Batman with Ben Affleck-- Rumors, pic, etc;

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Yes, Batman regularly killed in his first year or two.

Which shows that that was Bob Kane and Bill Finger's original intention. You know, Batman's actual creators!

And Batman: The Killing Joke, one of the best and most influential Batman/Joker stories, ends with Batman killing the Joker after he has brutally assaulted and crippled Barbara Gordon.

It's hypocritical to complain only about Ben Affleck's Batman killing, when every live-action Batman since 1989 (with the exception of George Clooney) has done it!

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[The Lonely Man]

Which shows that that was Bob Kane and Bill Finger's original intention. You know, Batman's actual creators!
]

They may have created him initially but the character has progressed and developed a long way since then.
Denny O Neill ( to name but one) is every bit as responsible for the current Batman that is known the world over as the original creators.

 

[Christopher]

Which shows that that was Bob Kane and Bill Finger's original intention. You know, Batman's actual creators!

As a creator myself, I find it bizarre that fans have such reverence for original intentions. Creativity is a process of trial and error, learning what works and what doesn't, constantly trying to do better, and discovering new possibilities along the way. The earliest ideas we have are usually our worst. They're just the rough draft of what we're trying to create, and it takes us time to explore those ideas and make them the best they can be. So worshipping the earliest, crudest form of an idea as its truest form is completely backward. It's like valuing an artist's first rough sketch more than the final painting.

Besides, those earliest Batman comics were basically plagiarized from The Shadow. Batman started out as a direct copy of characters from pulp magazines. It took time for the character to develop his own distinct identity.

(Also, any argument that includes Bob Kane as one of Batman's creators is fatally flawed. He came up with the name. Bill Finger did the rest, and Kane spent decades robbing him of the credit and ensuring he died impoverished and forgotten.)

And Batman: The Killing Joke, one of the best and most influential Batman/Joker stories, ends with Batman killing the Joker after he has brutally assaulted and crippled Barbara Gordon.

No, it ends with Batman and the Joker falling over each other laughing, sharing a surprising moment of bonding. The original script by Alan Moore says nothing about killing -- it explicitly says they're "each holding the other up as they stand there clinging together in the rain." And the artwork clearly shows Batman grinning with his hands on the Joker's shoulders, not around his neck. The Internet meme that it shows Batman killing the Joker is a profound misunderstanding of the entire message of the comic. The whole point is that the Joker tried to provoke Batman and Gordon into becoming just as broken and murderous as he is, but failed, because he was wrong that anyone could be driven mad by one bad day. So Gordon still held on to his principles and insisted that Batman bring the Joker in by the book. And it's because of those principles, because Batman was not as bad as the Joker, that he was willing to try to reach out to his old enemy and find a way out of their endless war before more people got hurt. And for one brief moment, they had a truce, a glimmer of mutual understanding. That's an amazing bit of storytelling that adds so much depth to the characters. And I feel so sad for people who totally miss that and only see Batman giving into the same base violence that the Joker embraces, because that robs the whole story of its meaning and makes the whole thing nothing more than an empty indulgence in cruelty.

It's hypocritical to complain only about Ben Affleck's Batman killing, when every live-action Batman since 1989 (with the exception of George Clooney) has done it!

Not at all. It's acknowledging that movie adaptations of superheroes have a longtime pattern of being more lethal than their comic-book counterparts, because movie adaptations are pressured to conform to standard conventions of Hollywood features, and one of those conventions is having the villains die at the end. Whereas serial stories such as comics obviously have an incentive to have their heroes avoid killing the villains, so that the villains can keep coming back over and over. Different media, different approaches.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

(Also, any argument that includes Bob Kane as one of Batman's creators is fatally flawed. He came up with the name. Bill Finger did the rest, and Kane spent decades robbing him of the credit and ensuring he died impoverished and forgotten.)

You must be answering to someone else here because I obviously included Bill Finger.

As a creator myself, I find it bizarre that fans have such reverence for original intentions.

As a creator yourself, I find it bizarre that you have such irreverence for the creators and the writers original intentions.

As a creator myself, I find it bizarre that fans have such reverence for original intentions.Creativity is a process of trial and error, learning what works and what doesn't, constantly trying to do better, and discovering new possibilities along the way. The earliest ideas we have are usually our worst. They're just the rough draft of what we're trying to create, and it takes us time to explore those ideas and make them the best they can be. So worshipping the earliest, crudest form of an idea as its truest form is completely backward. It's like valuing an artist's first rough sketch more than the final painting.

