We missed out on ultra kino by not getting his solo film.
They did him dirty in the Flash.
Best Bruce Wayne.Batman is gay in live action no matter what.
>>215630021I cant take Ben Affleck seriously as an actor
Close, he was the worst.
>>215630076He was the best, and if you think otherwise you're unironically a faggot that deserves ridicule.
>>215630117You literally only like him because he's a big guy because you are gay. Sorry, sweaty.
>>215630076Nah, that's Pattinson. Affleck beats all the others on looks alone. No other actor has come nearly as close to looking like a faithful comic book version of the character.
>>215630076>He was the bestMARTHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>>215630021He should have had his own movie before BvS, one of the problems with Warner is that they didn't know the fuck they wanted to do, that's why they ended with 2 Shazam and 3 Harley Quinn movies instead, the same shit is happening rn with Gunn
>>215630021I would have to agree with OP here
>>215630021doubt affleck would have done any better movie than the other directors in the snyderverse after dc turned into snyderverse, it was just an impossible task
>>215630021
>>215630233and two jokers
>>215630021Blandest Batman ever. He looked the part but that was it.
>>215630473lmao the fight scenes actually better than any of the nolan movies
>>215630021>>215630117He's arguably the best in terms of looks and vibes, but not his actions>kills people >dumbass use of kryptonite, makes a spear from it when other types of weapons or ammo could be safer and more effective>in Justice League they often don't know what to do with him other than give him a gun and have him sit in a corner and shoot stuff
>>215630473Is that crate made of nerf foam? lmao what bullshit>>215630486Horrible CG
>>215630021they fucked up by not making a dark knight returns movie with him
>>215630046>films extensive Aquaman 2 cameo just to be completely cut at the whims of the new butthurt ceoproblem?
>>215630473>>215630486This is the best Batman will ever be. Nothing else compares to showing the reason why he's so feared.(I think Pattinson did a great job, but the fight scenes had nothing on this)
>>215630473>throw a quarter ton export crate at a dude>bounces off like a rubber ball>dude is "dead" but otherwise unharmedBravo sar
>>215630456Grenade bro is the only thing I don't like about the warehouse fight. Other than that, it's pure Batkino.>this room has 1 hostile in it>this room is also full of my comrades>"FRAG N CLEAR!!1"
>>215630589>The Return of the Returned Dark Knight?
>>215630567The spear thing is from Grant Morrison's Arkham Asylum and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns.The ZSJL stuff was mostly about him being a leader and caring figure again, and took from Dennis O'Neil's run. He was also great in the feel action scenes he had in it.Him killing people was also a neat take.
>>215630591This is the timeline>Aquaman 2 was set to release after The Flash, Keaton was now Batman and had a cameo there>The releases shifting around now makes it Flash releasing AFTER Aquaman 2>this and confused audience from test screenings make them reshoot the cameo with Affleck>release dates switch around again, Keaton will probably be in the final version>Reboot announced, entire Bruce cameo is scrapped.
>>215631170You're half right.Affleck filmed cameo because the plans to have Michael Keaton around as the new main Batman was scrapped, and Michael de Luca and Pam Abdy, the current WB presidents, decided it would be best to capitalize on the recent ZSJL fanfare. So they had Affleck refilm the Keaton scenes, while also adding some new stuffs.They were also the news that ok'd the return of Henry Cavill and told him to officially announce it. WB socials at the time also did the same.What they weren't aware of is that behind the scenes Peter Safran and James Gunn were signing deals with David Zaslav to take control of DC stuffs, and once Safran and Gunn learned of the recent changes they decided to scrap everything.So you had this weird transition between Hamada and his plans, which was to with Keaton and the Calle as the new "Superwoman". Then de Luca and Abdy. who decided to roll back to some sort of "Snyderverse" stuff. And finally Safran and Gunn taking control and scrapping everything.
I wish we at least got his stand alone movie. We were robbed of that
>>215631279The original plan was for BvS to be a two-parter, with the first movie being mostly a Batman movie acting as a sort of "lead-up".
>>215630021no
>>215630021No he wasn't.
>>215631339Here's how i know you're a casual, during the 70s Batman would often cause the death of henchmen without giving too much of a fuck. It was only during the 90s that it because such a hard retarded rule.
>>215630021A solo Batman movie written and directed by Affleck would have been fucking awesome actually, but no, he's still not even close to being the best Batman. He's just a good filmmaker and it would have been a good movie no matter who played the role.I don't care for Pattinson much either. It's Bale and Keaton for me and it always will be.
>>215631362show it bitch
>>215631426It would flood the thread, there are a lot of examples. That anon will also probably not care.I could do it, though. If you still want it to see.
>>215630076Even Conroy said he was the perfect balance of Bruce and Batman. Batman himself said this. You are objectively wrong.
Why did they not let the oscar winning director direct his own batman movie?
>>215630567Him killing people was the whole point of his story and arc; it's the whole point of superman redeeming him. Learn how to actually understand story opposed to just the presentation anon.
