haytil
Super Freak
Re: HT Batman 1989 Coming
That's a good thing, right? Knowing how much you hate the "same-old, same-old" discussions about HT Batman figures, I figured you'd appreciate some new ideas and conversations.
If you're trying to justify "why" Batman kills in the movie, I'm right with you. I think it's appropriate for that particular characterization. I just don't think there's any point in _____-footing around, and saying "Well, it was unintentional, or incidental, or indirect" or whatever. Just come out and say it - Batman kills in this movie, and quite a bit.
This isn't the Batman of the comics, it's the Batman of Tim Burton. Which is an entirely different beast. And that's fine. Let's just be honest about it.
The fact that he's not driving it is irrelevant. He's controlling it via remote control (or deployed it with an autopilot). Either way, the actions the Batmobile take are the direct responsibility of Batman.
He's taking out the Joker's infrastructure. Which includes his manpower.
Batman knew there had to be people inside that big-ass factory. Whether they were civilian workers or Joker thugs, there was no way it was empty. The lights were on and there was even a guard outside the front gate!
If Batman didn't want to kill anyone, he would've given them 5 minutes to evacuate. He didn't do that - he drove in, guns blazing, dropped a bomb, and drove out. (A warning wouldn't have prevented the success of his mission, as we see how much more firepower the Batmobile had against the Joker's goons, who were completely ineffective.)
No, he didn't drop the bomb right in front of the thugs on purpose - he dropped it right in the middle of the factory, using a bomb big enough to blow up the whole factory, on purpose. The natural assumption is that anyone caught in the building when it blows will be killed. Batman knew this - it's why he didn't risk going in himself. He knew it was dangerous, even if you were in the shielded Batmobile!
Like I said above, if the ONLY objective was to take out the factory without killing people, then he'd have warned them to evacuate and then deployed the bomb. I think his actions demonstrate that his objectives including both taking out the factor AND taking out the Joker's thugs (or, at the very least, being callously indifferent to the fact that he's killing people).
....What? The thugs are casualties of Batman's killing spree. That's what a "casualty" is.
What is the difference between "Shooting up every thug he could see" and "Blowing up every thug he could reach with the explosion radius?" Killing is killing, and dead is dead, whether you're shot or blown up. If someone is killed by YOUR ACTIONS, it's direct.
I just popped in the DVD, you're right. When Batman chains him, he's only a few inches from the building - it's only when the helicopter crew continues to pull him up that he is farther away.
So in this case, I would say that Batman killed him (since he placed him in that lethal scenario), but it was unintentional and "indirect," to use your terminology. Something akin to manslaughter.
The really cold-blooded stuff is what happens in the factory.
It's haytil.
That's a good thing, right? Knowing how much you hate the "same-old, same-old" discussions about HT Batman figures, I figured you'd appreciate some new ideas and conversations.
At this point for Batman, the gloves are off, the gauntlet is thrown. Not only is the Joker a murdering psychopath, but he is in fact the man that killed his parents when he was a boy. The Joker is essentially the reason that Bruce is the tortured soul that he. The lives of the Joker thugs that get in his way of eliminating the Joker and his plan are insignificant to Batman.
Before the third act (Bruce Wayne discovering that Jack Napier murdered his parents), Batman pretty much apprehends every criminal he comes across. The guys on the roof, the mob at Axis Chemicals, even the Joker's thugs. He doesn't kill. One might think that this Batman has "rules" and a "no-kill policy" as well. However, when things get personal all the rules with the Joker and his men are off.
If you're trying to justify "why" Batman kills in the movie, I'm right with you. I think it's appropriate for that particular characterization. I just don't think there's any point in _____-footing around, and saying "Well, it was unintentional, or incidental, or indirect" or whatever. Just come out and say it - Batman kills in this movie, and quite a bit.
This isn't the Batman of the comics, it's the Batman of Tim Burton. Which is an entirely different beast. And that's fine. Let's just be honest about it.
So, Axis Chemicals. Batman at this point learns the Joker's location, the plant where he produces smylex that's killing off innocent Gotham citizens.
What does Batman do, he has the Batmobile (he isn't driving it by the way)...
The fact that he's not driving it is irrelevant. He's controlling it via remote control (or deployed it with an autopilot). Either way, the actions the Batmobile take are the direct responsibility of Batman.
...go into the heart of Axis Chemicals, and destroy it in hopes of eliminating the Joker and destroying the production of smylex.
He's taking out the Joker's infrastructure. Which includes his manpower.
Batman knew there had to be people inside that big-ass factory. Whether they were civilian workers or Joker thugs, there was no way it was empty. The lights were on and there was even a guard outside the front gate!
If Batman didn't want to kill anyone, he would've given them 5 minutes to evacuate. He didn't do that - he drove in, guns blazing, dropped a bomb, and drove out. (A warning wouldn't have prevented the success of his mission, as we see how much more firepower the Batmobile had against the Joker's goons, who were completely ineffective.)
He doesn't drive in, stop when he sees the thugs and purposely "drop a bomb on the thugs". The auto pilot Batmobile is directed towards the center, the Joker's men are trying to stop it and it sets off the bombs that are meant to destroy the factory (and boy it does).
No, he didn't drop the bomb right in front of the thugs on purpose - he dropped it right in the middle of the factory, using a bomb big enough to blow up the whole factory, on purpose. The natural assumption is that anyone caught in the building when it blows will be killed. Batman knew this - it's why he didn't risk going in himself. He knew it was dangerous, even if you were in the shielded Batmobile!
Like I said above, if the ONLY objective was to take out the factory without killing people, then he'd have warned them to evacuate and then deployed the bomb. I think his actions demonstrate that his objectives including both taking out the factor AND taking out the Joker's thugs (or, at the very least, being callously indifferent to the fact that he's killing people).
The Thugs are casualties, not victims of a Batman on a killing spree.
....What? The thugs are casualties of Batman's killing spree. That's what a "casualty" is.
An example of a DIRECT kill would be BATMAN driving in and driving the Batmobile, guns a blazin, shooting up every thug he could see, then seeing the small group and dropping the bomb right there.
What is the difference between "Shooting up every thug he could see" and "Blowing up every thug he could reach with the explosion radius?" Killing is killing, and dead is dead, whether you're shot or blown up. If someone is killed by YOUR ACTIONS, it's direct.
But how the Joker ultimately dies isn't DIRECTLY Batman's fault. Batman is hanging on for dear life, the Joker is about to get away. The Joker has killed so many people at this point, so would Batman just let him get away and risk him killing and causing more chaos? Of course not.
No, he fires a grappling hook that attaches a rope to the Cathedral and the Joker's leg.
The Joker was in a position that if he let go, before he was pulled up, he'd go back on to the Cathedral's ledge. He wouldn't have pancaked, the distance was only a few inches away from the ledge. The Joker's thugs were in a position where they could navigate the helicopter to the ledge, and not have the Joker fall to his death.
Did you see how goofy his helicopter crew was though? The Joker didn't have a chance. They don't even realize that he's stuck and they're yelling for him to come up.
So from Batman's perspective it's completely indirect and justifiable. He's essentially "apprehending" the Joker so that he can't get away.
I just popped in the DVD, you're right. When Batman chains him, he's only a few inches from the building - it's only when the helicopter crew continues to pull him up that he is farther away.
So in this case, I would say that Batman killed him (since he placed him in that lethal scenario), but it was unintentional and "indirect," to use your terminology. Something akin to manslaughter.
The really cold-blooded stuff is what happens in the factory.