👍 that's right I always hated when Batman was killing in every movie reboot the only time I felt okay about it was in the Nolan trilogy( but I still prefer it if he didn't do it)

@@dcmarvelcomicfans9458 he didn't kill in noland trilogy

@@dcmarvelcomicfans9458 everything there that would of killed in the real world didn't kill in those movies if that makes any sense

@@nitsuagaming6121 he actually did it we just by accident create a distraction or chose not to save people that's the only realistic way I could see Batman killing people without taking pleasure in it and using guns.

No he's popular because he's closer to reality, his criminals are closer to real life criminals, and the no kill rule is being phased out more for the "beating people half to death is more painful than shooting or stabbing them". His hate and anger make far more sense than say the Avengers who are basically just special forces or the X men who never help anyone and only fight the mutants trying to kill all the normies all while trying to tell everyone else mutants are A-OK. His not killing just keeps his very likable (from a fan perspective) villains around.

I wonder if SalazarKnight would be interested in doing a video about what you just said. In fact he could say that the possible reason why Joker and The Batman Who Laughs continue to do what they do is that they could twist that morale and lesson so that they could force Batman to break his rule. In fact when two versions of Joker learned about the Toxin in his body then maybe that they figured that perhaps they could twist all these lessons and make Batman into him. It even may explain "The Nail's" version of Joker as well as others and explain why they keep doing this to this day. Hoping that one day he would break and that he would become like him.

1. But he is merely a man and secular or religious everyone knows that a man is fallible. To even think you'd be above that when greater men in history have failed shows your first flaw already: hubris. 2. False that's our society who tells you it does, the Taliban, Viet Cong, Nazis, etc all killed and slept easy. Most psychopaths kill and sleep easy. Frankly whatever you consider to be the big evil in the world you probably won't lose much sleep killing whoever they are. 3. The very nature of being a vigilante means he thinks the law is insufficient and ineffective. That's more the writers painting themselves into a corner but reality is if you are going to risk your life of luxury to beat criminals near death's door then you can't tell me it's because you love the legal system otherwise why not be a cop? 3. Crass to say those who kill on the good side don't value human life. It's called reality, we all know if Ted Bundy got out he'd kill again. It comes back to do you really feel for the victims or the killer (who likely was a victim at some point) you don't keep letting them out hoping they've reformed. In fact if you compare now to say our past crime is worse than ever precisely because we don't put the accused into a hole in about a week. Sad reality is not killing 1 innocent man and letting a 100 guilty ones go means you just made 100 more victims. How many times does the criminal, murderer, chomo, etc all have this long rap sheet that says he should have died long ago. 4. Violence begets violence yet he beats people near death, breaks arms/legs/fingers, etc? Killing the other side ends the violence, people who say wars don't work for example never looked at the world map changing, it's letting them and their ilk live that will allow any cycle to continue. 5. Right now if NYC or Chicago had a Batman they'd call him a racist, bigot, unsympathetic, evil, etc whatever. They already throw their entire police forces under the bus and those guys make less than 50k a year to go around and watch society destroy itself. Even driving down to say a robbery or riot and merely fighting crime like Batman would get your ass throw in jail. Look at Kyle Rittenhouse, they attacked him yet he's the one half the country thinks is a murderer. All in all the no kill rule exists because it's a comic and you don't ice your best villians. I chose to believe Batman is one his 3 or 4th encounter with the Joker everytime because at some point Batman has lost sight of the mission if he keeps letting this homicidal maniac go. It's not like most of his rogues gallery sans Catwoman, Riddler, and Penguin have ever even attempted to reform. If say the comic was one continuity Joker is over 5000 dead last I saw then Batman is at fault because all it'd take is killing the bastard and moving on. In fact isn't that the whole point of being a vigilante? Because you know your worthless legal system is just going to let them off? Oh the whole town is dirty but I'm going to trust the elected officials who can literally be bribed through campaign donations or the mental health institutions who push kids into trans surgeries to upsell for the medical system and turn a blind eye to the homeless (which is a problem they created when they many of them said "you're not crazy if you're not hurting anyone else" and let many of what we call the homeless now go back in the 1970s). Naw doesn't work, you become Batman over a cop because you know the system fails people over and over again.

Only an accident ;)

👏👏👏👏

The point of Affleck’s character was that he was wrong for killing. Also Bale’s Batman kills and is perfectly fine with catwoman killing. We sadly have yet to get a comic accurate live action Batman.