>>215631490
>>215631523Thats what I just said anon. Not sure if you meant for for me or others ITT
>>215631500They kept rejecting his scripts for being too serious and dark, because at the time they wanted something more comedic and light. Eventually they realized their mistake and gave Reeve freedom to do what he wanted.
>>215631474go ahead
>>215630214There's no faithful comic book version of the character because he's had dozens of different looks. Snydertards don't read comic books, anyway.
>>215630214batman has different designs pattinson looks closer to darwin cooke's batman
>>215631552
>>215631585anon you said 70's not the early days when he was still sleeping in the same bed as robin
>>215631523>>215631490Why does come skeletal, crusty old dead voice actor's opinion matter more than anyone else's? Those snyder movies blew chunks. Quit pretending they didn't.
>>215631584>pattinson looks closer to darwin cooke's batmanNo, he doesn't. At all.
>>215631585>>215631595I'm not that, anon.
>>215631552I'll try to go more in-depth on the whole no-killing thing, as someone that has read pretty much all of the old Batman stuff.From 1939 through mid 1940, one can total around thirty-five Bat-kills (a mix of self-defense and purposely caused deaths). Remarkably, in Detective Comics #32 by Gardner Fox (1939), Batman terminates The Monk and Dala Vadim with a gun. However, these are vampire slayings, which is why they’ve been left off the list above. (As we’ll come to learn, DC writers never regarded the destruction of the undead as legitimate murder.) Of note, Robin had been busy killing as well, with two dead by the Boy Wonder’s hand in Detective Comics #38 by Finger and Kane (1940). By mid 1940, though, Batman quickly stopped killing entirely. Robin can be seen eliminating two more people in Batman #6 by Finger and Kane (1941), but his murderous behavior more-or-less also stopped in its tracks immediately after that.
What had occurred to mark such a stark change in Batman and Robin’s attitudes? Following the instant success of Batman #1 (1940), DC publisher Jack Liebowitz and editor-in-chief Whitney Ellsworth told Batman creators Kane and Finger they not only wanted them to permanently phase out Batman toting a gun, but also Batman killing people altogether. Gardner Fox, one of the assistant artists, was even chewed out for having included Batman using a gun in the first place.Along with a ban on shootings and murders, Liebowitz and Ellsworth made it verboten for hero protagonists to engage in whippings, hangings, knifings, or overtly sexual behavior. Editorial wanted to make Batman less of a vigilante, bringing him over to the side of the law as a Sherlock Holmes knock off, to keep him more in line with the social mores of the times.Already regretful for having painted Batman as a heartless killer, Finger was all for the changes whereas the stubborn Kane pushed back. Nevertheless, Kane quickly acquiesced. In Batman #4 (cover date 1940, release date 1941), Kane and Finger initiated what would go on to become Batman’s very famous non-lethal code of conduct, which still lasts to this very day At the time, all DC writers made sure that Batman strictly adhered to the new rule.Interestingly enough, in Batman #4, Batman actually uses a gun to shoot one of the bad guys in the hand! An editor’s note is included, which reads: “Batman never carries or kills with a gun!” So, yes, Finger and Kane had Batman use a gun (someone else’s and non-lethally) in the very same issue where they introduced and emphasized Batman’s no killing/anti-firearm rule. Seems a little strange, no? This was likely Kane (who, again, was reluctant to give up the guns and murder) delivering a cheeky fuck you to bosses Liebowitz and Ellsworth, before acquiescing to the new status quo.
Affleck was phenomenal. Shame for the scripts.
>>215630473>WB killed rocksteady by forcing them to make garbage instead of Beyond Arkham.
In any case, the guns and murder disappeared after that. Detective Comics #108 by Don Cameron and Dick Sprang (1946) and World’s Finest Comics #27 by Bill Finger and Jim Mooney (1947) both included further details about Batman’s non-lethal code, thus linking it to the character forever more.Following the institution of Batman’s no killing ordinance in 1940/1941, Batman’s only remaining killings were all WWII related. It’s clear that Ellsworth and company made a major exception to Batman’s no killing rule for government-conscripted jobs in which he was engaged during wartime. In fact, the kill count ballooned exponentially once Batman got Nazis in his sights.But before we move on, we should bring up a few iffy issues from Finger. First, in Finger’s Detective Comics #47 (1941), Batman forces a blackmailer into what appears to be a fatal automobile accident. However, an editorial note that follows makes note that the blackmailer and his accomplices have been “trussed,” which implies that they’ve been captured and jailed. We can assume that no one was forced into a fatal crash by the Caped Crusader, who is thus able to uphold his no killing vow.This was the continuation of a trend that had started right out of the gate in 1939 (and one that would be present for decades to follow): Bat-killings being open to interpretation, subject to certain points of view, or undone with a retcon or a caption.For example, villains like Joker or Hugo Strange “died” at the hand of Batman time and time again only to re-appear with a revelation that they weren’t actually killed before. Second, in Finger’s Detective Comics #56 (1941), Batman knocks a strongman into a mineshaft pillar, which causes the mineshaft to collapse. The strongman and his gang are all killed. One could argue that Batman has killed five people here—albeit in self-defense. However, Finger’s narrative intention, despite being a bit sloppy, was clearly to place blame on the strongman for the mineshaft collapse.
