Support NeoGAF

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

I think most people know this, but when Batman was introduced in the 30s, he was basically another version of The Shadow and similar pulp vigilantes of the era, and this meant that he straight up killed some of his foes and used guns.

Nowadays, we all know Batman doesn't kill, ever. Unless you're Darkseid or in a movie, I guess. But why not incorporate the earliest parts of Batman into the modern day history? I always thought it was bizarre that Batman constantly refrained from killing his opponents like The Joker even in the heat of battle, and eventually just chalked it up to Batman being as fanatically insane as his foes, just in a different way.

But it'd be so fascinating if Batman did kill his foes in the early days, and it actually caused the crime situation in Gotham to become worse.

In the TV show, Arrow, Ollie starts off by killing off most foes he comes across, but eventually he becomes more and more heroic as he realizes that killing these people isn't making anything better... in fact, it's making everything worse. He eventually has to change and he becomes more heroic (though still willing to kill if pushed too far).

I liked the idea of Superman in MoS

Spoiler

being so traumatized from having to kill Zod, in turn making him adopt a no-kill rule

, cause that made sense instead of simply being "better" than everyone. He's as human as anyone else.

It's a shame that this stuff is relegated to the dustbin when it comes to Batman cause I think it'd certainly add more complexity to the character, new conflicts, etc.

 

[Affeinvasion]

It didn't work for superman...

 

[Salsa]

so the punisher

 

[ramuh]

Maybe if he did some vigilantly style-beating/killing bad guy stuff before he became the Batman and assumed higher responsibilities for his actions.

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

so the punisher

Well, unlike the Punisher, he'd realize that killing people either doesn't work or that his soul can't bear it, or something of that nature.

Or maybe not out-and-out killing, but be more willing to kill in self-defence or allow his enemies to die.

 

[SwiftDeath]

So Arrow the cw version?

 

[MHWilliams]

I assume that's where they're going with Man of Steel "Superman".

 

[NotTheGuyYouKill]

So Arrow the cw version?

Yeah, I mentioned that. A similar arc.

I'm just surprised that writers don't want to delve into Batman's origins a bit. I think it'd be interesting to see a tweak on the history of Bruce Wayne's vigilantism.

 

[Penguin]

It depends

He didn't kill in Begins, but they did try to justify it with the scene with Rachel and the gun.

And believe tried to discuss it in the oft-forgotten Batman: Year Two

 

[Wiktor]

I think comic book Bats is a tiny bit psychically ill and he loves what he does. Killing those villains would mean less playmates and less ocassions to put on the cape.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

The Joker is the only person that Batman should kill.

 

[Toparaman]

I think it's annoying how anal some Batman fans are about the no-kill rule. That rule was literally created to comply with the Comics Code. It just seems like a dumb rule now that Batman isn't a kid-friendly superhero anymore.

 

[Goon Boon]

They didn't need him to start killing people, but him actively going out of his way to save mass killers like the Joker from being killed by his victim's friends/family or just from death in general is horse shit.

 

[BocoDragon]

I really like this idea.

Batman is presented as this paragon of morality... But he's a spoiled rich kid. It would be better if he developed his moral theory after some experience.

Plus it reconciles the history of Batman with the modern day version.

 

[Cynar]

I think it's annoying how anal some Batman fans are about the no-kill rule. That rule was literally created to comply with the Comics Code. It just seems like a dumb rule now that Batman isn't a kid-friendly superhero anymore.

It's a good rule. It's noble to strive towards it. Shame DC decided to have superman kill because it kinda ruined man of steel for me.

 

[Zekes!]

What Batman really needs to do is get some fucking counselling

 

[Wiktor]

It's a good rule. It's noble to strive towards it. Shame DC decided to have superman kill because it kinda ruined man of steel for me.

It's a noble rule, but there are moments where sticking to it makes zero sense. MoS was one of those cases.

 

[Renekton]

They didn't need him to start killing people, but him actively going out of his way to save mass killers like the Joker from being killed by his victim's friends/family or just from death in general is horse shit.

