Funny I remember in one comic, a disillusioned cop dressed up as Batman and masqueraded as him one night, when he saw the Joker he shot the Joker point blank multiple times. Yet despite being shot again and again dozens of times the laughing prince of crime survived.
@trollmaster4523 I read that comic, and Batman got really livid for that cop impersonating him and got in real trouble with the public and the police for it. Some didn't want to trust him anymore.
@@trollmaster4523 Bruh. Also I can totally see the Joker being on so much stuff some dinky little bullets wouldnt put him down. You would probably need a Crowbar and a good 5 minute scene... and a chainsaw. 😂
Punisher HIMSELF doesn't consider himself a role model. When some cops call him their "hero" he tells them to try imitating Captain America instead! Punisher KNOWS he's broken, but his holy crusade against organized crime is all he has left.
Outside is anybody who mix what he does will have a conversation with him and by conversation i'm mean a shoot out. It It honestly makes all the interactions with daredevils seem Either completely out of character.Because frank wouldn't care that much to create something so elaborate Or be he's just screwing with Matt, (he like doing that with Matt and Peter) And surprise the gun's empty. "WHY????!" " Slow night, wasn't anything good on TV or bad on the streets" " When I get out of here, I'm gonna ..." " kill me; the fact that I tied you up and forced you to pull a trigger implies that you can't ... Get out of the binds I mean, bye" "GO F*CK YOURSELF FRANK" "did already twice, Like I said it was a slow night"
I remember one punisher comic that escapes me now but it had some cop or soldier or something fronting the punisher and asking if he thought he was a hero or something Punisher saying he's no hero, he's just a villain for the villains or something to that effect
Punisher is a fool as captain America inspires no fear and state enforcers like cops have to inspire fear to some degree otherwise criminals just laugh at them
It's because Batman never gets proven right, the writers typically make it so we must have FAITH in his morals, in his principles. Instead, what they should do is PROVE HIM RIGHT, redeem the Joker once and for all, cure all the crazies at Arkham, make Gotham at least slightly better thanks to him. We need to see that his way WORKS, consistently
That’s because it’s not right, Batman’s no kill rule is a character flaw. It’s not supposed to work because it’s not true. Plus Batman doesn’t keep the joker alive out of the belief he can be redeemed it’s simply because Batman just can’t bring himself to kill because of his childhood trauma
The best part is we have that. Harley Quinn. Joker actually became a family man and is a genuinely good dad. He became a better person, even after regaining his memories. Showing he wasn't beyond saving.
Because it doesn't work and won't ever work Harley Quinn was a successful psychologist with a PHD , she wanted the life joker offered,a life of crime and freedom. You expect me to believe someone that smart would be manipulated by a crazy, smelly insane 🤡 ,she wanted an insane life. It's a Choice for her(but in today climate women can't be bad guys anymore only men have that right) Bane just wants to fight , he wants the freedom to do anything he wants including ducking up Batman Riddler is just a narcissistic psychopath Professor pig and Scarecrow are also psychopaths doing what they want Poison ivy isn't even human anymore and doesn't see the value of human life the same way we don't even see tree's as living beings Pinguin is a Crime boss same with black mask Rhei shal guel Is a megalomaniacal psychopath who's live so long he's lost his mind , he'd kill millions to serve a stupid goal that leads nowhere and not bother caring Killer croc is a sad case but at this point he's just an animal Joker Is a rabid and diseased dog that needs to be put down but its owners keep saying he'll get better , he's a mongrel with rabbies that live past its seven days and now it's everyones problem Batman's way doesn't work Gotham is a s#1t hole because the elite of Gotham are all corrupt and almost half of them are Criminal bosses and work with mafia familias . And let's not forget the Norma gangs in the streets Maybe the average mugger, thief or bank robber doesn't deserve to get got because let's be honest if most of us lived in Gotham half would do shady stuff to to survive Most of Batman's Rogues gallery are proven mass serial killer's making his decision not to kill them stupid
@gyr0zeppeliii507 also the "No-Killing" rule is a self-limitor: a safety measure so he doesn't end up worse than the people he's fighting. The moment Batman officially kills the Joker, then it basically becomes "I already killed The Joker, so why not Two-Face? Or Bane? Or The Penguin? Or Scarecrow?".
I feel like the reason Batman gets the heat for the no-kill rule is because of the fact he actually gets criticised for it in-universe by people like Jason Todd, unlike other non-killing superheroes like Spider-Man or Superman, who never really get flak for it in-universe.
@@mcfly3374 There's no need to bring up Injustice when we're talking about the main-line Superman and you're right, Spider-Man is willing but he's generally a non-killer.
@@neilstone3656no, any example of either killing is either nonsense on the writers part or it never actually happened and you’re spreading misinformation. Neither would kill “if necessary” they would never find an excuse for it to be necessary
Yeah when the writers want to fixate on it ... yeah uts a problem. You, he can't kill, his villains are too popular; they make up half the roster in any dc project for a reason.
@@ii-mp1sp Nolan’s Batman had a no kill rule. If youre gonna say Nolan had zero understandinng of Batman just because of Ra’s death then youre reaching. There was a lot of Nolan content proving he knew the character.
@@TheRealHerbaSchmurbaI love Nolan but his Batman literally killed multiple league of shadow members setting ablaze their home right after preaching about not being an executioner, oh and how about when he pushed Harvey dent to his death ? Or when he continously shot into the van talia was in causing her to crash before dying ?
Batman's rogues' gallery contains supervillains. Gotham's jails, prisons, and Arkham Asylum are made for physically ordinary offenders, not super-geniuses who could turn floor lamps into death rays! Killer Croc, Bane, and Clayface have super strength, so they can snap handcuffs, bend bars, and punch through stone walls. Poison Ivy has mind-control and plant-control technology, so she could easily brainwash the guards into releasing her, or she could sic her plant monsters made of the lawns, trees, and bushes around the prison on the guards. Clayface can also shapeshift, and walk out the front door, in the form of a guard, or the warden!
@@darlalathan6143 since it seems you don’t know this because of your post, Gotham’s justice system executed the Joker once. A “Supervillain”, but he came back to life or faked it(can’t remember atm), and couldn’t be executed again due to double jeopardy. My point stands. Supervillain or criminal doesn’t matter. The real failure is their justice system
Lets be honest. Batman might not want to kill his Supervillains. But realistically as Bruce Wayne he'd be using his immense wealth to lobby the state to reinstate the death penalty.
Here’s the issue: Batman isn’t. A cop he isn’t a authority he’s a vigilante: if he beleaves the gov will do it’s job to enforce the law, why be Batman???
I think the big reason why the Batman no-kill catches so much shit has a lot to do with the writers. They have no idea of how to make his villains interesting without them killing people, apparently forgetting that Batman is a detective and you can pretty much do anything under that umbrella. Have him deal with a villain that deals in blackmail, or a thief, or anything but a damn serial killer.
Also his villains are meant to be the Mafia with a punny gimmick...not your average supervillain. They can even do some really interesting shenanigans if they want to prove that good, bad and gray come in all shapes and sizes, since "the hammers of justice are unisex!" "(Batman's) an equal opportunity crime fighter" A Poison Ivy vs Catwoman feud story can really get things going. I mean you could even have it set up to the following plot just to show how messed up Gotham is. Pam and Selina both are shown to be sympathetic to Gotham's orphans in Alleytown known as "Alleytown Strays", but Pam is still a villain even if she does care for the kids and wants to use her plants for world domination as 🎵"she just can't wait to be Queen" 🎵 and uses her kids for minions interestingly named Louie Lilac, Foxglove and Black Orchid. Selina clearly thinking more along the lines of Bruce treats her "three little kittens" (named Hatshepsut "Hattie", Tutunkhamen "Tut" and Cleopatra "Cleo") a bit similar to Bruce's bird in the hand...to contrast Ivy's flower children that she's more villainous toward, both groups accept this life at first helping their respective mommies with their "shopping list" and a meeting where they clash over it occurrs until Bruce and Tim get involved. Bruce tries to talk sense into the Alleytown strays...but he's enthralled by Ivy and it's not like the strays wanted to listen, so Tim asks Selina what's up with all this, and Selina doesn't really want to spoil Bruce's fun even winking to her kittens about them having a little birdie brother to mess with so she and her kittens go home, so she leaves a yarn of rhymes for them to follow to Ivy. Batman and Robin deduce the plot of how this is going and manage to stop Ivy from going too far with Selina and her kittens help before they vanish. The flower kids are then given a choice set...either enter the system and get adopted eventually, go back to Alleytown or suffer with their new mother. Black Orchid and Foxglove decide to enter the system and eventually Black Orchid begins a heroic career starting out as a Teen Titan. Foxglove gets a new life elsewhere...Louie Lilac remains with Ivy...because he enjoys being the bad guy...which makes Ivy very happy...at no point do Batman and Robin have to kill and each time it's demanded Catwoman says "nobody ever tells my flying mouse to kill, not even me, flying mice never kill", he just has to convince some confused people as well as Ivy that it's one thing to try to manipulate them...but to try and manipulate the Alleytown strays? That's going too far...proceeds to an epic fight requiring Bat-weedkiller. There's even some fun clever Bat-humor here.