>>215631170>>215631584>have both keaton and patterson>don't make Batman BeyondFucking retards
>>215630473Yeah this scene was good unfortunately 99% of the movie and especially the director cut was either yapping or CGI video game fights
>>215631511No, the movies never really even suggest that Batfleck killing people is a bad thing, it's just something he does. Some of his kills are set up and presented as being completely justified, like when he saves Martha by shooting the flamethrower tank
In the 1950s and 1960s, as the Silver Age began and split DC’s line in twain, giving retroactive birth to Earth-1 and Earth-2, the no killing rule spread across the multiverse, echoed through the actions of two separate Batmen. The original Batman became the elder Earth-2 Batman, and his no killing code of conduct, which had begun in 1941/1942, would continue plainly, without the Dark Knight engaging in any homicidal behavior whatsoever. His old killings remaining in his canon, though. The fun change was that this elder Batman hung up the cow and cape, became the new police chief, and married a reformed Catwoman.The new Batman, aka Earth-1 Batman, began his career adhering to the no killing code from the very start. In terms of the Silver Age, it was first officially mentioned in World’s Finest #164 by Leo Dorfman and Curt Swan (1967). From that point onward, there would be nods toward Batman’s anti-killing MO for many years to come, with various comics giving readers important reminders of the vow every now-and-again.The only fair game, between the two, were the undead. When Batman faced vampires and monstrosities, they'd be fair game. Editorial didn't count that as proper killing.Now that i gave the necessary context, i'll go into the 70s.
As the Bronze age began in the 1970s, DC higher-ups (particularly editor Julius Schwartz) called for a much darker world for Earth-1 Batman. With the arrival of this edgier style of storytelling came an immediate contradiction between the Caped Crusader’s new grim-dark violence and his classic imperturbable restraint to kill. The no killing rule wasn’t just for the Caped Crusader in fictive Gotham City, but also for the DC bullpen churning out Bat-stories in real New York. But even the best of these writers (like Denny O’Neil, for example) struggled to find a balance. In fact, O’Neil—along with contemporaries like David Vern Reed, Bob Haney, and Mike W Barr—would write darker and darker Batman tales through the 1970s and early 1980s, increasing the violence tenfold even though Batman’s non-lethal edict was definitively still in place. This led to a handful of instances throughout the Bronze Age where Batman did kill, albeit usually in self-defense. (If the increasing violence of the story demanded killing, then it had to unequivocally be done in self-defense so as to not fly too boldly in the face of the no killing rule.) Of course, very few writers, if any, were submitting stories where Batman was killing outright, meaning that most of the Bat-killings were open to reader interpretation.
>>215630021Yeah pretty much>>215630046Yup. He should have refused the comedic scene with WW
He's really good in BvS and ZSJL but meh in Whedon League and Flash. Can't even remember the cameo in Suicide Squad
Christ, rangeban India already
>>215632277The hyper-violence of the Bronze Age also brought about the first ever legitimate exceptions to Earth-1 Batman’s no killing rule. The first exception to the rule was in regard to immortals (specifically, those who have extended their lifespan by unnatural means)—as seen with the Muertos in Detective Comics #395 by O’Neil and Neal Adams (1970), with Ubu in Detective Comics #438 by Archie Goodwin and Jim Aparo (1974), with Catman in Detective Comics #509 by Gerry Conway (1981), and multiple times with Ra’s al Ghul (in various issues throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, mostly by O’Neil). The idea here was likely that, since immortals could always come back to life, it was okay to use deadly force against (or in retaliation to) them. Batman killed Ras al Ghul so many fucking times back then, to the point he started to get creative.
>>215630021>capeshit>kino your opinions are worthless and you're not old enough to post here
The whole "no kill rule" was only blown up with Nolan. Batman if anything tried to mitigate lethal force but regularly he'd do things like allow lethal force if it saved the lives of innocents. Hell even in TDKR, he straight up shoots a guy holding a baby because lives of innocents > lives of criminals. In Knightfall he crashes a car with dozens of criminals in it to avoid them crashing in to a building, I think the car then explodes. With Nolan and Scott Snyder's run they made Batman kind of nonsensical in that he'd put HIS OWN life at risk to save criminals from things like falling off buildings etc. It became a bit stupid. Nolan's whole "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you" thing unironically ruined Batman's comic run for 10 years.
