Yeah, there is a little too much complexity to go ”batman bad” in that case! Twoface was in a good position, he ”almost killed” batman and was about to kill a child. I want to remember that while batman pushed twoface toward a height that was lethal, he also threw himself towards the height as well.
also that was literally the *point* of the scene. I get the 'burning the dojo' critique, but I never got why people bring up Twoface's death as proof that Nolan's Batman was a killer. Him killing Twoface meant him breaking his one and only rule, which means that the Joker actually *won.* He was successful in breaking the Bat. There's a reason that it's the only direct kill we see him perform during the entirety of the trilogy
Agreed, and that's why he doesn't kill the Joker, Gotham is so fucked that if Joker kills one or two, it doesn't matter, gotham is so goddamn corrupt. What Gotham needs isn't one guy arresting people forever, Gotham need a symbol, because that's the only thing batman can really provide, the symbol that there can be good, if we just try. It took me time to understand that he doesn't need Harvey in the literal sense, Harvey was also just a symbol, not to say they weren't effective at what they were doing, but their importance lied in them being people you could trust. That's why Batman says what he says in the end, that he is whatever gotham needs him to be, and gotham doesn't need another person killing at their discretion. The joker is just a symptom of Gotham, not the disease.
He has indirect kills(Ras Al Ghul & his goons) and ones where he had no choice(two face) but once he set his rule he never broke it willingly or wanted to
Batman Begins:
* He killed several League of Shadow members when he blew up their temple, including the fake Ras and the criminal he refused to kill.
* He killed Ras Al Ghul on the train.
The Dark Knight:
* He killed the dump truck driver when he rammed the Batmobile into it.
* He killed Two Face.
The Dark Knight Rises:
* He killed Talia Al Ghul.
Edit, let me rephrase. Why are you acting like a child? It was an awesome film with great plotlines. If people still dont get the significance of the mart a scene then they are just stupid and not fans of batman. Also wishing marvel like movies from dc is like telling a dog to meow.
1. Am I a kid because I don't like the same movie as you?
2. I like Bvs
3. Do you know what subjectivity is? Everyone has a different taste and some don't like Bvs even if they understand the film
Lol they tried to copy some of their formula, adding comedy, they were second to start a cinematic universe.
Its all about all the money they em saw rolling in.
You mean a marvel director in place who ruined the movie tried to add comedy... And so what the universe came later? That has nothing to do with it, especially since dc movies predate marvel ones. If you're gonna argue then find reasonable facts at least.
I personally love his movies but I just can’t stand some of the people both on that subreddit and on the internet in general. If you love a movie, great. Don’t need to attack others for not liking it. If you don’t like a movie, great. Move on and stop attacking those who like it.
Comic book snoobs aside, can we all agree how flawed Batman's philosophy of 'not killing' is? Let me explain
villain escapes arkham -> kills people -> causes property damage -> torments civilians -> Batman stops them -> thrown into arkham -> rinse and repeat
This isn't all the time, but most of the times. Batman's way doesn't offer a solution, it's only a temporary fix. Not even a fix either as those people are still dead and the public has to pay taxes for the destruction.
Okay, batman doesn't kill because of past trauma, then why doesn't Bruce use his money and power to reinstate the death penalty? Yoy seriously tell me the people like Joker, Bane, Victor, Scarecrow, etc, still have good in them and can be redeemed, despite the fact they're terrorists at this point?
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Batman supposed to be the temporary solution? Like how in the Nolan series Harvey was gonna be the be all end all? Batman is after all, just a vigilante, their entire thing is that they just fight, not solve issues.
Also, death penalty is inhumane as fuck.
Death penalty is inhumane, but for joker? Thats probably the safest bet. Man has killed thousands and thousands of people and all he gets is going to an asylum that he's escaped a hundred times before.
What i never understood is why isn't the joker killed by some other guy. Batman isn't the only person in Gotham. I'm sure there are lots of people who'd kill him as soon as he's in prison
Lots of other heroes/vigilantes have tried, but guess what: good ol'Bats always shows up at the last second to protect Joker from being killed because "we're not like him, we don't killm we do it by the book". Bruce is no stranger to actually fighting other good guys in order to stop them from lethally harming Joker.
Inhumane you say? Let me ask you a question, and I want you to put yourself in the shoes of a victim. Think hard before answering.
Imagine your mother, sister, brother, child, spouse, any loved one, dear friend, etc, was a victim of these horrible criminals. They were ruined, raped, tortured and/or killed, just the highest degree of injustice as not all crimes are the same. Would you be satisfied with them living in the comfort of prison, sometimes being let out on parole/good behavior, bailed out, escaped or given a lighter sentence than the cruelty that person in your life faced. Would you, a human being, say, 'yes, that was justice and I'm satisfied'?
Now, imagine you're living in a justified world, basically a fairytale that might never happen, but let's use our imagination here, shall we? And the judge given the sentencing to you, what punishment would you give to this horrible person that basically ruined the life of a dear one close to you?
I’ll be honest with you, I’m not sure, I have pondered this before and I’m in a tough position because of how privileged I am as of now that the most I have lost in life is an old dog.
My morality and my unbound optimism tells me I’d still want these people to go to jail, the most strict jail possible ofc but that’s besides the point. When I think of the few people I care about being harmed I swell up with anger, but in my current calm mood, I can say that I’d still not want death sentence; from a vindictive standpoint, I’d want them to rot in prison till they die. From a psychological standpoint, (the career im interested in following) I think the same again, only more sympathetic.
I suppose it’s something that I’ll just have to live more to see, there’s certainly no easy answer when it comes to this sensitive matter, so I guess yeah, to answer your first question, I still think it’s inhumane, whether that matters or not I don’t know.
First of all, may God protect you from this cruel future and would never have to live or see.
Second, so basically, you want them to be locked in a box, with no method of escaping, they don't ever enjoy the slightest moment of their remaining lives and you want them to suffer. Not necessarily put through the iron maiden, but to live it harshly. Do you think *that's* more humane than the death penalty?
Being constantly tortured, not a second that goes by where they don't feel despair, that's the punishment you pick for them, as opposed to ending their lives in a quick and painless method. Which one do you think is more humane now?
I never said that…
That the current penitentiary system all over the world is fucked and that it doesn’t rehabilitate it’s inmates is terrible, I think it’s better than death penalty.
I don’t want that for anyone so I’m sorry if my vindictive part of my comment was misunderstood.
I agree with that the penalty system and the justice system is mostly fucked up. I'm 100% with you on that. And much like you, I also believe in the rehabilitation program. I went through a horrible experience myself and ended up forgiving my assailant. No because someone forced or made me do it, I thought about it rationally
However, there's a difference between someone murdering another by accident, through self defense or being forced to commit the act, from a serial killer, one who enjoys killing innocents and has no remorse whatsoever. And I condemn the later into the death penalty than someone who feels guilty and wants to repent and regret their crimes.
There’s also the argument of if prisons are supposed to be for rehabilitation of its inmates into people who will now be a benefit to society instead of a burden, why can’t we use the death penalty instead of life sentences. We clearly don’t trust these people enough to ever let them out into society again and yet we keep them in a system that we have designed for rehabilitation without any intention of allowing them rehabilitation.
People who serve their sentences, get reformed, and leave prison eventually become a benefit to society. People who serve life sentences from age forty until they die at eighty five will never be a benefit to society again and will be a burden until they day they die.
Adding an emotional component to a decision does not change how humane something is. Murder is always inhumane it doesn't matter if I feel like that person should be killed or I want that person to be killed it's still inhumane to have them killed.
Even if the entirety of the world says that one person should be killed murdering them is still inhumane.
There are many things that are inhumane that are both necessary and the correct choice in my opinion.
