>>17376 >They shouldn't be like the men that destroyed their lives They wouldn't be, at all actually. It's a complete false equivalence. In fact, you can use similar logic to say they're already like thugs and criminals since they violently beat villains into submission. Batman's no kill rule, given the criminals he faces, doesn't make him look like a good person or even misguided. It makes him look like a retard with a pathological need to not kill. But maybe that's the point since writers have long since retconned him into being mentally ill.

>>17455 >It makes him look like a retard with a pathological need to not kill >But maybe that's the point since writers have long since retconned him into being mentally ill. Anon meet The Batman Of Zur-En-Arhh, not the golden age one, the crazed alternate personality. The one time Batman broke his no kill rule was against Darkseid while using a god killing gun and it ended miserably.

>>17455 Yes they would. Man it's superhero comics. They're supposed to be about men being ideals in a world full of injustice. How's that so hard to get that that's what people want?

>>17456 >The one time Batman broke his no kill rule it ended miserably. Because the writers made it that way to try and validate the rule. >>17457 No they wouldn't. Allowing sadists like the joker with a death count higher than most dictators to go without their proper punishment, let alone the fact that in the dc universe doing so allows him to continue to destroy and ruin even more lives, isn't justice. In fact, it's not even naive. It's morally wrong. And frankly, batman is a terrible person for it. Killing the joker and all criminals of similar or worse caliber, on the other hand, is not wrong at all or even a "grim necessity". It's the morally correct and respectable course of action. The ideal you apparently think superheroes should represent is injustice. If some guy killed say Stalin, that wouldn't make him an anithero, that would just make him a plan old noble hero worthy of far more respect than batman.

>>17458 Have you ever considered you're just immensely retarded.

>>17455 >But maybe that's the point since writers have long since retconned him into being mentally ill. No, they just forcing him to be a complicated anti-hero, even though it doesn't suit him. Should Batman kill? If the given circumstance cannot be resolved by any other means, then, yes. He's killed in the golden age comics when no non-violent solution was available. But just start killing criminals in Gotham all willy-nilly like the Punisher? No.

Honestly Batman doesn't even have to kill. I'm not trying to be a sadist here but I'd probably break joker's spine by the third time he proves to be an uncurable fuck.

>>17461 Like I keep saying. You keep using real world meta logic to comics, of course it's going to be retarded. There obviously needs to be a balance of "this can't be too edgy/serious or else it makes the hero look useless" with wacky comic heroics being taken seriously. This all goes back to the simple fact that comic books cannot run as the forever medium that they have been. There needs to be permanence, logic, consistency, & a tone that works for telling stories about virtuous characters. I could go on & on. Simply put, comic books can't improve without being actual structured stories first.

>>17367 >Batman kill certain individuals like say The Dark Knight Returns Joker I remember how near the end of the movie he went on with moralfag speech in his stupid death metal voice, yapping and I just wanted Joker to kill him already. >>17416 >Batman is always a killer in movies He wasn't in the Nolan trilogy and neither in the Schumacher films. >>17420 >Though, what we see as lame today, was "cool" back in its day I don't necessarily mean lame in terms of concept, but rather execution. I read few other golden age comics here and there and they were by mils ahead better. Heck, I read some random comic from the same anthology that wasn't even capeshit and it was still better quality and more enjoyable. The main selling point of the original Batman was its edginess, I guess, but the thing is golden age comics didn't lack in edge so I still don't see how this below mediocre level comic became so popular?! >Bat Douche Not bad, I prefer to call him Batwat. >He also has a better dog and a horse I was more focused on weaponry, armory and skills. >But he has no sidekick for kids to wish they could be I wonder how many kids actually relate to Robin (there isn't a lot of merch for Robin), as far as kid friendly superheroes goes Captain Marvel/ Shazam is probably the best. >Batman has shot people with his grapnel-gun, in their hand, and has also used guns. Was it really common in the comics, especially the regular guns? >>17456 <Batman killing Darkseid It's one thing for the Scouts Boy to steal New Gods to himself, but why Batman who has arguably the best rouge gallery needs Darkseid for? >god killing gun At least it's not as retarded and wanked as throwing regular Batarang and just kicking Darkseid. >>17462 >with wacky comic heroics being taken seriously That's the main source of problem with current capeshit, having retcons and whatnot in not so serious comic is something that can be swallowed. >There needs to be permanence, logic, consistency, & a tone that works for telling stories about virtuous characters. I could go on & on I think it's nearly impossible when it comes to multiverse/extended universe which consists huge number of different superheroes with different settings. There would be need for someone or at least set of rules to guide the writing of all said different comics. Not to mention, how each licensed fanart keep changing and adding its own ideas, resulting in contradicting previous versions of certain character and its setting.