Now let’s get to the million dollar question at heart of my autistic info-dump. What are the canonical instances of Batman killing—from material published from the mid 1940s up to present day? Most fanboys think that it has happened very rarely (if ever), but there are actually a bunch of occurrences where Batman kills.To start, these are all the possible canonical Silver/Bronze Age (i.e. Earth-1) Bat-killings, all of which are via self-defense. Again, some are debatable because the writers gave the readers the choice of believing if it was intentional or not, if it counted or not. I am choosing the Earth-1 scenario, because it is easier to most fanboys to dismiss the Earth-2 examples, citing that it happened when the creators were still developing the character.–“The Case of the Chemical Syndicate” (1939 but canon in Silver/Bronze Age) – Batman punches a crook into vat of chemicals. (1)–Batman #1 Part 2 (1940 but canon in Silver/Bronze Age) – Batman guns down a couple of Hugo Strange’s henchmen, hangs a Monster Man, and knocks a Monster Man off a building. (2, 3, 4, 5)–Batman #221 (1970) – Batman judo tosses an evil scientist into a pit holding a killer lamb. (6)–The Brave and The Bold #90 (1970) – Batman tosses a villain into the ocean, killing him. (7)–Batman #235 (1971) – Batman knocks a League of Assassins scientist into deadly chemicals. (8)–Superman and Batman with Robin the Boy Wonder Annual 1973 Part 2 – This is a UK annual story, so it’s canonicity is debatable. However, in the story, Batman kicks a henchman off a ravine and attacks Dr. Mabusa, which inadvertently causes Mabusa to shoot himself to death. (9, 10)–Superman and Batman with Robin the Boy Wonder Annual 1975 Part 6 – This is another UK annual story, so, again, it’s canonicity is debatable. In the story, Batman knocks Mad Dog Creggan off of a stack of crates, causing him to fall to the ground below. Creggan dies of his wounds shortly thereafter. (11)...
–Batman #270 (1975) – Batman punches a crook into a statue, which crushes him to death. (12)–Batman #271 (1975) – Batman blows up about fifteen cultists. (13 to 27)–Batman #288 (1977) – Batman uses a henchman as a human shield as Penguin shoots at him. (28)–Batman #290 (1977) – Batman judo tosses Skull Duggar into an electrified power box. (29)–The Brave and The Bold #157 (1979) – Batman causes a kidnapper to crash his helicopter. (30)–The Brave and The Bold #159 (1980) – Batman tosses a League of Assassins henchman into Ra’s al Ghul’s crystal death wall. (31)–Batman #340 (1981) – Batman kills The Mole. While there’s no confirmation here, we never see the Mole again (and Batman’s intent was to eradicate him). (32)–Batman #290 (1977) – Batman judo tosses Skull Duggar into an electrified power box. (29)In total, we have somewhere around thirty-three Earth-1 Bat-killings, all in self-defense. Although, as stated, some instances are vague and open to interpretation, so this list merely comprises possible killings. While not included above, The Brave and The Bold #127 by Haney (1976) is notable because it shows Batman ignore a distress call, which leads to a fatal helicopter crash. Detective Comics #517 by Gerry Conway and Paul Levitz (1982) is also notable because it shows Batman himself turn into vampire and bite someone, but it’s unclear whether or not the victim dies. Likewise, Batman Annual #9 Part 2 by Barr (1985) appears to contain a straight-up violation of Batman’s no killing code, showing the Dark Knight directly incite gang bloodshed.
>>215631490>Kevin ConroyHe was a homo that had the hots for hunk Affleck
>>215630456>>215630473Why don't they just shoot him in the face are they stupid?
batman is better written when he doesn’t kill. anyone who knows anything about batman knows this to be true. a writer finding a non fatal solution inside the utility belt is the soul of the character. arguing otherwise is like arguing superman is better when he was a bald ubermensch
Once The Crisis on Infinite Earths brought about the Modern Age in 1986, with the reboot of the comics, Batman’s anti-killing stance was still in full effect, but the lingering gritty effect of the Bronze Age continued influencing (or confusing) writers to some extent. In Batman #402 by Max Allan Collins and Jim Starlin (1986), Jason Todd oddly reminds readers that Batman has killed people before, to which Bruce replies, “[Only] in self-defense.” When Collins wrote this arc, it was right after Crisis on Infinite Earths, so he hadn’t been notified of the Modern Age status quo in regard to Batman’s no killing rule—hence this strange dialogue.
When has Modern Age (aka New Earth) Batman killed in self-defense, you ask? Here’s my complete list of possible canonical instances in chronological order.–Batman Confidential #50 (2011) – This is before Bruce becomes Batman, but it technically qualifies as the first time Bruce kills someone. While traveling through China, Bruce is forced to use an opponent as a human shield. (1)–“The Case of the Chemical Syndicate” (1939 but canon in Modern Age) – Batman tosses a villain into a vat of chemicals. Although, technically, we don’t actually know if he dies. (2)–Detective Comics #29 (1939 but canon in the Modern Age) – Batman tosses one of Dr. Death’s henchmen off a roof. (3)–Detective Comics #30 (1939 but canon in Modern Age) – Batman snaps the neck of one of Dr. Carl Kruger’s henchmen. (4)–Detective Comics #35 (1940 but canon in Modern Age) – Batman impales a henchman on a sword and knocks crime boss Sheldon Lenox out of window. (5, 6)–“Infected” (1996) – Batman knocks a monster-serum-infected soldier into the reservoir. The soldier is definitely more beast than man at the time of his death, but this is still technically a kill. (7)–“Blink” (2002) – Facing a hail of gunfire and not seeing many options, Batman instinctively uses a henchman as as human shield. (8)–“Family” (1992) – Batman blows up at least two men with explosives. (We’ll keep it at two, since we only technically see two guys get blown up.) (9, 10)–“Colossus” (2002) – Batman causes Rubio Dolor to fall from the top of a tower. (11)–“Sanctum” (1993) – Batman kicks Lowther onto a railing spike, killing him. (12)–“The Saga of Ra’s al Ghul” (1971 but canon in Modern Age) – Batman knocks a League of Assassins scientist into chemicals, killing him. (13)...
