Sooo, Batman and his 'one rule'...
- Thread starter Joel_Kirk
- Start date
If Batman is about be killed and the only way to save himself is to kill the other person, he should not take that road?
Exactly. killing an opponent should his last resort. This statement "someone like Bane or Ra's al Ghul are too dangerous to be left alive" sounds like execution, not self defense.
You forget the poodle? The Penguin flying off on his brolly? Batman randomly throwing acid at catwoman? The penguin having a batmobile video game control device?
Seriously if people haven't seen these in a few years worth a rewatch simply to see how dumb they are (and camp).
Last edited:
As aforementioned, I think it should be in self defense. Not exactly intending to kill, but at least looking to put a stop to the criminal doing whatever he or she does when they continually escape the authorities or Arkham Asylum.
I didn't mention it in my initial post, but Batman (in the 1989 film) actually tried to save the gangster, Jack, who shoots at 'the dark knight' on a whim. Jack is bloodied after Batman protects himself with the cape that ricochets a bullett , and drops in the vat of chemicals after Batman loses his literal grip on him. (Of course, later, we'll hear the usual 'you made me!' from Jack-turned-Joker).
Batman is sort of hypocritical in the comic "Death in the Family" when he wants to kill the Joker for killing Jason Todd, but previously he wants 'justice' to occur by letting him go - only to escape once again and kill innocents. Also, in a way he is playing judge and jury (on a different level) because he monitors any vigilantes or meta-humans who enter Gotham and usually gives them rules for being in 'his' city.
So, yeah, Batman has his 'rule' or 'rules,' but it depends on the situation. Which is probably the reason why Superman is brought in occasionally to watch him. (Even Superman is shown to not be infallible, especially if Lois Lane ever died....as seen in one of the previous "Justice League: Injustice" video game).
Last edited:
I just watched the 89 version and didn't find it any more dumb than most of what Nolan did. In fact, by Nolan trying to ground the movie as being even more realistic, the over the top moments ring sillier than anything in the 89 movie, which knew that it was a comicbook movie and was still allowed to have fun.
I didn't watch Returns, though, since I've never cared much for that. But I think there's much more of a timelessness in 89 (the style, the costumes, the architecture) that won't help the Nolan movies in the future.
I've only ever seen each of those once and I couldn't actually comment on that.
That part was also dumb.
That was awesome.
Weird and even out-of-place but not enough to take me out of the film. I bought the Penguin being eccentric enough to use it and his modified umbrellas.
One of the things I appreciated about Waid's "Kingdom Come" was precisely that Superman wouldn't break his oath even after Lois was murdered.
Just to change gears a bit (but heck, the thread's already moved on to a dissection of Burton's Batman films in general), I always thought the code against killing was more important for Superman than Batman. Batman, for his prep-time, etc., is still human and could be in a situation where he had to take an evil life to save an innocent life. His lack of powers could deny him the choice.
Conversely, Superman, because of his godlike abilities HAD to have a code against killing. He knew that, once he crossed that line, there was nothing left to separate him from a self-appointed "god," who chose whether people lived or died. He realized that, with all his powers, he could--and should--find a way in any situation to not take a life. Anything else was laziness and/or hubris.
Last edited:
Here's Batman talking about his one rule.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kscfb9XzPs[/yt]
In this version, he thinks if he breaks his rule, he'll be no better than the scum he put away.
Of course, Superman didn't just explain why... he shows it.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKm5otkR2mc[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kscfb9XzPs[/yt]
In this version, he thinks if he breaks his rule, he'll be no better than the scum he put away.
Of course, Superman didn't just explain why... he shows it.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKm5otkR2mc[/yt]
Speaking from inside Bruce Wayne's head ...
The problem with that is it means any police officer who shot and killed a criminal in self-defense, including but not limited to Jim Gordon, is no worse then the criminals they've arrested
It'd different because Bruce is a vigilante and therefore a type of criminal himself.
Exactly. There are no checks or balances on the Batman. He has no one to police him but himself.
Cops and Batman are different. Cops operate within the law, need search warrants, work within their jurisdiction, write reports of their actions, given authority by the state to write tickets and use lethal force when they deem necessary.
Batman works outside the law. None of the above applies to him.
Last edited:
I understand what you're both saying. However, it just seems to me that one is slicing the hair awfully thin to say that using military grade weaponry, violating civil liberties and maiming people on a regular basis is somehow self-policing and drawing a line between good and evil but killing someone in self defense is the morally indefensible act that turns a hero into a villain.
To me that line only makes logical sense if Batman is saying that killing, including in self-defense, is just too great a wrong to justify in any circumstance.
And that seems to open the door for what I was saying.
Conversely, if one is saying that Batman won't kill except when absolutely necessary to save innocents, that he won't be an executioner, then I think the point is perfectly legitimate.
I can agree to that. Maybe it should be Batman won't commit murder.
Like in the Dark Knight, Batman tackles Two-Face. His intent was not to kill Dent, but to save Gordon and his son. The result of that action is Dent's death. I like that better than in Batman Begins, where he says he don't have to save the villain.
Last edited:
