Batman never really killed in the movies

[Man of Steel]

Hey:

This week I was watching all four of the Batman movies when I thought of something, Batman never really killed anyone in any of the movies except for one person the big fat clown man in Batman Returns. But in the first one when Joker and Batman were fighting on the church sure Batman said that he was going to kill him but if you look at when Batman and his girlfriend are hanging from the top of the church and Joker grabs the ladder Batman takes his grabbling hook and it goes around Jokers ankle and a statue. But Batman didn't know that the statue would breake off like it did so I think the Joker just killed himself in the movie cause he couldn't hold on anymore and just decided to let go.

Now in Batman Returns when Batman was fighting the Penquin he let loose bats and the bats went straight for the Penquin, then the Penquin just went right through the glass and fell in the water. I think that Batman had nothing to do with this except with the bats, cause the Penquin was busy fighting off the bats and never relized that he was so close to the glass window so he fell.

Now onto Batman Forever, when Two Face was in the hole with Robin and Batman Two Face was just about to shoot both of them but then Batman took out several coins and threw them at Two Face, I think it was Two Face that ended up killing himself cause he just wanted to grab his coin but then he lost his balance and ended up falling in the water killing himself.

And Batman and Robin had no killing so I won't get into that movie. But if you look at it it seems like all the villions that Batman faced in the movies ended up killing themselfs.

Have a Nice Day!

Man of Steel

[Nightwing]

I like to think of it that way as well. With most of those cases, it seems Batman only indirectly particiapted in killing when his friends' lives were at stake....

Although I think there were a few more cases than what was listed. The evil clown man outside the Batmobile who was set on fire for example. Or the number of Two-Face thugs that were killed in Batman Forever (about 10, give or take, I counted out of curiosity).

But I think that for the most part that has to do with movie continuity, more than Batman continuity. Letting small time thugs/minions get what's coming to them seems to be a pattern in most action movies, so the post-adolescent (non-Batman fan)guys can go, "YEAH!!! Take that!!"

[Knight]

I have to disagree Batman clearly killed the black guy he was fighting in the tower when he took and threw him down the clock shaft. Batman knew what he was doing. That was like a 15 story fall I know he didn't think the guy whould live through that. In my opioion that is without a doubt Batman causing the death of a person
True he's hands have not directly been dipped in the blood of Major villians. But he has killed none the less.

[Frozen]

I agree entirely with Knight. Batman is directly to blame for the deaths of every villain mentioned in Man of Steel's post - why do you think he threw the coins, to distract Two-face? No, because he knew what was going to happen, and he instigated it. The same goes for the Joker, not to mention the whole host of Joker goons he blows up in the chemical factory in 'Batman' - and that's just for starters! Jeez, the guys a killing machine! A menace to society! HE'S GOT O BE STOPPED!!!

[killercroc]

Originally posted by Frozen
I agree entirely with Knight. Batman is directly to blame for the deaths of every villain mentioned in Man of Steel's post - why do you think he threw the coins, to distract Two-face? No, because he knew what was going to happen, and he instigated it. The same goes for the Joker, not to mention the whole host of Joker goons he blows up in the chemical factory in 'Batman' - and that's just for starters! Jeez, the guys a killing machine! A menace to society! HE'S GOT O BE STOPPED!!! Now that's a rant that would make J. Jonah Jameson proud!

[Domino]

In Batman (1989) our "hero" had the Batmobile go into the Axis Chemical building and drop explosives. I don't think the bad guys got out and I don't think he meant to simply scare them.

[JTMarsh]

The movies have always bent or broken the "no killing rule". And yet I can't help but wonder how many people Batman may have accidentally killed via property damage (chasing down bad guys in the Batmobile & the Bat-Wing isn't always pretty).

[Neo Ultra Mike]

Well actually I think that the Burton films were the only ones to really specifically bend on the whole "no killing rule". The Nolan films made that a part of his code (though there are a few bends you can find with that. Like how Batman let Rah's Al Ghoul die in Batman Begins when he could of saved him) but Burton didn't really care as much about that. Since to be fair Batman has killed people before in the past in the early comics so it is still a part of his continuity. And something people are free a bit to change though now that it's more a part of his definite character seems more likely folks will stick to that. Guess we'll see if the next director who comes around in 6-7 years telling their Batman story will feel the same way.

[Shawn Hopkins]

The Batman in the Burton movie series is definitely a bloodthirsty killer. He also clearly meant to kill the Joker. C'mon, if the statue hadn't broken loose what would have? Parts of the Joker.. He said he would kill him and then he did. All of the other instances you list were also clear cases of homicidal intent.

[Aquadementia]

The Batman in the Burton movie series is definitely a bloodthirsty killer. He also clearly meant to kill the Joker. C'mon, if the statue hadn't broken loose what would have? Parts of the Joker.. He said he would kill him and then he did. All of the other instances you list were also clear cases of homicidal intent.
Alright, but to be more realistic then Burton ever intended to be, that statue should have been anchored to the cathedral. The Joker shouldn't have been able to pull that off of the building. When the helicopter went up he should have lost his grip of the ladder and been left dangling there upside down.
I will admit that if he got himself tangled in the ladder it might not have been pretty, but I'd like to see what the Mythbusters have to say about that.

On the other hand, when it comes to blowing up the chemical factory he did not even want to be in the Batmobile when that was going down.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Alright, but to be more realistic then Burton ever intended to be, that statue should have been anchored to the cathedral. The Joker shouldn't have been able to pull that off of the building. When the helicopter went up he should have lost his grip of the ladder and been left dangling there upside down.


It was a very short rope so he wouldn't have fallen far in that case, but I still think it's clear that Batman intended for the Joker to die. He says "Sometimes I just KILL myself" immediately before and that seems to give Batman inspiration.

Batman also intentionally punches the Joker off the cathedral before this, I don't think he did that knowing and hoping the Joker would hit a ledge and jump back up and try to kill him and Vicki Vale.

Darn, I just noticed that in my first post here I was responding to a 10-year-old post. I hate when people try to carry on a conversation from a decade ago and now I'm doing it. :)

[W.C.Reaf]

I've seen this conversation popup recently on another board too so I might as well chip in my 2 pence.

The Burton Batman's actions lead to the deaths of many people, that's fact. Whether or not he's a killer/murderer/whatever is semantics.

I think people don't like associating the word "killer" with Batman and if the exact same events happened but the character wasn't Batman people wouldn't be debating this at all.

[Aquadementia]

It was a very short rope so he wouldn't have fallen far in that case, but I still think it's clear that Batman intended for the Joker to die. He says "Sometimes I just KILL myself" immediately before and that seems to give Batman inspiration.
That's literary foreshadowing.
I think his action could still be an attempt at capture, not to kill.

Batman also intentionally punches the Joker off the cathedral before this, I don't think he did that knowing and hoping the Joker would hit a ledge and jump back up and try to kill him and Vicki Vale.
I guess that's true.

Batman, why choose to solve your problems with violence?
There's no excuse.
That other great 80's movie, Breakin', taught us differences can be solved with Street Dancing, not Street Fighting.

[DarkAngel]

Though we don't see it in Batman, there was suggestion that Batman had killed Johnny Dobbs.

The impression one comes away with from the Burton movies is of a character who wouldn't be particularly concerned if a bad guy dies and isn't above killing anyone.

[Gatomon41]

Remember that one time Batman strapped a bomb to a man, and then tossed him down a gutter ? :p


I've seen this conversation popup recently on another board too so I might as well chip in my 2 pence.

The Burton Batman's actions lead to the deaths of many people, that's fact. Whether or not he's a killer/murderer/whatever is semantics.

Actually it isn't semantics. Murder and killing in self-defense are two different things. Batman was justified in trying to stop people from committing mass murder. Sadly, some people died, but Batman isn't a murderer.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Remember that one time Batman strapped a bomb to a man, and then tossed him down a gutter ? :p



Actually it isn't semantics. Murder and killing in self-defense are two different things. Batman was justified in trying to stop people from committing mass murder. Sadly, some people died, but Batman isn't a murderer.

It's self-defense for a vigilante to drive a bomb-filled remote-controlled car into a factory and blow people up? Somehow I don't think that would hold up in court.:) Almost none of it would, really, Batman isn't a law enforcement officer and doesn't get an ends justify the means exemption. If he's immediately protecting people or himself from a situation he didn't create, he might be justified. But withholding information about dangerous criminal plots from police so you can kill them yourself is psychopathy.

Anyway, let's update the thread to add movies that came out in the decade since it was created. What about Begins and Dark Knight? Batman did things in those that caused the deaths, allowed the deaths, and must have caused the deaths of various people. Is he a killer for allowing Ra's to die? He must have killed people when he blew up that temple, right? How about his vehicular rampage? How about killing Harvey Dent?

[W.C.Reaf]

Actually it isn't semantics. Murder and killing in self-defense are two different things. Batman was justified in trying to stop people from committing mass murder. Sadly, some people died, but Batman isn't a murderer.

The "whatever" part of my post was meant to include all the other legal terms for killing (e.g. manslaughter), sorry if that wasn’t clear. And you are actually arguing the semantics of whether or not Batman fits into these categories.

Again we wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't about Batman.

[Gatomon41]

It's self-defense for a vigilante to drive a bomb-filled remote-controlled car into a factory and blow people up? Somehow I don't think that would hold up in court.:)
Which would you rather have: The destruction of a criminal fortress or the release a chemical weapon targeting thousands of innocent lives? What if the local authorities had little or no time to act? Would you sit by and do nothing?

Granted, the destruction of a Chemical Factory would have resulted in an massive environmental disaster...:sweat:


Almost none of it would, really, Batman isn't a law enforcement officer and doesn't get an ends justify the means exemption.
No, but considering the alternative (a lot of people poisoned to death), doing nothing isn't morally justified in this case.


