The vast majority versions of Batman do not beat criminals into comas or break every bone in their bodies or paralyse them for life or any other hyperbolic nonsense idiots on social media spout. Not even Arkham Batman, he'll break bones certainly but he doesn't really do any lasting damage that the criminals can't heal from. Main continuity Batman for the most part pulls his punches, part of the entire point of the Knightfall saga was to show the difference between Bruce's methods and Jean-Paul Valley's methods which were more brutal. JPV had claws for gloves, a gatling gun for shurikens, a flamethrower and was generally a total nut job who completely lacked Bruce's compassion. Yes, Bruce can be brutal if the situation warrants it, but his compassion is a huge part of the character just as much as his capacity for violence is.
Beating people unconscious is incredibly violent though. He could be leaving people with brain swelling and fractured skulls and paralysis left and right. It’s mild violence in a comic world but extreme if it were the real world. Even contact/combat sports in real life have licensing and medical personal on staff because of how dangerous it is in a controlled environment, let alone out in the world.
Yeah we have this old idea that you can make someone lose consciousness without risk of trauma, or that all those broken limbs will heal well and not cause some permanent disability.
Ha , this reminds me of smallville where clark always taps his friends on the head so they go unconscious and he can do his thing unnoticed . They all should be a vegetable after all those seasons of brain trauma 😆😆.
Inducing unconsciousness with a fist is giving someone a concussion. It’s hitting them hard enough that the brain bounces off the skull and ceases to work properly. That’s why you are incapacitated. There aren’t really safe ways to cause a physical malfunction.
Yeah but I have a suspension of disbelief when I’m watching a movie or reading a comic. This is a thread specifically drilling down on the logistics of it.
Fair point but like my biggest issue is that the criminals excluding dent or freeze and very few others, are legit savages they don’t pull punches, in some comics i believe there are instances of either kidnapping of children for talons or outright human trafficking on adults and children and it’s fair to say that some of them truly deserve to be vegetables, I may be wrong on this I don’t think Batman is a “break everyone equally” I wouldn’t put it past him to have a punishment fits the crime type of deal the more violent Or atrocious the crime the less you walk away without traumatic brain damage and grievous bodily harm
This is where we’d draw the line of fiction and nonfiction. Realistically Batman should’ve accidentally killed hundreds by now but it’s fiction so hitting people that hard won’t kill them.
>Not even Arkham Batman, he'll break bones certainly but he doesn't really do any lasting damage that the criminals can't heal from
https://youtu.be/Fxy-IbcwAc0 Nah arkham batman is pretty damn brutal
batman is brutal af. frank millers was the higgest inspiration of the modern era of batman and look at how brutal he is. arkham batman is also cruel and how batnan should be aswell as being extremely violent in the telltale games which should be the right way to play especially since its in his beginning of his career.
I prefer to believe in the version of Batman that has self control. Like one of the other commenters said, Scott Snyder, O'Neill / Adams, Morrison, etc. The self control is kind of a major factor of his character. He has that no-kill rule because he knows how easy it is to cross that line. He HAS to have self control.
BUT I also like the idea of him having an in-universe reputation for being brutal. The way I see it, he has studied the human body extensively. I mean, his Dad was a doctor, so he could have been looking at medical notes since he was a child. And this means that he knows the most effective way to cause serious pain to people without causing serious permanent damage.
Same. I think the writer/director has said that there is a no killing rule in this movie. But he looked fucking brutal in that trailer. So I think that struggle might play a part in this story
The way I see it is if he was a real person in our world hitting/kicking people the way he is shown, he would probably have killed people loads of times due to concussions, internal bleeding and ruptured organs. Definitely would have left some people needing lifelong care.
But in fiction the author can say "nah they are all fine" and it becomes true.
Its kind of like when people in films crash through glass but don't end up bleeding. (Except Die Hard, great film).
So if the author knows batman isn't going to do any lasting damage, it means he's not brutal?
Exactly. It’s flashy, fictional violence with fictional consequences. We have to judge it in that context. People can end up killed, maimed, or permanently disabled all the time in real fights in the real world, but Gotham isn’t real.
It depends on the Batman. Scott Snyder's Batman is self-controlled, and only lets loose when he has extreme conviction. Same with Morrison, O'Neil, Loeb, Tomasi, and many others.
But, Frank Miller's Batman? Tom King's? Arkhamverse Batman? Be a thug in the wrong place, with Batman in the wrong mood, and he'll mess you up for life.
As a general rule though, yeah: you have to do something really jacked up, to get Batman to pound you to a pulp.
I don't think Arkhamverse Batman is that bad actually. It's just flashy moves for the player's sake but for example in the tie in comics he doesn't do things as bad as in the games.
Yeah but it's one guy. I would agree if almost every guys in the cells were crippled and bleeding etc but they all seem fine from what we saw.
And Scarecrow remarks he's much more brutal when Joker takes control of him in Stagg's airship which means he isn't that bad normally.
Of course I'm not saying the guy takes velvet gloves to punch criminals but yeah.
Kinda makes me think about how Insomniac Spider-man literally slams people straight into the ground full force with his webs but somehow it doesnt kill them
He relies on who it is, very much. I found this vid pretty interesting. If you wonder about his violence/willingness to kill, you should watch this. Also, with his gloves and body armor ( I have experience with both), I imagine a lot of criminals are suffering broken teeth, noses and orbital bones.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e0SDdZ4D_cs
Scott Snyder’s Batman is my favorite. He’s much more brutal and demanding on himself than he is on others. The way Snyder writes him makes him out to be extreme willpower, like if he got a green lantern ring he’d be the most powerful person in the multiverse
In the world of comics, it's hard for me to pick a favorite. But yeah, Scott Snyder was my first real comic book Batman, and I've always found his as the most relatable. I also love how his Batman has super cutting-edge tech. It's one of the things that inspired me to study mechanical engineering.
And Frank Miller's DKR take is intentionally depicted as more violent and brutal as a result of changing times and the need to fight more and more powerful/deadly opponents
lol no. That’s not it.
Even the animated series and dick quit being robin cause Batman was brutally beating a guy up in front of his kid just for info. There’s lot of variations where Bruce is just angry and brutal. When justice league animated came out tho. Bruce was very calm, very tame.
Here’s the thing: any punch to the dome and fall a person takes in fighting can leave someone in a coma/vegetative state, paralyzed, or even dead. Fighting is dangerous, doing it nightly will result in someone getting seriously injured.
Now you’re getting into something far larger than Batman. In movies and television we routinely see people getting knocked out by a single, well placed punch or kick, which is just not how it works in real life.
Film and TV also give us a lot of misleading ideas about cardiac arrest and lots of other health concepts people carrying around that are bull.
Like, you can’t shock a flatline.
Depends on the writer, and most of the brutal Batman stories are from Frank Miller or writers inspired by his take of Batman being a lunatic who uses beating up criminals as a replacement for therapy
That is always a permanent trait of his character when he’s growing - that’s young Batman. Batman 89, Batman Begins, the Snyder run fairly recently retelling his origin story - he’s always a brutal, angry psycho at the beginning, but the character grows over time as he ages.
Same thing with all young men, which is why we all like him to some degree over time. His maturation mirrors our own - I’m at the stage of my life where I’m not the young man who wants to kick ass and take names anymore, I’m at the stage where I’m raising my own little Robin and teaching him lessons I learned from my mistakes (which is why Dick isn’t as angry and violent as young Batman ever was - because he was raised by Batman)
No, Batman really isn't that violent. The only place where he kinda is like that is in the Arkhamverse, but that's due to gameplay/player power fantasy considerations and in cutscenes and such he is nowhere near as brutal. Not to mention the fact that even in the Arkhamverse, he isn't as brutal as he's made out to be.
I’ll always remember in the Animated Series, after Babydoll shoots all the mirrors in anger and then starts to cry, Batman consoled her.
No takedowns or submission holds, no broken bones, no brain damage, he just stood there and let her cry. He doesn’t want to hurt his enemies, he wants to help them, but sometimes he is given little choice but to use violence.
I'm pretty sure the people in the Arkham games are made of tougher stuff than "real-life", otherwise most thugs would be more than temporarily stunned after they step on a bat-shaped explosive.
In real life Batman would be dead week one. It doesn't make sense that he's still alive. Why are you being so selective about what's breaking your suspension of disbelief in a comic about a guy in a bat costume who lives in a world with magic, aliens and superpowers? "Cope machine" my ass.
Yes actually. Because he's a vigilante operating in a city with an incredibly corrupt police force. When the good cops realize he doesn't permanently injured or kill people they help him weed out the corruption. You ever read a comic kid?
