They are going ahead with a Justice League movie

[Set Harth]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Yeah, Batman's "no killing" rule is... "Oddly" treated in the movies. Especially in "Begins" where he tells Ras "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you."

Um... Yes, you do, Batman. That's sort-of what a hero who "doesn't kill" does!

By that logic everyone is a killer at all times no matter what they do.

[CorporalClegg]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Poor Joss Whedon. He probably has the most misspelled name on the internet. I'm forever seeing "Wheedon," "Whendon," "Wheadon," "Wheldon," and that's not even counting all the people who refer to him as "Josh Wheaton" or whatever.

I swear, J. Michael Straczynski doesn't get his name mangled this much!

(Oh well. Rant over. As you were.)

[Dream]

Greg Cox wrote:

---

Poor Joss Whedon. He probably has the most misspelled name on the internet. I'm forever seeing "Wheedon," "Whendon," "Wheadon," "Wheldon," and that's not even counting all the people who refer to him as "Josh Wheaton" or whatever.

I swear, J. Michael Straczynski doesn't get his name mangled this much!

(Oh well. Rant over. As you were.)

At first I thought it was a typo, but he spelled it Wheedon twice. I have NO idea why Trekker4747 mispelled Whedon's name when he quoted my post which already got his name correct.

[Trekker4747]

Set Harth wrote:

---

By that logic everyone is a killer at all times no matter what they do.

No. If you're in a situation where you know something is going to cause the death of another person and you actively choose not to rescue that person out of spite for what they have done. Then it makes your moral of "not killing" not hold-up.

It's not like Batman had to get out of there as soon as he could to save his own life, or had to make a Sophie's Choice and choose to save one of two people and went with the "better" person. He actively chose not to save someone because he instantly decided to judge a person's actions and then sentence them to death.

This isn't like me not putting myself in the line of fire to prevent a gunman from shooting an innocent, or not diving in front of a bus to save someone from getting hit by it.

This is like me going down with you on a sinking ship, jumping into a lifeboat and calling to you trapped under debris or otherwise stranded and saying, "I don't have to save you!" and then taking off without helping you get aboard even though time would have allowed it.

Now, sure, it's not an "active" killing. But it certainly would make one saying, "I don't kill!" a little harder to swallow and should make one have a hard time sleeping tonight.

Yeah, Ra's was murderer and potential mass-murderer but he's still "entitled" to being saved, arrested and then tried as a criminal. Batman didn't "not save" him in order to save other lives, the threat was over. Batman had won. Ra's plan was kaput. So it wasn't even a "in defense of others "killing."

Batman choose to let another person die. Out of spite.

At first I thought it was a typo, but he spelled it Wheedon twice. I have NO idea why Trekker4747 mispelled Whedon's name when he quoted my post which already got his name correct.

I have a shitty keyboard (well, it was okay until I spilled a drink on it now the keys are all gummy and don't feel right) and, well, I'll go with that.

[sojourner]

^You know you can put your keyboard through the dishwasher? Just make sure it's definitely dry before you reconnect it afterwards.

(if it's wireless make sure to remove the batteries first)

[Lapis Exilis]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

Yeah, Batman's "no killing" rule is... "Oddly" treated in the movies. Especially in "Begins" where he tells Ras "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you."

Um... Yes, you do, Batman. That's sort-of what a hero who "doesn't kill" does!

In one of the Batman comics Batman actually saved a mortally wounded Joker much to the annoyance of Gordon. Batman didn't cause the wound to the Joker and the Joker's death certainly would make Batman's life easier, Gordon's life a hell of a lot easier and Gotham a degree or two safer. But Batman's moral code wouldn't allow him to not-save someone who needed saving. Even if it was the Joker.

As kind of tortured as Batman's "no killing" rule is in the Nolan trilogy, what you describe here is equally tortured on the other end - and one of the things about the no killing rule in the comics that's always strained credibility.

Batman doesn't save Joker in that story because of his extreme dedication to the preservation of all life - he saves Joker because no writer can kill off Batman's main nemesis for good. That's 85% of why the no killing rule was invented - that way all your villains stay around forever so you can have endless rematches.

So while Bruce's sloppy application of his no killing rule in the movies makes him come off as creating a neat little rationalization to feel like he has a clear conscience, his obsessive application of it in the comics does the same - except now it's, "I know you're a vicious murderer who has figured out how to beat the system over and over again, but I'm just going to put you back into the system knowing you'll kill again, but I won't take responsibility for taking you out so my moral conscience is clear, we good? Bye!"

FAR more interesting would be what no one ever does - write a Batman who deals with the fact that his means create collateral damage (Batman never seems to worry about all the cars he blows up, rooms he trashes, train tracks he destroys, knocking off whole sides of buildings, whether or not he's allowing people to die or never, ever killing anyone) up to and including deaths which he does not actively pursue, but which he knows must be inevitable so that he has to constantly balance the highest stakes of loss and gains. Much is made of Batman thinking of himself as a warrior or soldier - well, they deal with the death that must come from their actions.

Though at least Batman gives some kind of nod to a hero's attitudes towards death - unlike the Avengers movie, where the heroes are knocking off enemies right and left without blinking an eye. But they bad guys aren't human so apparently they don't count.

[JoeZhang]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

Though at least Batman gives some kind of nod to a hero's attitudes towards death - unlike the Avengers movie, where the heroes are knocking off enemies right and left without blinking an eye. But they bad guys aren't human so apparently they don't count.