You know, it's comments like these that make me feel bad for Bruce. He trained his whole life to be able to fight against all sorts of criminals and gangs, only to ends up fighting supervillains who can do things no ordinary criminal is capable of *constantly.* It's no wonder Gotham is such a shithole despite his efforts both in and outside the mask, yet he still tries anyway and I admire him for that.
@NguyenHuuTrung_ Yeah, he probably thought when he first got started that he would just be lightening the load for the GCPD by taking down gangs run by men like Falcone, but then he has things like shapeshifting mud monster, plant controlling lady, and giant bat monster to deal with.
The issue mainly stems from how authors tackle WHY he doesn't kill. They often paint it as a slippery slope fallacy, saying that Batman wouldn't be able to stop himself from killing. And the reason why people hate this so much is because it's a terrible reason for Batman not to kill. Edit: People aren't really seeming to understand my point, however, I still stand by it. Batman doesn't have a no kill rule because of the slippery slope ideology, he has a no kill rule because at his core, he believes that nobody should ever have the power to take another person's life. He doesn't want to be a cog in the system that killed his parents. He sees the very act of killing, regardless of how "justified" as absolutely immoral. But what people don't understand is that this is a character flaw. A character flaw that isn't supposed to be seen as him being perfect, but rather, someone who encapsulates morality to a fault. Batman hates the Joker and wishes he was dead, but his sense of morality simply won't allow him to take part in or be complacent in the death of another human being. This is why he won't let characters like Red Hood or Superman kill the Joker because by doing so, he's an accomplice. Killing someone and allowing them to die are the same to him, the only exception being the death penalty Batman also respects the law. It isn't his fault that the people he chooses not to kill don't receive the death penalty and it shouldn't be the job of a vigilante to take the life of a criminal, regardless of his moral stance. Stop applying your views of morality onto Batman. "I would kill the Joker, so Batman should too." Good for you, you're not Batman. What I'm trying to say is that the slippery slope fallacy is a very lazy way to write/interpret Batman's no kill rule and I will always stand by that.
I think that makes perfect sense as a reason. Draw a line in the sand is hard when you make exceptions. You know the actual stupid thing about Batman and supermans no kill rule them teaming up with people like red hood and Lobo who kill all the time. You can make them team up and have it make sense like have Red hood save batman from being kidnaped and batman be anoyed that he has to work with him.
@@daraghokane4236 It's really not. Joker regularly commits horrid acts and has made it clear time and time again that he isn't going to change for the better. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's made it something of his life's mission to torment Bruce into breaking his No Kill Rule. No amount of jail time is going to stop him from hurting and killing others. I think that's a pretty clear line to not cross if he were to go about killing. When his potential victim has shown that there is virtually no good in them and that they're beyond redemption.
@daraghokane4236 the only problem with that line of thought is that a guy with the iron will discipline required to push his body to peak human physicality if not near super human levels of physicality, master every known form of hand to hand combat, an expert at sneaking around, escape artistry, nearly every, if not every field of science, plus who knows what all else. Is incapable of stopping himself from killing unless absolutely necessary is completely laughable
“I want Batman to finally cut loose, and kill all his enemies and use a gun!” You want The Punisher. That’s who you want. Stop wanting Batman be like The Punisher. Hell if anything, if still want a character who is still Batman adjacent, Azrael is who you want. Red Hood is who you want.
There’s a long Reddit post called “Why Batman refuses to kill - an exploration” on the many reasons why Batman doesn’t kill. I also needed to drop this quote: “That sudden murder taught Bruce to cherish and respect life as much as it taught him to hate criminals.” -Bill Finger
there are many speculations to why batman refuses to kill but from my perspective I think that batman doesn't kill to maintain his humanity and morals, to better explain it i am going to use the korean revenge film I saw the devil, good movie by the way, which takes a more realistic approach to a revenge story , as the main question isn't who are you trying to kill, or how are you trying trying to kill them but instead they are how far are you willing to kill that specific person and is it worth it, because during the film the protagonist didn't just break laws but also allowed innocents to get hurt which went against everything he believed in as a cop and at the end it resulted him in being in far more pain than he went through at the beginning of the movie, now let's also apply this to being a vigilante, what lines do you have to cross to kill that target, how much of humanity do you have to abandon, and how much ties with your morals are you willing to cut off,and is killing that target worth what you had to sacrifice. And I believe that at one time batman understood that.
The biggest problem with asking the question "why Batman doesn't kill" is that the reasons vary per adaptation or version. Sometimes it's Batman worrying that if he kills it will become easier. Another version it's because it's the goal of the Joker and Batman doesn't want Joker to win. There is no definitive answer to this because of the nature of comic reboots and retcons and adaptations. So, it's ultimately pointless to search for a definitive answer because there isn't one. You'd instead need to look at all of these version's reason for not killing and go from there.
@@thegreatacolyt1277 Doctors take a promise not to kill, Batman did the same, Its not stupid that is what makes him better then the joker and the Riddler they kill he doesn't.
The way Batman has been portrayed in recent years is a guy who’s willing to do anything so long as you survive in the end. I think back to Injustice where Damian says: “ you won’t kill, but you’ll leave them w permanent brain damage”. And I think a lot of people have developed a similar mindset. Batman is dark, and even does some questionable things, but he’s not a thug. That’s really been lost over time.
That's my perspective exactly Batman's method may not be lethal but they are brutal. He can beat a guy so hard that he'll never walk again or eat a meal that isn't through a straw but somehow this dosnt violate the rule. A lot of this is that writers have fallen in love with making Gotham darker and gritting than basically any city in DC comics so they had to make Batman more violent to compensate.
people have an issue with the no kill rule because writers have to keep moving the goalposts in terms of what his villains can do to make interesting stories. It was completely acceptable when the worst that Joker ever did was throw Jello at buildings and put whoopie cushions on the chairs of city officials on live tv; now he's straight up butchering schools of children. Of course audiences will have a problem with it, but thats on the fault of the writers, not the long-standing characters and stories
In the words of Jason Todd, talking about joker"I'm not asking you to kill every thug on the street, just him." Cassandra Cain is a good example of why batman doesn't kill. The clayface development before his death was actually depressing. In the words of Cassandra Cain, "I know I'm not good. But he tried to be..... Maybe they'll kill me too." She was raised as an assassin and became Batgirl. The solution would have been to cripple villain's if they keep breaking out of prison. How much of a threat do you think joker is if he's in a wheelchair with one arm?Pull a "steal enough times and I'm stealing your arm"
Exactly! Some villains are doing such horrible things that even if Batman doesn’t kill them then Gotham should at least give them the death penalty. Ofc not all his villains deserve death but some definitely do
There was a comic where the joker got his back broken Zur-En-Arrh did it if I remembered right. Also we see what happens with Batman "kills" it activates Failsafe and shit hits the fan
@@almessasorrow4950 Honestly, even if he did they'd probably be fine lol. Have you seen the KG Beast? Neck broken, bloodied, broken, starving, stuck in the icy mountains completely limp. Walked it off and came back arguably better than ever.
I love the way the writers on Daredevil wrote Catholicism as part of his character, not making it preachy but actually show the struggle of someone going through it…there is no black and white answer for a lot of evil in the world, but finding the strength to do good in a world full of darkness is what it means to be a hero. Also the rooftop moments between DD and Punisher were the best written scenes in the whole show, followed by a descending oner stairwell fight scene…this show cooked a whole Michelin star course meal in one episode!
I don't necessarily think that should always be the only way to do it. As long as the topic is taken seriously and he's not just taking killing lightly. It's less so a "rule where if you break it you have lost redemption" but rather "a mental wall to guide you from going down the wrong path." Just because he's killed someone doesn't necessarily mean he's no longer batman. Mistakes and compromises can be made. The Daredevil show handled this concept very well.
@@kman9884 No. The only results of what Snyder's talking about could possible be are a result of what he already believes and wants these characters to be. He's phrasing it like he isn't in ocmplete control of the situation and using it as an excuse to break what characters are and what they mean to people to fit his own agenda. That's it. No creativity whatsoever.
@@Goldnfoxx I know what would happen if Batman and superman kill or break there morals they would turn stop being heros and give themselves up in disgust. Hell the Punisher sent himself to jail in some comic runs after he killed a innocent person
I really hate the comic where batman saves the Joker from the death penalty. Not only because it saves him, but because it makes no sense that Gotam has the death penalty and the Joker is not killed just because he did not commit the crime he was accused of, as if he had not committed other much worse crimes.