Richard's Reviews The problem with Affleck is that they made a big thing out Batman hearing Superman’s mother’s name. Batman acts like he realizes the error of his ways by throwing his sphere in the water. However right after that, Batman brutally shoots down the henchman outside with batwing. He later shoots and staps the henchman with a baterang. He also causes an explosion at the warehouse. That was a character arc that went absolutely nowhere. When Catwoman tried to shoot one of the henchmen at Dagget’s penthouse, Batman slaps the gun out of her hand and says “go guns no killing.” She only killed once in the movie which was Bane. Batman had no control or knowledge of Catwoman’s intent until after the fact.

Cheyenne Smith Batman stops dehumanizing Superman after the Martha scene. He doesn’t fully change until after Superman’s death inspires him. Note him refusing to kill Lex. Also who does he kill in the warehouse by stabbing them? And my problem with the bane death scene is that Batman doesn’t criticize her after killing Bane.

Richard's Reviews Bruce Wayne expresses inspiration to start a team of heroes. He didn’t say one word of remorse about his killings to Wonderwoman. Of course the writers weren’t going to have Batman kill Lex. The writers need him as a villain for potential sequels. It’s more convenient to have Batman kill random henchman than the main villains. Also Batman and Catwoman were in a urgent situation to chase after the truck carrying the bomb before it goes off. Also Catwoman saved his life by doing it. You’re argument is that Affleck is not in the wrong because he was learning despite being a middle aged old man with years of experience. And Bale is in the wrong because he didn’t give Catwoman a pointless scold. That’s another issue in the fandom, when someone’s favorite Batman gets criticism for killing, their first response is “the other guy did it too”. Even though the other actor wasn’t mentioned in the first place.

We're getting there and when we do, it's gonna be great!

@@SalazarKnight PD: I thought the no killing rule was explained literally with the Jason & Felipe: Diplomacy Case.

This is a fantastic comment!

You had me until the last paragraph Why would you become a vigilante over say being Officer Wayne, DA Wayne, or his honor Judge Wayne? Because you know the legal system is shit and doesn't work that's why. Who cares about crimes wives and kids (past a certain point)? Mrs. Criminal knows she is married to Mr. Criminal 9 times out of 10 in real life. If you don't get the kids away fast they will grow up like their parents, I've seen that far too many times in real life. I weep for the kids being corrupted but Mommy and Daddy criminal deserve death. Now that being said yeah the wannabe DC Avengers movies fail because they just tried to be the Avengers rather than being the JLA.

@@darthbigred22 the point in bringing up the thugs’ potential families was to highlight the difference between the thugs DCEU Batman kills and the ones he turns over to the authorities/lets go. The point was that Batman’s punishments don’t seem to match the crimes at all in the DCEU, which arguably makes Batman every bit as corrupt as the legal system since not only is he unelected and has 0 formal qualifications for what he does, but he’s not even less guilty of demonstrating partiality as the actual legal system he’s trying to compensate for. Also, I don’t think Batman’s cynicism of authority is really a core staple of the character. I mean, yeah in the early comics he found himself fighting cops when they didn’t know who he was. But there were many years in the character’s history from the Golden to the Silver Ages where he himself was an agent of the legal system. I don’t think you can just dismiss that because Frank Miller recontextualized the origin in 1987. That leaves still half of his history (conservatively) where he WASN’T set in opposition to the legal system. And I wouldn’t say he was opposed to the legal system necessarily in the Bronze Age, so much as he didn’t fit in there… it was just a more realistic take, but not exactly cynical

​@@darthbigred22 Who cares? Me and others with empathy.

Add to it even further: Philosophically speaking, even in real life one could say that morality isn't objective. One could even ask "why is it that we humans define certain things as moral and others as not?" And so, if Batman were to kill, there would be absolutly no difference between him and the criminals he fights, philosophically speaking. After all, the only difference would be he's fighting for the roght cause! But then again, who determains what is right? Many criminals believe what they're doing to be right. The only way to be ceratin, is to say- "While I believe I am doing the right thing, I might be wrong. That is logically speaking a possibilty. But if I do not kill, if I do not cross that line of no return for the human soul (because the person would be.. dead), than even if I'm doing the wrong thing, it's not THAT bad so long as nobody dies. But then again that is as philosophical, kantian and theoretical as you can get in order to answer that. Btw it's like 2 at night so I may have explained it a bit incohearently.