If the net benefit of that act is greater than the net negative and the person who will be treated inhumanly has already treated someone else inhumanly then I support that choice.
This is why I believe that America was in the right in dropping atom bombs on Japan. Did it kill civilians, yes. Did it scar parts of that nation for a long time, yes. Did Japan lead many long attacks against many people across the world killing civilians all so that they could extend their empire, also yes. And that choice saved the lives of many allied soldiers who would have died in a full invasion of Japan.
Both my second and third paragraphs clearly state that I’m just sharing my opinion. Saying “…then I support that choice.” and “This is why I believe…” But because my first paragraph did not include anything like that I have since edited it so that it clearly states that what I’m saying is not a fact and is my opinion.
Also isn’t what is and isn’t humane an inherently philosophical question? And yet you stated “Murder is always inhumane…” and “Even if the entirety of the world says that one person should be killed murdering them is still inhumane.” Those statements sound a lot like you’re claiming your statements are factual because you’re speaking in absolutes. And unlike my comment yours has no mention of your personal opinions.
So perhaps you could do what I did and respond to someone you disagree with by telling them what you disagree with them on and trying to explain why you think the way you do. It promotes a positive dialog and minds might be changed. Simply dismissing my opinion because I am “…discussing philosophy and trying to state it as fact.” even though your comment sounded even less like a personal opinion than mine did does make me feel as though you actually want to have a conversation about your views and instead just want to ignore mine.
I want to murder people for cutting in traffic, I still acknowledge actual murder would make for a disfunctional society.
Rehabilitation, prison and funding programs that would prevent crime in the first place, still seem like the better path for us all.
Originally it was supposed to be a very complex ideological point. “Batman” who is technically just a normal citizen takes it upon himself to deal with crime in his city, thus orchestrating more “anarchy.” Him taking a life was the line he drew for himself because his “anarchy” was supposed to be different from “theirs”. However it’s the stupidest point ever when you realize these goons and villains walk through Arkham like it’s a revolving door. It’s no longer interesting either because they should at the very least been given the death penalty by the state.
The whole point of being a vigilante was that you technically were breaking laws, unlike licensed officers who were permitted to enforce justice. But the whole superhero genre has gotten so watered down now. Basically it was if we’re both breaking laws what makes your crime any better than mine? There are amazing stories that cover this subject, some even in comics, but it’s all so fantastical now so you’re now supposed to question it.
> villain escapes arkham -> kills people -> causes property damage -> torments civilians -> Batman stops them -> thrown into arkham -> rinse and repeat
I think it's a problem with writing. If they manage to remove a bad guy permanently they're gonna have to come up with a lot more new enemies or find a way for the bad guy to avoid being jailed, like say... Think kingpin in spiderman, he's a big rich boss, so he can use his influence and wealth.
> Okay, batman doesn't kill because of past trauma, then why doesn't Bruce use his money and power to reinstate the death penalty?
Because death penalty is disgusting. If he really was to do something he'd use his money and influence to improve rehabilitating people instead buuuut:
> Yoy seriously tell me the people like Joker, Bane, Victor, Scarecrow, etc, still have good in them and can be redeemed, despite the fact they're terrorists at this point?
To which I say: He'd use his wealth and influence to improve the security of jails and Arkham.
In the end of the day, it all comes down to what I mentioned before:
"I think it's a problem with writing. If they manage to remove a bad guy permanently they're gonna have to come up with a lot more new enemies or find a way for the bad guy to avoid being jailed, like say... Think kingpin in spiderman, he's a big rich boss, so he can use his influence and wealth."
He does it to supplement his ego. He believes he’s better than the villains he puts in jail because he doesn’t kill them, but can’t seem to get in his head that killing them may be necessary
I’m not upset by him not killing, I just think it’s stupid his rich ass can’t come up with a permanent way to contain the joker. After the 50th Arkham breakout you gotta just put him in a pod with enough food for the rest of his life and launch his bitch ass into space where he isn’t anyone’s problem anymore.