Besides, those earliest Batman comics were basically plagiarized from The Shadow. Batman started out as a direct copy of characters from pulp magazines. It took time for the character to develop his own distinct identity.

Of course not. This isn't an artist's first rough sketch vs his final painting situation. We aren't talking about an unpublished and forgotten ashcan copy here. We are talking about 2 years of finished and published stories here. Stories that Bill Finger wrote BTW.

No, it ends with Batman and the Joker falling over each other laughing, sharing a surprising moment of bonding. The original script by Alan Moore says nothing about killing -- it explicitly says they're "each holding the other up as they stand there clinging together in the rain." And the artwork clearly shows Batman grinning with his hands on the Joker's shoulders, not around his neck. The Internet meme that it shows Batman killing the Joker is a profound misunderstanding of the entire message of the comic. The whole point is that the Joker tried to provoke Batman and Gordon into becoming just as broken and murderous as he is, but failed, because he was wrong that anyone could be driven mad by one bad day. So Gordon still held on to his principles and insisted that Batman bring the Joker in by the book. And it's because of those principles, because Batman was not as bad as the Joker, that he was willing to try to reach out to his old enemy and find a way out of their endless war before more people got hurt. And for one brief moment, they had a truce, a glimmer of mutual understanding. That's an amazing bit of storytelling that adds so much depth to the characters. And I feel so sad for people who totally miss that and only see Batman giving into the same base violence that the Joker embraces, because that robs the whole story of its meaning and makes the whole thing nothing more than an empty indulgence in cruelty.

The ending was purposely left ambiguous to allow the reader to decide what happened. However, as Grant Morrison has stated: “No one gets the end, because Batman kills The Joker. [...] That’s why it’s called 'The Killing Joke'. The Joker tells the ‘Killing Joke’ at the end, Batman reaches out and breaks his neck, and that’s why the laughter stops and the light goes out, ’cause that was the last chance at crossing that bridge. And Alan Moore wrote the ultimate Batman/Joker story — he finished it.” The book explores Moore's assertion that, psychologically, "Batman and the Joker are mirror images of each other" by delving into the relationship between the two. The story itself shows how the Joker and Batman came to terms with their respective life-altering tragedies, which both eventually lead to their present lives and confrontation. Critic Geoff Klock further explained that "both Batman and the Joker are creations of a random and tragic 'one bad day.' Batman spends his life forging meaning from the random tragedy, whereas the Joker reflects the absurdity of "life, and all its random injustice." The torments that the Joker puts Commissioner Gordon through are meant to serve as "proof that there is something buried deep within each lunatic, a nugget of insanity, that is simply waiting for the right moment to spring forth." Unlike the Joker, however, Gordon emerges from his ordeal with his sanity and moral code intact. The comic book, however, delves deeper in order to present Batman's own psychology - that he is, in his own way, just as insane as the Joker, and that he and the Joker perceive the world according to differing points of view, with the Joker's interpreted through a joke.

Not at all. It's acknowledging that movie adaptations of superheroes have a longtime pattern of being more lethal than their comic-book counterparts, because movie adaptations are pressured to conform to standard conventions of Hollywood features, and one of those conventions is having the villains die at the end. Whereas serial stories such as comics obviously have an incentive to have their heroes avoid killing the villains, so that the villains can keep coming back over and over. Different media, different approaches.

That's understandable. But the initial post was that the poster can't get behind Ben Affleck's Batman because he kills. That's hypocritical because all actors have killed criminals in their movies. If the initial post was that he can't get behind Michael Keaton's and Val Kilmer's and Christian Bale's and Ben Affleck's Batman I wouldn't have argued at all. Of course that leaves only Adam West's and George Clooney's interpretation of the character. Which says it all actually.

 

[Christopher]

As a creator yourself, I find it bizarre that you have such irreverence for the creators and the writers original intentions.

Obviously you didn't read what I said. You'll find very few creators who revere their own original intentions as much as fans do. Most creators hate our earlier work. We're glad to change it when we get the chance, because over time we gain more experience and hopefully get better and smarter, and often we look back at our earlier stuff and are embarrassed by how crude or flawed it was. That's why so many creators rewrite or re-edit their works when they get a chance to re-release them. That's why movies have directors' cuts and special editions.

Every creator starts out bad. We have to learn to become capable writers through years of trial and error, working hard to make our next story better than the one before it. And usually, every first draft is the worst version of a story. It's the process of change and revision that makes it work, that weeds out the bad ideas and fleshes out the best potentials. Nothing ever starts out perfect.