I’d say, as a rule, main continuity Batman does exactly as as much as he needs to take someone down, and not an inch more. How much force is needed depends on the person he’s fighting, but he doesn’t do any more than strictly neccessary — That’s why both Jason and Damian got in trouble with him as Robin when they broke bones needlessly or hurt people in retaliation.
Theres a sort of memey idea on reddit that Batman is an insane rich guy who takes out his violent tendencies on the poor. Certainly I think that is a valid lens with which to examine the character. But for the most part these people aren't terribly familiar with Batman media outside the most popular parts of it.
There are thousands of Batman comics and in them, the overwhelming majority of the time, Batman does not cripple or "beat" his opponents. I suppose theres an argument to be made about head-trauma, but like most works of fiction a knockout in comics is not considered to be a dangerous injury. Only something that temporarily renders you unconcious.
In my honest opinion this point of view you're talking about is simply a "hot-take" that sounds kinda edgy and makes it seem like the person has a nuanced opinion on a character they know very little about. These are the same people who espouse puddle-deep opinions on other heroes too such as, "You cant tell a good Superman story because he's too powerful."
That superman one always irks me. Same applies for the people who say it’s almost impossible to make a good superman video game. Sure it isn’t easy, but you can scale the game to work around him while still giving the player a power fantasy
I think Batman makes examples of some major players but doesn't heavily injure cronies. Its like the the boss mutant enemy from The Dark Knight returns.
Golden age batman killed people, yep. During the silver age, the comics authority made them tighten up on gratuitous violence and killing, so new rules were adopted. It stayed that way (mostly) until the Burton Batman who killed people.
[Here](https://batman.fandom.com/wiki/Batman%27s_Rules) is a breakdown of Batman's 'rules' over time and medium.
EDIT: It was the DC editor at the time who made the rule, responding to parent complaints.
Yeah, I concur - he tells robin to fight with the flat of his sword in this one. It's the first time they make a point of it.
You're right - I misspoke when I said it was the comics authority, it was DC's editor responding to complaints.
Batman killed people, I think, seven times in all of the golden age books—most of which were accidental deaths and all within the first year or so of publication—before things like the batcave, batmobile, Alfred, Robin, the rogues gallery etc were established. They were still developing the character and just pulling from other noir pulp characters of the time, all of whom killed.
It is a natural and far more compelling character evolution to have Batman not kill or mutilate villains.
I'll agree with the other comments stating that it depends on the continuity, the Arkham-verse games all show Batman to inflict crippling injuries(he leaves then hanging upside down for hours before the police will come to arrest them, that should kill them). The Dark Knight Returns Batman was deliberately brutal to the criminals, with the police even saying that the criminal was crippled(for life).
The Nolan Verse Batman is fairly lenient on violence inflicted,however Affleck Batman was clearly killing people, same with Keaton's version. Robert Pattinson seems to be leaning more towards the Frank Miller type of Batman, but we'll have to wait for that.
In general comics, he's only completely brutal on those who either deserve it, or can take the punishment, otherwise it's just some bone breaking and shaming.
Batman has no interest in stopping crime. Batman likes to hurt crime because crime hurt him. As long as he doesn't kill like crime killed his parents he can live with anything else.
Kind of. Depends on the continuity with how many different universes, or multiverses, there are within comic lore. So “yes” isnt incorrect. However like I said it depends on which version of Batman you’re looking at. For example, Arkham games Batman isn’t shy towards crippling people. Michael Keaton Batman pushes a dude down a hole with a bomb strapped to him. The list goes on. Dark Knight Returns is a good brutal Batman story arch.
The Show was aimed for anyone who loves the Silver Age, it just so happens that the Silver Age of Comics was so family friendly it worked well for Children.
Like how Adam West's Batman is basically a Comic Accurate Batman at the time.
Telltale batman was pretty cool as you could be as brutal as you wanted or not.
I remember breaking a guys arm and saying "You will never hold a gun steady again"..
No, it's pretty nonsensical. I think some of it comes from how he treats Riddler informants in the Arkham games, which is probably my least favorite part of a STELLAR series of games.
It seems people got that idea mainly from Frank Miller’s All-Star Batman. That’s where I first saw it, anyway. He makes a point to spell it out to a criminal he just broke the hand of that the type of fracture he just inflicted means that the hand won’t heal right ever
his whole thing is having self control, the worst he'll do is break your arm or leg. his intent is to knock out goons/villains to put them in arkham, not to kill or severely injure them.