@@daniellevy2272 People like you are why we have a crime problem now. Fuck me you should have to go visit a prison, orphanage, watch a few cartel murder videos, and sit through a few child molestation hearings before you ever say something as asinine as Batman killing means he's no different than the bad guys. Ever see a person flayed alive begging for their life because some drug boss wanted their territory? Is there any point to flay someone alive since they are going to die from it anyways? Why not just shoot them? Now does the guy who did the hit and ordered the hit need to die? Of course Ever meet a kid who was their uncle's sex abuse victim? It's not a pleasant conversation to try to explain to them why all the adults in their lives ignored the signs. Or worse to explain to that kid that their Uncle doesn't love them and that true love is not between a man and child and that they were brainwashed by a monster. Now does Uncle need a bullet in the head that very day? Of course Hey guess what? Most crime has the sad painful Batman villian esque backstories like the comics. None of them came from happy homes even if they were rich. Does that mean we allow them to keep running around or worse throw them in jail so they can terrorize the minor offenders? We say racism is one of the worst things you can do and homosexuality is A-OK yet the whole threat of jail is being raped by the same sex and reality is you have to join a race based gang in jail to survive. We are so much better than the kings of old, what wonderful justice we meet out. You guys cite philosophers who lived in societies who killed the bad guys for far less, well they won their argument and how is Chicago, NYC, SF, basically any major city in the West now? How is Mexico which is a de facto narco state? Maybe Kant was a cunt. In fact apply your philosophy to the concept of being the Batman over say being Officer Wayne or DA Wayne. He chose to be a vigilante because the justice system fails. And you may say well "who are you to make those calls?" Well if I'm Batman killing the Joker after his, last time I checked, 5000 plus kills I think I am OK with saying I am doing a far better job than the legal system and mental health system of Gotham.

I agree there's more aspects to Batman outside his no-kill rule like his compassion his psyche his relationship with his Robins his obsession with trauma. All of that is more important then his no-kill rule

ikr?

And thank you for the kind words! I really appreciate it!

Thank you!

That was a good one I can totally see the Joker saying that

There was actually a Robot Chicken skit where Joker points out how he'll do it again and Batman acknowledges that it's a never-ending cycle so he decided to find a loop hole around his code.

well, now i have a morality mindfuck to contemplate

Thank you! I really appreciate that!

Thank you for the kind words. It truly means a lot!

Thanks! That means a lot.

Rucka has a point there. As the character has evolved, a line has been crossed between things that are feasible and straight up unacceptable. But maybe that's also a mirror image of our increasingly bad world? Also, I like Rucka's work on Batman. It's not among my favorites, but it's decent stuff.

Agreed

Thank you so much and welcome!

War on crime as well

Good points. But the reason that connects the rule with the Joker is exclusive and unique to Batman. Any good character can have a No Killing Rule. Anyone can have the same simbolic, moral, ethical reasons not to kill. But only Batman has that one little extra reason, which is to torment his arch-nemesis, depriving him of his ultimate goal. I think it's brilliant.

@@SalazarKnight Yeah, you are right. I guess the no killing rule and the no killing the Joker are two different things, which is great and makes the Batman such a complex character. So yeah if batman kills we all lose, but Batman killing the Joker is an endless debate (but im on the side of not killing him)

@@SalazarKnight you make an excellent point Batman having an extra reason to not kill Joker is a lot more personal to him than any other superhero

@@BATMANYSPIDER23 I agree would prefer if he had reasons not to kill if it was more symbolic moral and ethical

the real injustice was how crappy that series was

WHAT?

@@darthbigred22 i get it now. i get it.........

And before it was a tired cliche

More Metal than DARK KNIGHTS METAL

Too bad those stories suck cause they are so old. Like, the dialogue is not even readable. How can that be your favourite batman when those stories suck so much?

Edgelord detected

​@@normansmith9009its his opinion but okay

Nerdsync made an excellent video on why Batman doesn't use guns I highly recommend it

Titans Bruce Wayne kills? I thought that was just in Dick’s nightmare made by Trigon

The point of Snyder’s Batman was that he was wrong for killing. Also he refuses to kill Lex at the end of the film.

@@richardsreviews8820 that doesn't matter. Now everyone thinks of Batman as a murderous and vindictive bully.

TheDarkTicoKnight12 so people’s perception matters more than what actually happened in the film?

TheDarkTicoKnight12 I disagree. Most popular mainstream version of batman at this is most likely Christian Bale’s version. Even though he does kill a few bad guys in the movies (mostly indirectly) the movies made it clear that he’s motivated to fight for justice not vengeance. Especially in batman begins.