that even Batman in BR was being hypocritical while trying to talk Catwoman out of taking her revenge over Max Schreck. Not necessarily because he got his revenge over the Joker in B89, but rather, he dismissed Selina's declaration that the law doesn't apply to either of them.

I had always been bothered by this because Selina is half-right, the law doesn't apply to Batman. He can roam around Gotham City and investigate suspects, beat up AND kill dangerous psychos without answering to any authority whatsoever, so when he says "Wrong on both counts!", it never made any sense to me to argue that he hasn't crossed the line many times. When thinking about it logically, yes, he has.

But I always thought the scene was less about a moral argument, and more towards the fact that it was a doomed premature romance. Finally, Bruce Wayne finds a somebody who is more or less a mirror image to him - the closest thing to a kindred spirit he will ever likely find...and it pained him that somebody that he was beginning to fall in love is consumed by vengeance. I think it would've been perfect without that unnecessary "Wrong on both counts!" line, but regardless, the scene was supposed to evoke the tragic and lonely side of Batman. That's why I can tolerate his hypocrisy there.

In fact, that's why BvS should be praised - not ridiculed - for Batman waking up to nearly becoming everything he fought against by becoming Superman's murderer - not the saviour of mankind, and shows contrition throughout the last half hour of the film i.e. rescuing Martha Kent, anonymously paying for Clark's funeral and the vow to start the Justice League to honour him. How many Batman movies do you know where the hero himself realises that he was wrong, and dedicates the rest of his time trying to make amends? That, in my opinion, should be applauded.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 10:08Despite my criticisms of the many hypocrisies in this series, I've got to admit that even Batman in BR was being hypocritical while trying to talk Catwoman out of taking her revenge over Max Schreck. Not necessarily because he got his revenge over the Joker in B89, but rather, he dismissed Selina's declaration that the law doesn't apply to either of them.

He was trying to talk her down. He wasn't overly concerned with the value of human life so much as he didn't want Selina to become what he is.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 17:06He was trying to talk her down. He wasn't overly concerned with the value of human life so much as he didn't want Selina to become what he is.

That doesn't make sense considering he showed no concern for that at any point, she'd already helped get the princess killed and had blown up Shreck's department store. Also, that's never developed in the movie, especially considering he says that the law applies to both of them, which he didn't believe before and that he's appalled at her killing Max in the dance scene.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 10:08In fact, that's why BvS should be praised - not ridiculed - for Batman waking up to nearly becoming everything he fought against by becoming Superman's murderer - not the saviour of mankind, and shows contrition throughout the last half hour of the film i.e. rescuing Martha Kent, anonymously paying for Clark's funeral and the vow to start the Justice League to honour him. How many Batman movies do you know where the hero himself realises that he was wrong, and dedicates the rest of his time trying to make amends? That, in my opinion, should be applauded.

It would be if the movie cared about Batman killing people and if it mattered to the story. But it doesn't. What's also being missed here is that there's a line. Same with Punisher in s2 of Daredevil. The minute Batman tried to kill a for all intents and purposes innocent man in cold blood is the minute they lost the course and went from altering the character per adaption (like Batman 89 and BR), to just making him basically a villain. There's no getting back from that with him believing in humanity again or seeing Superman as a person. He was going to kill another hero that he knew wasn't evil. That's not just not my Batman. That's not a hero and not someone that the movie should accept as one because he had a change of heart. Whether or not Batman sees Superman as a person or believe in humanity again shouldn't matter to him not killing him. When they made Batman that, that's the biggest betrayal of the character. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 17:06

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 10:08Despite my criticisms of the many hypocrisies in this series, I've got to admit that even Batman in BR was being hypocritical while trying to talk Catwoman out of taking her revenge over Max Schreck. Not necessarily because he got his revenge over the Joker in B89, but rather, he dismissed Selina's declaration that the law doesn't apply to either of them.

He was trying to talk her down. He wasn't overly concerned with the value of human life so much as he didn't want Selina to become what he is.

I know, that's why I said the scene was played for emotions rather than morality, and he saw how destructive revenge could be for somebody he cared about. I just think his "Wrong on both counts!" line was unnecessary, that's all.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 17:06

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 10:08Despite my criticisms of the many hypocrisies in this series, I've got to admit that even Batman in BR was being hypocritical while trying to talk Catwoman out of taking her revenge over Max Schreck. Not necessarily because he got his revenge over the Joker in B89, but rather, he dismissed Selina's declaration that the law doesn't apply to either of them.

He was trying to talk her down. He wasn't overly concerned with the value of human life so much as he didn't want Selina to become what he is.

Gringo, lingo, dingo....BINGO.

Batman has concern for Selina. He wanted to live happily ever after with her in his castle. To do that, he needed to calm down a volatile personality and he said what he needed to say in that moment. It very nearly worked, but ultimately, Selina's rage meant more to her than a happy ending.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 10 Jun  2017, 11:50Gringo, lingo, dingo....BINGO.

Batman has concern for Selina. He wanted to live happily ever after with her in his castle. To do that, he needed to calm down a volatile personality and he said what he needed to say in that moment. It very nearly worked, but ultimately, Selina's rage meant more to her than a happy ending.

And what makes this any less of an excuse for the movie than what I say, when what I say is in the movie and doesn't need to be assumed? Of course this is also still far bigger hypocrisy irregardless and isn't made an issue out of in the movie, by the standards applied. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 22:43
That doesn't make sense considering he showed no concern for that at any point, she'd already helped get the princess killed and had blown up Shreck's department store.

Bruce showing love for Selina is enough. He invites her to Wayne Manor to watch the tree lighting ceremony in front of the fireplace. Bruce attends Max's ball, only because Selina might attend. Catwoman sold Batman out to Bane in TDK Rises, and he continued to keep faith in her. His love for Selina outweighed any negative behavior she was involved in, which is consistent with the comics in this case. The same argument can be made for BR. Catwoman thought the Penguin was only going to scare the Ice Princess. She was still involved, but context matters. Bruce wanted to save Selina's soul before it was too late.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Mon, 12 Jun  2017, 21:28
And what makes this any less of an excuse for the movie than what I say, when what I say is in the movie and doesn't need to be assumed? Of course this is also still far bigger hypocrisy irregardless and isn't made an issue out of in the movie, by the standards applied. Have a very great day!

No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK. If it means Batman can kill people, but he can't execute them, that doesn't make a lick of sense. Just as he has an anti-gun policy but he still uses them. I don't have a problem with Batman's no kill policy. I really don't. But I just ask that the creators be consistent with it. Adam West's Batman walks the talk in this regard.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:33No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK.

But see, like, that's different. Batman can use guns to kill people. But he can't use them to execute people. See? Totally different.

Or something.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:36

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:33No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK.

But see, like, that's different. Batman can use guns to kill people. But he can't use them to execute people. See? Totally different.

Or something.

It's different because "execute" and "kill" aren't synonyms of each other, so they mean completely different things.

It makes perfect sense.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:36

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:33No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK.

But see, like, that's different. Batman can use guns to kill people. But he can't use them to execute people. See? Totally different.

Or something.

(emphasis mine)

There may be some difference. In the movies, Batman kills in action scenes and the criminals fight back - the goons in Axis chemicals, the Strongman, the Fire Breather, saving Martha, the blitzkrieg stages in Batman V Superman etc. He kills like a soldier, not an executioner. "Execute" implies that the criminal is at Batman's mercy and doesn't pose a direct threat to him or any hostages, but he still pulls a Punisher and kills him.

Let's have a look at the B89/BR incidents.

Blowing up Axis - The chemicals had to go. Any goons who died were collateral damage.
Shooting Joker's goons - They were firing on the public. Batman is serving the role of Gotham's guardian.
Ray Charles - Self defence.

Honestly, the only incident that enters murky territory is this:

(https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11112/111127013/3496613-keaton+speed.gif)

Is Batman at the criminal's mercy? Not really, but he punched Batman in the chest and refused to move.
Does he pose a threat to Batman? I'd say yes, given his massive size and ability to take a punch and laugh afterwards.

Like using the Batmobile exhaust on the fire breather, Batman simply ended the encounter and moved on.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:33Bruce showing love for Selina is enough. He invites her to Wayne Manor to watch the tree lighting ceremony in front of the fireplace. Bruce attends Max's ball, only because Selina might attend. Catwoman sold Batman out to Bane in TDK Rises, and he continued to keep faith in her. His love for Selina outweighed any negative behavior she was involved in, which is consistent with the comics in this case. The same argument can be made for BR. Catwoman thought the Penguin was only going to scare the Ice Princess. She was still involved, but context matters. Bruce wanted to save Selina's soul before it was too late.

