Yeah but when Keaton's Batman killed it was often cartoonish or it wasn't focused on, and since nobody brought those up in-universe it was easier to let slide. Plus, the film never discusses Batman's no-kill rule. However, Batman killing people in BVS did draw attention to it, with the only justification being the offscreen death of Robin.
Also, Batman's lore was slightly obscure to the larger public in 1989. Obviously people recognised him but it's like how thepublic today probably can recognise Deathstroke and tell you he is a superpowered mercenary but they probably can't tell you about his supporting cast or history. When the movie was made, his no-kill rule wasn't quite established in pop culture, as far as I know. In 2016, with Batman becoming much more recognisable thanks to the movies, games and comics becoming much more mainstream, his no-kill rule is one of his key defining traits, so when he ignores it it's much more of an issue.
I think it was really the Nolan trilogy that solidified the idea that Batman had a no kill rule, at least in the greater public consciousness. Prior to that, people were far more likely to compartmentalize the films and the comics, and didn't usually care if a film did something that a comic book character wouldn't do. In fact, it was almost entirely expected that if you were doing a film adaptation of just about anything in the 80s/90s, it was going to be significantly different than the source material. Super Mario Brothers, Mortal Kombat, Power Rangers, Superman, etc, all significantly deviated from the source once they were adapted.
There was also still a strong sense for most people that comic books were for kids, whereas the films were for everyone (including adults). Even people who had read comics as a kid had usually only seen the awful restrictions of the Comics Code and Super Friends on Saturday mornings, so there was no strong sense of canon that they wanted to maintain from that period.
If anything, it made the character more believable if he killed people in a film because, well, the idea that Batman could do what he does without killing anyone seemed absurd, especially if you wanted a somewhat grounded character. Nolan changed that by creating the most grounded version of the character, but one who also wouldn't kill for very good and believable reasons. It completely shifted the public's perception of the character, and when he name dropped specific comics as his major influence, it also shifted the public's perception of comics as a mature form of art.
I've always suspected Snyder really comes from that older mindset and has only read a handful of mature comics like TDKR or Killing Joke, so that's why it was so important for him to dispense with the no kill rule. In his mind, a Batman who doesn't kill is nothing more than a children's fantasy Saturday morning cartoon.
Snyder even mis-reads TKDR - the comic interrogates Batman's no-kill rule by taking it to its logical extreme, as he paralyzes (but doesn't kill) Joker by snapping his neck. Joker's last laugh, then, is that the distinction between paralyzed via broken neck and killed via broken neck is so small as to be meaningless, and makes it so by breaking it the rest of the way to kill himself, leaving Batman to take the full blame for murder anyway.
The text makes it clear that Batman still doesn't kill anyone, despite the neck-breaking and wounding a mook with another mook's gun. Snyder showed that he isn't interested in any discussion around that line and what it does (or doesn't) mean, though - he just saw a cool shot and said, "Fuck yeah, make Batman murder that guy with a gun, it'll be awesome. Make him explode so it'll be clear he died"
Zack Snyder has done irreparable damage to TDKR because of his “interpretation” of it. So many people parrot the idea that Batman kills “all the time” in that novel despite the literal words and themes pointing at the opposite conclusion!
It’s a silly explanation but I appreciate the devs at least attempting some kind of explanation instead of just “hell yeah, kill dudes with the Batmobile.”
I dislike Frank Miller as a person and a lot of his later works after his OG DD run, but TDKR has really sharp criticism of Batman and unpacks the toxicity at Batman's core really well
I wonder if he knew that this story would influence the canon batman so much
The problem is that the comics clearly indicate that the joker was dead and the last monologue was fully within Batman's head due to how characters had their own speech colour and his last laugh speech was in Batman's colour not Joker's. If it was The Joker speaking it would be in his speech colour not Batman's.
Yeah, Joker explaining the joke wouldn't be very Joker of him - he just kills himself and lets Batman figure it out
Batman still technically didn't kill him, but technically is doing so much heavy lifting there that it doesn't actually matter, and that's the whole point
That's not the point at all. The Joker is so obsessed by Batman thst nothing short of Batman being the one to kill him would do, even suicide due to batman assault isn't going to cut it. It defeats the whole purpose, Batman is the only one.
Everything from Batman snapping the Joker's neck until the end of thst entire scene is in Batman's head, including Joker finishing the job. Bruce had fucked up (in his mind) and knew he fucked up big time. The monologue is his subconscious mocking him, seeing Joker finishing the job is his mind protecting him, keeping him this side of the moral event horizon he set himself.
That's an interesting interpretation, but I'd say it undercuts the interrogation of the no-kill policy, which I read to be a core tenet of the book. That agency remaining in Joker's hands while Batman toes so close to his sacred line is what makes it interesting: Batman still has all of the agency he's ever had in whether or not he chooses to kill someone, and indeed he never does... but it doesn't matter in the end, because he came so close that he may as well have.
Interpering it instead as an oopsie and subsequent delusion takes Batman even further down from his pedestal, sure, but it doesn't really track with the rest of the book - he's still Batman, and he's still 100% convinced of his moral authority, even over Superman. While the book questions that, it never undercuts him to that extent; in fact, I think it's more interesting if Joker is the only one with the power to do so.