>>17491 >He wasn't in the Nolan trilogy See >>17379 he also pushed Two Face off a building at the end of the movie, and didn't save him, like he did with Joker.

>>17462 I don't disagree. yet if comics were structured, fags wouldn't be able to write what they want and keep the bullshit going to suit their needs.

>>17491 >why Batman who has arguably the best rouge gallery needs Darkseid for? Because it was a cosmic level comic event and he's a member of the Justice League you fucking idiot.

>>17491 >He wasn't in the Nolan trilogy and neither in the Schumacher films. Kills at least 2 thugs in the chase scene, 3 dogs in the final fight, & Harvey Dent/Two Face in The Dark Knight. He would have killed Bane had he not been saved by Talia fixing his dumb mask. He totally killed Talia though. Then in the Schumacher films he killed Two Face with the coins & indirectly killed Poison Ivy by letting Freeze end up in the same cell. >That's the main source of problem with current capeshit, having retcons and whatnot in not so serious comic is something that can be swallowed. I don't think so. It's far worse with what we have now of serious comics wanting to be taken seriously but nothing makes sense. Getting filled in with retcon excuses later. >I think it's nearly impossible when it comes to multiverse/extended universe which consists huge number of different superheroes with different settings. There would be need for someone or at least set of rules to guide the writing of all said different comics. That further enforces my point that comics can't change for the better within their current state of doing things. >>17493 >I don't disagree. yet if comics were structured, fags wouldn't be able to write what they want and keep the bullshit going to suit their needs. Well.... yeah? That's the point. If there's structure & control then writers have to get creative & actually think. Y'know actually write stories that can't just bullshit their way through with retcons, resurrections, or reboots.

>>17492 >didn't save him That was the point of the coin toss and the whole theme of the film. In TDK he's constantly trapped between choosing who to save and morality of decisions. He chose to save Harvey over Rachel, he chose not to blow up Joker while he was in the semitruck, and he put all his efforts in saving the child instead of Harvey. Joker wanted Batman to break his one rule and in a way he was successful as the Batman purposely failed to save Harvey.

>>17497 Being thematic doesn't make it any less stupid. >"How do I save Gordon's kids?" >"OH I know! I'll play possum then tackle Harvey at the last possible second! That's safe!" Not like he has batarangs or anything.

>>17495 Writers aren't creative nor inventive. I've read at least 1,000 books in my life and most of them share the same language, theme, and, for lack of a better word, structure. Writers don't think, they mimic and hit up what came before them. Or, if they're super new, what warrants writing- blacked, Asian, women heroes. Writers aren't creative anymore.

>>17499 That's pretty pessimistic. I've read a lot of manga that have wowed me & filled me with more emotion than any comic crossover event story.

>>17497 >He chose to save Harvey over Rachel He actually wanted to save Rachel, but the Joker tricked him by switching the addresses, but that isn't relevant to the overall discussion, just wanted to point it out. >and he put all his efforts in saving the child instead of Harvey That wasn't even a moral choice, what hero wouldn't save an innocent child from a madman waving his gun at him? That's heroic 101. He could have incapacitated Harvey, without killing him and saving the boy at the same time. >Joker wanted Batman to break his one rule and in a way he was successful as the Batman purposely failed to save Harvey. The Joker failed, because A, he didn't kill the Joker, and got called "truly incorruptible" as a result, and B, he took the fall for Harvey's murders, in order for the city to function properly, as exposing Harvey's crimes would have meant that the Joker won.

>>17498 >Being thematic doesn't make it any less stupid. Blame the director. >>17501 He knew Joker switched the address, why would he believe Joker in the first place? >That wasn't even a moral choice For that instant it wasn't but as a whole with Harvey portrayed as Gotham's white knight, losing him would harm the hope of the city. >The Joker failed Never said he won, I said "in a way". >he didn't kill the Joker, and got called "truly incorruptible" as a result But according to your own logic he did kill Harvey thus breaking his rule. >he took the fall for Harvey's murders, in order for the city to function properly While being blamed for Harvey's death and later he disappeared for 8 years. Joker took out Harvey Dent, corrupted him and forced the city to chase Batman forcing him into hiding.

>>17502 >Blame the director. I do. Nolan clearly did not want to make any sort of Batman movie. Definitely didn't want to make 3 of them. He has no respect or love for the ideas.

>>17503 Or you just have a homoerotic hatred for the man due to your immense amount of autism.

>>17504 Okay.