@@SCP-049-k7p It actually does make sense. You need to guilty of the crime you are accused of to be be convicted and if you are not guilty of that crime, you can't punished for it. So they would have to bring new charges against the Joker which included those worse crimes most of which wouldn't get convictions due to the insanity defense.
@@emberfist8347 Well, that and the fact that Gotam is full of corruption, so I guess it makes sense that the Joker hasn't been killed for previous crimes.
Batman’s no-kill rule isn't a problem with his character. It's a problem with modern storytelling. No matter what Bats does with the Joker, the status quo has to remain true. That's what makes Invincible so refreshing, the stories are allowed to progress
@@twinodoom 50 years? what dc are U talkin ab lol. edit: ahh i see it started getting called dc comics in 1977. was confused bc batman has been around since the 1930s and stuff
I get the Idea but i also feel like it better to see what Writers can do with stories like Krokan Xmen then basically marking a whole section in red and saying "not canon" Also stuff like that is easier to make. It feels like "I hate Dark Souls cuz it sword abd board ganeplay"... like that most of the combat. Making skyrim gameplay look interesting. 😂
Also alot of people dont read comics and dont realize that batman have almost lost control a few times. Right after Jason died, batman LEGIT said screw the no-kill rule and was gonna end joker once and for all. He couldn't do it not because of morals but only because superman stopped him since killing joker would start WW3.
That's why I hate when people say Bruce is a bad dad, he was willing to do ANYTHING to make Joker pay for taking away his son. He wanted to do a better job raising Jason since his relationship with Dick was rocky(How Dick left to become Nightwing), he wanted to be a better father and mentor to help Jason avoid being resentful.
So here's the elephant in the room about the whole "Batman doesn't kill" debate that is always ignored. Why are the criminals never sentenced to death by jury or judges or lawyers? How about why not put the blame on those that are in charge of those choices in the first place?
Because 99% of them are insane. You can’t sentence someone to death if they are proven insane in a court of law which almost all of his villains are. Also Gotham doesn’t have a rule allowing you to re-attempt an execution if you fail the first time which is the backstory for a minor villain named Galvan who survived the electric chair and got electricity based powers from a botched suicide attempt.
@@emberfist8347So, yes, normally you cannot execute insane criminals because they did not know what they were doing when the crime occurred. That being said, not a single member of Batman's rogues are actually insane, just psychopaths. Even Joker isn't really insane, he's fully aware of what he's doing and even revels in it. He comes up with complicated schemes and other nonsense just so he can enjoy it. An actually insane person can't do that because they are unable to understand what is going on and what they are doing.
Also the thing with punisher is he doesn't want anyone to do what he does. When cops start using his symbol out on patrol as a way to show they support his methods, he confronts them and makes them stop because they should be a better example to the citizens
@@wingsoffreedom3589 no fank has always thought war is hell what I'm doing is bad but needed. Frank doesn't think he is a good person one it was petty revenge kill the people who killed his family not to make the city safer just for himself
@@wingsoffreedom3589 It's kind of wild how the ONE trait frank has that partially redeems him, being his acknowledgement of how wrong what he does is, is criticized like this. If you think punisher is in the right you're just dumb, there's not much else about it.
That's because many fascists and murderer cops and military torturers picked the Punisher symbol, and Marvel had to make damage control to show that they don't endorse trigger-happy cops or soldiers wanting to murder brown people.
Another one that i absolutely hate is when people say that Batman endangers children by having them fight crime as robin. And YET nobody is talking about kid flash, super boy, miles morales, etc… and than they will say “well those kids have powers” it doesn’t matter their still children at the end of the day plus if u really wanna go there than why don’t u criticize green arrow for having sidekicks like speedy ?
It’s even more frustrating because they act like anyone of those characters *ever* had their mentors specifically searching for a young child to take into crime fighting with them. Peter, Barry, Bruce, and Clark, all of them simply wanted to help their younger mentees/counterparts in any way they possibly could, the choice to specifically become a hero and help others is ALWAYS on the kids side. Often at times against the protestations OF the mentors (again, Spider-Man, Flash, Batman, and Superman). So the double standards that people have for Batman is especially annoying. Even more so when they just completely make up a lot of BS, or more accurately, twist everything to fit their incorrect perspective.
@@angle188 yeah exact this is why u can’t take people online seriously more than half the time because the bull shit they would use to fit their incorrect narrative is absolutely insane. Superman is boring because he’s a goody to shoes, he’s to powerful, he wins alot. Like bro every super hero outside of the anti heroes are goody to shoes. I don’t see u complaining about how powerful hulk and Thor are. Literally every one of ur favorite heroes win all the time
Facts. The “but they have powers” argument doesn’t work also because the robins basically get trained into being “superhuman”. How many eleven year olds you know that can take on dozens of grown men all with guns?
@@crimsoncross8823 not even dozens probably like 20 casually. Which is actually another thing that I hate is when people criticize Batman for showing strength well beyond a real life peak human. But than no one wants to complain about the feats daredevil, nightwing, green arrow, black widow, etc etc etc have pulled off.
The problem with the "no kill" rule (not just batman) is that it makes the heroes look not virtuous but self righteous, since comics basically have no continuity for the sake of sales and no outcome can ever be permanent (death is never permanent and it takes away the impact of a hero's sacrifice in a story line just to be resurrected eventually through some deus ex machina) the actions of heroes seem almost unimportant, their choices are irrelevant making heroes not forces of good but tools to maintain the status quo, which is why villains are more interesting since they have a purpose at least. The editorial choices of forsaking continuity for the sake of sales makes the villains look like they always walk with impunity for their actions, the hero is redundant since it doesn't matter if the villain goes to jail, the villain never has a reckoning in any way. This is specially egregious with super powered villains that only the hero can take on, at that point the law doesn't matter since it can't be enforced through regular means, only the hero can be judge, jury and executioner since no one else can do anything about the super villain. Movies do fix this issue because it grounds the superhero genre to reality by setting real stakes if the villain is not dealt with( in Man of Steel Zod HAD to die, he wasn't going to stop and no one could do anything about it until humanity was extinct)
Snyder is the kind to hear "The Virgin Mary" and say "No. She had trains ran on her left and right and God just happened to get in there. Jesus was a fluke and has to live with that.". A character has defined elements. Work with them or pick another character.
One thing I did like about Tim Burton's and Joel Schumacher's Batman is that when he killed the Joker in the 1st movie, in Returns he just sits alone in the study, thinking and waiting for the signal and sees the first sign of redemption in Selina, In Forever, He says to Grayson that killing won't solve anything it'll just make it worse. And in Batman and Robin (which sucks ass btw) Bruce gave Mr. Freeze a second chance in life. He killed people in the first movie but in the end he gave a person of trauma a second chance.
@@quantumvideoscz2052 Didn't resolve anything did it? In Batman Forever Bruce's Monologue just defines why Killing and most importantly, Vengeance doesn't solve anything it just makes an empty black hole. Sure he did kill Two-Face at the end and yeah that bugged me too. But like I said with Bat Nipples and Ass he didn't kill Freeze he wanted to save him. He wants to redeem him
A cop dressed up as Batman and shot the Joker multiple times.... Despite having as many bullets as Murphy in the start of Robocop Joker survived and just got more insane than ever.
I think people hate on the rule is because of what his villains do. Because really, if Joker was real he would’ve been skinned alive by the public if he tried to do anything vile or after he did one of his scheme. No morality code is going to stop the people from blasting the joker The villains are becoming less defensible and many see them that aren’t worth saving
I've always wondered why no cops have tried offing some of the villains in Gotham. Like if say the Joker, Two-Face, or Penguin are shooting at you, as an officer you're more than free to retaliate in self defense/qualified immunity.
It makes me mad watching Snyder doing that interview talking about Batman. He wanted to make Batman a horrible person. Oh he's a drunk, he kills people. He wanted a punisher. Batman and Superman, Spiderman too are good representations of what we should strive to be. But no Snyder and others don't want that. They want gritty heroes in with ugly personas
Snyder just doesn't know how to write. He thinks violence and edge in and of it self is ineresting and cool. It's the big reason why his adaptation of watchmen sucks ass. The violence was meant to disgust, shock and make us question things about these characters and their world. Snyder just turns it into pointless action flick slock.
See, I think it’d be different if we didn’t already have so many different versions of Batman. If Batman didn’t kill in the comics, and Snyder’s version was the only one that existed outside of it, I could see it being more of an issue. But you have Conroy, Bale, the Arkham games, telltale, etc. so I didn’t mind Batfleck killing in the one movie, but I’m also not a comic book purist so maybe I don’t get it
@@thunderer5224 It’s not even Batman killing in and of itself. It’s Snyder’s laughably immature understanding of the character. Your first reaction to being told “X isn’t an option” is “I want to do x”? What are you, Snyder, four? As for adaptations, the average person only sees the movies, not the animated stuff or the games. That cuts depiction numbers by more than half.
