>No guns, no killing.
>Uses the batwing to kill Talia.
Why's Batman a damn hypocrite?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>No guns, no killing. >Uses the batwing to kill Talia.
He didn't intentionally kill her, he was trying to stop the truck.
>your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share
>that’s why it’s so important. it separates us from them.
this line in Begins was such a fricking great and succinct description of Batman’s rule and it’s morality, it annoys me how it basically never appears again in any version afterwards and is basically forgotten about in the whole no killing debate
How is that any different from the "if you kill him, you will be just like him!" this board likes to make fun of
It was an accident. Batman doesn’t kill. He’s a hero. Just not the one we needed right now. Because he’s the hero Gotham deserves. Sometimes there’s a man, I won’t say a hero……….. aw hell, I lost my train of thought here.
Because the RULE does not apply to PSYCHO b***hES.
Nolan Batman was kind of dumb. He basically killed Ras' Al Ghul but got out of it by using a dumb semantic loophole which completely goes against the character.
Either have him kill people or don't but don't play this moronic autism of "well aktually technically I don't -have- to save you so it's not really killing you even though I put you in this situation" Jigsaw tier defense
Ra's was on a suicide mission and destroyed the controls of the train... sometimes you gotta let people reap what they sow.
all 'don't kill' rules in capeshit films are needless holdovers from comic books
in comic books they were necessary because of the quantity of published stories arguably required reusing antagonists, also the less serious nature of most comics made it seem less absurd. yes i am aware that most heroes were not strict 'no killing ever' and it also depends on iteration of the character. nonetheless it still comes off as stupid in comics, when the joker escapes akham for the 12th time and kills a busload of nuns again, and batman will still refuse to just drop the fricker off a bridge. it gets even more ridiculous as the power scales up and you're trying to not kill superman level shit.
this stupidity would be magnified in Hollywood adaptations tenfold since they're all generally try to be much more serious in tone (not always successful).
everyone likes keatons batman and he murders people left and right in batman, and returns especially. nolan batmans did an ok job skirting the 'rule' and this is why I don't understand people here who complain about superman killing zod in man of steel (that and because this board claims to love christopher reeve's superman, who also killed zod)
Hes a fascist, of course saving millions of rich white people was more important to him than the life of an independent woman.
Because the rule (and the Batman alter-ego itself) is actually just a cover for his deep psychological issues regarding his parents. It's the basis for the entire storyline of the source material and every adaptation. Of course Batman's a hypocrite. He's a fricking vigilante. His nickname is The Dark Knight. There's an entire monologue about how he's not a hero. Again, the no-kill bullshit is part of Bruce Wayne that just happens to affect Batman. Not the other way around.
There are plenty of storylines where he gets over it, either by coming to terms with his parents' death and admitting to himself that killing can be necessary, but a last resort, or stories where he falls completely into madness and vengeance.
Never forget that Batman is not meant to be a wise character, and should (in some instances) be in Arkham Asylum. He's a boy, playing with toy soldiers, or in this case the citizens of Gotham.
The bigger issue with Batman, and Nolan's trilogy in general, is the theme of manipulation, and how in the end (and by the time of TDKR) the protagonists agree that the people cannot be trusted with their own lives, despite their actions being purportedly in service of those same people's freedom. The Dark Knight ends with Alfred manipulating Bruce into manipulating Gordon into manipulating the people of Gotham with the two-faced lie of a dead man, effectively creating a time bomb (that is detonated by Bane) that they make no effort to diffuse in the time granted, all while condemning their adversaries simply for being honest and admitting that there is no way to diffuse the bomb.
>tl;dr
There are no morals in the Batman universe. Only the illusion of ethics. There's no hypocrisy in Batman's rule. The hypocrisy lies in his acknowledgement of it but unwillingness to help himself overcome it.
Batman is a cop, not a judge. He catches people but handles them to the system for them to deal with. If he is judge and executionnary, he becomes a dictator. That's how I see it anyway, I don't watch or read cape that much.
