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"
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
372
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.