@@ii-mp1sp Do you live under a rock? People were mad when Nolan had the “I won’t kill you but I won’t save you” line. The one real kill, Dent, also had something important: consequences. As for Burton’s version, it was not only the first adaptation since the 60’s, but it’s widely noted as being inaccurate in that regard.
“Guns are the weapons of cowards” The dark knight returns. Snyder supposed favorite Batman comic. Obviously Snyder read a cliff note version of the book. Zack, Batman brakes a rifle in the dam comic!
Snyder is great at recreating scenes from the comics, but he usually tends to miss or ignore the whole context of their stories. Sadly surface level references is what people consider as ''comic accurate'' nowadays
The only thimg Snyder took from TDKR is yje batarmor amd the odea of Batman and Superman fighting. A fight, I may add, Batman did not win. He had to fakr a heart attack to get out of it.
The thing that stuck out to me about Snyder's take was that he misunderstands why Batman even does what he does in the first place. He attributes severe coping mechanisms to his spin on the character, as if Batman doesn't live the extreme life he lives TO COPE WITH HIS TRAUMA.
@@kwayneboy1524 he can lose his ability to care, but his way of coping with the death of his parents is to put all of the responsibility of the lives of everyone around him on himself. The Joker killing Robin isn't enough to shake his resolve. He is quite actually insane when it comes to obeying his code.
@@kwayneboy1524 I don't think you get the character, your just putting yourself into the character. Batman vs Superman was terrible for every character, It would have been better in story if batman never Killed. That would make it make more sense why He said your not even a man before almost killings superman he is saying there I don't kill people i'll make an exception this time your not human, And when the Allen superman said save my mom Batman sees the humanity in the alien and goes O crap I almost killed a person. Batman would not star killing drug dealers and users because Joker killed Robin that makes no sense if anything he would just kill joker
@@cydude5856 I hate this idea of making kind characters edgy and cool, Nobody wants to make g rated Punisher who after killing the wrong target takes a vow to never kill again. Except that is actually a better story and less over done then evil superman. Can new unarmed Frank Castle talk the shooter down how long before he snaps and goes back to his old ways can he become a better person? To me that is more intresting then what if batman killed criminals, answer the punihser would have a bat on his chest instead of a skull
@daraghokane4236 Snyder approaches the flip of Batman as if no one has ever thought of it before, but the truth is that people definitely have. The result is just a lot less interesting than Batman vanilla. Thomas Wayne, a Batman that kills and remains interesting, isn't interesting because he kills. He's interesting because he's Thomas Wayne, and that flips the entire script of Batman's character.
I think the biggest reason people hate on the No-Kill Rule is because of how modern writers depict most of Batman's villains as unrelenting mass murderers. The problem isn't Batman or his rule, it's how his villains are potrayed. Ever since New 52, Joker has been presented as a mass-murdering psycho who leaves a sea of bodies in his wake, yet Batman doesn't do anything to stop him. Don't get me wrong, I admire Batman and him not killing, but it makes him look bad with the way his villains are written.
@@redninja3056 Except the system is corrupt and batman knows it so why hasn't he done anything about it. He fails at protecting Gotham because he's being wilfully ignorant of the fact that the law will not do the right thing, the law being imperfect is the reason he exists so his adamant nature of working with it is ultimately stupid and has proven to not be productive.
10:15 The peak of what Batman is supposed to be is shown in Justice League: Unlimited when he has the extremely emotional scene with Ace. Also, Batman realizes that if he starts to kill criminals, no one, not any of the Robins, or even Alfred, could bring him back from the monster he would become.
The exploration of this topic was very interesting in Chip Zdarsky's Daredevil 2019 run (he also writes Batman now). Daredevil accidentally kills a criminal by pushing him a little too hard, and the criminal was already sick but still robbing stores. With how much beating supes give to criminals, it is bound to happen to someone at some point.. And it goes pretty deep into the meaning of it all and just how important this rule is.
The argument of saying Batman's responsible for the lives taken by villains he doesn't kill always was stupid for me. Really? HE'S to blame? Not the people of Arkham or Black Gate who are grossly incompetent at keeping these criminals locked or curing them? Not the police who ARE legally allowed to kill these criminals in self-defense but don't? It's not like Batman's the only one who has opportunity to end their rampage. Plus that goes with the misconception that the no-kill rule is the only reason these villains are still alive. It's not! Do they have *any* idea how many times Joker was left for dead only to be back all dandy a few months or even days later? Even if somehow Batman did kill them outside of What if, they'd just resurrect. It's not Batman keeping them alive, it's the writers.
The law is responsible no one is saying they aren't but Batman keeps relying on them despite knowing their blatant and obvious faults he fuels prisons despite knowing the suicide squad program exist and how half of its roster is his villains. Batman shares responsibility as he wants to make Gotham better and breaks the law to enforce his code of ethics yet it doesn't really improve anything the moment he disappears the city practically reduces itself into rubble that is not the sign of a stable city especially when he had in universe 15 to 20 years to work on improving it. Batman contributes to joker being alive or resurrected on numerous occasions he uses the Lazarus pit to revive joker an one time when dick killed joker for "killing" Tim guess who saved jokers life it was Batman besides not keeping the clown properly under lock and key he consistently saves joker making him directly responsible for clown being able to continue his murder spree all it had to do is let the clown die from debris or falling but nope he just has to save the psychotic genocidal clown.
at some point i do hold Batman some what responsible. If Batman does not want to kill Joker himself. Fine but he shouldn't save him from certain death or stop some one who is willing to kill joker, a solution to the problem presents itself but Bruce still steps in and stop it from happening. only because its a solution he does not like. at what point does his code start to become a hinderence to his own goal?
I don't know if you know this but, joker from 1940 are not the same joker from present. Thus the rule of killing in itself are from a past time. I think people are frustrated, that the villain can do whatever they want but this one Hero can only capture them and see as the villain escape again from prison to do evil thing.
Okay, but him saving joker to the point of fighting the Punisher and Jason so Joker can escape is absolute bullshit. I don’t mind Spider-man’s no kill rule, because he does make exceptions for the worst of the worst. Meanwhile, Batman actively DEFENDS the worst of the worst and fights those that would bring them to Justice to protect them. Him fighting Jason for killing Penguin when Jason was trying to save Bizarro and Artemis was the most braindead thing ever and truly cemented my hatred for how a lot of writers write modern Batman.
Again with the double standards Spiderman once took a bullet to save green goblin, literally jumped in front of a bullet that was meant for goblin spidey saves his villains all time the time and so does superman for that matter
@@someguy-bv3il maybe, but once again Peter makes exceptions. He has also killed the Green Goblin before, more than once, and generally Peter has more of an excuse to protect his villains because the Spider-Man comics do a much better job of showcasing why he’d want to give them a second chance. The joker cannot be saved, and it’s been proven through his numerous heinous actions. Batman wanting to spare him makes no sense because there’s no reason for him to live. He cannot become better, he’s a maniac through and through. Spider-Man’s equivalent to Joker, Cletus, shares this idea of not being a good person, but Peter’s mercy towards Cletus is related when he ends up redeeming himself and sacrificing himself for the greater good, proving that in the end, Peter was right about him.
@@TheUnknownGruntProductions there are a lot of stories in which batman does kill the joker like a lot, and there are some stories in which joker gets rehabilitated so by that logic batman sparing the joker makes sense, also I don't agree that spiderman villains are "better people" than batman villains I will argue carnage is more evil than joker in fact there was a dc/marvel crossover comic in which joker and carnage met even joker was shocked at how evil and twisted carnage and speaking of evil villains superman has saved mongul from death fucking mongul who has canonically killed millions of people everyway i look at it just seems like doublestandards
@@someguy-bv3il On average, most of Pete’s villains are better people. Electro most of the time is a man who accidentally got mutated to have electric powers, Sandman is a down on his luck thief who also gets accidentally mutated to have sand powers via experiment and has been shown to have a pretty good moral compass as far as villains, go, even Rhino has sympathetic origins and moments. The stories you’re talking about where Bruce kills joker and joker becomes rehabilitated are mostly esleworlds, or just generally not in the main canon. I’m taking about 616 versus DC’s main Earths. And that Carnage and Joker comic is laughable considering Joker has done far worse things than Carnage.
