Amph ITT...I'm Batman (Discussion)

Would you like pictures of me holding them with today's newspaper?

The batpod's weapons were mainly used to clear obstacles. What people seem to be missing is they had a purpose and use beyond just 'KILL HUMAN BEINGS!'. The only time the batpod's weapons were used lethally was by Catwoman, every other time Batman used them either as a tool to clear obstacles or to stop enemy vehicles. Would you prefer he shoot out explosive rounds shaped like bats? Would you prefer instead of bullets just shooting out razor sharp batarangs?

The guns used on his vehicles have uses beyond killing. Batman doesn't use handguns because killing is their sole purpose. But the weapons on his vehicles are useful.

Batman uses tons of gadgets that could kill people, the weapons on his vehicles are no different. They are tools.

A hand gun does not equal the batpod canon anymore than a pocket knife equals a katana.

But just to think this through... considering all that Batman had to deal with in the Nolan trilogy can anyone tell me what he should've done instead if he had all his vehicles weaponless? How would he have the monorail track destroyed? How would he have stopped Talia and the bomb?

 

Simple. The bottom image is Elseworlds. The top one is not.

 

I was AGREEING with you. (for once) I was expressing wonder that anyone would not realize the Liam was supposed to be Ra's. But since Nolan decided to completely ignore the lazarus pits and almost everything else that makes Ra's well... Ra's, is he really Ra's?

Imagine: "I'm going to make a spider-man movie. It will be set in Nova Scotia, and be about a spider that suddenly starts to evolve human features. He falls in love with a fish. The Octopus father-figure is the super villain. spider-man will be covered in barnacles."
Is this spider-man? NO.
Not even close.
Just because you slap a name onto the character does not make him the character. The details and background have to be there. This is where the Nolan movies failed most.

 

Hey everyone, Arawn is trolling! The void in her empty life is filled, partially at least.

The whole thing is Elseworlds, Arawn. Some of it harkens back to the old Batman, some does not. Have you read TKDR, incidentally?

 

I'm an expert on those first couple of years of Batman, thanks to that (currently dead in the water) Batman project I was doing. He killed a couple of guys with a lasso; he broke another guy's neck by kicking him in the head. He failed to kill Dr. Death, but not for lack of trying. He battered him with a fire extinguisher as memory serves. One of the splash panels in one of those early stories is of Batman bursting through a door, firing a pistol.

After Hugo Strange & the Monster Men, he once took a gun from a bad guy and shot another bad guy in the hand; the panel had an editor's note that said that Batman never used a gun to kill. Later, when he and Robin were fighting pirates with cutlasses (long story), he told Robin to only use the flat of the sword: "we never kill with any weapon." Of course, he was always knocking people off of oil rigs and stuff which never seemed to faze him.

 

RAYSH AL GOOZE

 

Funny thing... I started watching season 3 of the Bruce Timm Batman cartoon. I'd completely forgotten that the first stories are the introduction of Ra's Al Ghul. Very pulp-fiction serial style to this season. It was so refreshing to see the characters as they should have been.
Heck, even the Lego Batman video games have a better story to them than DKR.

It should be remembered that Batman as a character has been around for over 50 years, and has changed significantly from time to time (anyone remember the cartoon episode with the kids all telling different stories with completely different interpretations?). Some things are constant. Some were defined over time. Some changes were more drastic than others.

I think Under The Red Hood did a pretty good job of the Code Against Killing and why.

 

Batman only kills people when he feels like it. If he's grouchy and hasn't had his coffee yet.

 

The DC Animated films in general have been of excellent quality, Koohii. TDKR Part I was amazing (AAAAAH, Batman in this is voiced by Peter "The RoboCops" Weller!) but I still prefer "Under the Red Hood"

 

If Batman were friends with Robocop would they go on killing sprees then?

 

Better story than the Terminator vs Robocop comic that Dark Horse put out.

 

Kingdom Come showed what happens when Batman makes Robocops of his own:



They chase down Fat Albert's gang and take away their LAPD Blasters.

 

THE DARK NUT FECES

 

So a bit of a hypothetical question. If Batman in the Nolan trilogy has his one rule about not killing, why are the criminals of Gotham so afraid of him? Among the criminals, does only the Joker know about this rule? If the biggest thing he can do to them is to help the police arrest them, it seems like they would be at least as scared of the police themselves.

 

All of the criminals are forgetful/have dementia.

 

Because Batman had taken on a mythos, by way of Chinese whispers etc. There's no difference between Nolan Batman and comics Batman in this regard; they fear Batman because of what he's said to be, not because of what he actually is.

 

That's a good point, I get that... and that's true that it's not just limited to the Nolan films. It just seems like sooner or later the criminals would figure out that discrepancy between the legend and the reality that they've collectively witnessed.

 

No by The Dark Knight they are on to him. That's why Maroni couldn't care less when Batman is interrogating him, he even brings up his 'one rule'. And then by the end he had retired.

But most likely criminals are still afraid of being put into the hospital for 6 months.

 

No, they realise that between Batman and the Joker, Batman's "safer" as he's not going to kill them.

Think back to the opening arc of No Man's Land. The criminal telling the stories about Batman. That ring any bells?

 

Isn't that what I said? The criminals realize Batman has his rule, the smart ones at least, so they know he won't kill them. But no one likes being beaten to a pulp and having their arms and legs broken.

But they still fear the Joker more as he's a maniac and will set them on fire or feed them to dogs. But even though criminals may know Batman won't kill them, they still would fear the guy because he can hurt them a lot.

 

Batman beats them up and breaks their bones and puts them on the doorstep of the GCPD.

In Nolan's universe I think they do fear him for those reasons (I mean I would) b/c for years Gotham's "finest" wouldn't or couldn't touch them, depending on the time.

After BB the police gain some steam but they're still corrupt and disorganized and hate turkeys on Thanksgiving.

Maybe if Batman showed up for the third film we could have tied some of the knots with the vigilante-citizens-criminals-officials aspect of Nolan's universe.

as for the Joker, he publicly displays some of his victims (notably Brian the not-Batman)

GenAntilles Moroni knows Batman won't kill him but being a paraplegic isn't a great way to live either when you could have avoided the situation.

 

Could one make an argument that Batman killed Liam Neeson in Batman Begins in a passive aggressive manner?

 

I WAS LITERALLY JUST ABOUT TO TYPE THIS !! bingo awesome!

No one knows exactly who was on the train, but I assume they know there was a man on it with the microwave emitter and fatal intentions (although they were kind of drugged at the time) who Batman killed - or didn't save.