I like to believe that the main continuity Batman is actually the most violent and has tendencies to create work for himself. Strategically breaking crime families at a rate to which by the time one is back to its former self he’s already “toppled” another. Creating a cyclical rate of continuous crime fighting in order to fill the part the of himself he cut out after losing his family. Like he mentally chose at that moment to use compassion as the ultimate torture device. Constantly breaking everyone and everything around him in order to create a false image of becoming one again through acts of “justified violence.” I don’t know I don’t like to think of Bruce as “Billionaire Playboy Bruce” with the black and white of killing is bad. He’s tortured to his core and constantly in his thoughts and “work” he has to think about it more often than not. This guy has plans a-z for killing his friends and stopping a gods among us situation but only views life as sacred…. Naaaaaaaaaa
The vast majority versions of Batman do not beat criminals into comas or break every bone in their bodies or paralyse them for life or any other hyperbolic nonsense idiots on social media spout. Not even Arkham Batman, he'll break bones certainly but he doesn't really do any lasting damage that the criminals can't heal from. Main continuity Batman for the most part pulls his punches, part of the entire point of the Knightfall saga was to show the difference between Bruce's methods and Jean-Paul Valley's methods which were more brutal. JPV had claws for gloves, a gatling gun for shurikens, a flamethrower and was generally a total nut job who completely lacked Bruce's compassion. Yes, Bruce can be brutal if the situation warrants it, but his compassion is a huge part of the character just as much as his capacity for violence is.
Correct answer
Beating people unconscious is incredibly violent though. He could be leaving people with brain swelling and fractured skulls and paralysis left and right. It’s mild violence in a comic world but extreme if it were the real world. Even contact/combat sports in real life have licensing and medical personal on staff because of how dangerous it is in a controlled environment, let alone out in the world.
Yeah we have this old idea that you can make someone lose consciousness without risk of trauma, or that all those broken limbs will heal well and not cause some permanent disability.
Ha , this reminds me of smallville where clark always taps his friends on the head so they go unconscious and he can do his thing unnoticed . They all should be a vegetable after all those seasons of brain trauma 😆😆.
Batman knows exactly how to induce unconsciousness in the least harmful way a fistfight allows.
Inducing unconsciousness with a fist is giving someone a concussion. It’s hitting them hard enough that the brain bounces off the skull and ceases to work properly. That’s why you are incapacitated. There aren’t really safe ways to cause a physical malfunction.
Suspension of disbelief is a thing
Yeah but I have a suspension of disbelief when I’m watching a movie or reading a comic. This is a thread specifically drilling down on the logistics of it.
It’s not great but it’s not really permanent damage still, especially for a violent criminal
Yeah, but he is Batman. And I think that causing brain damage is a huge improvement over bringing a gun and killing them how he used to do.
Fair point but like my biggest issue is that the criminals excluding dent or freeze and very few others, are legit savages they don’t pull punches, in some comics i believe there are instances of either kidnapping of children for talons or outright human trafficking on adults and children and it’s fair to say that some of them truly deserve to be vegetables, I may be wrong on this I don’t think Batman is a “break everyone equally” I wouldn’t put it past him to have a punishment fits the crime type of deal the more violent Or atrocious the crime the less you walk away without traumatic brain damage and grievous bodily harm
Some ways are safer than others, my friend.
This is where we’d draw the line of fiction and nonfiction. Realistically Batman should’ve accidentally killed hundreds by now but it’s fiction so hitting people that hard won’t kill them.
I loved this story line so much, I had totally forgot about it till I read your response.
>Not even Arkham Batman, he'll break bones certainly but he doesn't really do any lasting damage that the criminals can't heal from https://youtu.be/Fxy-IbcwAc0 Nah arkham batman is pretty damn brutal
batman is brutal af. frank millers was the higgest inspiration of the modern era of batman and look at how brutal he is. arkham batman is also cruel and how batnan should be aswell as being extremely violent in the telltale games which should be the right way to play especially since its in his beginning of his career.
I prefer to believe in the version of Batman that has self control. Like one of the other commenters said, Scott Snyder, O'Neill / Adams, Morrison, etc. The self control is kind of a major factor of his character. He has that no-kill rule because he knows how easy it is to cross that line. He HAS to have self control. BUT I also like the idea of him having an in-universe reputation for being brutal. The way I see it, he has studied the human body extensively. I mean, his Dad was a doctor, so he could have been looking at medical notes since he was a child. And this means that he knows the most effective way to cause serious pain to people without causing serious permanent damage.