Who let Reeves have control? Dude made Bruce a sniveling 20 year old emo kid, had some mid 20s black lady become mayor of Gotham following a mafia rule, smeared Thomas Wayne’s name because he’s rich, and then wrapped it all up by having Batman believe he needs to become… *Hope* ?? Superman’s theme? Dude had zero fucking idea what he was writing for
@@kman9884 I love it when people say “Batman isn’t hope that’s Superman’s thing!” Its just wrong lmao. More proof that no one actually read dark knight returns and got the point of it. He literally inspires hope in that story despite that being the Batman story where he acts hyper edgy and crazy
@@kman9884 batman is hope, what do you think the light on the sky for? Yes ,a warning to the criminals but also hope for the civilians can go home safely, and what time do you think you finish your job? yes at night... and with Batman, people can be saved, and able to reunite with their family, they HOPE for Batman to protect them, if that's not HOPE I don't know what is. And the emo stuff is basically Batman but naked, no cowl, no suit, that's him without Bruce Wayne persona.
I feel like it's less of a problem with the no-kill rule and how Batman enforces it on others. He won't let other vigilantes kill villains because their actions violate “his” code and “his” morals. This usually results in him saving people like the Joker. He doesn't have to kill villains but doesn't need to save them. Plus, other heroes with no-kill approaches, like Spiderman and Superman, can break their codes if the threat warrants it. The fact that Batman, in most cases, refuses to even in situations where it is required and then gets on his bat moral high ground to others despite his mistakes is more so what annoys people
Can you give me an example of spiderman or superman breaking their code? Superman once saved mongul fucking mongul who canononicly has killed millions and spiderman once took a bullet to save green goblin
@@someguy-bv3il Superman killed Doomsday or at least intended to kill him, he's also made it abundantly clear we would merk Joker (not counting Injustice) if he ever tried bombing Gotham. He's also killed Darkside and pre-52 he killed Zod too. Spider-Man while the main universe variant hasn’t intentionally killed to my knowledge he has deliberately allowed GG to impale himself on his own glider after he killed Gwen, was willing to kill Morlun, King Pin and Itsy Bitsy
@@AidanKerr I don't think doomsday counts since he was more like a mindless animal rather than an actual person, i suppose darkside counts but batman also has killed darkside in final crises, my point being that as an avid reader of all 3 it always felt to me that superman and spiderman are about as adamant about the whole "no one dies when I'm around" rule as much as batman is and it always confuses me some people say they are more "flexible" especially superman one of his most defining traits is that he wants to save as many lives as possible even if they are bad guys
@@someguy-bv3il Thats fair enough, wasn't trying to decredit what you were saying and you meme some good points, I had no clue about Batman killing Darkside though, so that was cool to learn. I just feel like from what I've seen from the 3 characters Sups and Spidy are more willing to cross that line than bats, for better and for worse.
That’s what makes Batman interesting imo compared to someone like spider man or Superman, Batman literally won’t kill no matter what, and he will actively try and save anyone no matter what they’ve done from dying. It shows you that Batman isn’t perfect, he’s flawed and illogical just like how someone who watched their parents die in front of them would be
"Batman and Spider-Man should kill. They're half-measures. Not like Punisher, Venom, and Red Hood who get stuff done." I can't help but smile over every fan of those types of characters, because every fan of them just proves Batman, Spider-Man, etc. right for not killing. Because if they did, characters like Punisher, Venom, and Red Hood wouldn't be breathing today.
An alien parasite that enjoys killing, a former Robin on a murder rampage, and a deranged adrenaline junkie hunting the most dangerous game for entertainment. What a shock that people don't want aspirational heroes to act like that.
I think people hate on Batman’s no kill rule specifically because he’s so adamant about it. Other superheroes have it, but they don’t really mention it.
spiderman literally told dare devil to give him his mask after he killed someone, Huntress was kicked off the justice league for killing, Captain America protested against wolverine joining the Avengers because his a killer, Superman literally took away Manchester Black's powers for being a killer, batman is not the only one adamant about the no kill rule
Not every member of the Justice League sticks by the no kill rule. Huntress, Eterigan, and Question are are willing to kill. Jason Todd, killing comes almost second nature to him.
An often overlooked reason Batman doesn’t kill: His father was a doctor. He dedicated himself to preserving life, Bruce using his parents’ death as a reason to enact lethal vengeance would spit on their memory.
8:25 That is exactly why I hate the scene in Suicide Squad (2016) where Batman ambushes Deadshot in an alley and beats him up in front of his daughter.
The biggest problem is that Batmans gallery of villains are mainly psychopaths. Where with Spider-Man, there is way more empathy with the villians. When psychopaths are alllowed to keep being psychopaths, its a little harder to stomach the no kill rule.
But Batman’s villains have chosen to have sympathetic situations and honestly murdering the mentally unstable acting on compulsion would only get him memed on harder I mean people already joke about rich dude beating up the clinically insane
his mission was to prevent crime and set an example for good, not remove psychopaths from society. hes trying to help people from turning themselves into what took his parents from him, not get revenge for it.
@@feelgoodfandom5353Joker is not insane. Insane people don’t go to jail because they have no idea what’s going on but joker is fully aware. He knows he’s evil
Thank you for saying this! It's not like Punisher will ever actually save "future lives" or end crime because crime is endless. Especially in universes with supervillains and evil gods.
By your logic, no heroes should even exist. You can put any superhero in that sentence and it would still be logically consistent. Meaning your point is irrelevant.
@@thesmithmemes373You're so confident too. Let's say life doesn't matter since we all die: should I do nothing? Should I kill people? There's a difference between doing nothing and killing people in search of a permanent solution to an eternal problem. Not to mention universes where the heroes kill as a form of passing judgement become exceedingly violent.
Captain America kills a lot of people and nobody complains about it. He’s even being considered as a “goody two shoes boyscout” hero like Superman. Batman doesn’t have to go to the extreme and become the Punisher if he started killing people. He could become like Cap. But if Batman should be about his “no kill rule”, then DC must stop making villains commit irredeemable crimes and have incarceration as a last resort to make this moral code make sense. Or else, there will always be this debate about Batman’s incompetence forever.
@@nont18411Cap has only ever killed in the heat of the moment. He's never intended to kill someone from the onset. He also doesn't kill "a lot" of people.
I'll be honest, i don't hate Batman's no kill rule. I just hate how he tries to save people like Joker when they are gonna die from their own actions. Arkham City Batman displays this perfectly at the end, despite poisoning so many people with his Titan Poisoned Blood, despite killing Talia, the woman he loved, despite crippling Barbara Gordon and killing Jason Todd who was his second ADOPTED SON, Batman would have saved Joker with the cure if Joker hadn't caused its vial to break and thus no longer be able to be taken. Sure render Clayface to being trapped as a bunch of pieces soldified by a Lazarus Pit without batting an eye, but being willing to leave Joker to die by something he did to himself is too much. It doesn't even break his no kill rule, because he isn't the one who killed him.
It works in the Dark Knight as well. Batman put the Joker in jail and that’s it. We never see him again. I know that it’s mainly because of Heath Ledger’s death but using prison/Arkham as the last resort for the Joker is effective to make Batman‘s “no kill rule” actually means something.
The most egregious example for me is whe Joker got turned into a vampire in The Batman(2001) and he tried to cure him. That's not letting Joker live, that's bringing him back to life.
It’s implied in Arkham Knight that he wasn’t actually gonna save him. Sure it’s the Joker that says this but that Joker was actually just Batman’s subconscious in the form of Joker. That was basically Batman telling himself that he was actually gonna let Joker die and he’s been lying to himself the whole time.
@@dariusporter358which is just inconsistent and stupid.If you let him kill himself just do it don’t save him and then let him kill people then decide to let him kill himself and not save him
The reason people despise the no kill rule for Batman is because of the joker every single comic or show or movie has him commit crimes that have a death toll that can not be ignored but Batman just puts him back into Arkham just so he can break out and kill thousands next Tuesday it’s fucking stupid.
It makes complete sense batman wouldn't kill he lost his parents and knows how painful that loss is he became batman to prevent anyone to go through losing a loved one so of course he wouldn't kill somone potentially causing that pain to someone eles.
@@anonymous_5016 you know why he lives don't play dumb even if he killed him the writers will bring him back because he's to valuable of antognist to get killed off
@@Chriso22 It’s DC fault then to make Batman no kill rule looks stupid. If they wanted to make this rule look legit, they should have used incarceration of the Joker as the last resort or at least made him gone for a very very long time, not kept bringing him back right away and made him kill even more people but like you said, Joker is a cash cow.
Yeah. Batman doesn't want anyone to go through the pain he went through which is why he lets mass murdering villains live to kill thousands every other weak when they break out instead of killing them. Big Brain Batman. Batman kills = maybe 20 villains deaths. Batman no kill = million of innocent deaths. Yep i bet his parents are proud that he is as useless as the Police.
Batman only exists so he can prevent other people from suffering the same type of trauma he did in that alley. He wants people to know that there's someone out there looking out for them. What's the point of a crime victim to inflict the same trauma he suffered on other people ? Batman is hope. I recommend people to read Batman Ego, it's a perfect story that explains Batman's mindset and morals.
