The Dark Knight Rises *SPOILERS*

[DiFabio]

It's no secret that Burton mixed era's with the film especially stylistically but it doesn't indicate that the film takes place in any one era. The point of him having cars from the 70's and 80's, Weapons form the 40's 50's and 60's, not to mention color monitors, video camera's, VCR's and other obvious technologies is so the audience can't truly place dates on the film. It's a constant mix and match. Saying that's it's 40's Batman wouldn't go with the eclectic mixture the composition of the film tries to give.

So what era of the comics is the '89 Batman's characterization and personality based off of if not the 30s/40s era? He kills, so what? Does that make him any less Batman than any of the others?


These blog articles are great reads for the comparisons between the 7 live action films and the actual comics. They're all pretty faithful to the source material if that sort of thing matters to someone.


https://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

Nolan's Batman killed, too. He was directly responsible for the deaths of lots of League of Shadows guys in BB, arguably R'as Al Ghul, Two-Face, and Tahlia. Hell, he even drove the Tumbler over a car filled with cops, which could/should have crushed them. His "one rule" in the films is just expository lip service.

Okay let's go one by one

1. League of Shadows in batman Begins, Bruce simply throws the hot iron upward into the gun powder to cause a distraction so he can make his escape. They never show any of the League besides the fake Ras dying, which Bruce didn't directly Cause.

2. Ras Al Ghul, Bruce doesn't cause Ras death as Ras is the one who breaks the control panel on the train. Ras' extremism causes his own death. As Bruce says, I'm not going to kill you but I won't save you.

3. Granted, Batman knocking Two-Face off the ledge did kill him, but his intent was to save the boy, not kill Harvey. While you can call his judgement flawed if you want, he still had no intent on killing him and obviously the fall was survivable as Batman feel a few moments later.

4. Batman didn't kill Talia, Talia's driving killed Talia.

5. Granted it could have crushed them but it didn't, as it's seen in the very next shot, they're calling for back-up.

 

[karamazov80]

By that definition Batman is a superhero due to his extraordinary level of intelligence, deductive ability, and physical prowess relative to other mere mortals. He's second in those things only to Ted Kord in the DC-verse.

 

[DiFabio]

I'll give you 1, 2, 4 and 5 but Batman straight up killed Dent anyway you look at it. Accidental or intentional. I figured that was one of the reasons he decided to take the blame other than Dent doing the same for him back at the press conference.

Nothing wrong with that either, it was either Jimmy Gordon or Dent. At this point Dent was a lost cause and Batman chose Gordon's son. Batman bucked Two-Face right into the hole with an angry growl no less. Batman killed him.

 

[ZsaszSays]

By that definition Batman is a superhero due to his extraordinary level of intelligence, deductive ability, and physical prowess relative to other mere mortals. He's second in those things only to Ted Kord in the DC-verse.

Its still not above-human though.

 

[karamazov80]

2. Ras Al Ghul, Bruce doesn't cause Ras death as Ras is the one who breaks the control panel on the train. Ras' extremism causes his own death. As Bruce says, I'm not going to kill you but I won't save you.

While in general I think Nolan's Batman was more in the spirit of comic Bats (who doesn't willfully kill. . .usually), this one never did sit right with me. He knew Ra's was gonna die, he could have saved him, but he didn't. If you have an opportunity to save and allow to die, then that's really not the spirit of the "no kill" Batman we've come to believe exists.

 

[karamazov80]

Its still not above-human though.

You said "extraordinary OR superhuman." Fulfills the first criteria.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

So what era of the comics is the '89 Batman's characterization and personality based off of if not the 30s/40s era? He kills, so what? Does that make him any less Batman than any of the others?


These blog articles are great reads for the comparisons between the 7 live action films and the actual comics. They're all pretty faithful to the source material if that sort of thing matters to someone.


https://gothamalleys.blogspot.com/2010/11/killer-batman.html

Considering the Batman Mantra of not killing has been around Since the 50's it harkens back to something that people do not associate with Batman any longer, I mean it's been at the crux of his personality for nearly 60 years now. So it doesn't fit with the characterization of Batman that's been followed for a very long time. I'm not saying the Burton films were bad, I enjoyed them, but as far as getting "right", nope. Nolans films don't either.

The best example of Batman outside of the comics is still the Animated series....might be the only thing we ever get.

 

[DiFabio]

The best example of Batman outside of the comics is still the Animated series....might be the only thing we ever get.

Agreed there.

 

[karamazov80]

Someone (I think Fabio) once posted a link that posted all the times comic Batman either killed or allowed someone to die, even within the last 20-30 years. He's done it.

I think Animated Series Batman is better than the vast bulk of his comic incarnations.

 

[IrishJedi]

Semantics. Manslaughter vs Murder. Yadda yadda. In Nolan's films at least 11 people die as direct result of something Bruce/Batman does. He acts with reckless abandon several times throughout the trilogy. The idealistic "never kill" Batman of the modern comics would not do those things. This Batman has about as much blood on his hands as Burton's.

It doesn't really bother me, but to criticize the Keaton Batman for killing while ignoring the deaths caused by Bale's Batman is silly.