So saying that the very first idea a writer comes up with is the best idea they'll ever have is a terrifying notion to any creator, because basically you're saying we're incapable of improving, that all we can do is go downhill. You may think you're honoring creators by enshrining their earliest ideas, but it's just the opposite. If you want to pay tribute to creators, pay tribute to their ability to improve their work over time. Because it's only by constantly honing and improving and refining their work that they even got good enough to be published in the first place.

Of course not. This isn't an artist's first rough sketch vs his final painting situation. We aren't talking about an unpublished and forgotten ashcan copy here. We are talking about 2 years of finished and published stories here. Stories that Bill Finger wrote BTW.

Two years out of nearly 80, in the history of a character who's been created by dozens of different people and has evolved constantly in response to evolving tastes and standards. Batman is not just one thing.

After all, Bill Finger wrote Batman stories for over 25 years. So he wrote far, far more stories where Batman didn't kill than ones where he did. The Batman who killed was the crude, rough draft of the character, when he was just a Shadow ripoff. Finger himself evolved the character over time into something more distinctive.

The ending was purposely left ambiguous to allow the reader to decide what happened. However, as Grant Morrison has stated:

You obviously didn't read the article I linked to, because it does address Morrison's opinion; indeed, that was the catalyst for the whole post. But it debunks that opinion by showing Alan Moore's actual script, which should obviously outweigh the interpretation by someone who didn't work on the project, regardless of how famous he is. Facts outweigh opinions. I am so damn sick of dealing with a world where people think it's the other way around.

That's understandable. But the initial post was that the poster can't get behind Ben Affleck's Batman because he kills. That's hypocritical because all actors have killed criminals in their movies.

No, it is not hypocritical, because I for one am just as unhappy with Batman killing in any story where it happens. I have always hated it that Tim Burton's Batman killed. I dislike the fact that Joel Schumacher's Batman deliberately caused Two-Face's death. I utterly loathe the stupidity of Batman Begins having Bruce claim he refuses to kill and then blow up a temple with dozens of people in it, and I utterly loathe the hypocrisy of "I don't have to save you." It's not like the objections to Zack Snyder's Batman killing are something new or unprecedented. There has been fan disapproval of it every single time it's happened in the movies. The only thing different here is that Snyder's movie took it farther than any movie since Batman Returns has done. At least Nolan's Batman paid lip service to refusing to kill, even if he fell short of that ideal in the first and third movies.

 

[JD]

As a creator myself, I find it bizarre that fans have such reverence for original intentions. Creativity is a process of trial and error, learning what works and what doesn't, constantly trying to do better, and discovering new possibilities along the way. The earliest ideas we have are usually our worst. They're just the rough draft of what we're trying to create, and it takes us time to explore those ideas and make them the best they can be. So worshipping the earliest, crudest form of an idea as its truest form is completely backward. It's like valuing an artist's first rough sketch more than the final painting.

Besides, those earliest Batman comics were basically plagiarized from The Shadow. Batman started out as a direct copy of characters from pulp magazines. It took time for the character to develop his own distinct identity.

(Also, any argument that includes Bob Kane as one of Batman's creators is fatally flawed. He came up with the name. Bill Finger did the rest, and Kane spent decades robbing him of the credit and ensuring he died impoverished and forgotten.)




No, it ends with Batman and the Joker falling over each other laughing, sharing a surprising moment of bonding. The original script by Alan Moore says nothing about killing -- it explicitly says they're "each holding the other up as they stand there clinging together in the rain." And the artwork clearly shows Batman grinning with his hands on the Joker's shoulders, not around his neck. The Internet meme that it shows Batman killing the Joker is a profound misunderstanding of the entire message of the comic. The whole point is that the Joker tried to provoke Batman and Gordon into becoming just as broken and murderous as he is, but failed, because he was wrong that anyone could be driven mad by one bad day. So Gordon still held on to his principles and insisted that Batman bring the Joker in by the book. And it's because of those principles, because Batman was not as bad as the Joker, that he was willing to try to reach out to his old enemy and find a way out of their endless war before more people got hurt. And for one brief moment, they had a truce, a glimmer of mutual understanding. That's an amazing bit of storytelling that adds so much depth to the characters. And I feel so sad for people who totally miss that and only see Batman giving into the same base violence that the Joker embraces, because that robs the whole story of its meaning and makes the whole thing nothing more than an empty indulgence in cruelty.

It's also worth mentioning that the story did end up in continuity and the Joker continued to appear in the books afterwards without any kind of resurrection or anything.