8:13 this is true, because I find that even tho villians like Posion Ivy do massage damage in their attempts at world wild mass murder/terrorism of all humans, or SA’s people, people still are mostly only adimit about only killing joker, and then either pretending every other villans is just flawed and misunderstood with no fault of their own (again like Ivy, if Batman killed Ivy, Harley, killed coc, people would loose it and get mad that Batman killed those ‘misunderstood’ villains) or they just kinda forget some of Batman’s villains lowkey are all pretty disgusting and messed up, and not just joker. Then again in recent comics they have been making the Joker more ‘edgy’ with the face stuff.
Part of me hates his no-killing rule because as Bruce Wayne, he has both the ressources and intelligence to create an inescapable prison for his rogue like his Zur personna.
@OscarASevilla yes, he has said multiple times it's up to the justice system to deal with criminals, his problem is being judge, jury, and executioner. Anyone who says otherwise either lacks knowledge on batman or is lying
Not to mention the US government. The Joker in particular has committed enough criminal acts outside Gotham to be labeled an international terrorist. If Gotham won't put Joker down, there's nothing stopping the US government from doing it.
What I really want is for the writers to stop making Batman the villian by writing criminals so evil and irredeamable that he becomes evil by proxy for not snapping their necks. Looking at you Mr. "Boiled an infant alive and made the father drink the child-broth" Joker. Yes, he actually did that.
People see Batman in one or more of these ways. 1 prep time he solos. 2 the cold or brutal warrior. 3 orphan. 4 the compassion hidden within the dark. 5 they don't see Bruce but only Batman. I see him as the kid who grew up too fast I say that because after his parents... you know what he never enjoyed the rest of his childhood who could blame him for that and then he started his path to becoming the dark knight.
Bro, you were 100% right on the money with this. Here's my two cents: Taking the villain's life should never be the first option. The first option should always be to bring them to justice the right way. A hero (Bruce in this case, specifically, but superheroes in general.) should only kill when it's ABSOLUTELY 100% necessary, i.e., a case of what the law calls justifiable homicide. But, that's the point. Justifiable homicide is the EXCEPTION, not the rule, according to the law. A hero should never murder. EVER. And even if it comes down to killing a bad guy, the hero should always at least try to find another way. Even if a situation comes when a hero has to make that kind of choice, it should never be taken lightly, nor should it be reveled in. EVER. A hero is supposed to be a symbol of justice, good, hope, redemption (Yes, even giving a chance to those who seemingly don't deserve it.), and courage. Especially having the courage and strength of chareacter to show mercy to even their most evil of enemies. It is never the hero's fault if the villain escapes and commits more heinous crimes. That is a failure of the justice system. PERIOD.
@@leahp1765 Well, he is a modern Christian, who doesn't fight other Christians or Muslims in the Reformation or Crusades, or burn witches and Jews in the Inquisition, etc. He doesn't even shoot up gay bars, brainwash LGBT kids in reparative therapy, or bomb abortion clinics, either. He just goes to church on Sunday, and doesn't hurt anybody- -except dangerous, violent criminals!
@darlalathan6143 Thanks. I'm really passionate about superheroes, especially Batman, being symbols of ironclad honor, goodness, hope, and redemption. Even if that means having the strength of character to have mercy on their most evil of enemies and give them a chance, no matter how small or miniscule it may be, to be better and change their evil ways if they so choose. And if they don't take the chance to be better because they don't *want* to be better, then that's when they bring them to justice the right way and let the justice system, no matter how flawed it may be, take care of the rest. But they, including Batman, should always be willing to at least try. But like I said, option b still stands as a better alternative if possible. As Samanda Watson from Arrow once said, "We protect the rights of people who don't deserve them to protect them for everyone." Even in fiction, as flawed as the justice system may be, it's the only one we've got. So, what do you think about what I said? Let me leave you with this question. This applies to real life and fiction, even superhero fiction, because art imitates life and life imitates art: When all is said and done, will you have the strength of character to let go of whatever an enemy did to you, no matter how small or large and no matter how long ago or recent it was, or will you be weak and wrongfully take revenge, refusing to heal and let justice, however long it may take, run it's course while you heal, let go, and forgive? 😄😁😄
Many people in the comment section misunderstood Spider-Man and Kingpin situation it was Peter who was fighting and willing to kill Kingpin not Spider-Man.
I think a lot of those kills under the jokers belt is the result of bad writing with the intention to just get shock value. Like the story about joker killing a bunch of kids, dismembering them, and sewing different limbs on the different kids so parents couldn’t tell… that doesn’t make me want Batman to kill the Joker, that makes me want to put the comic book down.
Not only that, the Joker also - Torturing and killing Jason Todd - Crippling and raping Barbara Gordon while also torturing her father Jim Gordon - Using fear gas to make Superman hallucinating his own wife and child as Doomsday which caused him to accidentally kill them and triggered a nuke in Metropolis that killed millions of people - And many more Nobody in the right mind would consider these actions by the Joker as “redeemable” but somehow Batman (more like DC writers) thought they are
Yeah, I feel like they took the Joker to far. Every Bat family memeber hates him, the police hate him, and even the other criminals of Gotham hate him. You shouldn't be asking why Batman hasn't killed him, you should be asking why no one else in Gotham has killed him.
Well because he’s supposed to be super smart yet allows dudes like the joker to run free. He could build his OWN prison and keep joker locked up forever to be honest 😂
Wait I kinda want a game or comic on this idea. Could you imagine bat prison with batman as the warden making the ultimate unescapable prison. Each comic or episode is from the villains point of view as they try to escape only for the advanced security or one of the bat family to recapture them.
1:12, I pause here, yeah that scene with Daredevil, it was a very powerful moment, I loved it, my uncle hates the fact that Daredevil doesn't kill, all because he dresses up as a devil and has it in its name, he's a god believer so
The problem with a lot of filmmakers is they think they know better than the writers. Zack Snyder is a perfect example of a filmmaker who thinks he knows better than his writers, when all he knows how to do is screw things up and put it in slow motion with very little exception
It’s like when he changed Ken Clark’s death from a heart attack to him getting sucked up in a tornado. I imagine if he made a Spider-Man film he would make it so Uncle Ben randomly had a stroke.
@@CappyLarou Why? Because all of his cuts were generally seen as better? It's just annoying when people place all the blame on him when it's been known for years at this point that WB forced him into a lot of his decisions. Though I agree that if you're going to make an adaptation, it makes sense for it to be the main version of that character. And maybe it's just the difference between Marvel and DC fans but the MCU was at least given a chance to become what it used to be😂 No one gave that chance to the DCEU.
2021: Everyone licks Snyder's Justice League, Snyder himself and his actors. 2024: Everyone openly hates Snyder, his League, and his actors. Can you explain this general hypocrisy?
Bruce Wayne helps fund for Arkham's security, GCPD upgrades, being a philanthropist to tackle the real issue of Gotham's crime which is unemployment, the lack of access towards better education, etc. A lot of the thugs he beat up were sent to a rehab system that Wayne probably helped design so that they can have a better chance of getting a job and not repeating the cycle. This last part reminds me of BTAS (or, was it TNBA?) where Nightwing and Robin (Tim Drake) returned a wallet of a guy who was almost got mugged. I believe the episode was "Old Wounds". Awesome watch that highlights Batman's compassion and moral compass. In conclusion, Batman/Bruce Wayne has done everything he can to help make Gotham a better place. Corruption will always exist. Batman realizes this. But, the point is to not stop trying.
9:17 I’m honestly impressed you used this interview, instead of the one where he quotes Manchester Black. Because I would not be able to resist proving exactly what makes his point dumb
The whole thing is kinda dumb to begin with because joker would have gotten the death penalty a LOONGGG time ago for the things he's done. The justice system aka the courts, would sentence him for dea th..why is all the burden/blame on batman?? Joker should have received the dea th penalty yearssss ago..
The whole thing is kinda dumb to begin with because joker would have gotten the death penalty a LOONGGG time ago for the things he's done. The justice system aka the courts, would sentence him for dea th..why is all the burden/blame on batman?? Joker should have received the dea th penalty yearssss ago..
Bro you became my favorite comic RUclipsr. I been agreeing with all your takes lately. Literally every member of the League has a no-kill rule except maybe WW and that's if there's really really REALLY no choice. One thing that really irks me with this topic that NOBODY every brings up is GCPD. Its more of a plot hole that no officer ever killed a supervillain in "self-defense" than Batman not killing them. Our cops in America are trigger happy as hell if you even look in their direction and it makes little sense that GCPD hasnt gunned down the joker or two-face while they're on their rampage. Hell, im even more surprised that a corrupt cop just won't shoot joker while he's in custody in the back of the cop car. Especially back when half the force was corrupt.