Bruce doesn't know about her issue with the ice princess thing. By all estimations, she was actively complicit in her death and even mocks his failure to save her. He has no reason to think she hasn't already crossed that line. 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. 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. I don't have a real problem with this, though thinking about it now, BR Batman has gone down a bit in my view, but 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. Though I will continue to maintain that Bruce breaking the rule of no killing, even if he did have it, wouldn't negate the rule, because Bruce simply can't control every situation he's in.

QuoteNo guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK. If it means Batman can kill people, but he can't execute them, that doesn't make a lick of sense. Just as he has an anti-gun policy but he still uses them. I don't have a problem with Batman's no kill policy. I really don't. But I just ask that the creators be consistent with it. Adam West's Batman walks the talk in this regard.

It is consistent. Bruce says he won't be an executioner, not that he'll never killer. But by the same standards, BR Bruce isn't consistent by stating the law applies to both him and Selina or by being disgusted that she's gonna kill Max. That doesn't match up with his previously established character.

Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:36

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 03:33No guns, no killing is straight from the mouth of Batman in TDK Rises. He says he only has one rule in TDK.

But see, like, that's different. Batman can use guns to kill people. But he can't use them to execute people. See? Totally different.

Or something.

Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 13 Jun  2017, 14:26It's different because "execute" and "kill" aren't synonyms of each other, so they mean completely different things.

It makes perfect sense.

This is what I'm saying. Thank you!

Quote from: Azrael on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 08:57There may be some difference. In the movies, Batman kills in action scenes and the criminals fight back - the goons in Axis chemicals, the Strongman, the Fire Breather, saving Martha, the blitzkrieg stages in Batman V Superman etc. He kills like a soldier, not an executioner. "Execute" implies that the criminal is at Batman's mercy and doesn't pose a direct threat to him or any hostages, but he still pulls a Punisher and kills him.

I agree with a lot of this. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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."

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:37

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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?

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 10:11
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!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 23:48
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 23:48
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 23:48
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.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 15 Jun  2017, 05:00

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 23:48
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 23:48
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Wed, 14 Jun  2017, 23:48
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!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 00:47
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 00:47
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 00:47
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 00:47
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.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 09:25Nah. 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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 10:19
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 10:19
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 10:19
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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 10:19
His one rule is against execution as he states it.

This whole killing/execution technicality is a mess.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 10:19
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:

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 13:20

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 09:26

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 25 Jun  2015, 03:46


Me and Max? No, this and Max.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwac.450f.edgecastcdn.net%2F80450F%2Fcomicsalliance.com%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F06%2Freturnsmug.jpg&hash=3ac8c294d73c0a3a9cd4eaba45dd14864d596d08)

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:

Quote
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.  ::)

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.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 12:10Keaton'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.

QuoteHe 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.

QuoteYou'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.

QuoteThis whole killing/execution technicality is a mess.

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

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 13:16

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 16 Jun  2017, 10:19
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:

Quote from: Dagenspear on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 13:20

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 26 Jun  2015, 09:26

Quote from: Edd Grayson on Thu, 25 Jun  2015, 03:46


Me and Max? No, this and Max.

(https://www.batman-online.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwac.450f.edgecastcdn.net%2F80450F%2Fcomicsalliance.com%2Ffiles%2F2011%2F06%2Freturnsmug.jpg&hash=3ac8c294d73c0a3a9cd4eaba45dd14864d596d08)

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.

QuoteAlso, 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:

QuoteJonathan 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.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:15
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.

No, you see, Batkeaton never claimed to be a hero or have a strong morality, so that makes it okay, right? Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:22
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.

Baleman makes commitments he cannot keep. Keaton is simply a protector of Gotham City and therefore has no moral codes to break, even if he feels regret about his behavior at times.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:22
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.

Yes, really. They meet only a handful of times. Researching someone on a computer doesn't equal a connection to a human being on a personal level. Simply put, TDK Rises doesn't give the Bruce/Selina relationship time to develop, and yet they retire together.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:22
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.

I'm going on what the film shows. Time jump or no time jump, that changes nothing.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:22
It's what the movie has Batman say.

And it's a mess.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:22
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.

Batman says he has one rule in the movie. The director of the film says something that goes against your stance so you ignore it.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:24
No, you see, Batkeaton never claimed to be a hero or have a strong morality

You're right, he didn't.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:24
so that makes it okay, right?

Batman is not a classical hero in the Burton films, in case anyone you're under that illusion.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 01:30

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:22
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.

Batman says he has one rule in the movie. The director of the film says something that goes against your stance so you ignore it.

