|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 27, 2019 11:47:07 GMT -5
|
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,268
|
Post by shaxper on Mar 27, 2019 11:51:11 GMT -5
I'm honestly tired of the debate. Ever since Frank Miller, writers have found a cheap means to success with a Batman story by making him so overly dark, so over the line, that not-killing edict becomes the one thing that defines and sets him apart as a hero and not a psychopath. And then there are even cheaper writers who then use that line as a source of conflict to drive an unimaginative Batman story.
My Batman doesn't kill, but if he did and it was either justified or a mistake that had lasting repercussions, I'd be fine with it. Batman's code of ethics should be far more robust and complex than this one over-simplified edict. He's a good guy, dammit.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 27, 2019 11:57:19 GMT -5
"Heroes don't kill" makes no sense as an in-world rule for heroes routinely forced to face villains of great power in the middle of crowded cities. How many civilian lives has such reticence cost?
However, as a meta-rule to discourage sloppy writing, I understand it completely, and we can think of plenty of instances where the violation of that rule was indeed sloppily written.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 27, 2019 12:04:12 GMT -5
I'm okay with Batman killing Snyder.
Snyder is an sad stunted little man-child who seems to be unable to grasp that Batman, gasp, isn't real. Do we need to face the facts about leprechauns and pixies and the Easter Bunny? Because if you think that Bunny isn't enslaving chickens you're living in a FANTASY WORLD!!
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 27, 2019 12:12:05 GMT -5
Since these are fantasies (we're talking about a guy dressed up as a giant bat, after all), I can readily accept that Batman's rule not to kill will never result in civilian casualties. What makes him a hero in large part is his ability to defeat a villain without killing him/her or allowing others to die. The bigger the challenge to achieve this, the greater his stature as a hero.
Regarding sloppy writing: I didn't care for the inconsistencies in Batman Begins. He makes a big deal out of not killing but then engages in a high-speed chase with the police that clearly could be fatal to his pursuers. And his passivity re: Ra's Al Ghul's fate struck me as a cheat. Call me corny, but the hero even strives to save the baddie's life.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 27, 2019 12:12:39 GMT -5
I'm okay with Batman killing Snyder. Snyder is an sad stunted little man-child who seems to be unable to grasp that Batman, gasp, isn't real. Do we need to face the facts about leprechauns and pixies and the Easter Bunny? Because if you think that Bunny isn't enslaving chickens you're living in a FANTASY WORLD!!
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 27, 2019 12:21:08 GMT -5
I'm okay with Batman killing Snyder. Snyder is an sad stunted little man-child who seems to be unable to grasp that Batman, gasp, isn't real. Do we need to face the facts about leprechauns and pixies and the Easter Bunny? Because if you think that Bunny isn't enslaving chickens you're living in a FANTASY WORLD!! True; but, also, people like Snyder, who have such a casual attitude towards killing, have never been around it, whether it is combat or hunting animals. I never saw combat in my military days; but, ran across a few who were of the Vietnam generation, who were there and they didn't joke around about that kind of stuff and weren't big on action movies with high body counts. They had seen too much. For me, it was rabbit hunting with my family. I've killed two or three, without much thought; but, then, my dad wounded one and went to pick it up and it started thrashing and squealing. He quickly bashed it's head against a tree to put it out of its misery; but, that was it for me. I never went out again. Just hearing something screaming in pain and thrashing around was more than enough to convince me I didn't want to take a life, except under very extreme circumstances. You watch your parents die in blood and thunder and spend your life training to ensure it doesn't happen to anyone else; you might have a strong aversion to killing. there is a logic there that holds up. I have no problem if circumstances are such that there is no other option. I would have the same with Superman; but, not the way Snyder portrayed it.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Mar 27, 2019 12:32:34 GMT -5
I'm okay with Batman killing Snyder. Snyder is an sad stunted little man-child who seems to be unable to grasp that Batman, gasp, isn't real. Do we need to face the facts about leprechauns and pixies and the Easter Bunny? Because if you think that Bunny isn't enslaving chickens you're living in a FANTASY WORLD!! You watch your parents die in blood and thunder and spend your life training to ensure it doesn't happen to anyone else; you might have a strong aversion to killing. there is a logic there that holds up. I have no problem if circumstances are such that there is no other option. I would have the same with Superman; but, not the way Snyder portrayed it. I've not seen Man of Steel, because not only do I not like Superman, but Snyder is a one-trick pony as a director and that trick stopped being interesting a long long time ago. Now, my understanding is that Snyder essentially turned Pa Kent into Ayn Rand in drag. Now I'm willing to be corrected if that's not right, because there's virtually no chance I'm going to watch that movie. I don't find it hard to believe simply because Snyder is the type of person who looks on Rorschach as an aspirational figure as opposed to the deeply wounded and disturbed figure of pity that Moore wrote him as. Or in other words...Snyder really doesn't get comics.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 27, 2019 12:43:33 GMT -5
Or in other words...Snyder really doesn't get comics. And yet, inexplicably, DC keeps giving him the keys to the car.
|
|
|
Post by Phil Maurice on Mar 27, 2019 13:04:31 GMT -5
I don't think Batman should be killing people left and right, particularly as he's one of a number of characters who strongly and overtly opposes the idea, even swearing oaths against taking life at different times. That said, I don't think an intractable edict such as "Batman NEVER kills!" serves much purpose either.