I think the problem here is that Batman's villains are underpowered, and DC's scriptwriters are naive about American police brutality. Boost Batman villains up to Terminator level, and you now have a good reason why Gotham's dirty cops can't kill them! It would also explain why the GCPD needs Batman to catch the Joker, Poison Ivy, the Riddler, etc., and why Batman doesn't kill them all.
The fact Batman and Harley are friends is another problem. Yet he has so much energy for Red Hood or even injustice superman. He is a hypocrite. The things Harley has done is inexcusable and if she was real she would have been shot long ago.
It's perfectly fine that Batman doesn't kill, he can't. Under the Red Hood explains it nicely. Even if you want to cap and act like Batman has a proper moral or ethical reason (which he doesn't), it is at least something that makes sense. He decided not to kill. Ok. But one thing will ALWAYS piss me off: he SAVES his villains from death even when he's not the reason for it. He's literally so insane he saves the Joker multiple times in both the comics and outaide of it. Hell, he tries to save him in Arkham City but the Joker breaks the cure vial.
I think the issue with Batman's no kill rule is that it's becoming harder and harder to justify it when his rogues do increasingly terrible things. DC has a bad addiction to Batman, and due to that addiction, they keep allowing writers to push the boundaries for his criminals. While yes certain stories are fun and entertaining it does change how nearly every big Batman story usually has his villains leaving a massive trail of bodies. This is especially true with characters like the Joker who has consistently been shown to have whole storylines where he just leaves rooms filled with dead bodies. Then you have some characters who kinda just disappear, and its stated they haven't done anything for a while only for them to come back and start dropping bodies left and right like with The Penguin, for example. I don't fully believe in the idea that Batman should kill, but his argument for why he shouldn't is getting harder to accept when his rogues in particular are doing some of the most vile stuff in DC comics still.
I mean the point is that batman cannot allow himself to kill, no matter what, irrespective of whether you or i believe killing joker is fine, batman himself cannot allow himself to kill, now should batman stories show how the system needs to be fixed and batman should try and fix it more? yes. but, that doesnt mean batman should kill.
@@thomasmcconville9199 Then the story should justify this rule better, not keep making his villains committing even more horrible crimes and keep escaping from Arkham right away after Batman just caught them.
@@nont18411 the story does justify the rule, it isnt the most logical solution, it's Batmans own psychological trauma won't allow him to cross that line, because if he does he doesn't know where to stop, I think that's the point of zurr en ah, not sure tho havent kept up with the newer runs too much
@@thomasmcconville9199 I’m not talking about Batman. I’m talking about his villains. DC should have put some limitations of the crimes those villains are able to commit to make Batman’s moral code make sense. The Joker in DCAU and the Dark Knight were great because the no kill rule were actually effective in stopping them. The Joker in Under the Red Hood, Killing Joke and Injustice, on the other hand. I would say that Superman wasn’t that wrong when he punched through the Joker’s heart.
@@nont18411 i get that you think joker deserves to be killed, that doesn't matter, heck you probably should think that, but batman cannot allow himself to do that, ur missing the point if you think any level of crime or evil should justify killing in batmans mind, it can't, it is the one line he can't cross
I fully agree with this. The reason why Batman is a great character is cause he understands himself not to temptation of murder. Batman's literally backstory makes it so that he won't kill anyone. Not because he wants to,but due to the fact it's too easy to do so. We've seen how brutal he can be towards his teammates. So what's really at here for Batman? His hole reasoning why he became Batman in the first f-ing place. To uphold principles that not even Nightwing could accomplish.
The No Kill rule is what makes Batman something more than many other heroes and anti-heroes, not as a Moral high-ground, but as an example of sheer determination to never fall under the temptation of crossing the line. Just like Joker said in the Dark night, and that's why he's capable of using a Green lantern ring, because Batman's superpower is his will power. Thanks for the video
The no-kill rule is fine on paper, but how it's done sometimes doesn't. For example, batman won't kill, but he's willing to give you brain damage or leave you cripple. When written well, I'd still say the no kill rule works, but it's something not everyone can write
"Batman drinks and fcks to forget. Like anybody, like that's a common way to deal with trauma" No, that's your pathetic way you would deal with trauma. If you are weak and nihilistic that does not mean someone else will be. Tired of directors not allowing themselves to explore how other people would react and deal with things, instead they insert all their own sht.
Being Batman….IS HOW HE DEALS WITH IT! Like Jesus it’s not like it’s written in the comics come on. Though I do think he may also be a playboy to help but an alcoholic is a bit much
@@honeyjm8324 The thing is he is so much batman that Bruce Wayne is his alter ego, he is never not batman, and he can never stop being batman, even when he gets too old he has to be batman. A few good series touch on this detail, a particularly rough one is in the Harley Quinn show, every moment in his mind he relives his parents death, he can never forget.
@@andrewgreeb916 as much as I get that I feel like that limits him and it feels weird to say that Bruce Wayne is his mask I more feel like Bruce Wayne is his happiness that he doesn’t get to let out, cause he can’t be the Batman that gives people hope without remembering who he was born as
Batman doesn't deal with trauma "like anybody." He deals with trauma through bringing criminals to justice, and trying to prevent that tragedy from repeating for others.
I've had the exact same thought with people not being consistent with critising all heroes who don't kill. Maybe it's because it's a more consistent and focused on theme in Batman media than alot of other superheroes but still people should be able to think a bit more and be consistent. That quote from Bill Finger was great to see, and needs to be used more in response to the "Batman should kill" BS. Because that's coming straight from the guy who basically created Batman and it's something he understood and that was intended pretty much from the beginning with the character.
interesting thing about bringing up keatons batman. Batman Forever is set in that same universe and Val Kilmer's Batman addresses his experience about choosing to kill and the terrible path it puts you on. He uses it to try to dissuade Dick from trying to kill Two-Face.
I can understand him not killing random street thugs, there's no need to. But the joker should be a clear exception. As long as he breathes people Will die and there will be chaos. And Batman knows this. As a hero isn't your main priority saving as many lives as possible?
@@mightguy3118 him being a vigilante is a result of Gotham's bad justice system and these criminals still being in the streets is because of the horrible prison system, all I'm saying is batman always captures these people. The justice system is who's failing Gotham not him
@@karabo171 But then Batman is a pointless figure he isn't actually doing anything to improve Gotham as the justice systems corruption is still there and even worse he knows about it. Him trusting the flawed system despite knowing it's flawed makes him an idiot especially when his supposed goal is protecting Gotham and it's civilians.
Found this channel randomly, but seeing your batman takes gives me faith that there's hope for this fandom. I think the no kill rule will become a major element of the DCU batman seeing as Damian will be his robin. I hope they handle it in a way that casuals can digest so that nonsense arguments dont start popping out of nowhere.
I don't care about the rule itself. I CARE about how it is made to look stupid by how much Batman's villains escalate. A prime example of this is the Injustice storyline, in the story Joker blows up Metropolis, just straight up kills millions with a nuke. Here Batman preaching to not kill the Joker is morronic due to the sheer level of the crime, and it is one of the few good points Superman had, keeping the Joker alive might have preserved one life but hundreds of thousands lost their families due to it. How many kids have ended up as lil Bruce Wayne in that alley due to Batman's rogue gallery being seemingly immune to death?
The issue with his no kill rule is that it's to maintain the status quo. However, its not justifiable when a majority of his villains have gone off the deep end and crossed that line habitually without remorse. It just makes him look stubborn, childish, and ineffective. It's even worse when he saves the villains from somebody else trying to kill them. Batman is essentially handcuffed by editorial TLDR; Don't portray Batman's rogues as unrepentant habitual mass killers when you know Batman isn't allowed to eliminate them due to status quo and sales. It just breaks the suspension of disbelief and makes fans desire for him to kill *only when necessary and not on a murder spree*.
The hate for the no kill rule I believe mostly stems from how far the Joker in particular is allowed to push the envelope in terms of how much damage he is allowed to do. I think this is another thing from that bled over from Dark Knight Returns unfortunately, because in DKR Joker kills like 100 people in one night. Which up until this point is the most extreme the Joker is ever portrayed regardless of continuity. The reason, narratively is that the Joker knows that it’s his last hurrah so that’s why he is more extreme than every other story. But the future writers took this part and made a firm part of the Joker’s normal behaviour without understanding of the context of why Frank Miller initially wrote him that way in DKR. I think it’s also worth noting that when people invoke comparisons to DKR it is about as silly as the golden age Batman defense if not more because the reasons things are so extreme in DKR from Batman to the Joker is because it was meant to be the last Batman story, it is not how the characters normally act. I’m also sick and tired of the Snyder cultists saying that Batman kills in DKR which he straight never does and anyone who says otherwise, read it again, Batman does not kill a single person in DKR. Batman’s no kill rule became established in Batman issue 4 or at least that was the first time it was put in text in 1941. Even before that happens Batman never walked around with a gun shooting criminals. The only time he “kills” someone with a gun in that pre-Robin era that everyone cites is Vampires via silver bullets. Considering that vampires are already undead, that one example doesn’t even work. All of his other kills in the formative years are incidental at best, and it becomes real obvious when people use that as defense knowing full well that they have never read any of the golden age stuff.