Yes. This level of denial is getting ridiculous, and quite sad, frankly. And it doesn't bode well for the critics and the fans who insist this Batman has never killed in the trilogy. It reaffirms my belief that none of the fans of these movies know what they're talking about.

There's nothing wrong if one enjoys Nolan's films for popcorn value; they may not work for me, but different strokes for different folks. But if it gets to the point that people must deny what the director says, and project their own wishful interpretation of what happens in a movie, then it all this does is convince me that Nolan is a terribly overrated writer and director.

Quote
Batman is not a classical hero in the Burton films, in case anyone you're under that illusion.

This. And besides, I don't call a classical hero who breaks his own nonsensical moral stance multiple times, while putting an entire city in danger by refusing to kill maniac for no reason...only to then kill another maniac in the last five minutes. And to add further insult to injury, take the blame for that maniac's sins, which destroys everything Batman stood for and give the city a false sense of security for eight years.

No matter what I think about that line in BR, it's nowhere near as bad and doesn't even bring horrible repercussions caused by Batman in that trilogy.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 05:48Yes. This level of denial is getting ridiculous, and quite sad, frankly. And it doesn't bode well for the critics and the fans who insist this Batman has never killed in the trilogy. It reaffirms my belief that none of the fans of these movies know what they're talking about.

There's nothing wrong if one enjoys Nolan's films for popcorn value; they may not work for me, but different strokes for different folks. But if it gets to the point that people must deny what the director says, and project their own wishful interpretation of what happens in a movie, then it all this does is convince me that Nolan is a terribly overrated writer and director.

You generally resort to belittling when someone doesn't fall in line with what you say. Bruce did kill. That's a fact. I'm not ignoring the context and facts of the movie. The director should be denied if what they're saying contradicts what happens in the movie itself. It doesn't matter what Nolan is. His abilities aren't important in this discussion. If you want to prove to someone somehow that Nolan isn't a good a writer, you're barking up the wrong tree.

QuoteThis. And besides, I don't call a classical hero who breaks his own nonsensical moral stance multiple times, while putting an entire city in danger by refusing to kill maniac for no reason...only to then kill another maniac in the last five minutes. And to add further insult to injury, take the blame for that maniac's sins, which destroys everything Batman stood for and give the city a false sense of security for eight years.

No matter what I think about that line in BR, it's nowhere near as bad and doesn't even bring horrible repercussions caused by Batman in that trilogy.

This is another case of ignoring context and the facts of the movie.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 01:30Baleman makes commitments he cannot keep. Keaton is simply a protector of Gotham City and therefore has no moral codes to break, even if he feels regret about his behavior at times.

Yes, really. They meet only a handful of times. Researching someone on a computer doesn't equal a connection to a human being on a personal level. Simply put, TDK Rises doesn't give the Bruce/Selina relationship time to develop, and yet they retire together.

I'm going on what the film shows. Time jump or no time jump, that changes nothing.

And it's a mess.

Batman says he has one rule in the movie. The director of the film says something that goes against your stance so you ignore it.

You're right, he didn't.

Batman is not a classical hero in the Burton films, in case anyone you're under that illusion.

He never makes a commitment he can't keep. Batkeaton's actions aren't excused just because he doesn't state a moral code. He's still does more wrong than Baleman by this logic and he does take a moral high ground that he's never had in BR.There's no real difference.

And making out once doesn't equal a connection to a human being on a personal level. They have no deep connection in that way on either. There's nothing there. I don't get this fixation on the relationship in trying to pretend it's something it's not.

By doing that you're ignoring the context.

It goes against what was stated in the movie. Anything the director or writer says doesn't matter. They're factually incorrect.

It doesn't change anything. He's wrong.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 08:29
He never makes a commitment he can't keep.

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.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 08:29
Batkeaton's actions aren't excused just because he doesn't state a moral code. He's still does more wrong than Baleman by this logic and he does take a moral high ground that he's never had in BR.There's no real difference.

Only if you ignore the reasoning behind his comments. In 2015 you were singing a different tune about this. Keaton guns down Joker goons, throws Ray Charles down a bell shaft and kills the Strongman. If protecting the public from violent criminals is abhorrent, consider him guilty. Consider the two different approaches of the Batmen. In B89, Keaton stops the Batmobile and takes the fight to the back alleys. In TDK, Baleman blasts cars away with his cannons, endangering the public. Different scenarios, but the point remains. Baleman was more reckless while Keaton was more considered. He only endangered the lives of the people who needed to be endangered.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 08:29
And making out once doesn't equal a connection to a human being on a personal level. They have no deep connection in that way on either. There's nothing there. I don't get this fixation on the relationship in trying to pretend it's something it's not.