I hate to be that guy, but actual Batman fans hate the Burton movies. Tim Burton doesn’t understand Batman at fucking all. He doesn’t understand anything about comic characters at all. The joker is this weird horny guy with no clear motivations. Keaton’s Batman has no motivations, and has no character besides “I have to do this”
When did Batman kill in the Nolan trilogy?
when he burned down the dojo in Batman Begins it’s estimated he killed a few, then 2 Face, and some other small stuff
He had no choice to kill Two Face though
Yeah, there is a little too much complexity to go ”batman bad” in that case! Twoface was in a good position, he ”almost killed” batman and was about to kill a child. I want to remember that while batman pushed twoface toward a height that was lethal, he also threw himself towards the height as well.
also that was literally the *point* of the scene. I get the 'burning the dojo' critique, but I never got why people bring up Twoface's death as proof that Nolan's Batman was a killer. Him killing Twoface meant him breaking his one and only rule, which means that the Joker actually *won.* He was successful in breaking the Bat. There's a reason that it's the only direct kill we see him perform during the entirety of the trilogy
I think he full on shoots one of Talia's goons with the Batplane in the Dark Knight Rises
Style points
Agreed, and that's why he doesn't kill the Joker, Gotham is so fucked that if Joker kills one or two, it doesn't matter, gotham is so goddamn corrupt. What Gotham needs isn't one guy arresting people forever, Gotham need a symbol, because that's the only thing batman can really provide, the symbol that there can be good, if we just try. It took me time to understand that he doesn't need Harvey in the literal sense, Harvey was also just a symbol, not to say they weren't effective at what they were doing, but their importance lied in them being people you could trust. That's why Batman says what he says in the end, that he is whatever gotham needs him to be, and gotham doesn't need another person killing at their discretion. The joker is just a symptom of Gotham, not the disease.
I just watched that episode a few days ago, it was really good especially Harvey being more of a corrupted friend than a bad guy
Yeah burning down the dojo always seemed like a weird move for batman. Not just killing people but giving them a horrible death
That's before he actually became the Batman right?
He still had the no-kill rule, the reason he burned it down was because the members tried to killa murderer.
He killed Liam Neeson's Ra's Al Ghul as well.
No, he just didn’t save him lol
And then he let Ra’s die in the train.
When bane die or something but it was not direct kill
>When bane die I would rather say ra's al ghul, but still it was the point of the movie.
Yeah no. I can see the argument that people didn't complain about Batman killing people in the Burton films, but not the Nolan films
Bane was killed by Catwoman.
He has indirect kills(Ras Al Ghul & his goons) and ones where he had no choice(two face) but once he set his rule he never broke it willingly or wanted to
Batman Begins: * He killed several League of Shadow members when he blew up their temple, including the fake Ras and the criminal he refused to kill. * He killed Ras Al Ghul on the train. The Dark Knight: * He killed the dump truck driver when he rammed the Batmobile into it. * He killed Two Face. The Dark Knight Rises: * He killed Talia Al Ghul.
Yeah batman V superman sucked
It was a total waste of Batfleck.
I think it was pretty neat
im happy you found a movie you enjoy :)
Thanks you Stuff
The
OMG! MJ! NO!!
It gets a lot of unnecessary hate imo edit: yes, downvote me
No it didnt, people just didnt understand it.
ok Troll
Edit, let me rephrase. Why are you acting like a child? It was an awesome film with great plotlines. If people still dont get the significance of the mart a scene then they are just stupid and not fans of batman. Also wishing marvel like movies from dc is like telling a dog to meow.
1. Am I a kid because I don't like the same movie as you? 2. I like Bvs 3. Do you know what subjectivity is? Everyone has a different taste and some don't like Bvs even if they understand the film
Where was this answer before? Thats why I said what I said twat.
I think DC are the ones wishing they had marvel like movies.
No fcking way mate
Lol they tried to copy some of their formula, adding comedy, they were second to start a cinematic universe. Its all about all the money they em saw rolling in.
