As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Batman killed?
ptlsbntr
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Alright to start yes I realize this is a couple years old but I've yet to have this actual argument/discussion with anyone so here goes.
I just finished watching The Dark Knight again (I've seen this movie far too many times to count) and I still think that Batman killed Harvey Dent/Two Face when pushed him off the ledge of the building. My reasoning, one, if Harvey isn't dead in the rest of that scene he's in a very deep coma, two, and this negates the coma theory, Gordon's giving Dent's eulogy at the end of the movie. Really I think point two seals it, Harvey's dead and Batman killed him.
Believe me I know Batman doesn't traditionally kill people and that it would mean the Joker won but come on in this movie that's exactly what happened. The Joker won and Gordon and Batman lie about it. Now if it turns out that in the next movie or some movie related short, comic whatever comes/is out that says Dent's actually in Arkham then ok I'm wrong but right now I don't see how I could be.
I just finished watching The Dark Knight again (I've seen this movie far too many times to count) and I still think that Batman killed Harvey Dent/Two Face when pushed him off the ledge of the building. My reasoning, one, if Harvey isn't dead in the rest of that scene he's in a very deep coma, two, and this negates the coma theory, Gordon's giving Dent's eulogy at the end of the movie. Really I think point two seals it, Harvey's dead and Batman killed him.
Believe me I know Batman doesn't traditionally kill people and that it would mean the Joker won but come on in this movie that's exactly what happened. The Joker won and Gordon and Batman lie about it. Now if it turns out that in the next movie or some movie related short, comic whatever comes/is out that says Dent's actually in Arkham then ok I'm wrong but right now I don't see how I could be.
ptlsbntr on
0
Posts
That or Harvey Dent is indeed dead, but Two-Face lives. Dun, dun, duuuuuuuun.
*Then again, isn't everything a part of Batman's plan?
Harvey was seduced by the Joker. He ceased to be Harvey Dent and became Two-Face. When that happened, the good man who was Gotham's white knight was destroyed. Two-Face betrayed and murdered Harvey Dent... from a certain point of view.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
*flies away*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ULSvR6hhyI
The characters in that series of movies were grimdark as hell (It was a Tim Burton film, after all.), though. And the first two were really good. The second one (Which is where that video came from.) is probably the darkest Batman movie ever to exist, and it's also the best.
Then some executives fucked it up with the last two movies by changing over directors from the first two. Apparently Batman can't be dark. So they made it be all kid friendly instead. Which is what killed the Batman franchise until it got a realistic reboot.
Also! We don't see him die. I bet that hole was set up to let the fat man escape in time. I mean, come on. It's Batman.
I only watched the movie once, when it first came out, and this is how I went with it.
I seem to remember a conversation about Harvey being dead right before the death scene. It just seemed like "yeah, Harvey is dead. let's let two-face do his thing and bury Dent to give closure to whatever loved ones he has around."
What about in the first movie when he remote drives the Batmobile into the Ajax Chemicals building and detonates a bomb ... a bomb he was keeping in the ... tire? O_o
Anyways, whole buncha goons surely died in the explosion.
Hey. They're called mooks for a reason.
And I never said the first two Burton style movies were light on the death scenes. They were both pretty dark, but they also oozed style in a way the new movies don't, as a result. The second one more-so then the first.
I mean, look what the Joker did with the laughing gas/poison to Gotham in the first film he directed. Some of his actions make the Scarecrow in the rebooted movie series look like a kitten by comparison.
Darker, yet cartoony.
Like Looney Tune cartoons where they cut eachother in half for our entertainment. Yeah, dark as fuck, but no body really gets hurt.
Yes, Batman killed Dent (accidentally, in the process of saving a child's life). Shit happens.
From the script:
pretty much
superman is the one who unequivocally will not kill (though there have been exceptions to this as well)
batman's thing is he will never use a gun, he doesnt go around killing people, but i dont think he has qualms if people die in the process of his crimefighting
I'm pretty sure Batman does have qualms if people die in the process of his crimefighting. His parents died, so he obviously feels like other people should not die.