They may have created him initially but the character has progressed and developed a long way since then.
Denny O Neill ( to name but one) is every bit as responsible for the current Batman that is known the world over as the original creators.

As a creator myself, I find it bizarre that fans have such reverence for original intentions. Creativity is a process of trial and error, learning what works and what doesn't, constantly trying to do better, and discovering new possibilities along the way. The earliest ideas we have are usually our worst. They're just the rough draft of what we're trying to create, and it takes us time to explore those ideas and make them the best they can be. So worshipping the earliest, crudest form of an idea as its truest form is completely backward. It's like valuing an artist's first rough sketch more than the final painting.

Besides, those earliest Batman comics were basically plagiarized from The Shadow. Batman started out as a direct copy of characters from pulp magazines. It took time for the character to develop his own distinct identity.

I'm honestly not that bothered by this Batman killing since he's supposed to be in a very bad place in BvS, but the whole attempt to justify it by saying Batman killed when he first started doesn't really work for me. That was a very, very different version of the character and I think the entire rest of the character's 70+ year history easily counters those first few years. The early versions of characters, especially ones like Batman who have been around for 3/4 of a century are pretty much totally characters from who today.
EDIT: Sometimes they are literally different characters, like The Flash or Green Lantern, and really in my mind justifying 2016 Batman's actions with something 1939 Batman, wouldn't be all that different than justifying Barry Allen or Wally West's actions with something Jay Garrick did.

 

[Christopher]

I'm honestly not that bothered by this Batman killing since he's supposed to be in a very bad place in BvS, but the whole attempt to justify it by saying Batman killed when he first started doesn't really work for me. That was a very, very different version of the character and I think the entire rest of the character's 70+ year history easily counters those first few years. The early versions of characters, especially ones like Batman who have been around for 3/4 of a century are pretty much totally characters from who today.

Yeah. That's like saying that Superman should only jump 1/8 of a mile instead of flying, and be a vigilante hunted by the cops instead of an admired public figure. Or that Sue Storm should only be able to turn invisible and not have force fields. Characters aren't static. They grow and change.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Facts outweigh opinions. I am so damn sick of dealing with a world where people think it's the other way around.

That's cute. These must be opinions then:

Bill Finger's Batman:

Dennis O'Neil's Batman:

Movie 'Batmen':

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

the article I linked to, because it does address Morrison's opinion; indeed, that was the catalyst for the whole post. But it debunks that opinion by showing Alan Moore's actual script, which should obviously outweigh the interpretation

So in this case the writer's original intention is what matters in the end. Double standards much?

That's like saying that Superman should only jump 1/8 of a mile instead of flying

Or like saying Superman should only wear his costume with the red undies over his tights.

Characters aren't static. They grow and change.

And that's why we can have, in yet another interpretation of the character, an older and cynical Batman who sometimes kills.

 

[urbandefault]

Adam West let Jill St.John fall into the atomic pile in the Batcave. "What a way to go-go."

 

[kirk55555]

Adam West let Jill St.John fall into the atomic pile in the Batcave. "What a way to go-go."

He didn't really "let" her fall in, he just didn't have much of a chance to save her. His Batman wasn't quite as nimble and undefeatable as other versions, watching the scene (I saw the episode a month or two ago) he definitely didn't seem to be "letting" her die. Now, he was weirdly callous, with a cheesy one liner about her death, but I really don't think the scene was showing him let her fall, just that he couldn't save her. He does try to talk her out of doing what she was doing, and tried to get her to come to him.

 

[urbandefault]

He didn't really "let" her fall in, he just didn't have much of a chance to save her. His Batman wasn't quite as nimble and undefeatable as other versions, watching the scene (I saw the episode a month or two ago) he definitely didn't seem to be "letting" her die. Now, he was weirdly callous, with a cheesy one liner about her death, but I really don't think the scene was showing him let her fall, just that he couldn't save her. He does try to talk her out of doing what she was doing, and tried to get her to come to him.

(I know. )

 

[Christopher]

So in this case the writer's original intention is what matters in the end. Double standards much?

That's a ridiculous comparison. Saying that a single individual work is explicitly scripted in a certain way is not at all the same thing as claiming that the way the earliest installments in a series were written represents the entirety of the series. It is a fact that the second Star Trek pilot said that James Kirk's middle initial was R. But it would be invalid to cite that as "proof" that his middle initial was always R throughout the entire franchise.

And that's why we can have, in yet another interpretation of the character, an older and cynical Batman who sometimes kills.