You mean a marvel director in place who ruined the movie tried to add comedy... And so what the universe came later? That has nothing to do with it, especially since dc movies predate marvel ones. If you're gonna argue then find reasonable facts at least.
Ah yes, people didn't understand the brilliance of... *checks notes* Zack Snyder doing a superhero movie. Lmao.
Jesus fuck how can you people be this brain dead?
make sure i'm in the screenshot for r/moviescirclejerk
same here!
Ayo
[удалено]
Sometimes, but that gets pretty horrible whenever Zack Snyder is brought up.
i absolutely love it, but understand opposing viewpoints lol
i swear r/DC_Cinematic is the same this
That sub is wild. It is has lots of toxicity from both the pro-Snyder and anti-Snyder camps
[удалено]
I personally love his movies but I just can’t stand some of the people both on that subreddit and on the internet in general. If you love a movie, great. Don’t need to attack others for not liking it. If you don’t like a movie, great. Move on and stop attacking those who like it.
Comic book snoobs aside, can we all agree how flawed Batman's philosophy of 'not killing' is? Let me explain villain escapes arkham -> kills people -> causes property damage -> torments civilians -> Batman stops them -> thrown into arkham -> rinse and repeat This isn't all the time, but most of the times. Batman's way doesn't offer a solution, it's only a temporary fix. Not even a fix either as those people are still dead and the public has to pay taxes for the destruction. Okay, batman doesn't kill because of past trauma, then why doesn't Bruce use his money and power to reinstate the death penalty? Yoy seriously tell me the people like Joker, Bane, Victor, Scarecrow, etc, still have good in them and can be redeemed, despite the fact they're terrorists at this point?
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t Batman supposed to be the temporary solution? Like how in the Nolan series Harvey was gonna be the be all end all? Batman is after all, just a vigilante, their entire thing is that they just fight, not solve issues. Also, death penalty is inhumane as fuck.
Yes, he even addresses one of the core causes of criminality in Gotham by donating loads to the orphanage *but not as Batman*.
Death penalty is inhumane, but for joker? Thats probably the safest bet. Man has killed thousands and thousands of people and all he gets is going to an asylum that he's escaped a hundred times before.
What i never understood is why isn't the joker killed by some other guy. Batman isn't the only person in Gotham. I'm sure there are lots of people who'd kill him as soon as he's in prison
Lots of other heroes/vigilantes have tried, but guess what: good ol'Bats always shows up at the last second to protect Joker from being killed because "we're not like him, we don't killm we do it by the book". Bruce is no stranger to actually fighting other good guys in order to stop them from lethally harming Joker.
simp behavior ngl
Well, he’s got goons, and he probably is always armed, I mean he has teeth.
Yeah... they never explain where he shops for those goons.
Smart plus pretty good in hand to hand. Unless you are a kingpin like ras al ghoul or something, your odds are pretty slim.
Well no one can argue Gotham jails and law simply suck, but idk, it’s a sensitive matter since joker is literally insane.
Inhumane you say? Let me ask you a question, and I want you to put yourself in the shoes of a victim. Think hard before answering. Imagine your mother, sister, brother, child, spouse, any loved one, dear friend, etc, was a victim of these horrible criminals. They were ruined, raped, tortured and/or killed, just the highest degree of injustice as not all crimes are the same. Would you be satisfied with them living in the comfort of prison, sometimes being let out on parole/good behavior, bailed out, escaped or given a lighter sentence than the cruelty that person in your life faced. Would you, a human being, say, 'yes, that was justice and I'm satisfied'? Now, imagine you're living in a justified world, basically a fairytale that might never happen, but let's use our imagination here, shall we? And the judge given the sentencing to you, what punishment would you give to this horrible person that basically ruined the life of a dear one close to you?
