• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

DC Movies - To Infinity and Beyond

Batman has killed in his screen history and the comics. Snyder has not said anything that deviates from that truth.The only outlier here is the utterly ridiculous notion that Batman has some etched-in-granite "no kill" policy, when anyone-as noted earlier--even remotely familiar with the comics (you know, the source) knows Batman has killed when he felt he needed to, and he's not the only superhero to do the same in print or on screen, obviously.
 
Last edited:
The only outlier here is the utterly ridiculous notion that Batman has some etched-in-granite "no kill" policy, when anyone-as noted earlier--even remotely familiar with the comics (you know, the source) knows Batman has killed when he felt he needed to, and he's not the only superhero to do the same in print or on screen, obviously.

Is there anybody here actually claiming that there were previously never stories where Batman's killed? Maybe time to retire that strawman rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
Batman has killed in his screen history and the comics. Snyder has not said anything that deviates from that truth.The only outlier here is the utterly ridiculous notion that Batman has some etched-in-granite "no kill" policy, when anyone-as noted earlier--even remotely familiar with the comics (you know, the source) knows Batman has killed when he felt he needed to, and he's not the only superhero to do the same in print or on screen, obviously.

I'm going to call you on this. There is a big difference between Batman in the comics and Batman in the movies regarding this question. In the comics, he may have killed in the early days of the 30s and 40s, but even then I think it was only in the earliest comics. In fact, he was as gentle as Superman for many years. By the time the fifties came around he was definitely not a killer. This lasted until the seventies, or maybe late sixties. During the Denny O'Neil era, Batman's darkness did not come from his willingness to kill--he had a code against it--but rather his darkness came from his willingness to inflict serious physical damage on street thugs and villains. He would break bones and beat on people, but not kill them. Any version in the comics where he does kill is an Elseworlds story or something that does not take place in mainstream continuity.

Batman in the movies might have killed in the earliest serials (I haven't seen them), but he definitely killed with glee in Burton's movies. That is still one of two major and irredeemable issues I have with his movies. And in the movies he has always taken lives either by killing outright or by letting people die. That is the way he has been written after the Adam West version. Snyder did not invent the idea, but I thought that he handled it really well in the arc that Batman had in his movies.
 
One wonders why the Snyder Batman bothers with the whole branding nonsense when he could just kill them and be done with it.
 
One wonders why the Snyder Batman bothers with the whole branding nonsense when he could just kill them and be done with it.
It is because of where he is mentally at the beginning of the movie. He's allowed Robin (which one I'm not sure) to die at the hands of the Joker and has gone to such a dark place that he is using the same tactics as the villains he fights. Isn't the point of the movie is his redemption and remembering the hero he used to be?
 
Isn't the point of the movie is his redemption and remembering the hero he used to be?
When does that happen, specifically? (To be clear, I'm not playing some lame "When does Batman say that?" game. I mean, at what point in the narrative does that turn take place?)

Also, he's branding crims within the film, after letting Robin die prior to when we meet this Batman. So my question remains. Why brand when can kill?
 
Last edited:
In the comics, he may have killed in the early days of the 30s and 40s, but even then I think it was only in the earliest comics.

No, it was not only in the 30s and 40s:

Every Comic Book Where Batman Kills

...and their list is not complete.

but he definitely killed with glee in Burton's movies. That is still one of two major and irredeemable issues I have with his movies. And in the movies he has always taken lives either by killing outright or by letting people die. That is the way he has been written after the Adam West version. Snyder did not invent the idea

True--Snyder did not invent that idea, yet the same tired, obsessive whining about Snyder continues (not meaning you). If someone is so knowledgeable about who Batman is and how he should be presented, then they would know Batman has killed, as demonstrated in the link, it did not end in the 30s and 40s. No one has said Batman killed 'round the clock (which is the root of the pearl-clutching overreaction to the idea of Batman killing at all), but for someone to even suggest it never happened shows a complete ignorance of the character, believing Batman was consciously placed in some Dozier / Super Friends mode throughout the character's entire publishing history (even before the creation of the named productions), and that's simply a lie.
 
Last edited:
It's like he never outgrew the teenage idea of what makes characters cool.

Yeah... He's stuck in the 1980s with Watchmen and Dark Knight and thinks that's all superheroes are. (Although he was around 20 when those came out.)

Although let's face it, to an extent, that's been true of DC in general for a lot of the past 40 years. But I think the comics have somewhat outgrown it by now, while Snyder hasn't.


I'm going to call you on this. There is a big difference between Batman in the comics and Batman in the movies regarding this question. In the comics, he may have killed in the early days of the 30s and 40s, but even then I think it was only in the earliest comics. In fact, he was as gentle as Superman for many years. By the time the fifties came around he was definitely not a killer.

Much earlier than that. The editors imposed the no-kill policy in 1940, about a year into Batman's existence, after an especially violent story where Batman strafed a truck containing one or two of Hugo Strange's monster men. Even in that story, though, Batman said on-panel that he hated to take life but had no choice.

As for Superman, he and Batman were equally lethal when they started out, since they were both emulating pulp magazine heroes, and they both got toned down in the very early '40s. In fact, contrary to modern expectations, Batman became a wholesome, police-sanctioned authority figure while Superman was still a vigilante hunted (but unofficially admired) by the police. Once Batman had Robin, he swiftly became a domesticated father figure while Superman was still a lone wolf. But before long, they were both equally legitimized authority figures using equally nonlethal and law-abiding methods.