Bruce and Selina are in the process of building a relationship in BR and it's a whole lot more believable than the flimsy, bare bones attempt in TDK Rises. They meet in Max's office, on the city streets, at Wayne Manor and various times while in costume.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 08:29
By doing that you're ignoring the context.

It's on the film to make us care about the characters and make the conclusion believable. Imagining incidents off screen aren't good enough.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 08:29
It goes against what was stated in the movie. Anything the director or writer says doesn't matter. They're factually incorrect.

He's only the guy who directed the movie. Yeah, let's not take his word for anything.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 08:29
It doesn't change anything. He's wrong.

Nope.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 09:15

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 08:29
It goes against what was stated in the movie. Anything the director or writer says doesn't matter. They're factually incorrect.

He's only the guy who directed the movie. Yeah, let's not take his word for anything.

It's certainly a foolish claim to make, isn't it? If it weren't for the director and the writers, these movies wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Additionally, if we can't rely on the filmmakers, then there's no point watching any of their films. Why bother watching something if it makes ZERO sense, and force ourselves to infer something that's not there?

Sorry Dagenspear, but if anyone's ignoring context and conveniently twisting things around here, it's you. That's a fact.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 09:15Jonathan 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.

Only if you ignore the reasoning behind his comments. In 2015 you were singing a different tune about this. Keaton guns down Joker goons, throws Ray Charles down a bell shaft and kills the Strongman. If protecting the public from violent criminals is abhorrent, consider him guilty. Consider the two different approaches of the Batmen. In B89, Keaton stops the Batmobile and takes the fight to the back alleys. In TDK, Baleman blasts cars away with his cannons, endangering the public. Different scenarios, but the point remains. Baleman was more reckless while Keaton was more considered. He only endangered the lives of the people who needed to be endangered.

Bruce and Selina are in the process of building a relationship in BR and it's a whole lot more believable than the flimsy, bare bones attempt in TDK Rises. They meet in Max's office, on the city streets, at Wayne Manor and various times while in costume.

It's on the film to make us care about the characters and make the conclusion believable. Imagining incidents off screen aren't good enough.

He's only the guy who directed the movie. Yeah, let's not take his word for anything.

Nope.

That's contradicted by what the movie has the character state, so they're wrong.

If you can ignore the reasons and context, why can't I? I'm just using the frame of logic you provide. Blowing up an entire building that could contain factory workers just doing their jobs isn't less reckless than Baleman, if we're using your logic.

They don't have a relationship and have no process. They meet, are attracted to eachother, but don't build anything. They have nothing but a hot makeout. It's all bare bones on both sides. The difference is that TDKR doesn't pretend they have some empty connection that can't exist. But I accept what BR gives on face value, because I don't want to needlessly tear down for no reason.

They're relationship is meaningless to making us care about them. That's their characters. The end is the cap off. It means nothing in making us care about them. Their relationship isn't the point of the ending. It's Bruce and Alfred's relationship that matters there. It just happens to be Selina he's with.

If he's wrong, we shouldn't.

He is.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 10:00It's certainly a foolish claim to make, isn't it? If it weren't for the director and the writers, these movies wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Additionally, if we can't rely on the filmmakers, then there's no point watching any of their films. Why bother watching something if it makes ZERO sense, and force ourselves to infer something that's not there?

Sorry Dagenspear, but if anyone's ignoring context and conveniently twisting things around here, it's you. That's a fact.

It's you. Please don't deflect. The facts are that what they say isn't in the movie. You do that too. Say things that didn't happen in the movies. You and Nolan have that in common.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 22:09
That's contradicted by what the movie has the character state, so they're wrong.

They're not. The director contradicts you.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 22:09
If you can ignore the reasons and context, why can't I?

The only person ignoring context here is you - the person who refuses to accept the word of the director himself.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 22:09
Blowing up an entire building that could contain factory workers just doing their jobs isn't less reckless than Baleman, if we're using your logic.

You clearly don't understand the difference between the two characters. Keaton destroys a chemical weapons facility. Anyone who is in the vicinity deserves to be blown up with it. They're guilty by association. And guess what? Keaton's Batman doesn't have a no kill policy like Baleman. It's also an isolated incident away from the public.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 22:09
They don't have a relationship and have no process. They meet, are attracted to eachother, but don't build anything. They have nothing but a hot make out.