>>215632774I think the fact you threw in detective comics #27 and the case of the chemical syndicate as a “modern” story, regardless of adaptation, is proof enough you’re copy and pasting from some poorly trained llm
>>215632668He twirls to fast.
–Year One: Batman – Ra’s al Ghul #2 (2005) – Batman causes an avalanche that buries two League of Assassins agents. It’s possible he doubles back to make sure they are alive, but that’s certainly not shown in the comic. (14, 15)–The Brave and The Bold #193 (1982 but canon in Modern Age) – Batman judo tosses one of the members of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) off a bridge to his death. (16)–“Batman: Year Two” (1987) – Reaper falls to his death while fighting Batman. This is more of Batman not saving Reaper from falling, so it could really go either way, depending on your perspective. (17) Batman #402, where we get Jason’s pointed question about Batman killing in the past, occurs at roughly this point on the timeline.–Batman: Son of the Demon (1987) – Batman kills a couple League of Assassins henchmen by causing a helicopter crash. He also kills Qayin by knocking him into an electrified power box. (18, 19, 20)–Detective Comics #590 (1988) – Batman knocks a terrorist through a window onto a spike wall below. He later runs over (and blows up) four more terrorists. (21, 22, 23, 24, 25)–Batman: The Cult (1988) – There’s a trippy scene where a drugged-up Batman seemingly goes on killing spree, but this is merely a hallucination. (Yes, he’s on a raid with Deacon Blackfire’s cult, and they do kill a bunch of people, but there’s no indication that Batman actually offs anyone himself.) However, in this same arc, Batman blows up a building with a cultist standing atop its roof. Additionally, Batman more-or-less allows the cultists to kill Deacon Blackfire, although there’s an argument that nothing could be done to save Blackfire once the cultists were on top of him. (26, 27)–Detective Comics #572 (1987) – Batman uses a hood as a human shield. (28)...>>215632833The reason for that is because that story remains in the canon no matter what, despite the many reboots and retcons.
>>215632668are you retarded? they literally do. his cowl is bulletproof.
>>215632923>Batman invented bulletproof chin
>>215632889–Batman #425 (1988) – In a junkyard, Batman kills a bad guy by causing a pile of cars to topple on top of him. (29)–Detective Comics #613 (1990) – In yet another junkyard, Batman kicks a couple of criminals into the back of a garbage truck, crushing them to death. (30, 31)–Batman: Bride of the Demon (1990) – Batman crashes an airplane into three League of Assassins technicians. (32, 33, 34) Not long afterward, the League of Assassins base explodes. Some internauts believe that Batman is responsible for the deaths of dozens of people in the base, but, based upon the way the narrative is delivered, there’s more than a strong argument to be made that the destruction of the base is not directly linked to the Dark Knight.Bride of the Demon by Barr (1990) is the last time we ever see Batman kill anyone in any capacity (even in self-defense) in any continuity.Since eight of his Modern Age kills are highly debatable, this gives us a total of no less than twenty-six but no more than thirty-four possible instances where Batman kills. Again, many of the above scenarios are generally open to reader interpretation, meaning, if one were so determined, one could regard even more Bat-kills as dubious, thus further lessening the number.From 1990 onward (even into later continuities!), there aren’t any canonical Bat-killings whatsoever (aside from those retroactively taking place in Batman’s early years or those perpetrated by alternate Batman Jean-Paul Valley in 1994). Story-wise, we can take this to simply mean that, by the end of Modern Age Year 13, Batman gets really good at making sure people around him stay alive. If i were to pinpoint the story that created a hard stop would be this one, Batman #420, where knowing he is outmatched, Batman traps KGBeast in a room underground, where he leaves the villain to die. Batman’s ruthless behavior and reasoning left fans shocked, creating a fan backlash to the point where writers went and retconned it.