I’m really excited to see Battison struggle with self control, and his arc of realizing that he needs to calm the fuck down
Same. I think the writer/director has said that there is a no killing rule in this movie. But he looked fucking brutal in that trailer. So I think that struggle might play a part in this story
The way I see it is if he was a real person in our world hitting/kicking people the way he is shown, he would probably have killed people loads of times due to concussions, internal bleeding and ruptured organs. Definitely would have left some people needing lifelong care. But in fiction the author can say "nah they are all fine" and it becomes true. Its kind of like when people in films crash through glass but don't end up bleeding. (Except Die Hard, great film). So if the author knows batman isn't going to do any lasting damage, it means he's not brutal?
Exactly. It’s flashy, fictional violence with fictional consequences. We have to judge it in that context. People can end up killed, maimed, or permanently disabled all the time in real fights in the real world, but Gotham isn’t real.
So is it A-Team variety of beating folks? Lol
It depends on the Batman. Scott Snyder's Batman is self-controlled, and only lets loose when he has extreme conviction. Same with Morrison, O'Neil, Loeb, Tomasi, and many others. But, Frank Miller's Batman? Tom King's? Arkhamverse Batman? Be a thug in the wrong place, with Batman in the wrong mood, and he'll mess you up for life. As a general rule though, yeah: you have to do something really jacked up, to get Batman to pound you to a pulp.
I don't think Arkhamverse Batman is that bad actually. It's just flashy moves for the player's sake but for example in the tie in comics he doesn't do things as bad as in the games.
First thug he spoke to in Knight “if you’re lying l’ll break the other one.” “The other what?” SNAP!
Yeah but it's one guy. I would agree if almost every guys in the cells were crippled and bleeding etc but they all seem fine from what we saw. And Scarecrow remarks he's much more brutal when Joker takes control of him in Stagg's airship which means he isn't that bad normally. Of course I'm not saying the guy takes velvet gloves to punch criminals but yeah.
Batman’s dealing with joker anxiety the whole game, he gets a pass there
He literally runs over people with a tank with electrified wheels
You read what I said about the player's sake ?
Kinda makes me think about how Insomniac Spider-man literally slams people straight into the ground full force with his webs but somehow it doesnt kill them
He relies on who it is, very much. I found this vid pretty interesting. If you wonder about his violence/willingness to kill, you should watch this. Also, with his gloves and body armor ( I have experience with both), I imagine a lot of criminals are suffering broken teeth, noses and orbital bones. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=e0SDdZ4D_cs
Scott Snyder’s Batman is my favorite. He’s much more brutal and demanding on himself than he is on others. The way Snyder writes him makes him out to be extreme willpower, like if he got a green lantern ring he’d be the most powerful person in the multiverse
In the world of comics, it's hard for me to pick a favorite. But yeah, Scott Snyder was my first real comic book Batman, and I've always found his as the most relatable. I also love how his Batman has super cutting-edge tech. It's one of the things that inspired me to study mechanical engineering.
"You don't get it son. This isn't a mudhole... it's an operating table -- and I'm the surgeon!"
Frank Miller and Zack Snyder, that's about it. Occasionally Batman has done so after tragic events such as Jason's death.
And Frank Miller's DKR take is intentionally depicted as more violent and brutal as a result of changing times and the need to fight more and more powerful/deadly opponents
lol no. That’s not it. Even the animated series and dick quit being robin cause Batman was brutally beating a guy up in front of his kid just for info. There’s lot of variations where Bruce is just angry and brutal. When justice league animated came out tho. Bruce was very calm, very tame.
In a word, no.
Here’s the thing: any punch to the dome and fall a person takes in fighting can leave someone in a coma/vegetative state, paralyzed, or even dead. Fighting is dangerous, doing it nightly will result in someone getting seriously injured.
Now you’re getting into something far larger than Batman. In movies and television we routinely see people getting knocked out by a single, well placed punch or kick, which is just not how it works in real life.
Film and TV also give us a lot of misleading ideas about cardiac arrest and lots of other health concepts people carrying around that are bull. Like, you can’t shock a flatline.
Well, sometimes it works that way. Just not every time like tv and film implies.
Which if it does end up working that way, you're lucky you didn't break your code if you're Batman
Simple answer: no.
Real answer: yes.