He's okay with letting the courts sentence Joker to death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfH3bDPNGHw

 

[number47]

Why do you use comparisons to justify your statement. Green arrow is green arrow. Batman is batman. If he kills,he's no different than the man who killed his parents. Because KILLING IS WRONG.

 

[Kai Dracon]

To be honest I like Batman's absolute no-kill rule when it's used in the context of his questionable sanity. It's his rationalization for being able to break laws and jump around dressed like a bat. The one thing he won't do that "proves" he's not just another vigilante thug.

I think there have been specific scenes before where he's tempted with killing Joker to end it all but his obsession with his identity won't allow it. He must remain better (as he defines better) than the bad guys, to be Batman.

Hell, it's a point of characterization that the Joker knows Batman is unhinged in the context of his moral code, therefore Joker can taunt him about it. Flaunt his evil, imagining how much it is torturing Batman.

 

[Fusebox]

Batman killed every victim of every criminal he let live.

 

[Log4Girlz]

I liked 89 Batman movie version, correct me if I'm wrong but he only killed if you tried to kill him or others.

 

[Escape Goat]

So Arrow the cw version?

Does he really kill people? Or do they play it off like "good thing we got them to the hospital so fast!"

 

[Unai]

Does he really kill people? Or do they play it off like "good thing we got them to the hospital so fast!"

He does kill people.

 

[Solemn_In_Berlin]

To be honest I like Batman's absolute no-kill rule when it's used in the context of his questionable sanity. It's his rationalization for being able to break laws and jump around dressed like a bat. The one thing he won't do that "proves" he's not just another vigilante thug.

I think there have been specific scenes before where he's tempted with killing Joker to end it all but his obsession with his identity won't allow it. He must remain better (as he defines better) than the bad guys, to be Batman.

Hell, it's a point of characterization that the Joker knows Batman is unhinged in the context of his moral code, therefore Joker can taunt him about it. Flaunt his evil, imagining how much it is torturing Batman.

This.

 

[Wiktor]

Does he really kill people? Or do they play it off like "good thing we got them to the hospital so fast!"

He kills...a lot. In second season he became more heroic, but even there the "no killing" is just a strong guideline. When forced he will still kill.

Which fits the source material. Green Arrow killed people many times in the comics.

 

[Dommo]

In the TV show, Arrow, Ollie starts off by killing off most foes he comes across, but eventually he becomes more and more heroic as he realizes that killing these people isn't making anything better... in fact, it's making everything worse. He eventually has to change and he becomes more heroic (though still willing to kill if pushed too far).

I haven't read a whole lot of Batman comics, but at least in the Nolan films, this is explored through the idea of escalation. It's not done through Batman killing people, but that doesn't matter. It works even better when he doesn't kill people, because depsite the fact that he fills the shoes of a classic archetypal hero, who doesn't kill - only stops crime and saves live, crime is still getting worse. The Dark Knight consciously deals with the ideas that The Joker and this ruthless, illogical crime is a direct result of Batman's efforts and that perhaps dressing up, beating and throwing away low level criminals doesn't speak to the heart of the problem, and vigilantism will never do that. That's what Harvey Dent was the real hero that the city needed. He was making legitimate change through legitimate means.

Basically I think what you're asking for is already present in the Nolan films - it's just expressed in a, in my opinion, more interesting way. Your idea says 'killing isn't the right approach'. We already know that. Nolan's films say 'Vigilantism in general isn't the right approach' which is interesting and ballsy because it strips down and challenges that archetypal hero - the one we've always cheered on and rooted for.

 

[shira]

Nowadays, we all know Batman doesn't kill, ever.

This is wrong. His copout is that he doesn't shoot people with guns. Hence he doesn't he doesn't murder anyone directly. But he kills lots of people indirectly via collateral damage and of course not saving people.

 

[Wiktor]

I haven't read a whole lot of Batman comics, but at least in the Nolan films, this is explored through the idea of escalation. It's not done through Batman killing people, but that doesn't matter. It works even better when he doesn't kill people, because depsite the fact that he fills the shoes of a classic archetypal hero, who doesn't kill - only stops crime and saves live, crime is still getting worse. The Dark Knight consciously deals with the ideas that The Joker and this ruthless, illogical crime is a direct result of Batman's efforts and that perhaps dressing up, beating and throwing away low level criminals doesn't speak to the heart of the problem, and vigilantism will never do that. That's what Harvey Dent was the real hero that the city needed. He was making legitimate change through legitimate means.