>>215632889sure but you included it in the modern era. which is just wrong. you chose the literal first appearance of the bat-man, to assert modern pathos? tsk tsk furthermore, even milton finger, and that bill to you, shared once when he wrote for batman 66 that batman is best when he finds extravagant and convoluted solutions to the gun of his villains and henchmen. he is also the first writer to put his finger on the correlation between firearms and murder and what happened to his parents. and why wouldn’t he? Milton’s the one who killed them
Elaborating more on my response to >>215632833 anon we can ascertain that at least some folks in the DC home office, even as late as 2011, were leaning into the idea that Batman killed in self-defense in his formative years.Examples of this are: Devin Grayson’s Year One: Batman – Ra’s al Ghul #2 (written in 2005 but occurring partly in the early portion of the Modern Age timeline) and Marc Guggenheim’s Batman Confidential #50 (written in 2011 but partly taking place during Bruce’s training years abroad before becoming Batman). A rather special case is Batman #673 by Grant Morrison (2008), which famously has Batman psychologically nudge Joe Chill toward suicide. Whether or not we include this on our kill list is debatable as well. (I’ve opted not to, but it could easily be up there, depending on your perspective.) No matter the case, it’s clear that DC editorial, by 1990, mandated that Batman never ever kill again in contemporary chronology.In the latter part of the Modern Age, readers would see Batman push his no killing code to its utmost limits in regard to certain foes—notably Ra’s al Ghul and Joker (with Jeph Loeb and Jim Lee’s 2003 “Hush” arc being an example of this for both villains, and Starlin and Aparo’s 1988 “Death in the Family” being another example for Joker).Overall, the Bat-bodycount (in comics) from 1939 to today comes in as follows: Around sixty to sixty-five kills for Golden Age Earth-2 Batman (nearly half of which are government-sanctioned kills during WWII),Around thirty-three kills for Silver/Bronze Age Earth-1 Batman,Somewhere in the range of twenty-six to thirty-four kills (probably on the lower end of the spectrum) for Modern Age Batman,Zero kills for New 52 Batman,Zero kills for Rebirth/Infinite Frontier Batman.As you can see, the “Batman never kills” concept has become absolute gospel at DC Comics and it has been for decades.
>>215633121I understand your sentiment, but i am forced to include those first comics because later writers reference it in their own comics, which are canon to the modern age Batman. Can you understand that? Take for example Grant Morrison, one of the most famous DC writers that every casual fan knows of, and often complained about superheroes being often written as killers. Even he, when writing Batman, had Batman being more unhinged and violent in his formative years, and being prone to blur the lines of killing. Here's another issue written by Morrison.
>>215632191>No, the movies never really even suggest that Batfleck killing people is a bad thing, it's just something he does.If you believe this you were probably on the phone and not paying attention to the movie. BvS makes it more than obvious that Batman changed fundamentally, for the worse, and his pervasive streak of torture and killing is recent, and bad.
>>215633235that particular page is one of my favourite stories. I think you’ve culminated this particular list and thread to assert the validity of batfleck’s murder and why his characterization is valid. I earnestly believe dawn of justice is ben affleck’s single best performance of his career and likely the single most reverent and committed I have ever seen the actor perform. which is saying something because he won an oscar just days before signing the batman contract. you can write out this entire list and no matter what, no matter the length or constitution, there is a simply and inarguable truth; batman killing people feels gross. always has always will. he was born and baptized in the blood of his mommy and daddy, sieved from the cold steel of a gun. there is now and has been and always will be a incongruent paradox between murderous batmen and this most simple and basic and primordial truth about bruce. from 1939 to now until the end of all time and space. and that grossness is unfortunately the foundation of the batfleck. regardless of affleck’s sincere devotion to the artistry of the role
>>215633403My point is that Batman killed before, in canon, in several canons as a matter of fact, and i even went to state how and why, and how it was mostly in self-defense and that most of them can be debated, something that i could have not mentioned at all if all i wanted was to twist the truth to justify a portrayal of the character. The fact is that Batman no-kill rule was not this hard rule before the 90s. when editorial finally decided to enforce it without rolling back on it. And in BvS the story is precisely about a broken Batman that lost his way. That's what his character arc is all about. As a continuity and superhero purist, I’ve always leaned into the “Batman should never kill” camp. Those on the “Batman should kill” team often refer to “realism” as a primary reason behind their viewpoint—citing that a violent crimefighter engaging in daily vigilantism against equally vicious opponents would likely result in collateral loss of human life. Obviously, Hollywood, which strives for filmic “realism,” has long been okay with a Batman-who-kills, as we’ve seen it happen in both Batman movie serials (1943 and 1949), Adam West’s Batman ’66, Tim Burton’s Batman films (1989 and 1992), Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever (1995), Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy (2005, 2008, and 2012), and Zack Snyder’s Batman-related films (2016 and 2017). While there’s no explicit Bat-killing in Matt Reeves’ The Batman (2022), there’s certainly enough harsh violence to presume collateral fatalities with Batman being at least partially responsible for causing them. Thus, Hollywood’s Bat-bloodlust continues.Thankfully (depending on your perspective, of course), the Batman of the funnybooks has remained devout in his commitment to non-lethal action.