Superman generally won't kill but like you said, there's exceptions. The biggest one being that he was ultimately forced to kill Zod. Though that was a while back and might not be in continuity anymore.
That's a matter of opinion, really.
The third and fourth movies weren't directed by Burton.
They kicked him out of control of the project, and he was coming under attack at the end of the second movie, from parents that felt that the second movie wasn't "kid friendly" enough.
The movies got cartoony fast after that. And the last one, with Arnold's puns and Ivy, was just a trainwreck of awfulness. The Bat Nipples scene haunts me to this day.
The second movie, which is directed by Burton, is pretty much the penultimate Batman experience if you like the concept of Gotham and Batman.
It depicts Gotham at it's worst, and it's characters at their best, respectively. It always seemed to me to nail that effect of what would happen if you put larger then life characters in a relatively grounded setting.
It is also dark as all hell. I seriously can't re-state that enough.
It has child abuse (The Penguin's parents are almost as bad as he is.) and that fucking Catwoman origin scene/s. Which starts out as high octane nightmare fuel. To give you some concept of it, it starts out with cats eating her corpse after she gets murdered by being pushed off the top of a very tall building. It somehow gets worse from there after her "resurrection", leading to a full blown psychotic meltdown on the part of the character.
Pretty much every scene with the Penguin himself in it past the midpoint of the film crosses the line twice and then some, too.
That's not getting into the thugs, or some of the antics the characters get up too when interacting with themselves.
It has some great interactions, though. Like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWFerfgiCTs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcQPsklmsnY&feature=related
But to get back on topic, my understanding is that Batman is a little cracked himself. If someone dies as a result of him following his rules, he may feel a bit broken up about it. But he won't change his behavior.
Which makes the scene at the end of the first rebooted movie kind of a wall banger, since I can't recall the Batman actually refusing to save someone when he could turn them over to the authorities after everything was all said and done.
which im ok with.
I don't deny that it had some issues.
But you can't tell me that Batman hauling ass in what's essentially a tank down a high-way, totaling every cop car that comes after him, doing god knows how much money in terms of property damage, and most likely killing dozens of cops, is true to the spirit of the comics.
I mean, it's certainly a cool scene. But I sure as shit don't recall the actual character the reboot is based on ever considering doing something so batshit crazy and irresponsible.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Out of the two Nolan films vs the two Burton films, I'd say the one scene you cite above compared to all of the out-of-character scenes in Burton's films still makes Nolan's come out the victor.
Oh hey, this ancient 18th century building can easily support a 7 ton vehicle.
As to the whole killing thing, I just look at it as certain directors tell certain stories, no different than DC's many different universes where the same character might act in different ways. The character cannot not be constrained by one set of movies or the comic book continuity from which it was first derived because it limits the flavor a certain artistic director may want to put into his movie. Best just to count the Burton movies as a stand alone experience while Nolan's films adhere more to the comic book continuity that we are familiar with.
I also think Casual Hardcore hit the core issue on the head that Nolan's Batman can't prevent the deaths in the case of "shit happening", but he's not going to needlessly execute criminals like Rais Al'Ghul wanted him to in Batman: Begins. In the case of Harvey Dent I think Batman had to choose who he was going to save, Dent or Gordon's son, and by that time Dent was too far gone for Batman to save mentally much less physically. He could only catch one and Batman chose the innocent.
I can only recall like one out of character scene in the two Burton films when it came to character deaths, though. That being the previously mentioned "bomb on a fat guy" scene, which makes Batman look a bit sociopathic, what with the smile and all. The actual death is done off-screen, if it occurs (And to be fair, it most likely did.), though.
I do recall the Batman in Burton's films at least trying to save some of the villains before they got fried. He sure as shit didn't go out of his way to murder Schreck, for instance. The entire reason why Batman is present at the end of the film is that he was trying to save the guy, along with the city, despite what an utter piece of shit he was.
The Penguin, similarly, got taken out by his own half-assed, insane plan going awry.
When he was firing the Batplanes guns at the Joker, I do recall the continued existence of an entire cities population being on the line, which was probably a bit of a game-changer.
Perhaps i'm missing more from the first movie, though. I've seen the second one plenty of times, but it's been quite a few years since I was able to track down the first Burton film.