Which is a whole lot more than we see with Baleman and Selina. They do build something but you choose to ignore it.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 22:09
It's all bare bones on both sides.

It's bare bones on the TDKR side. Michelle's Selina get a lot more time to shine in her performance.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 22:09
They're relationship is meaningless to making us care about them. That's their characters. The end is the cap off. It means nothing in making us care about them. Their relationship isn't the point of the ending. It's Bruce and Alfred's relationship that matters there. It just happens to be Selina he's with.

If their intent was for the audience not to care about their relationship, they succeeded. Which is what makes the finale with the two at the cafe cheap.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 22:09
If he's wrong, we shouldn't.

Which he's not. You are.

Quote from: Dagenspear on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 22:09
It's you. Please don't deflect. The facts are that what they say isn't in the movie. You do that too. Say things that didn't happen in the movies. You and Nolan have that in common.

You're the one who is deflecting, mate. And I hate to say it, but you're a liar too.

Your behaviour is a classic case of psychological projection, which is a defense mechanism where one can't cope with their own unwanted feelings and emotions, and attribute them onto others instead. For example, if a person is behaving in a rude and abusive manner, they'd deny any wrongdoing, and instead they'll accuse the other people for being rude and abusive.

Source: http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection

You've been projecting for the last two years since you've started posting here. At first, you denied Batman kills because you tried to use absurd arguments that he didn't "mean" to do it, despite agreeing that he did break his rule anyway. Not to mention ignoring Batman's culpability in setting up Ra's to be trapped in a doomed train. Then, you tried to cover up this flaw in your own argument coming up with the ludicrous suggestion that "breaking the rule doesn't negate the importance of the rule itself".

Now, not only do you keep ignoring facts that Batman kills, you've gone from refusing to acknowledge the filmmakers admitting he breaks his moral code, to suggesting that they're wrong about their own work, and then accuse people like me for "ignoring facts". Seriously, do you not even understand that by saying they're wrong, you're implying that the filmmakers are lying and dishonest about their own work? Don't you realise how stupid that sounds and ruins their credibility as artists even further if you keep saying that? I'll say it again, if it weren't for Nolan, these films wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

The facts I provide are written transcripts with actual context, whereas the "facts" you provide are based on nothing more than remaking the movie in your own mind, and refusing to acknowledge what's really happening on screen. I point out all the flaws of what I really don't like about these movies, and you accuse me of wanting to hate them, because you can't cope with the fact these films do have issues.

Now, I'm not condemning you for simply enjoying the trilogy. After all, I've enjoyed my own share of flawed, even corny stuff and I have no hesitation to admit some of the films I like are definitely flawed i.e. Batman Returns, Man of Steel, Thor: The Dark World etc. But at least I don't deny if I feel something doesn't seem right i.e. Batman saying "Wrong on both counts" in Batman Returns. Some people have already shared their opinions of that particular scene, and while I do agree with their assessment of what it was really about, I still think that quote by Batman was unnecessary. Regardless, that's the beauty of internet forums. People are free to express their different opinions, as long as they have the facts to back it up as well as using context to support their analysis.

But your problem is you keep denying things that happen on screen and whatever's written in text, using bizarre logical fallacies to twist your own interpretation whenever it's convenient. The last twelve or so pages is proof of this. You do this because deep down you know the films are deeply flawed, but you can't cope with admitting they are flawed, so you tell people around here they're wrong. When in fact, you're wrong. And yet, you hysterically tell me that me - and Nolan! - say things that didn't happen in the movies? Do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm not going to waste my time on this even further. I don't resent you Dagenspear, but you need to get real. This denial and projection isn't good for you. Take care and look after yourself.

Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sun, 18 Jun  2017, 00:35
They're not. The director contradicts you.

The only person ignoring context here is you - the person who refuses to accept the word of the director himself.

You clearly don't understand the difference between the two characters. Keaton destroys a chemical weapons facility. Anyone who is in the vicinity deserves to be blown up with it. They're guilty by association. And guess what? Keaton's Batman doesn't have a no kill policy like Baleman. It's also an isolated incident away from the public.

Which is a whole lot more than we see with Baleman and Selina. They do build something but you choose to ignore it.

It's bare bones on the TDKR side. Michelle's Selina get a lot more time to shine in her performance.

If their intent was for the audience not to care about their relationship, they succeeded. Which is what makes the finale with the two at the cafe cheap.

Which he's not. You are.

The director is wrong and movie proves that. BB states one thing. The director states another. He's wrong.

No. But that's more deflection from your side of the discussion to avoid the fact that you apply double standards to these movies.

But who is he to say that all of them even know what's really going on or even judge them in that way? For all he knows, they have no knowledge. If we're applying the logic of recklessness that you give, it's the same no matter what, if not not worse on the batkeaton side, by this logic. Which I don't hold to.

They build nothing. They have no real development of their relationship. It's all the same. But explain to me what they build. They learn nothing about eachother as real people. They're attracted to eachother and that's it. What's the difference between the 2?

Michelle's performance has no bearing on the relationship itself. Her character is her shining attribute there. Certainly the best written female love interest character in superhero fiction to me, but that doesn't mean anything to the their relationship. It's both bare bones.

It would only feel cheap, if the relationship was meant to be important to the movie. It's not. The movie doesn't put it as the focus. You have a fixation on the batcat romance, but the movie itself doesn't have to. The batcat relationship doesn't matter to the cafe scene.

He is, because what he says is contradicted by the movie having the character state his stance: Not being an executioner.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sun, 18 Jun  2017, 05:53You're the one who is deflecting, mate. And I hate to say it, but you're a liar too.

Your behaviour is a classic case of psychological projection, which is a defense mechanism where one can't cope with their own unwanted feelings and emotions, and attribute them onto others instead. For example, if a person is behaving in a rude and abusive manner, they'd deny any wrongdoing, and instead they'll accuse the other people for being rude and abusive.

Source: http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/projection

You've been projecting for the last two years since you've started posting here. At first, you denied Batman kills because you tried to use absurd arguments that he didn't "mean" to do it, despite agreeing that he did break his rule anyway. Not to mention ignoring Batman's culpability in setting up Ra's to be trapped in a doomed train. Then, you tried to cover up this flaw in your own argument coming up with the ludicrous suggestion that "breaking the rule doesn't negate the importance of the rule itself".

Now, not only do you keep ignoring facts that Batman kills, you've gone from refusing to acknowledge the filmmakers admitting he breaks his moral code, to suggesting that they're wrong about their own work, and then accuse people like me for "ignoring facts". Seriously, do you not even understand that by saying they're wrong, you're implying that the filmmakers are lying and dishonest about their own work? Don't you realise how stupid that sounds and ruins their credibility as artists even further if you keep saying that? I'll say it again, if it weren't for Nolan, these films wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

The facts I provide are written transcripts with actual context, whereas the "facts" you provide are based on nothing more than remaking the movie in your own mind, and refusing to acknowledge what's really happening on screen. I point out all the flaws of what I really don't like about these movies, and you accuse me of wanting to hate them, because you can't cope with the fact these films do have issues.

Now, I'm not condemning you for simply enjoying the trilogy. After all, I've enjoyed my own share of flawed, even corny stuff and I have no hesitation to admit some of the films I like are definitely flawed i.e. Batman Returns, Man of Steel, Thor: The Dark World etc. But at least I don't deny if I feel something doesn't seem right i.e. Batman saying "Wrong on both counts" in Batman Returns. Some people have already shared their opinions of that particular scene, and while I do agree with their assessment of what it was really about, I still think that quote by Batman was unnecessary. Regardless, that's the beauty of internet forums. People are free to express their different opinions, as long as they have the facts to back it up as well as using context to support their analysis.

But your problem is you keep denying things that happen on screen and whatever's written in text, using bizarre logical fallacies to twist your own interpretation whenever it's convenient. The last twelve or so pages is proof of this. You do this because deep down you know the films are deeply flawed, but you can't cope with admitting they are flawed, so you tell people around here they're wrong. When in fact, you're wrong. And yet, you hysterically tell me that me - and Nolan! - say things that didn't happen in the movies? Do yourself a favour and stop embarrassing yourself.

I'm not going to waste my time on this even further. I don't resent you Dagenspear, but you need to get real. This denial and projection isn't good for you. Take care and look after yourself.

I stated more than once that he kills. This is another situation where you ignore the facts. I don't really care much about the artists credibility here.

You provide the facts of what the writers say is in the movie. But that contradicts what the movies say. So what they say aren't facts. It's a fact that they're saying it. But it's not a fact that it's in the movie. They're wrong.

You've more than once ignored what happened on screen. That's not me. But you did that belittling thing again, when someone doesn't fall in line with you. I percieve hat you know you're wrong and that's why you do it. All movies are flawed. That means nothing to the discussion. It's in what way they're flawed. And in this situation, the way that's said it's flawed isn't in the movie. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 10:08
I tend to agree. The films don't make distinctions there.

