Anyone else notice how often Keaton’s Batman kills? I’m not complaining but it looks like the Burton Batman does not have the no kill rule.
6 Likes
Mostly it’s done with a sense of humor, though, which makes it less annoying to me because it doesn’t feel like pandering.
1 Like
Keaton has the latent chaos eyes. Anything could happen with his Batman.
4 Likes
Yeah, he kills. That’s always bothered me.
1 Like
Yea, the Batman ‘89 film did good on a lot of things, but surprisingly totally missed the mark with Batman. It feels like Burton didn’t know anything about the character beside the fact that he’s a guy who dresses like a bat and fights crime.
2 Likes
The actor?
2 Likes
I’ve always thought most of the supposed kills of K-Bats were easily explained as non-kills.
For all we know, the big guy in Batman Returns ripped the bomb off and chucked it just before it exploded.
2 Likes
I don’t know anyone that denies Keaton’s Batman kills (which I tend to think of more a convention of the film industry), but I think what separates it from certain other film iterations of the character, is the overall tone, much like what biff_pow said, and the manner in which its presented. Most of the deaths happen off screen and are safely assumed, instead of shown right in front of your eyes. That, and the fact that it was made at time when the environment for comic book movies was nowhere near as prolific as it is now, may have contributed as to why it was more accepted.
2 Likes
@Vroom and the Joker? Or the guy he throws off the roof after knocking him against the bell? Are we to assume he landed safely?
2 Likes
@Jwc23 The operative word in my post being “most”. There clearly were some exceptions.
I don’t think Batman meant to kill Joker, he just didn’t want him to get away.
As Bstman was clinging for dear life, I highly doubt he was thinking “I bet Joker will fall to his death if I secure him to one of these gargoyles, which clearly look like they’d break off if the weight of a human being was applied to one of them.”
Joker’s fall was an unintended consequence of Batman’s effort to see that he didn’t get away.
Batman throwing the goon down after banging his head into the church bell clearly was intentional. I’ll give you that one.
5 Likes
The bell tower kills, I think (in addition to being silly in tone) it was kind of them-or-me at that point. He’s exhausted and injured. They weren’t sadistic.
Burton has a no comic book rule
When he blew up the chemical plant, I think it is safe to assume there were at least a few deaths.
1 Like
The only “kill” we know of is the joker at the end. And does ANYBODY think the joker is really dead? He’s did 4,673,942 times and come back.
How big was the bell tower 15-20 stories? People have fallen from those heights before and lived. Might have been in a full body cast for quiet a while.
All those thugs, there is no evidence to prove they’re dead. Humans in comics are sturdier than humans in our reality.
But in the movie Batman clearly intends to kill the Joker. Even if the Joker didn’t really die, Batman was willing to and actively tried to kill him.
1 Like
No one cared at this point on Batman killing. The rule didnt come into affect until after Batman Returns primarily to be more kid friendly in toy sales and cartoons. In the comics at the time he killed a mobster in a junk yard, KGBeast, he knocked off a villain off the Gotham dam, clearly attempted to kill Joker (in fact his actions killed all of Jokers thugs in the get away copter). He also held a gun up to the face of Joe Chill and fully intended to pull the trigger until Reaper stole his kill.
The early 90s saw a big push against violence most notably the TMNT never once use their weapons in the movie sequels.
1 Like
The no kill rule was in effect for a long time. After rewatching 89 on Sunday, there is no direct evidence of Batman killing. If the Joker has let go of the ladder, he would have lived. So in a sense I don’t think that was even a kill. The Joker has the option to let go of the ladder and if having done so, there is nothing to say that the gargoyle would have broken.
Same thing with the chemical plant. The explosives go off in series, so it’s conceivable the goons could escape. In a factory like that there a plenty of emergency exit doors.
@shanty
Yes, those happened, but you’re crazy if you think Batman fans,” didn’t care. They definitely cared and were very vocal about it, to the point where multiple of those were retconned later or erased from existence with the next Crisis.
This is the film that pulled me into comics. I watched it a few months ago and I still love the movie. As far as “Batman dose not kill” or “the no kill rule.” That is something DC fans made up after B v S came out. Batman tries not to kill but if some hench men or a main villain die during a bat attack then obviously they shouldn’t have been breaking the law. No big deal. That is Batmans code. Batman has killed in almost every Batman movie but the only time killing was wrong was in B v S.
That’s because batman doesn’t murder. Have people died. Probably. But he doesn’t go out with the intention to kill that’s the difference. Now, if you recognize BvS as an elseworlds tale then fine but don’t say that’s how batman is. Kill and murder are usually used interchangeably, hence the saying batman does not kill. That’s who he is
1 Like