Basically I think what you're asking for is already present in the Nolan films - it's just expressed in a, in my opinion, more interesting way. Your idea says 'killing isn't the right approach'. We already know that. Nolan's films say 'Vigilantism in general isn't the right approach' which is interesting and ballsy because it strips down and challenges that archetypal hero - the one we've always cheered on and rooted for.

At the same time though. Gotham needed a vigilante. This was made very obvious. Even forgetting the fact that there would be no Gotham after Begins if it wasn't for Bats, the big theme of first movie was that this city was just a pure shithole and legitimate means just weren't enough. It;s only after Batman cleaned up the streets he could think about retiring and not having to worry the city will be doomed

 

[zeemumu]

This is wrong. His copout is that he doesn't shoot people with guns. Hence he doesn't he doesn't murder anyone directly. But he kills lots of people indirectly via collateral damage and of course not saving people.

He didn't kil Ras. He just chose not to save him.

 

[Escape Goat]

He kills...a lot. In second season he became more heroic, but even there the "no killing" is just a strong guideline. When forced he will still kill.

Which fits the source material. Green Arrow killed people many times in the comics.

Seems like DC wouldn't want that in a TV show. But for a guy who shoots arrows you have to expect some dead folks.

 

[Wiktor]

Seems like DC wouldn't want that in a TV show. But for a guy who shoots arrows you have to expect some dead folks.

Why? In movies most superheroes kill, the rule is much lighter there. And on TV we're even more used to seeing murderers as lead heroes. When you take a character like a Green Arrow, which was allowed to kill even in comic books, there's really no reason to prohibit it in a TV show.

Plus of course CW wanted darker edgier style for Arrow, if only to make it clear from first ep this won't be another Smallville. Seinge a superhero, in the first 15 minutes of the show, slaughter three dudes without mercy, ending with a beautiful neck breaking drilled that message hard.

 

[KittenMaster]

I'm fine with a no kill rule as far as characterization goes: it is clearly flawed and inefficient and makes you question the hero's intentions.

The problem is that a lot of Batman's "non-lethal" methods are in themselves potentially lethal, such as bashing skulls in and even some of his gadgets depending on what it is.

 

[Escape Goat]

Why? In movies most superheroes kill, the rule is much lighter there. And on TV we're even more used to seeing murderers as lead heroes. When you take a character like a Green Arrow, which was allowed to kill even in comic books, there's really no reason to prohibit it in a TV show.

Plus of course CW wanted darker edgier style for Arrow, if only to make it clear from first ep this won't be another Smallville. Seinge a superhero, in the first 15 minutes of the show, slaughter three dudes without mercy, ending with a beautiful neck breaking drilled that message hard.

Just that it being a lot of people's first exposure to the character. Like how car manufacturers don't let video game companies show damage in racing games.

I'm fine with a no kill rule as far as characterization goes: it is clearly flawed and inefficient and makes you question the hero's intentions.

The problem is that a lot of Batman's "non-lethal" methods are in themselves potentially lethal, such as bashing skulls in and even some of his gadgets depending on what it is.

Getting punched in the face could potentially kill or cause brain dsmage. Punch in the nose may drive bones up into the brain.

 

[Wiktor]

Just that it being a lot of people's first exposure to the character. Like how car manufacturers don't let video game companies show damage in racing games.

Well...Green Arrow wasn't exactly setting the world on fire before the show launched, so there really was no brand to damage. Plus I think DC solely cares about if it's good or not in this cases. When they even allowed Batman and Superman to kill in the movies it obvious comic book guidelines aren't restricting live action adaptations. Which isn't surprised, comic books are very niche compared to even show on a small network like CW.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

I think it's annoying how anal some Batman fans are about the no-kill rule. That rule was literally created to comply with the Comics Code. It just seems like a dumb rule now that Batman isn't a kid-friendly superhero anymore.