But I think it ultimately comes down to a matter of preference. Some folks like the Nolan-verse movies for how "grounded" they are. Others like the Burton films for being a bit more over the top and comic bookish in nature.
Boom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6hZ4f34II
It's nuts.
I really don't know what to say, then.
Both film series messed with the concept of "Batman", as a whole.
The Burton films mesh alot of the comic book concepts of Batman together. The Joker was merged with Joe Chill, to create dramatic tension (And give the rather untested Batman a reason to go lax on the no killing rule.), for instance, and the first film has the Joker at his most omnicidal.
I always felt that the Nolan films kind of threw out the entire concept of Batman as a traditional DC Comics super hero. Alot of his gear got played down to be more realistic, and the villains are definitely less of a threat to the continued existence of the city, as a result of the whole realistic bent.
I don't think the Nolan-verse films are bad, by any means. They're quite clearly excellent pieces of cinema. I just prefer the version that leans more toward's the over the top comic book angle, since that's what I grew up with.
It also helps that Tim Burton seems to be good at portraying people at their absolute looniest, which helps sell the setting the two films try to create.
Edit: That video up above has him trying to trick/bait the Joker. I don't think it actually counts as crazy if you're faking it to fool someone who has you at gunpoint.
He did make the Joker flinch, though. Which is funny all-in-of-itself.
Indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0UJaprpxrk
head trauma is much more deadly than you think it is
Each artist that is given an opportunity to write the character will inevitably put their own spin on it. No one can pretend that their interpretation is definitive.
On TDK: Nolan and Eckhart have apparently stated that Two-Face is indeed dead. We don't know if they're telling the truth or not, but I'm not sure that matters. I think the intent of TDK was to make Batman realize his rule might have to be broken. Taking Two-Face over that ledge was a gamble- he might live, he might not- but that point is that Batman was prepared to roll the dice. This is Nolan's take on the character, which fits with his style. Whether some interpretations are more or less "Batman" is one debate, and whether or not they're good films is another.
Personally, I hope Two-Face's death is worked around and he returns, either in the body of the third film or as a cliffhanger at the end. There is still life in the character. That said, I won't lament it if he stays dead...at this point, I have a lot of faith that they will make something I enjoy in TDKR.
Its certainly more true to the comics than Burton's mess.
I'm sorry, but Batman Returns is the best Batman movie?
Good god. Do you actually read the comics? Because when you keep saying things like the Burton films played up "comic book qualities" it just sounds like you don't actually follow the titles, and your perception of the Batman comics is giant floating duck boats and awful dialog. Its two steps removed from Schumacher shouting through a bullhorn "Remember people, these are comics! PLAY IT UP!"
That always struck me as retarded.
The duck boat was featured in the silver age and the 80/90's Batman animation that everyone loved and received so many awards. So I don't know where the hell you got that complaint from. I can hardly defend my position if that's the only specific complaint you're going to mention, either.
Not that my position needs defending. People have different tastes. That's perfectly fine, if you ask me.
As for Schumacher. Here's a brief history lesson as to why the original set of films crashed and burned:
Schumacher only came into the picture in the third and fourth movies. Burton was effectively side-lined by some executives toward's the end of the second movie's development. By the time the third movie rolled around he was a producer in name only, and apparently had very little influence, if any at all, on the project.
By the time the fourth one was put into production, he wasn't even brought on board for the project. Which is a good thing, because the fourth movie was a horrible mess that essentially killed the franchise until the Nolan reboot came along. It also was so bad that it damaged a few careers of the staff and actors that were associated with it.
It's an interesting case of executive meddling, because Schumacher claims he essentially got side-lined and forced to do what the executives that were funding the project wanted to do.
Schumacher has gone on record as saying that his original pitch was essentially a live action recreation of Year One.
But the execs wanted something that would more appeal to kids, rather then potentially terrify and traumautize them, so the last two movies went more corny "Adam West's Silver Age", rather then "The Nightmare Before Christmas meets Batman" that the Burton films seemed to be, aesthetically speaking.
Pretty much this. Its Adam West, if he liked killing hobo's.