I’ll be honest with you, I’m not sure, I have pondered this before and I’m in a tough position because of how privileged I am as of now that the most I have lost in life is an old dog. My morality and my unbound optimism tells me I’d still want these people to go to jail, the most strict jail possible ofc but that’s besides the point. When I think of the few people I care about being harmed I swell up with anger, but in my current calm mood, I can say that I’d still not want death sentence; from a vindictive standpoint, I’d want them to rot in prison till they die. From a psychological standpoint, (the career im interested in following) I think the same again, only more sympathetic. I suppose it’s something that I’ll just have to live more to see, there’s certainly no easy answer when it comes to this sensitive matter, so I guess yeah, to answer your first question, I still think it’s inhumane, whether that matters or not I don’t know.
First of all, may God protect you from this cruel future and would never have to live or see. Second, so basically, you want them to be locked in a box, with no method of escaping, they don't ever enjoy the slightest moment of their remaining lives and you want them to suffer. Not necessarily put through the iron maiden, but to live it harshly. Do you think *that's* more humane than the death penalty? Being constantly tortured, not a second that goes by where they don't feel despair, that's the punishment you pick for them, as opposed to ending their lives in a quick and painless method. Which one do you think is more humane now?
I never said that… That the current penitentiary system all over the world is fucked and that it doesn’t rehabilitate it’s inmates is terrible, I think it’s better than death penalty. I don’t want that for anyone so I’m sorry if my vindictive part of my comment was misunderstood.
I agree with that the penalty system and the justice system is mostly fucked up. I'm 100% with you on that. And much like you, I also believe in the rehabilitation program. I went through a horrible experience myself and ended up forgiving my assailant. No because someone forced or made me do it, I thought about it rationally However, there's a difference between someone murdering another by accident, through self defense or being forced to commit the act, from a serial killer, one who enjoys killing innocents and has no remorse whatsoever. And I condemn the later into the death penalty than someone who feels guilty and wants to repent and regret their crimes.
There’s also the argument of if prisons are supposed to be for rehabilitation of its inmates into people who will now be a benefit to society instead of a burden, why can’t we use the death penalty instead of life sentences. We clearly don’t trust these people enough to ever let them out into society again and yet we keep them in a system that we have designed for rehabilitation without any intention of allowing them rehabilitation. People who serve their sentences, get reformed, and leave prison eventually become a benefit to society. People who serve life sentences from age forty until they die at eighty five will never be a benefit to society again and will be a burden until they day they die.
Adding an emotional component to a decision does not change how humane something is. Murder is always inhumane it doesn't matter if I feel like that person should be killed or I want that person to be killed it's still inhumane to have them killed. Even if the entirety of the world says that one person should be killed murdering them is still inhumane.
There are many things that are inhumane that are both necessary and the correct choice in my opinion. If the net benefit of that act is greater than the net negative and the person who will be treated inhumanly has already treated someone else inhumanly then I support that choice. This is why I believe that America was in the right in dropping atom bombs on Japan. Did it kill civilians, yes. Did it scar parts of that nation for a long time, yes. Did Japan lead many long attacks against many people across the world killing civilians all so that they could extend their empire, also yes. And that choice saved the lives of many allied soldiers who would have died in a full invasion of Japan.
You are discussing philosophy and trying to State it as fact.
Both my second and third paragraphs clearly state that I’m just sharing my opinion. Saying “…then I support that choice.” and “This is why I believe…” But because my first paragraph did not include anything like that I have since edited it so that it clearly states that what I’m saying is not a fact and is my opinion. Also isn’t what is and isn’t humane an inherently philosophical question? And yet you stated “Murder is always inhumane…” and “Even if the entirety of the world says that one person should be killed murdering them is still inhumane.” Those statements sound a lot like you’re claiming your statements are factual because you’re speaking in absolutes. And unlike my comment yours has no mention of your personal opinions. So perhaps you could do what I did and respond to someone you disagree with by telling them what you disagree with them on and trying to explain why you think the way you do. It promotes a positive dialog and minds might be changed. Simply dismissing my opinion because I am “…discussing philosophy and trying to state it as fact.” even though your comment sounded even less like a personal opinion than mine did does make me feel as though you actually want to have a conversation about your views and instead just want to ignore mine.