Batman only killed in the character's first year (1939-1940) and Robin was introduced at around the same time as he stopped killing, actually just checking they they stopped Batman's killing and using a gun pretty much right after Robin was introduced. The Comics Code wasn't introduce until 1954 and had nothing to do with it.

Basically 74 out of Batman's 75 years of having that rule is why people are anal about it, like it or not, it's a part of the character. Also doesn't make sense business-wise either when you have a popular villain that you want to use over and over again.

 

[injurai]

The Joker is the only person that Batman should kill.

Nah, It's the most exemplory instance of Bruce Wayne's own short comings. His ideals and humaness prevent him from taking the most pragmatic, calculated, and robotic course of action even if it meant bettering the greater good. Because it would comprimise the symbol that he stands as, which allows him to be impartial as an actor of justice.

 

[Aaron-Lagann]

I think there need to be more story lines showing why killing won't work, because a good amount of the time just killing the horrible psychopaths seems like the easiest and best solution.

I like the way Arrow did it, where people were terrified of him since he was a literal mass murderer, so to actually inspire heroism he had to stop killing. It was a logical reason why he doesn't kill, even if killing is easier and solves a lot of problems quickly.

 

[Shaanyboi]

I think there need to be more story lines showing why killing won't work, because a good amount of the time just killing the horrible psychopaths seems like the easiest and best solution.

I like the way Arrow did it, where people were terrified of him since he was a literal mass murderer, so to actually inspire heroism he had to stop killing. It was a logical reason why he doesn't kill, even if killing is easier and solves a lot of problems quickly.

Watch Superman vs. The Elite. It explores that very idea, and in a way is also a commentary on comics getting "edgier" and expecting characters to act darker just because.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

This is wrong. His copout is that he doesn't shoot people with guns. Hence he doesn't he doesn't murder anyone directly. But he kills lots of people indirectly via collateral damage and of course not saving people.

That's Nolan's bat. There are several different iterations. For example, Tim Burton Batman is a straight up murderer.

 

[Metallix87]

That's Nolan's bat. There are several different iterations. For example, Tim Burton Batman is a straight up murderer.

Yeah, though not a very good one.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Yeah, though not a very good one.

Keaton's Batman is pretty incompetent in general actually.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Keaton's Batman is pretty incompetent in general actually.

He's a pretty shit Batman. Funnily enough, Kilmer has way more 'Batman moments' than Keaton does.

 

[Tokubetsu]

I don't believe in the no-kill under any circumstance policy most heroes have anyway so this sounds right to me.

 

[Metallix87]

He's a pretty shit Batman. Funnily enough, Kilmer has way more 'Batman moments' than Keaton does.

Schumacher gets way too much hate, honestly. His two films, while heavily flawed, do get quite a lot of elements from the comics right.

 

[Banworthy]

Schumacher gets way too much hate, honestly. His two films, while heavily flawed, do get quite a lot of elements from the comics right.

Perhaps it doesn't matter how many elements they get right from the comics if the films just happen to be bad.

 

[Metallix87]

Perhaps it doesn't matter how many elements they get right from the comics if the films just happen to be bad.

I don't think they're as bad as other people do. Flawed? Sure.

 

[kswiston]

I think comic book Bats is a tiny bit psychically ill and he loves what he does. Killing those villains would mean less playmates and less ocassions to put on the cape.

Not in continuity, but this panel was always hilarious for the reason you stated:

EDIT: or this

 

[Moral Panic]

He didn't kil Ras. He just chose not to save him.

Of course he killed Ras. He put in motion a plan which had a likely chance of resulting in his death and then left him there. It like putting a bomb in an empty building, finding someone who isn't supposed to be there and is illegally trespassing and then saying "I don't have to save you".

 

[John Kowalski]

The one thing i don't enjoy about the Batman. He is an unendingly proficient pragmatist with one very strong direction, which makes his unwavering dedication to the no kill ethics feel out of place and emotionally driven rather than pragmatically driven. I would love to see him actually try it out, to see if it is indeed worse, or less efficient.