Of course, but it is false to claim that the comics' Batman has invariably been portrayed that way since 1938.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Personally, the branding bothered me more than the killing. I didn't particularly care for the killing but at least it usually occurred in a conflict situation, rather than cold-blooded murder. The branding just came across as wanton sadism to me.

 

[The Lonely Man]

[QUOTE="M.A.C.O., post: 11820517, member: 29596
Or like saying Superman should only wear his costume with the red undies over his tights.[/QUOTE]

Darn tootin'

 

[Christopher]

If we're talking about the way the characters were portrayed for the vast majority of their existence, then for Batman it would be not killing (because he stopped killing after the first 2-3 years of his 77-year history) and for Superman it would be having red trunks (because those were only abandoned about 5 years ago after 73 years with trunks). And it's a non sequitur to compare them anyway, because the legitimacy of a given change is not about any other change. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with making changes; it's just a question of whether a specific change is a positive one.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

There's the changes I like and then there are the bad ones.

 

[eyeresist]

That's like saying that Superman should only jump 1/8 of a mile instead of flying, and be a vigilante hunted by the cops instead of an admired public figure. Or that Sue Storm should only be able to turn invisible and not have force fields. Characters aren't static. They grow and change.

They may have created him initially but the character has progressed and developed a long way since then.

It's true the character has changed, but why is it wrong to change him again? Why is Non-Killing Batman sacrosanct when Killing Batman wasn't?

 

[Christopher]

It's true the character has changed, but why is it wrong to change him again? Why is Non-Killing Batman sacrosanct when Killing Batman wasn't?

Because it's not about change vs. not-change. That doesn't even make sense. Why should questioning a single specific change be about the entire concept of change? If I say I like sandwiches, that doesn't guarantee that I'm going to like every individual sandwich I ever have. Some will be better than others.

As for this specific change, I find it bewildering beyond belief that anyone would need it to be explained to them that preserving life is more heroic than destroying it. I mean, the whole reason good guys fight bad guys is that killing is not supposed to be okay. Sure, killing in defense of self or others can be justified if there's no choice, but that doesn't make it ideal or desirable. It's a last resort, and that means it's better if it can be avoided.

 

[eyeresist]

As for this specific change, I find it bewildering beyond belief that anyone would need it to be explained to them that preserving life is more heroic than destroying it.

Gee, that's not patronising at all.
It's perfectly viable to argue that some people deserve to die, or that killing bad people makes the world a better place. The argument that the act of taking life always holds the same (negative) moral value doesn't hold up to scrutiny, unless you insist that context doesn't matter.

 

[Christopher]

It's perfectly viable to argue that some people deserve to die, or that killing bad people makes the world a better place.

I don't agree. Killing is the lazy, stupid way to solve things. Any animal or falling rock or large body of water can kill -- it's nothing to praise or admire. It's the crudest way humans have to solve anything. We've had tens of thousands of years to come up with better alternatives, and in many cases, we have -- laws, trials, rehabilitation, diplomacy, treaties, all sorts of things that are smarter than the brute-force mindlessness of breaking a body until it stops working. Sure, they're also harder to pull off successfully, but since when was the easy way more admirable than the challenging way? I emphatically disagree with anyone who thinks that destroying human life is ever something to be welcomed or celebrated, even in fiction. At best, it is a tragic last resort when all better means fail.

I mean, who defines "bad people?" Who has that right? A lot of people claim that the people they kill are bad, but that's often just their excuse for being killers. The morality of refusing to kill is not about judging other people's goodness, it's about not losing our own. I despise the argument that if someone else does something bad, that entitles you to turn off your ethics and do the same bad thing to them. It does not. Being ethical means not looking for excuses to make exceptions. It means behaving ethically toward everyone else, whether they deserve it or not, because it's not about them, it's about you and who you choose to be.

And superheroes are supposed to be aspirational figures. They're supposed to represent the best of human potential. No, not all of them -- there's room for flawed heroes or antiheroes in fiction -- but many of them, certainly. Superheroes represent hope, and if every single one of them is unable to find an alternative to killing or doesn't even try, that's just cynical and depressing. I grew up in the '70s and '80s with TV heroes who refused to take life, or who at least regretted it when they were unable to avoid it. That was the norm for me, and it was a large part of what I admired about them. I was constantly bullied as a child, and so the idea of people who have power and use it only to help others, never to harm them, was very important to me. I also lost my mother at a very early age, so I can't think of death as justice; all I can think about is the pain of the victim's family or friends. That's why I hate the tendency of this more cynical time to consider it normal for "heroes" to be killers.