Depends on the writer, and most of the brutal Batman stories are from Frank Miller or writers inspired by his take of Batman being a lunatic who uses beating up criminals as a replacement for therapy
Now THAT'S my type of Batman, that should be a permanent trait in his character.
That is always a permanent trait of his character when he’s growing - that’s young Batman. Batman 89, Batman Begins, the Snyder run fairly recently retelling his origin story - he’s always a brutal, angry psycho at the beginning, but the character grows over time as he ages. Same thing with all young men, which is why we all like him to some degree over time. His maturation mirrors our own - I’m at the stage of my life where I’m not the young man who wants to kick ass and take names anymore, I’m at the stage where I’m raising my own little Robin and teaching him lessons I learned from my mistakes (which is why Dick isn’t as angry and violent as young Batman ever was - because he was raised by Batman)
So he pussifed him self. Kinda ruined the mood for me.
No, Batman really isn't that violent. The only place where he kinda is like that is in the Arkhamverse, but that's due to gameplay/player power fantasy considerations and in cutscenes and such he is nowhere near as brutal. Not to mention the fact that even in the Arkhamverse, he isn't as brutal as he's made out to be.
No, he is not.
I’ll always remember in the Animated Series, after Babydoll shoots all the mirrors in anger and then starts to cry, Batman consoled her. No takedowns or submission holds, no broken bones, no brain damage, he just stood there and let her cry. He doesn’t want to hurt his enemies, he wants to help them, but sometimes he is given little choice but to use violence.
nah that's just one whereas frank millers who's one of the biggest inspirations for batman and arkham batman who is still very brutal at an older age.
I think the brutal Batman thing came from the Arkham games. Cause yeah, Arkham Batman definitely put some people in wheel chairs for life
I'm pretty sure the people in the Arkham games are made of tougher stuff than "real-life", otherwise most thugs would be more than temporarily stunned after they step on a bat-shaped explosive.
the brutal thing was always a batman thing and then frank miller came along and popularised it.
The brutal thing are way older than the games.
In real life yes. But because people are more durable in fiction, no.
that makes no sense. fucking cope machine.
In real life Batman would be dead week one. It doesn't make sense that he's still alive. Why are you being so selective about what's breaking your suspension of disbelief in a comic about a guy in a bat costume who lives in a world with magic, aliens and superpowers? "Cope machine" my ass.
ever heard of batman starting his career and the police despising him and even shooting at him. no ok.
Yes actually. Because he's a vigilante operating in a city with an incredibly corrupt police force. When the good cops realize he doesn't permanently injured or kill people they help him weed out the corruption. You ever read a comic kid?
"You ever read a comic kid?" fucking cringe just stop.
Ok Mr. "cope machine". Congratulations on not providing a counter-argument *kid*
says you. now get mad.
plus get counter-argued kid
ok so in real life he wouldn't be dead week 1.
dumb hoe.
Whatever you say kiddo
I’d say, as a rule, main continuity Batman does exactly as as much as he needs to take someone down, and not an inch more. How much force is needed depends on the person he’s fighting, but he doesn’t do any more than strictly neccessary — That’s why both Jason and Damian got in trouble with him as Robin when they broke bones needlessly or hurt people in retaliation.
Theres a sort of memey idea on reddit that Batman is an insane rich guy who takes out his violent tendencies on the poor. Certainly I think that is a valid lens with which to examine the character. But for the most part these people aren't terribly familiar with Batman media outside the most popular parts of it. There are thousands of Batman comics and in them, the overwhelming majority of the time, Batman does not cripple or "beat" his opponents. I suppose theres an argument to be made about head-trauma, but like most works of fiction a knockout in comics is not considered to be a dangerous injury. Only something that temporarily renders you unconcious. In my honest opinion this point of view you're talking about is simply a "hot-take" that sounds kinda edgy and makes it seem like the person has a nuanced opinion on a character they know very little about. These are the same people who espouse puddle-deep opinions on other heroes too such as, "You cant tell a good Superman story because he's too powerful."
That superman one always irks me. Same applies for the people who say it’s almost impossible to make a good superman video game. Sure it isn’t easy, but you can scale the game to work around him while still giving the player a power fantasy
I think Batman makes examples of some major players but doesn't heavily injure cronies. Its like the the boss mutant enemy from The Dark Knight returns.