If he's immediately protecting people or himself from a situation he didn't create, he might be justified. But withholding information about dangerous criminal plots from police so you can kill them yourself is psychopathy.
I'm calling shenanigans on that. Batman did release information vital to save people's lives. The only reason Batman would act on his own is when time is running out. Keep in mind Joker was going to act that night. And the police probably did not have the time or resources to act in time.

What evidence did they have on the Joker, or hiss connection to Axis Chemicals, or even his plot? Even if Batman got the information in time, what hard evidence could they use? And even if they got a warrant, the army of gangsters where well dug in. The resulting firefight would have simply bought more time for the Joker to get away.


The "whatever" part of my post was meant to include all the other legal terms for killing (e.g. manslaughter), sorry if that wasn’t clear. And you are actually arguing the semantics of whether or not Batman fits into these categories.

Again we wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't about Batman.
Sorry, I thought you meant that Murder and Killing equated to the same thing. http://www.toonzone.net/forums/images/smilies/sweat.gif

[Aquadementia]

I consider it more "super" if the hero can accomplish saving people with out going around killing everyone.

Seems to me it takes more strength and skill to do things that way.
Otherwise it would be easier if he grabbed a gun and started shooting every bad guy he ran across.

The staring bad guys in these movies are kind of doomed to "accidental" deaths because you want some resolution. This isn't a comic book or tv series where you're going to need them again next week. And they are usually played by big stars that you aren't going to get back.

But Batman, as a superhero, should have been able to handle the chemical factory and that guy with the bomb and others without getting anyone killed.

I can't say I was bothered by the bad guys getting killed in the movies, but it's one of the things that they did so much better in the animated series and why I always felt better about the cartoon.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I consider it more "super" if the hero can accomplish saving people with out going around killing everyone.

Seems to me it takes more strength and skill to do thing that way.
Otherwise it would be easier if he grabbed a gun and started shooting every bad guy he ran across.

The staring bad guys in these movies are kind of doomed to "accidental" deaths because you want some resolution. This isn't a comic book or tv series where you're going to need them again next week. And they are usually played by big stars that you aren't going to get back.

But Batman, as a superhero, should have been able to handle the chemical factory and that guy with the bomb and others without getting anyone killed.

I can't say I was bothered by the bad guys getting killed in the movies, but it's one of the things that they did so much better in the animated series and why I always felt better about the cartoon.

I agree with everything you said here. With all of his skills Batman could have handled all of those situations without killing just as easily. It makes it seems like he kills because he wants to.

The big exception is that he pointedly doesn't kill the Joker in Dark Knight, even after all the Joker's provocations. And I thought that was pretty satisfying.

I think they're really underestimating the audience if they think we need to always see the bad guy die before the end. But that's the way it is in movies, heck even in Disney films the villain usually slips and falls off something.

[defunctzombie]

I don't think it makes sense for Batman to let Ra's al Ghul die in Begins yet save the Joker in TDK. Movie Batman doesn't know anything about the Lazarus Pits, so Ra's is just a regular criminal at that point. Maybe by TDK Batman developed a better sense of "don't kill", but he still knocked Dent off a building. Either way, Nolan's explanation of what happened to the Joker between this and the new movie sort of goes against traditional Batman anyway.

I've seen a couple places that he said the Joker's been executed between TDK and Rises. Even if he is a terrorist, there are obvious signs of insanity. Just say the guy's locked up or something if you don't want to recast.

[Shawn Hopkins]

I don't know if Batman had any other choice with Harvey. That was possibly a direct kill or let someone else be killed confrontation. Maybe he could have found another way, but didn't he already let Harvey shoot him first? I think the law might actually shield Batman in this case because it could be argued that Two Face died as the result of a rescue attempt, not because Batman intended to kill him.

I think he possibly would go to jail for letting Ra's die, though. Though legally you don't always have to rescue someone, in this case Batman was obligated because he had created the hazardous situation that put Ra's in peril (engineering a train derailment). Well, arguably, if Batman allowed it somehow to go to court he could argue that Ra's was the original creator of the situation by loading a train with crazy gas. And the fact that it was Jim Gordon, a law enforcement official with a duty to stop a terrorist attack, who actually pushed the button muddies matters further. It would be interesting to see what a jury decided.

It's a good thing for Batman that he completely flaunts the law, I guess.



That's an interesting rumor, but I don't think the idea that the Joker would be executed is too unrealistic.

Sometimes I've noticed that when crimes are especially heinous the American justice system simply won't accept an "insanity" defense, or at least prosecutors can make it incredibly hard to win on it. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer, if he can be found sane it's not hard to believe the Joker might be. Or the Son of Sam, who claimed he received his orders from his dog.

The standard isn't are you delusional or mentally ill or mentally impaired, it's usually whether that illness keeps you from recognizing the difference between right and wrong. Seemed like the Joker had a grasp of those concepts, even if he had a worldview where he thought that they should be cast aside or were defunct. And it's clear in the movie that he's not just acting randomly, he's very manipulative and in control of events. That's all a prosecutor would probably have to show a jury to close that avenue. It would also be very like the Joker to claim that he's the only sane on in a crazy world or something and not allow his lawyers to try it. the way Ted Kaczynski did.