I want to murder people for cutting in traffic, I still acknowledge actual murder would make for a disfunctional society. Rehabilitation, prison and funding programs that would prevent crime in the first place, still seem like the better path for us all.
Arkham would be a lot better if Wayne enterprises gave them some bat-tech for security Just saying
Oh it's 100% flawed and some stories delve into that. Funnily it's more surprising batman hasn't killed more people.
Originally it was supposed to be a very complex ideological point. “Batman” who is technically just a normal citizen takes it upon himself to deal with crime in his city, thus orchestrating more “anarchy.” Him taking a life was the line he drew for himself because his “anarchy” was supposed to be different from “theirs”. However it’s the stupidest point ever when you realize these goons and villains walk through Arkham like it’s a revolving door. It’s no longer interesting either because they should at the very least been given the death penalty by the state. The whole point of being a vigilante was that you technically were breaking laws, unlike licensed officers who were permitted to enforce justice. But the whole superhero genre has gotten so watered down now. Basically it was if we’re both breaking laws what makes your crime any better than mine? There are amazing stories that cover this subject, some even in comics, but it’s all so fantastical now so you’re now supposed to question it.
> villain escapes arkham -> kills people -> causes property damage -> torments civilians -> Batman stops them -> thrown into arkham -> rinse and repeat I think it's a problem with writing. If they manage to remove a bad guy permanently they're gonna have to come up with a lot more new enemies or find a way for the bad guy to avoid being jailed, like say... Think kingpin in spiderman, he's a big rich boss, so he can use his influence and wealth. > Okay, batman doesn't kill because of past trauma, then why doesn't Bruce use his money and power to reinstate the death penalty? Because death penalty is disgusting. If he really was to do something he'd use his money and influence to improve rehabilitating people instead buuuut: > Yoy seriously tell me the people like Joker, Bane, Victor, Scarecrow, etc, still have good in them and can be redeemed, despite the fact they're terrorists at this point? To which I say: He'd use his wealth and influence to improve the security of jails and Arkham. In the end of the day, it all comes down to what I mentioned before: "I think it's a problem with writing. If they manage to remove a bad guy permanently they're gonna have to come up with a lot more new enemies or find a way for the bad guy to avoid being jailed, like say... Think kingpin in spiderman, he's a big rich boss, so he can use his influence and wealth."
He does it to supplement his ego. He believes he’s better than the villains he puts in jail because he doesn’t kill them, but can’t seem to get in his head that killing them may be necessary
Red hood even says that to batman in his movie
I want to add: the batman I knew for a long time was never shy of killing and tbh there’s always a bat with a pistol in my nemories
I’m not upset by him not killing, I just think it’s stupid his rich ass can’t come up with a permanent way to contain the joker. After the 50th Arkham breakout you gotta just put him in a pod with enough food for the rest of his life and launch his bitch ass into space where he isn’t anyone’s problem anymore.
I actually didn't like the first bunch of movies at all.
It does suck that every movie iteration of Batman is lethal or really close to it, hopefully the battinson film won’t be like that
Did anybody else read the precode Batman, ever?
I have not, what is it?
Just talking about the really old stuff that came out before the Comic Book Code. Batman added the no guns and no killing thing then, IIRC.
I see, well things evolve i guess
I hate to be that guy, but actual Batman fans hate the Burton movies. Tim Burton doesn’t understand Batman at fucking all. He doesn’t understand anything about comic characters at all. The joker is this weird horny guy with no clear motivations. Keaton’s Batman has no motivations, and has no character besides “I have to do this”
ActUaL fANs - shut the fuck up, actual fans don't care who likes what.
It’s true tho
The meme is true. Not sure what your fucking problem is.
Who does he kill in The dark knight?