>Doesn't trust the system enough to give them the technology he uses to catch people
He's not a cop, he's not a judge, he's not a detective, he's not even really a vigilante. He's just a kid, trying to disguise his emotional suffering. He'll catch a criminal one day, give him to the system that night, and capture them again the next morning. He has no real solution to criminal behavior in general and refuses to cooperate in regards to helping reduce crime en masse, despite having the methods and resources.
In other words; Batman is just a homosexual who should be in prison as far as the system is concerned. Personally, I'd get him a therapist. Soprano-style sessions of Bruce Wayne in full regalia. Maybe that can be a subplot of the Frasier reboot?
>doesn’t know about the Wayne foundation
>doesn’t know about the multiple children he adopts
>doesn’t understand the deep rooted corruption within the Gotham police department that makes it highly difficult to change the system
Bruce Wayne tries multiple times through multiple avenues to provide an alternative for Gotham via his massive wealth, but lack of wealth isn’t the problem. It’s a culture thing, and one man can only do so much.
>One man can only do so much
That's the point, though. He uses these avenues so he can maintain his alter-ego for his own satisfaction. He even admits in The Dark Knight that Harvey Dent was what Gotham really needed, and in reality Bruce Wayne could have been that.
>a hero with a face
As he describes it, no pun intended I'm sure. He chooses the Dent Act over himself because he's psychologically incapable of helping the people of Gotham. Wayne could have been the best of them, somebody not just children would aspire to be, but adults as well.
What does Batman inspire? He's a symbol of justice? What justice? He's a vigilante. You say it's difficult for one man, and that's true, but Batman is only going to inspire people to act like Batman, which is a subplot of TDK that fixes nothing. The ultimate truth is that Batman doesn't really know what he's doing, and all this crap about being a symbol, cleaning up Gotham, etc... is, again, just a cover for his own mental health crisis. Batman is no different from the copycats, except in the way Batman himself describes it, that is that "He's not wearing hockey pads." That's it.
I blame Alfred. Frick your tangerines, homie, give Bruce the letter and let him move on with his life. Batman is a watchful protector, but Wayne could have potentially removed any need for a knight all together. Fricking Alfred, burning down forests and curbstomping Bamham's evolution into something genuinely greater.
well one thing for sure is that there are many many moronic batman stories I'm not going to try to defend it. But bottom line, that is the message, batman can't be both judge and executionner. And his goal as batman is not just to be a random cop, it's to be a symbol of justice. So that regular people can change their own city. Because at the end of the day, the problem of gotham is not the lack of capes and superhigh tech equipment, it's a problem of the people, of corruption, so on and so on. Other cities that gotham do well without batman or his equipment. What you suggest is escalation, why not but it's not the message here obviously.
The no kill rule is the most broken rule ever. And the first time it was broken was the first Batman comic.
Batman gives people debilitating lifelong injuries and can probably count on 1 hand the amount of people successfully rehabilitated in his villain pool. He's a psychopath, always has been.
>I'm not going to kill you
>I'm just going to disable the brakes to this train, blow up the tracks, and disable you to keep you from escaping
>charges officer?
Didn't he straight murdered Bane with a bat missile, in just the previous scene?
That was Catwoman
did he even try to save that villager when he burned that place to the ground? Also I re-watched Batman 1989 recently, and that motherfricker was killing everyone
Boomer Batman had a character arch over the 2 Keaton movies and the Val Kilmer movie where he decided to implement a no kill rule due to feeling like he was becoming obsessed with revenge for no real reason. https://youtu.be/Mv_jw_VYRjY
We all have exceptions
>OH N-
>I don’t kill
>*pushes Harvey Dent off a ledge*
>I don't kill violent murderers because... I le don't
When did this become a part of Batman's essential character anyway? I've never really read any of the comics but as far as I know he had no problems killing people at the start of his run then somehow shifted later on.
My favorite super hero is Akametsu. He has no problem killing people and he only goes after politicians and bankers.