Bruce in Begins says "I won't be an executioner". In TDK, he says he only has one rule... which, elliptically, can only be taking life in general. As you say, in TDKRises it's more blunt yet when he says "No killing".

If Nolan cast his version of Batman as someone who will take life under a certain array of circumstances but not willy-nilly as the mood strikes him, I think the movies could be evaluated in terms of when it is or isn't appropriate for Batman to take life.

But they don't.

On the contrary, as you know, they rather starkly say that he won't take life. A fine and noble moral line, I suppose. But his selective violation of that rule makes him a hypocrite. Fine and dandy since some amount of hypocrisy is built into most incarnations of Batman anyway. But all of those have some mitigating factor to them which allows audiences to savor his hypocrisy rather than be distracted by it.

Taking life in the Nolan trilogy is different. No clarification is ever offered, no remorse is ever expressed and very little heed is ever paid to the fact that (A) Batman has one rule and (B) Batman has repeatedly broken his one rule.

And as you know well, I don't think even think he was out of line in breaking that rule. But he still set that rule and then he broke that rule. Very little is ever made of those two undeniable facts in the films. As it stands, Batman is very much of the "Do as I say, not as I do" school in the Nolan trilogy but it isn't done in a way that benefits the material.

Sad, really.

I'm re-quoting your post again because recently, I've read some anti-BvS comments on YouTube questioning why didn't Batman kill the psychotic Joker if he had abandoned his moral code. Oh, the irony!

(https://media.giphy.com/media/w0fVqCPWqJ7So/source.gif)

I actually told these very same people that criticism more than applies to the entire Nolan trilogy, and they couldn't defend it. To their credit, at least they weren't that delusional and tried to justify Nolan's inconsistencies. I guess that counts for something.

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 15 Jul  2017, 02:51

Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat,  3 Jun  2017, 10:08
I tend to agree. The films don't make distinctions there.

Bruce in Begins says "I won't be an executioner". In TDK, he says he only has one rule... which, elliptically, can only be taking life in general. As you say, in TDKRises it's more blunt yet when he says "No killing".

If Nolan cast his version of Batman as someone who will take life under a certain array of circumstances but not willy-nilly as the mood strikes him, I think the movies could be evaluated in terms of when it is or isn't appropriate for Batman to take life.

But they don't.

On the contrary, as you know, they rather starkly say that he won't take life. A fine and noble moral line, I suppose. But his selective violation of that rule makes him a hypocrite. Fine and dandy since some amount of hypocrisy is built into most incarnations of Batman anyway. But all of those have some mitigating factor to them which allows audiences to savor his hypocrisy rather than be distracted by it.

Taking life in the Nolan trilogy is different. No clarification is ever offered, no remorse is ever expressed and very little heed is ever paid to the fact that (A) Batman has one rule and (B) Batman has repeatedly broken his one rule.

And as you know well, I don't think even think he was out of line in breaking that rule. But he still set that rule and then he broke that rule. Very little is ever made of those two undeniable facts in the films. As it stands, Batman is very much of the "Do as I say, not as I do" school in the Nolan trilogy but it isn't done in a way that benefits the material.

Sad, really.

I'm re-quoting your post again because recently, I've read some anti-BvS comments on YouTube questioning why didn't Batman kill the psychotic Joker if he had abandoned his moral code. Oh, the irony!

(https://media.giphy.com/media/w0fVqCPWqJ7So/source.gif)

I actually told these very same people that criticism more than applies to the entire Nolan trilogy, and they couldn't defend it. To their credit, at least they weren't that delusional and tried to justify Nolan's inconsistencies. I guess that counts for something.

Baleman was never faced with the same situation where killing the Joker was the way to save anyone, even himself, the same way as he was with Harvey in the movie, at any point. Your comparison isn't appropriate. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

An obvious, if not very moral, explanation of the inconsistency is that he saved Joker rather than let him die because he knew Joker wanted him to kill him/let him die, so he was proving a point against the point Joker wanted to make.

Quote from: johnnygobbs on Sat, 17 Jun  2017, 00:15
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?

Well it is flawed screenwriting/continuity. We the viewers are supposed to think/presume the protagonist Batman knows Catwoman didn't mean to get her killed because we learn it, the script acts as if he therefore knows it, even though Batman didn't learn it. But while mocking Batman for not saving the Princess Catwoman arguably seem regretful it happened, especially as she kind of compares her to herself and argues Batman actually killed her.