>>215633613In summary, Batman killed initially until 1940/1941, at which point the no killing rule was initiated (with the only exceptions being instances of self-defense and wartime Nazi/Japan stuff). Post-WWII, there were no Bat-killings at all (not even in self-defense). It wasn’t until Bronze Age muddling (where authors were aware of the no killing rule but struggled to deal with it due to the darker tones of the new line) that we wound up with a handful of Bat-killings (mostly in self-defense, at least one with a serious asterisk) sprinkled throughout the 1970s and early 1980s. Once the Modern Age began, there was lingering creator confusion, resulting in a similar vibe until 1990, but after that there would really be no more Bat-killings whatsoever (aside from those retroactively placed in Batman’s early years).Now, despite being against Batman killing i did enjoy BvS, which i consider some of the best superhero movies ever made. I liked that take on the character, which is not that dissimilar of what Morrison did when he explore Batman's "darker years" in Arkham Asylum and his later run. Saying that, i wish we could have seen more of Batfleck post his character arc after ZSJL where he could have played a more wholesome and fatherly Batman. We got some of that in The Flash but... that movie was so fucking ass.
>>215633613you’re not necessarily arguing your point with me. but with the zeitgeist of cultural opinion toward batfleck and killing. all the examples you have presented and your thesis on the batfilms I largely already know, and know enough to see “the case of the chemical syndicate” in your list of modern examples, to see some fallacy in your point. why not begin with detective comics #27, of all beginnings, and all lists? that’s post one, figure 1, point a. not tucked away in the middle of the thread for some batautist like myself to find it. fun fact, the case of the chemical syndicate was adapted from the shadow pulp novel called “partners in peril”, which was also the first shadow novel not written Gibson, but ghost written instead. literally just for fun, but the chemical syndicate is a story written by an author with no credit stolen from an another story written by an author with no credit. and here we are discussing it almost ninety years later. what we are not discussing, is kane’s amatuer line work in #27. milton truly was touched by the hand of gods and bless you for invoking his work today regardless, you can like batfleck all you like. but compiling lists will never wash the grossness from the mouths of the public. what I like fixating on with the batfleck is not the killing, per se, but his primary tool. in all his appearance, his main method of interacting with reality is squeezing a trigger. that is most of what batfleck does. every tool or gadget he uses is pulled by a trigger. I adore his grapple gun and I like how almost spidermanish he uses it. but literally everything else? trigger here trigger there. how he administers the kryptonite to clark, with a trigger on a grenade launcher. how he disarms the weapons with explosives in the warehouse, trigger. how he kills kgbeast and saves martha, trigger. distracts doomsday and lures it back to the spear? trigger. could go on but reaching char limit. cont’d
>>215631556He nearly always has a square jaw >>215631584
>>215633995>>215633613cont’d. I earnestly believe it is specific focus on murdering COUPLED with the batfleck’s reliance on pulling triggers which make him feel gross. in all your example of batman killing someone, almost all of them, it is usually some consequence of batman being clever and doing something extravagant that results in the death of a henchmen. this is also, at times, and more often than not, comedic. like when he attaches the ticking time bomb to the circus henchmen in batman returns, and bruce smiles before throwing him off the railing. it is often not a direct choice of bruce, and done by pulling a trigger, but a convoluted consequence and parry of the henchman’s choice. and that somehow allows the audience to continue believing in Batman’s chastity against death. has it has been for almost ninety years.
>>215633995>>215634130I know all about Detective Comics #27, but that doesn't change the fact that when Earth-1 was established, they referenced that story, and most of the original stories as remaining canon. Or that when the 86' reboot happened, later writers kept referencing that story, keeping it in the canon. So when creating a list you've to include that story. Like take Hugo Strange. Modern Age Batman kept all the previous stories regarding Hugo Strange canon, including those where Batman and Robin fight off Hugo Strange's creatures, which is iffy regarding the self defense nebulous area.
>>215630021Yeah, I wanted to see him get raped in prison!
>>215634204the argument about batman killing is older than we both are. this thread is just another drop in the ocean of this pop culture. what I always find fascinating about it are not necessarily the examples of batman killing, but the fact they need to be pointed out and compiled. fact is, there are faaaaaar more examples of batman NOT killing. it is the majority of the character’s existence, both in time and volume, of batman not committing murder than committing murder. which is precisely WHY you and you’re cultural forefathers NEED to compile lists such as these. a minority of example proving their existence in a majority of counterexamples. once the burgeoning batautist understands this obvious truth, the batautist can find peace and resolution in the character this peace and resolution in understanding this dichotomy between murder and no murder is best rendered in batman begins. with the whole I won’t kill you but I don’t have to save you. that is goyer and nolan resolving this schizophrenic paradox within the character. it is a poor writer who makes batman murder. and batman has had many poor writers, and poor writers are still capable of writing great stories. the train scene in begins is a moment in the character’s history and life to resolve the paradox.