I'm trying to think - do any of the heroes in the any of the marvel universe films have a non-killing rule? Iron Man kills people in the first film, Cap is a solider, Thor is a warrior and I think kills troll in his first film and Hawkeye, Nick Fury and Black Widow are black-ops operatives.

Their actions in the invasion would therefore seem consist with what we have already been presented with - they will all kill if they need to.

[Icemizer]

^Thats true the Marvel universe is full of killers, while the DC universe is full of heroes.

[JoeZhang]

There is no DCU in regards to the films, in reference to the comics, DC reboots so often that things don't tend to stick but Superman has killed, Flash has killed, Wonder Woman has killed, Green Arrow has killed - generally with a lot of angst.

[Christopher]

Lapis Exilis wrote:

---

As kind of tortured as Batman's "no killing" rule is in the Nolan trilogy, what you describe here is equally tortured on the other end - and one of the things about the no killing rule in the comics that's always strained credibility.

Batman doesn't save Joker in that story because of his extreme dedication to the preservation of all life - he saves Joker because no writer can kill off Batman's main nemesis for good. That's 85% of why the no killing rule was invented - that way all your villains stay around forever so you can have endless rematches.

So while Bruce's sloppy application of his no killing rule in the movies makes him come off as creating a neat little rationalization to feel like he has a clear conscience, his obsessive application of it in the comics does the same - except now it's, "I know you're a vicious murderer who has figured out how to beat the system over and over again, but I'm just going to put you back into the system knowing you'll kill again, but I won't take responsibility for taking you out so my moral conscience is clear, we good? Bye!"

I have to disagree. Batman saving the Joker is no different from the duty of any police officer, rescue worker, or doctor to save every life placed in their care. It's not any of those people's job to play judge, jury, and executioner. It's their job to save an endangered life. It's one thing to use deadly force against someone who presents an immediate, active threat to another person's life. But if that person is injured or unconscious and poses no immediate danger, then there's no justification for killing them, or for letting them die. Your duty is to rescue the person in danger.

There's a Canadian-made show called Flashpoint which is based very authentically in the real procedures of a Toronto special tactics/rescue squad, and the issue of "priority of life" comes up sometimes. There have been a couple of episodes where an ally of the team, a fellow law-enforcement officer, tried to take revenge on someone who killed their partner or fiance or whoever, and the team's duties required them to protect the killer even if it meant shooting the cop, because priority of life means that you save the one who's in danger and target the one who's threatening them, period, regardless of their respective motives or morality. Only the immediate situation dictates your choices. If you have to kill a friend and colleague to stop her from shooting a murderer, that's what you do, because your duty is to uphold the law.

That said, you could make a case that "I don't have to save you" is an acceptable response in some cases. If you asked a doctor to operate on Adolf Hitler to save his life (in some alternate world where Hitler was taken alive and imprisoned, say), he could refuse and insist you get someone else to do it. And since Batman is technically a private citizen, you could argue that he can define his duties however he wishes and doesn't have to follow a formal set of rules of engagement. But there is precedent for a code of conduct in which one's duty is to protect everyone, good or evil, with equal diligence.

Icemizer wrote:

---

^Thats true the Marvel universe is full of killers, while the DC universe is full of heroes.

Well, no, that's not true in the least. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, the film continuity that includes The Avengers, has not so far included any heroes who refuse to kill, but the Marvel comics themselves are full of heroes with codes against killing, including Captain America and Iron Man. Spider-Man's refusal to kill is a fundamental part of his character; his whole mission is driven by his guilt over letting Uncle Ben die, and so he refuses to let anyone else, even a villain, die if he has the power to save them. In the X-Men comics, Storm's refusal to take life under any circumstances was an important part of her character for a long time, though that changed in the '80s or '90s.

The problem is that movies have a certain set of expectations built around them, and part of the standard action-movie formula is the bad guy dying at the end. So superhero movies tend to conform to that formula, even though it's a departure from how comics usually operate. Fortunately there have been some notable subversions, including the X-Men films (at least where Magneto was concerned, though the same can't be said for some of his henchmen or for Stryker), The Dark Knight, and The Amazing Spider-Man.

[JoeZhang]

but the Marvel comics themselves are full of heroes with codes against killing, including Captain America and Iron Man.

They will both avoid killing if they can but both have killed when needed - hell in the last update of Stark's origin (which I think is the Ellis version) he uses a flamethrower to kill people while escaping.

[Dream]

Christopher wrote:

---

Well, no, that's not true in the least. The Marvel Cinematic Universe, the film continuity that includes The Avengers, has not so far included any heroes who refuse to kill

None of the Avengers in the movie are crime fighters. None of them have actually gone out to catch criminals.

Tony fights for himself, Thor is a warrior, and Cap was a soldier. The Hulk is probably responsible for countless deaths just from smashing buildings, but the writers try never to mention it.

Also Batman can't go around killing people, otherwise the cops will be after him very quickly.

[JarodRussell]

Hooray, Avengers is successful, and then they want to throw out a Justice League film.

I wonder if they'll call it:

ME TOO!




Maybe Warner should first try to do successful standalone films with their superheroes and make sure that these film universes are compatible with each other before thinking about doing a Justice League film.

[Dream]

Guys, didn't we already get a Justice League movie? This?

[Greg Cox]

sojourner wrote:

---

^You know you can put your keyboard through the dishwasher? Just make sure it's definitely dry before you reconnect it afterwards.

(if it's wireless make sure to remove the batteries first)

I threw up on my keyboard once. It was never quite the same afterwards . . ..

But can you really run a keyboard through a dishwasher?