>>17502 >He knew Joker switched the address, why would he believe Joker in the first place? I re-watched the scene, there is nothing to indicate that he knew about the trick, though I believe he wanted to save Rachel, since he was in love with her, and Harvey doesn't have a vagina. He honestly thought she would choose him, over Harvey, and they could start a happy family together. >For that instant it wasn't but as a whole with Harvey portrayed as Gotham's white knight, losing him would harm the hope of the city. And how would letting Harvey kill some children, help protect the White Knight image? >But according to your own logic he did kill Harvey thus breaking his rule. I guess you got me here, though I will say that the only reason Harvey got killed, was so the director could give Batman the "messiah" ending, by taking all of Harvey's sins and bearing them, thus becoming the Dark Knight I said the title of the movie. >Joker took out Harvey Dent, corrupted him and forced the city to chase Batman forcing him into hiding. What are you even talking about? In my head cannon, once Joker heard that "Batman killed those cops as well as Harvey", he didn't believe it, thought it was one big cover up, but since Batman was now out of the picture, he had no more will to cause chaos in Gotham, plus he was in an actual maximum security prison.

>>17506 >In my head cannon How did a faggot from tumblr get here?

>>17507 Tell me what happened to Joker between the second and the third movie, as well as during Bane's dominion of the city, and it has to be canon.

>>17508 >Joker between the second and the third movie His actor died and they had to rework everything. > it has to be canon. No Anon, you're just a faggot that should go back to whatever hellhole you came from.

>>17508 No, because your personal feelings don't matter.

>>17509 >His actor died and they had to rework everything. We all know the actor died, but the character didn't, unless you are going to tell me that the character died as well, in which case that would be your headcanon, and by your own words, should go back to Tumblr >No Anon, you're just a faggot that should go back to whatever hellhole you came from. How about you actually answer the question, instead of being a faggot. Are you telling me, that I can not speculate what a fictional character might have done, considering all that had happened up until that point, if there is no official word from the writer/director? Do you think Tumblr invented the concept, of imagining how a story that had ended might have continued? >>17510 Well, if his problem was that I speculated, then it means he has some information that I don't have, and I am curios to know what the director or writer's words are on it.

>>17511 >but the character didn't, They didn't want to recast joker so they just left him out. They brought back scarecrow in person for all three films because the actor was still alive, its not a retarded headcanon the director and the production knew they can't top the joker's performance so they just didn't bother and left him out. >that I can not speculate what a fictional character might have done >Do you think Tumblr invented the concept, Of course not, but you sound an awfully like one of those faggots.

>>17512 >they can't top the joker's performance I'll never understand people acting like mumbling, slurring, & lip smacking Joker is some great performance. There's only one great Joker & it's always Mark Hamill's animated Joker. https://yewtu.be/watch?v=Etst4t3ES8Y

>>17512 Heath ledgers joker was fucking terrible

>>17491 >I don't necessarily mean lame in terms of concept, but rather execution. I read few other golden age comics here and there and they were by mils ahead better. Heck, I read some random comic from the same anthology that wasn't even capeshit and it was still better quality and more enjoyable. The main selling point of the original Batman was its edginess, I guess, but the thing is golden age comics didn't lack in edge so I still don't see how this below mediocre level comic became so popular?! The original comics were written so that anyone could mentally digest them. You have to understand this comic was from the era when spanking was funny and the preferred method of scolding, everyone minded they're manners, and superheroes dished out a good whopping on nefarious ne'er-do-wells, especially if they harmed kids. Incorporating all of that into a comic; with dashes violence and pro-troop/America messages, really sold it. >I was more focused on weaponry, armory and skills. Other than his guns, he uses knives, spears, his Tarzan-like strength, and his skull engraved ring. >I wonder how many kids actually relate to Robin (there isn't a lot of merch for Robin), as far as kid friendly superheroes goes Captain Marvel/ Shazam is probably the best. In the early 1940s comics, they were clearly trying to get him over to kids with their "Hey, look! Robin can fight baddies too! type of pushing. >Was it really common in the comics, especially the regular guns? Batman used a gun to kill vampires in a golden age comic and also evil spies at one point.

Fuck's sake. >>17515 I think when you compare it to I'M AN IDEA it looks retroactively better than it actually was. plus no one wants to talk shit about a dead man who was in some nice stuff like A Knight's Tale

>>17659 Anon thats a fake trailer.

>>17661 Where the fuck did I get it from? I can't even find it in my history. Am I going senile or something I could have sworn it was the official WB channel.

>>17659 > nice stuff like A Knight's Tale Wasn't the love interest non-white and a women blacksmith?