 

[karamazov80]

This Batman has about as much blood on his hands as Burton's.

Difference there, in my mind, is that Burton Bats was a real psychopathic murderer. I mean, he reveled in the death he caused

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

I'll give you 1, 2, 4 and 5 but Batman straight up killed Dent anyway you look at it. Accidental or intentional. I figured that was one of the reasons he decided to take the blame other than Dent doing the same for him back at the press conference.

Nothing wrong with that either, it was either Jimmy Gordon or Dent. At this point Dent was a lost cause and Batman chose Gordon's son. Batman bucked Two-Face right into the hole with an angry growl no less. Batman killed him.

While in general I think Nolan's Batman was more in the spirit of comic Bats (who doesn't willfully kill. . .usually), this one never did sit right with me. He knew Ra's was gonna die, he could have saved him, but he didn't. If you have an opportunity to save and allow to die, then that's really not the spirit of the "no kill" Batman we've come to believe exists.

Believe me, I'm with you, and I honestly think Nolan should have let him live, having Gordon lock Dent in Arkham being Gordon/Batman's dirty secret. But alas, Nolan kinda screwed that up.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

Semantics. Manslaughter vs Murder. Yadda yadda. In Nolan's films at least 11 people die as direct result of something Bruce/Batman does. He acts with reckless abandon several times throughout the trilogy. The idealistic "never kill" Batman of the modern comics would not do those things. This Batman has about as much blood on his hands as Burton's.

It doesn't really bother me, but to criticize the Keaton Batman for killing while ignoring the deaths caused by Bale's Batman is silly.

Except for the fact that Burton's Batman knowing attached the joker to a roof top so it would kill him. You can say Bale's acted with "reckless abandon", but he didn't drop someone 50 stories to their death on purpose.

 

[IrishJedi]

Difference there, in my mind, is that Burton Bats was a real psychopathic murderer. I mean, he reveled in the death he caused

I don't really recall much reveling, unless you're counting the wry smirk on his face when he straps the bomb to that big Penguin goon.

 

[IrishJedi]

Except for the fact that Burton's Batman knowing attached the joker to a roof top so it would kill him. You can say Bale's acted with "reckless abandon", but he didn't drop someone 50 stories to their death on purpose.

No, he didn't. Dent wasn't quite 50 stories up, so...

 

[ZsaszSays]

You said "extraordinary OR superhuman." Fulfills the first criteria.

Touche!

 

[DiFabio]

Except for the fact that Burton's Batman knowing attached the joker to a roof top so it would kill him. You can say Bale's acted with "reckless abandon", but he didn't drop someone 50 stories to their death on purpose.

True, but the Joker wasn't the one who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman Begins/The Dark Knight. If it had, I'm sure Bruce's personality wouldn't be much different in the films.

Let's not forget that Bruce Wayne tried to blow Joe Chill away with a hand gun and showed much dissatisfaction when he was beaten to the punch by the hit woman. It took Rachel's speeches to convince him that he was wrong and even then he still had his own sense of justice.

What if the killer remained anonymous to the Bale Batman until he was a 30 something year old adult, then, like Keaton he discovered his parent's killer? Lets not for get that the Keaton Batman didn't start to kill until he found out the identity of the murderer that took his childhood away. He left them for the police, beat them unconscious, left them hanging for the authorities. Then when he figures out that Jack Napier killed Thomas and Martha, the gloves are off and the gauntlets are thrown and he shows the Joker and his goons no mercy.

That is what's so great about all this, different circumstances lead to different outcomes and personality traits within the story. Both versions have the same idea of trying to eliminate crime and bring justice but have been brought up in different ways. The only similarity being that their parents died and they've drawn inspiration from Bats.


It's all good stuff.

 

[Josh-A-Tron]

True, but the Joker wasn't the one who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents in Batman Begins/The Dark Knight. If it had, I'm sure Bruce's personality wouldn't be much different in the films.

Let's not forget that Bruce Wayne tried to blow Joe Chill away with a hand gun and showed much dissatisfaction when he was beaten to the punch by the hit woman. It took Rachel's speeches to convince him that he was wrong and even then he still had his own sense of justice.

What if the killer remained anonymous to the Bale Batman until he was a 30 something year old adult, then, like Keaton he discovered his parent's killer? Lets not for get that the Keaton Batman didn't start to kill until he found out the identity of the murderer that took his childhood away.



That is what's so great about all this, different circumstances lead to different outcomes and personality traits within the story. Both versions have the same idea of trying to eliminate crime and bring justice but have been brought up in different ways. The only similarity being that their parents died and they've drawn inspiration from Bats.


It's all good stuff.

I agree, I find them all enjoyable. For me it's Nolan's films a little over Burton's, but all are a good watch.

Though I shall not speak the name that is the horror of the other "films" if you wish to call them that.

 

[batfan08]

Speak his name, if not for Shumacher's complete commercial and critical failure that was Batman & Robin, we may have wound up with a string of mediocre and progressively worse sequels instead of the total 180 that is The Dark Knight Trilogy.