Holy fuck anon have a bump
>>215630076Affect was fucking awful & completely unbelievable as Batman
>>215634449I'm sorry, but you're hardly making any sense.Batman's no kill rule started because the government was crack down heavily on comics, and while as a purist i dislike the idea of Batman killing because i find the contradiction interesting, the fact is that the rule has been a grey area over the decades with some writers and even editors pushing against it, including one of the creators of the character. It only became a hard rule after the 90's, like i pointed out, and even then you had writers like Grant Morrison writing about the "formative years" so they could further explore that grey area. Hell, there's also the absolute retarded take where writers will write Batman out to be a complete retard for not putting his violent criminals down, specially when it comes to propping other characters that do in fact kill like Harley Quinn or Red Hood, which just makes Batman come off as in the wrong and an idiot. So this pushback has been and will always be present in Batman canon. So to pretend otherwise is also idiotic. Nolan was, in fact, against the no-kill rule. He founded to be stupid and that's why he found ways to have the villains die in his movies, because according to him audiences want to see the bad guys get his. It is cathartic. The one pushing for the no kill rule to be respect was Goyer, who was an accomplished comic book writer. So Nolan often left him to come up with ways for the villain to die without Batman having to outright murder them.Then you've the fact that filmic "realism" just muddy things because it is hard to present a believable world where Batman never cause collateral damage with his violent activities. This is a problem also present in the comics themselves. While DC Comics cemented it’s “Batman doesn’t kill” rule into place after the 1990s, they never stopped putting Batman into scenarios where he’s in close proximity to death and destruction (and maybe very near to being responsible for causing said mayhem).
>>215630214Why do modern writers insists on giving Batman pathetic little chode ears?
>>215630567Not to mention that the real bats would’ve just deduced that Superman wasn’t a threat from the start, but Snyder turned him into a reactionary chud with no brain
>>215634726no, batman’s no kill rule was because milton and robert had a walk through poe park in the bronx and talked about it. as it was correlated between kane’s autobiography and milton’s only known recorded interview. the conversation was likely during the merger of national comics with all american comics based on context. look, fellow but contrarian autist; it now does appear you’re arguing the soul and true character of batman is murderous. it’s one thing to assert he occasionally kills by happenstance or the golden age had more gun violence. but to say bruce wayne is inherently a killer? tsk tsk my fren. tsk tsk. you bring shame upon your house and name and ancestors.
>>215634976>look, fellow but contrarian autist; it now does appear you’re arguing the soul and true character of batman is murderous.I've never said that. I am saying that it is a grey, muddy area because you'll always have a set of writers that believe in the no kill rule, and another that think Batman is capable of it, even if unintentionally. With the reasons often cited being that some criminals are so bad they deserve to be put down or simple that in violent situations it is something that can happen as an unintended consequence of violence. This is why even right now you've writers doing shit like Absolute Batman where they can explore such scenarios, or situations in the main canon where they write Batman doing something that can result in death like Scott Snyder writing Batman killing the Joker (though he got better!)
>>215635053> you'll always have a set of writers that believe in the no kill rule, and another that think Batman is capable of it, even if unintentionally.you’re describing deconstructionists and non-structuralists. their aim in art is to subvert our values, as an audience, and ask us what these values mean when subverted; ie taken away or destroyed or lost. this is a specific form of fiction and practically it’s own sub-genre. and it’s just that, another slice of the whole cake. the rest of the cake is what people actually like, and have always like, and will always like. subverting our values is fine every now and then. but we LIKE our values. that’s why they’re our values. deep down, even you, like when batman refuses to murder. it feels good. and that good feeling is part of why batman is almost a century old and we are still talking about him. it is interesting when the batfleck murders. but it feels bad. it’s gross. people objectively, did not like it. batman will exist another century, but it won’t be done constantly probing his morality with needles and barbs. >in b4 food analogy
He was too old, I get they wanted to do Dark Knight Returns but he's a Batman after everything interesting has already happened. I did like his outfit and voice though. And that initial teaser where he's seething and Alfred's voice over is saying something about turning good men cruel and it flashes to the suit, that was kino.
>>215635265The idea was that by doing that, they could explore the past without other superheroes around. Though that's something that never happened.
>>215630021His half of the batman vs superman was awfula solo movie would be doubly so
>>215634726Wrong. No Kill rule happened long before comic book censorship. This may be a shocker, but comics were read entirely by kids. And DC editor Whitney Ellison was getting tons of angry letters from parents on how violent their kids comics were. So he imposed the Code of Conduct that all DC heroes would not kill. It didn’t just apply to Batman but Superman and all heroes. This was like within the first year Batman came out. Batman only killed for less than six months. Also introduced Robin because kids did not like Batman. They were not interested in some rich old guy. The Comic Book censorship didn’t happen until the 50s
>ai vs ai thread
>>215635318Robin was also killing, so it was longer than that. It stopped in 41'.
>>215630021What pisses me off the most is that literally every single director takes bits and pieces from "The Dark Knight Returns" in their films.JUST ADAPT THE FUCKING THING
>>215635331
>>215635337You’re right, it was after Batman # 1. What started it was Superman who had a brutal body count especially in the dailies which were way more violent
>>215634951>blaming writers for costume designsrs?
>>215635424Man was not meant to have this technology
>>215635424>the definitive winner for the smellier, hairier pussy is Catwoman
>>215630021Literally the only good thing about Batman vs Superman, the rest of the movie is so bad in so many different ways but his performance and how the Batman character was written and the action scenes elevate that mediocare capeslop to kinoPeople gush over how all the other Batmans whether Burton's or Nolan's or Battinson are all dark and realistic, but Batfleck is the only who shoots down bad guys in the middle of the street with a minigun.