In such a story, we can ask why Batman is killing people. Is it necessary? Is it appropriate? Is it credible? If the answer is "yes," then it may be a fine story. It puts me in mind of Captain America, who I think canonically has killed several folks, owing to his combat experience. There, Cap's actions answer my three questions above in the affirmative it would seem.
If you simply want to tell stories involving large body counts, there are characters for that. I doubt we'll ever see a thread on this forum titled, "Should The Spectre kill?"
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 27, 2019 13:48:47 GMT -5
I don't think Batman should be killing people left and right, particularly as he's one of a number of characters who strongly and overtly opposes the idea, even swearing oaths against taking life at different times. That said, I don't think an intractable edict such as "Batman NEVER kills!" serves much purpose either. In such a story, we can ask why Batman is killing people. Is it necessary? Is it appropriate? Is it credible? If the answer is "yes," then it may be a fine story. It puts me in mind of Captain America, who I think canonically has killed several folks, owing to his combat experience. There, Cap's actions answer my three questions above in the affirmative it would seem. Good point. Its easy to argue that Captain America is a far greater figure of virtue than any version of Batman was/will ever be, yet he's killed enemies because at times, its necessary. I'm not going to go on a anti-Snyder rant because one, I do not have an issue with his version of superheroes and two, he's addressing that very issue for a DC character that Captain America had for Marvel...and again, it makes sense as it is necessary under certain circumstances. You can only get away with trying to have villains spared or escape at the last minute (the latter example like so many ridiculous episodes of the 80s G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero cartoon where COBRA members always parachuted from damaged jet fighters) before it makes the hero appear to be someone not really interested in bringing a particular evil to its end, because in reality, evil is and always will be uncompromising and will not hesitate to kill the innocent if given the chance. So for Batman, he's a character that is best served when he can decide there's no other way to handle a villain instead of having a hardline "no killing" policy that compromises story potential if it happens in every dire / potentially deadly situation he faces.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2019 13:53:32 GMT -5
Shaxper and Tarkintino have articulated what I was thinking. Thank you, guys!
I do know we have to accept fiction as it is. In reality, and it'd haunt me forever, I'd have to take the Joker's life because doing that would prevent possibly tens of thousands of lives being lost down the road.
But in a Batman comic, I accept things such as the villain being arrested, escaping, being re-arrested, etc. And Batman not killing. But I have to agree with Shaxper's points 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 27, 2019 13:54:02 GMT -5
I don't think Batman should be killing people left and right, particularly as he's one of a number of characters who strongly and overtly opposes the idea, even swearing oaths against taking life at different times. That said, I don't think an intractable edict such as "Batman NEVER kills!" serves much purpose either. In such a story, we can ask why Batman is killing people. Is it necessary? Is it appropriate? Is it credible? If the answer is "yes," then it may be a fine story. It puts me in mind of Captain America, who I think canonically has killed several folks, owing to his combat experience. There, Cap's actions answer my three questions above in the affirmative it would seem. Good point. Its easy to argue that Captain America is a far greater figure of virtue than any version of Batman was/will ever be, yet he's killed enemies because at times, its necessary. I'm not going to go on a anti-Snyder rant because one, I do not have an issue with his version of superheroes and two, he's addressing that very issue for a DC character that Captain America had for Marvel...and again, it makes sense as it is necessary under certain circumstances. You can only get away with trying to have villains spared or escape at the last minute (the latter example like so many ridiculous episodes of the 80s G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero cartoon where COBRA members always parachuted from damaged jet fighters) before it makes the hero appear to be someone not really interested in bringing a particular evil to its end, because in reality, evil is and always will be uncompromising and will not hesitate to kill the innocent if given the chance. So for Batman, he's a character that is best served when he can decide there's no other way to handle a villain instead of having a hardline "no killing" policy that compromises story potential if it happens in every dire / potentially deadly situation he faces. And yet he will never kill the Joker, a homocidal maniac who always escapes when incarcerated/committed.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 27, 2019 13:59:47 GMT -5
I am a fervent opponent of the death penalty. I think it is a useless and inhuman punishment, which lowers us to the level of the punished criminals.
But if lived in the DC Universe, I would have a hard time defending my beliefs. Not because The Joker or Zsasz deserve to be killed (none deserve it) but because the authorities can't keep them behind bars. Every second which those people are alive some innocent is risking his/her life.
The writers created such an unstoppable monster that Gandhi or Mother Teresa would have difficulty defending his right to live. Killing him would be like stopping a natural disaster.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Mar 27, 2019 16:07:58 GMT -5
This same debate comes up in Doctor Who fandom. Three different kinds of Doctor Who stories have been written:
1) The Doctor uses guns, both firearms and sci fi weapons. 2) The Doctor doesn't use weapons but surrounds himself with those who do (UNIT, Leela, K-9, etc.) 3) The Doctor doesn't use weapons and despises those who do. But sometimes he just entombs people forever in tiny coffins sure to be torture.
|
|