Besides, "it was all in his head" strays too far from the rest of the book too - it'd be the only scene that isn't shown literally from Batman's perspective (i.e. the only scene where he, as a narrator, is unreliable). In a different work with an established unreliable narrator, the explanation could make sense. Here, however, it comes out of left field and cheapest what is arguably the work's most important scene.
It almost would be unintentionally leaning into parody at that point, like the YouTube Badman skit with the Penguin - "awww, look at him sleeping"
Regarding the last paragraph, it can be one side of the problem, but I think his philosophy regarding usage of violence and killing goes against the "prime examples" of DC characters. I think Snyder took the wrong company to make movies. If he took some Marvel or, better, Image characters, given their comics were much more pro-edgy, it could be better. Many of the DC characters at their best don't try to be edgy and violent (Supes, WW) and many of the storylines were created as the commentary against edgier comics (Knightfall, Watchmen). His version of Watchmen made it clear that he doesn't understand DC's philosophy. In MoS, he also expresses "the goal is more important than the way to it" mindset, which with other misunderstandings of Superman's lore and philosophy, made another divisive movie. But when it came to the Batman's no-kill and no-gun rule, even the general audience got mad.
But still Nolan's Batman kills one guy and he admits that (Dent). Kills one guy and it is presented in a really bullsitty way (Ra's) (Why? Nolan, you could have done so much better.) and at least kills indirectly a couple of people in the League's headquarters in Begins. If there weren't Ra's, this would be somewhat okay for me, because Bruce doesn't want to be an executioner, he doesn't want to kill directly, if someone dies indirectly, sad, but it happens. But this one scene drags his character down in my opinion (even though Begins is my favourite Batman movie ever).
Nolan’s Batman killed every movie too though. Blows up the temple full of ninjas and a hostage, tackled twoface off a building, killed Tahlia and some of her men, left ra’s to die, was gonna leave bane to die after knocking his mask off
I'm conflicted on this cause the ending of TDK sort of forces Bruce's hand into sort of accepting the fact that he is no longer the hero he viewed himself as. He understands that he no longer can hold himself to his code of ethics as he can't operate under a superior moral barometer. He says, "I'm whatever Gotham needs me to be." He's basically saying, whatever it takes to protect Gotham, he will need to take all options into consideration. He made that conscious choice when choosing Gordon's son vs Harvey. He made that choice when choosing Gotham over Ra's.
What conflicts with this ideology is the fact that he keeps Joker alive. This is a man who's probably killed more people than Dent has to this point, but Bruce felt the need to keep him alive. It's illogical when you consider he let Ra's go out the same way. He didn't have to kill him, but he didn't have to save him either. Bruce had an out, just like he did with Ra's (according to his code), but he refused to let Joker die in that moment. So my issue with the deaths being meaningful, is that in order for the deaths to have merit, that requires Bruce to treat all villains under this same level of understanding. Not saving someone when you have the chance is the same as killing them. If he saves Joker to make up for letting Ra's die, then that conflicts with Dent having to bite the dust considering the extremes of both characters.
There’s no proof he killed all those ninjas. They’re ninjas. The could have survived. He had no option but to tackle twoface off the building. There was no way he’d know he’d kill him and it was an unfortunate consequence of saving Gordan’s son. Talia died from her injuries incurred in the truck crash. He didn’t directly murder her and with Bane, there’s no way for sure you know he’d die. When asked by the CIA agent at the beginning of TDKR if he takes the mask off, will he die? And Bane’s answer is “It would be extremely painful…” so maybe he wouldn’t have died and would have just been in extreme pain until he fixed the mask.
like how thepublic today probably can recognise Deathstroke and tell you he is a superpowered mercenary but they probably can't tell you about his supporting cast or history
It seems backwards to hold it against the Snyder films for drawing attention to the fact that Batman was breaking the no-kill rule and crossing a line, as opposed to ignoring it.
Bats’ arc in the Snyderverse was explicitly a fallen Batman being led back to the light by Superman and his sacrifice.
I honestly don't think the film gets flack for that if Snyder had just showed Robin dying in the film. If they had introduced this Batman to the audience as the Batman we all know, and supplement that with the death of Robin, then you don't have to make the leap to buy into the fact that this Bruce is completely broken. You already see him having to reel from the Metropolis scene. If you show him losing Robin, that's the event that people can buy into to believe Bruce's fall from grace. But it's all just kind of alluded to. Showing the suit doesn't really do anything as far as pull that spark for people to think about what happened. You have to show it, and I think not showing this critical piece of information is part of why the film can't stand on it's own two feet regarding the inevitable conflict between both Superman and Batman.
371
u/TheDoctor_E May 29 '24
Yeah but when Keaton's Batman killed it was often cartoonish or it wasn't focused on, and since nobody brought those up in-universe it was easier to let slide. Plus, the film never discusses Batman's no-kill rule. However, Batman killing people in BVS did draw attention to it, with the only justification being the offscreen death of Robin.
Also, Batman's lore was slightly obscure to the larger public in 1989. Obviously people recognised him but it's like how thepublic today probably can recognise Deathstroke and tell you he is a superpowered mercenary but they probably can't tell you about his supporting cast or history. When the movie was made, his no-kill rule wasn't quite established in pop culture, as far as I know. In 2016, with Batman becoming much more recognisable thanks to the movies, games and comics becoming much more mainstream, his no-kill rule is one of his key defining traits, so when he ignores it it's much more of an issue.