The idea of them being opposite in their approaches didn't really emerge until the '70s when DC started making Batman stories darker and grittier as a counterreaction to the Adam West sitcom, and was codified by things like John Byrne's Man of Steel reboot story where Superman and Batman were initially at odds until they realized they had common ground beneath their very different methods.


And in the movies he has always taken lives either by killing outright or by letting people die. That is the way he has been written after the Adam West version.

You wouldn't expect it, but even the Adam West feature film had Batman and Robin kill people, albeit unintentionally when the villains' dehydrated goons were accidentally rehydrated with heavy water and that somehow made them disintegrate when punched. (Though I think it was a little vague whether they were killed or teleported to an antimatter universe.) So technically they killed people, but it was an accident they regretted, and it was more the Penguin's fault for screwing up their rehydration.
 
No, it was not only in the 30s and 40s:

Every Comic Book Where Batman Kills

...and their list is not complete.

That CBR link seems to be down but I did look at this site:

https://fictionhorizon.com/who-has-batman-killed-comics-and-movies/

Every instance of Batman killing on that page, after the establishment of the comics code, is from an alternate version of Batman--not the guy from DCs main continuity.
EDIT: I got the CBR page to load and it corroborates my statement. The few instances they mention that do take place in continuity give inaccurate summaries of the stories or impose their own interpretations of them, especially regarding KGBeast.
 
Last edited:
That CBR link seems to be down but I did look at this site:

https://fictionhorizon.com/who-has-batman-killed-comics-and-movies/

Every instance of Batman killing on that page, after the establishment of the comics code, is from an alternate version of Batman--not the guy from DCs main continuity.
EDIT: I got the CBR page to load and it corroborates my statement. The few instances they mention that do take place in continuity give inaccurate summaries of the stories or impose their own interpretations of them, especially regarding KGBeast.

Yeah, "Batman doesn't kill" has been the dominant take in the comics for decades now. It's not 100% consistent because what is when you've got this many writers coming and going, but it's the dominant mode. (To analogize, Superman being able to fly is the dominant version of the character, and that every once in a while we get a version who only leaps doesn't change that.)

None of which means a person can't prefer a different take, of course.
 
It's not 100% consistent because what is when you've got this many writers coming and going

...and more importantly, the various DC publishers and editors (who ran the show in order of appearance) did not hand down an unbreakable law saying Batman never kills, hence the freedom writers had in having the character kill in stories spanning decades.

None of which means a person can't prefer a different take, of course.

Indeed.
 
Under the long editorship of Denny O'Neil, it was probably as close to a hard rule as it ever was. He had very strong ideas about the right way to write Batman. During O'Neil's tenure, John Byrne wasn't allowed to depict Batman killing even in an Elseworlds that was specifically meant to evoke the original Golden Age version of the character. Later editors took a more open approach.
 
Yeah, "Batman doesn't kill" has been the dominant take in the comics for decades now.

An understatement, since it was instituted when the character was barely a year old. People today with an agenda have propagated the easily disproven falsehood that it was a later revision from the Comics Code era, but it dates from 1940. Okay, there were stories for years after that where villains fell to their deaths at the end -- only to come back inexplicably in a later story if it was Hugo Strange or the Joker -- but it was by mishap or through their own folly rather than by Batman's deliberate intention.


John Byrne wasn't allowed to depict Batman killing even in an Elseworlds that was specifically meant to evoke the original Golden Age version of the character.

See, this is the misconception again, that "original Golden Age Batman" = "killer Batman." If we go with the definition that the Golden Age ended with the institution of the Comics Code in 1954 (which seems the most relevant definition here, and is a compromise between other proposed cutoff dates like the end of WWII and the debut of Barry Allen), that's a 15-year span since Batman's creation, and he was nonlethal for some 90 percent of that span. The lethal Batman that some people are nostalgic for wasn't the "Golden Age Batman," just the rough-draft, early-installment-weirdness Batman. Batman's no-kill policy was established the same year as Robin, before the name "Batmobile," before the Batcave, before Alfred, before the Batsignal. It's fundamental to Batman as he existed for most of his Golden Age tenure.
 
See, this is the misconception again, that "original Golden Age Batman" = "killer Batman." If we go with the definition that the Golden Age ended with the institution of the Comics Code in 1954 (which seems the most relevant definition here, and is a compromise between other proposed cutoff dates like the end of WWII and the debut of Barry Allen), that's a 15-year span since Batman's creation, and he was nonlethal for some 90 percent of that span. The lethal Batman that some people are nostalgic for wasn't the "Golden Age Batman," just the rough-draft, early-installment-weirdness Batman. Batman's no-kill policy was established the same year as Robin, before the name "Batmobile," before the Batcave, before Alfred, before the Batsignal. It's fundamental to Batman as he existed for most of his Golden Age tenure.

Which is why I specifically wrote "original Golden Age version" and not just "Golden Age version."
 
Bottom line is, some folks just like their superheroes homicidal.

They're entitled to that; the problem is when they insist that everyone else's superheroes have to be homicidal too. I mean, heroes who kill are already the default in action movies, so it's not like the pro-killer crowd is lacking for gratification.
 
They're entitled to that; the problem is when they insist that everyone else's superheroes have to be homicidal too. I mean, heroes who kill are already the default in action movies, so it's not like the pro-killer crowd is lacking for gratification.

That is my issue as well. I don't mind various interpretations of Batman where he is a killer--those are takes on the character. The reality is that throughout his publication history, the incidents of him outright killing someone are very few in number and limited to his early appearances or out of continuity/alternate versions of the character.

The idea that a super-hero needs to kill in order to be gritty and dark is just wrong, as is the idea that the only valid portrayal of Batman in the modern world is one where he is not adverse to killing.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top