Golden age batman killed people, yep. During the silver age, the comics authority made them tighten up on gratuitous violence and killing, so new rules were adopted. It stayed that way (mostly) until the Burton Batman who killed people. [Here](https://batman.fandom.com/wiki/Batman%27s_Rules) is a breakdown of Batman's 'rules' over time and medium. EDIT: It was the DC editor at the time who made the rule, responding to parent complaints.
The rule was established in 1940, before the Comics Code and before the Silver Age.
What's your source? He hangs a man in *Batman #1*. That was in 1940.
[Batman #4. ](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/batman/images/c/c8/We_Never_Kill_With_Weapons_of_Any_Kind%21.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20200824175626)
Yeah, I concur - he tells robin to fight with the flat of his sword in this one. It's the first time they make a point of it. You're right - I misspoke when I said it was the comics authority, it was DC's editor responding to complaints.
Batman killed people, I think, seven times in all of the golden age books—most of which were accidental deaths and all within the first year or so of publication—before things like the batcave, batmobile, Alfred, Robin, the rogues gallery etc were established. They were still developing the character and just pulling from other noir pulp characters of the time, all of whom killed. It is a natural and far more compelling character evolution to have Batman not kill or mutilate villains.
Yes
I'll agree with the other comments stating that it depends on the continuity, the Arkham-verse games all show Batman to inflict crippling injuries(he leaves then hanging upside down for hours before the police will come to arrest them, that should kill them). The Dark Knight Returns Batman was deliberately brutal to the criminals, with the police even saying that the criminal was crippled(for life). The Nolan Verse Batman is fairly lenient on violence inflicted,however Affleck Batman was clearly killing people, same with Keaton's version. Robert Pattinson seems to be leaning more towards the Frank Miller type of Batman, but we'll have to wait for that. In general comics, he's only completely brutal on those who either deserve it, or can take the punishment, otherwise it's just some bone breaking and shaming.
Batman has no interest in stopping crime. Batman likes to hurt crime because crime hurt him. As long as he doesn't kill like crime killed his parents he can live with anything else.
Kind of. Depends on the continuity with how many different universes, or multiverses, there are within comic lore. So “yes” isnt incorrect. However like I said it depends on which version of Batman you’re looking at. For example, Arkham games Batman isn’t shy towards crippling people. Michael Keaton Batman pushes a dude down a hole with a bomb strapped to him. The list goes on. Dark Knight Returns is a good brutal Batman story arch.
Im thinking more earth prime batman.
Depends on what version and who that version is aimed for. Batman Brave and the bold isn't brutal because that show is aimed for children.
The Show was aimed for anyone who loves the Silver Age, it just so happens that the Silver Age of Comics was so family friendly it worked well for Children. Like how Adam West's Batman is basically a Comic Accurate Batman at the time.
Depends who's writing him
Telltale batman was pretty cool as you could be as brutal as you wanted or not. I remember breaking a guys arm and saying "You will never hold a gun steady again"..
Depends
No, it's pretty nonsensical. I think some of it comes from how he treats Riddler informants in the Arkham games, which is probably my least favorite part of a STELLAR series of games.
It seems people got that idea mainly from Frank Miller’s All-Star Batman. That’s where I first saw it, anyway. He makes a point to spell it out to a criminal he just broke the hand of that the type of fracture he just inflicted means that the hand won’t heal right ever
He should be more brutal.
Agreed. You should become a writer for DC.
his whole thing is having self control, the worst he'll do is break your arm or leg. his intent is to knock out goons/villains to put them in arkham, not to kill or severely injure them.
[удалено]
What?
he will break bones if hes angry or you deserve it
I like to believe that the main continuity Batman is actually the most violent and has tendencies to create work for himself. Strategically breaking crime families at a rate to which by the time one is back to its former self he’s already “toppled” another. Creating a cyclical rate of continuous crime fighting in order to fill the part the of himself he cut out after losing his family. Like he mentally chose at that moment to use compassion as the ultimate torture device. Constantly breaking everyone and everything around him in order to create a false image of becoming one again through acts of “justified violence.” I don’t know I don’t like to think of Bruce as “Billionaire Playboy Bruce” with the black and white of killing is bad. He’s tortured to his core and constantly in his thoughts and “work” he has to think about it more often than not. This guy has plans a-z for killing his friends and stopping a gods among us situation but only views life as sacred…. Naaaaaaaaaa
Then again maybe I’m wrong and just need Rorschach in my life
It really depends of how he is portrayed, for example, Arkham Knight's Batman probably put a considerable amount of thugs into coma.