Another reason why we need a proper introduction of Cassandra Cain's Batgirl in films is because she's probably the member of the Bat Family who respects the no killing rule the most. Being raised into becoming an assassin instead of being a normal child ruined her, and when she was tricked into killing someone (at a VERY young age i might add) messed her up, she even scolded Batwoman for killing Clayface, saying how the Bat Symbol is special because "it means never kill". The fact Cass shed tears over a villain as dangerous as Clay Face just shows how Batman's no killing rule has a positive inspiration on the characters that follow Batman.
Wanna know what’s funny in arrow when Oliver decides not to kill in season 2 it actually helped him with lance he only did it once in that season and was against someone who really had no realistic way to stop since he could’ve killed felicity and probably snitched
Facts. Not killing the joker is one thing but going out your way to save his life? I bet Batman would choose saving the jokers life over a hostage lmao
Exactly. Like in Arkham City. The clown kills a bunch of people including Batman's love interest Talia and Bruce is just willing to save him. Not to mention Joker's deadly illness is 100% his own fault for injecting himself with TITAN.
Eh I feel like joker had “died” many times from his devices and still comes back. Spoilers, but didn’t he and Batman at one point in synders life literally get crushed to death underground only to both come back somehow? Truth is,comics have a history of using these villains over and over as part of their never ending story.
THANK YOU. About the only good note in BvS was when, after the example of Superman, Batman refused to kill Luthor in his cell. That should have been a stronger story arc, a fallen hero returning to the ideals of his youth.
I always thought it was because of the sentence "If you justify doing something once, you will justify doing it again". Which is also a really good real life lesson which seuper hero media was meant to trach back in the day. Nowadays its just over the top edgy CGI nonsense.
![ARGENTINA vs. PERÚ [1-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xtI25ENDDSY/mqdefault.jpg)
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
One thing that i have always wondered how does a cop in Gotham not just "accidentally" shoot the joker.
Joker’s plot armor won’t let them
Funny I remember in one comic, a disillusioned cop dressed up as Batman and masqueraded as him one night, when he saw the Joker he shot the Joker point blank multiple times.
Yet despite being shot again and again dozens of times the laughing prince of crime survived.
@trollmaster4523 I read that comic, and Batman got really livid for that cop impersonating him and got in real trouble with the public and the police for it. Some didn't want to trust him anymore.
@@trollmaster4523 Bruh. Also I can totally see the Joker being on so much stuff some dinky little bullets wouldnt put him down.
You would probably need a Crowbar and a good 5 minute scene... and a chainsaw. 😂
They have shot him. He always survives or comes back.
Punisher HIMSELF doesn't consider himself a role model. When some cops call him their "hero" he tells them to try imitating Captain America instead! Punisher KNOWS he's broken, but his holy crusade against organized crime is all he has left.
Outside is anybody who mix what he does will have a conversation with him and by conversation i'm mean a shoot out.
It It honestly makes all the interactions with daredevils seem Either completely out of character.Because frank wouldn't care that much to create something so elaborate
Or be he's just screwing with Matt, (he like doing that with Matt and Peter)
And surprise the gun's empty.
"WHY????!"
" Slow night, wasn't anything good on TV or bad on the streets"
" When I get out of here, I'm gonna ..."
" kill me; the fact that I tied you up and forced you to pull a trigger implies that you can't ... Get out of the binds I mean, bye"
"GO F*CK YOURSELF FRANK"
"did already twice, Like I said it was a slow night"
@@WannabeWryter Did the English language kick your dog and steal your girlfriend?
Huh?
I remember one punisher comic that escapes me now but it had some cop or soldier or something fronting the punisher and asking if he thought he was a hero or something
Punisher saying he's no hero, he's just a villain for the villains or something to that effect
Punisher is a fool as captain America inspires no fear and state enforcers like cops have to inspire fear to some degree otherwise criminals just laugh at them
It's because Batman never gets proven right, the writers typically make it so we must have FAITH in his morals, in his principles. Instead, what they should do is PROVE HIM RIGHT, redeem the Joker once and for all, cure all the crazies at Arkham, make Gotham at least slightly better thanks to him. We need to see that his way WORKS, consistently
That’s because it’s not right, Batman’s no kill rule is a character flaw. It’s not supposed to work because it’s not true. Plus Batman doesn’t keep the joker alive out of the belief he can be redeemed it’s simply because Batman just can’t bring himself to kill because of his childhood trauma
The best part is we have that. Harley Quinn. Joker actually became a family man and is a genuinely good dad. He became a better person, even after regaining his memories. Showing he wasn't beyond saving.
@@gyr0zeppeliii507This. It's a character flaw that makes Batman a better character because it makes him more grounded and relatable.
Because it doesn't work and won't ever work
Harley Quinn was a successful psychologist with a PHD , she wanted the life joker offered,a life of crime and freedom. You expect me to believe someone that smart would be manipulated by a crazy, smelly insane 🤡 ,she wanted an insane life. It's a Choice for her(but in today climate women can't be bad guys anymore only men have that right)
Bane just wants to fight , he wants the freedom to do anything he wants including ducking up Batman
Riddler is just a narcissistic psychopath
Professor pig and Scarecrow are also psychopaths doing what they want
Poison ivy isn't even human anymore and doesn't see the value of human life the same way we don't even see tree's as living beings
Pinguin is a Crime boss same with black mask
Rhei shal guel Is a megalomaniacal psychopath who's live so long he's lost his mind , he'd kill millions to serve a stupid goal that leads nowhere and not bother caring
Killer croc is a sad case but at this point he's just an animal
Joker Is a rabid and diseased dog that needs to be put down but its owners keep saying he'll get better , he's a mongrel with rabbies that live past its seven days and now it's everyones problem
Batman's way doesn't work
Gotham is a s#1t hole because the elite of Gotham are all corrupt and almost half of them are Criminal bosses and work with mafia familias . And let's not forget the Norma gangs in the streets
Maybe the average mugger, thief or bank robber doesn't deserve to get got because let's be honest if most of us lived in Gotham half would do shady stuff to to survive
Most of Batman's Rogues gallery are proven mass serial killer's making his decision not to kill them stupid
@gyr0zeppeliii507 also the "No-Killing" rule is a self-limitor: a safety measure so he doesn't end up worse than the people he's fighting.
The moment Batman officially kills the Joker, then it basically becomes "I already killed The Joker, so why not Two-Face? Or Bane? Or The Penguin? Or Scarecrow?".
I feel like the reason Batman gets the heat for the no-kill rule is because of the fact he actually gets criticised for it in-universe by people like Jason Todd, unlike other non-killing superheroes like Spider-Man or Superman, who never really get flak for it in-universe.
Spider-Man, and Superman have killed before and will kill if it's absolutely necessary. Spider-Man was willing to Kill Kingpin
So injustice just wasn’t a thing also Spider-Man is willing to kill key word willing.
@@mcfly3374 There's no need to bring up Injustice when we're talking about the main-line Superman and you're right, Spider-Man is willing but he's generally a non-killer.
@@neilstone3656 Kingpin was a very specific scenario. Yes Superman and Spider-Man have killed but they're generally non-killing superheroes.
@@neilstone3656no, any example of either killing is either nonsense on the writers part or it never actually happened and you’re spreading misinformation. Neither would kill “if necessary” they would never find an excuse for it to be necessary
I think people don't realize that they actually have a problem with how writers implement the rule, and not so much the rule itself.
Yep, that’s what I meant. It’s more like DC and Joker problems than a Batman problem.
That's always been the case dude
@@wingsoffreedom3589 And that's why people have always had a problem with it dude
@@EskChan19 so you are agreeing with me
Yeah when the writers want to fixate on it ... yeah uts a problem.
You, he can't kill, his villains are too popular; they make up half the roster in any dc project for a reason.
Snyder said “That’s Batman” like he didn’t create an entirely new character in that moment from pure fan fiction.
Well, Batman also killed Burton and Nolan, but then no one cared?
@@ii-mp1sp Nolan’s Batman had a no kill rule. If youre gonna say Nolan had zero understandinng of Batman just because of Ra’s death then youre reaching. There was a lot of Nolan content proving he knew the character.
@@ii-mp1sp Brother have you seen the entire video? There's a whole ass section dedicated to your question here.
@@ii-mp1sp irrelevant, talking about Snyder
@@TheRealHerbaSchmurbaI love Nolan but his Batman literally killed multiple league of shadow members setting ablaze their home right after preaching about not being an executioner, oh and how about when he pushed Harvey dent to his death ? Or when he continously shot into the van talia was in causing her to crash before dying ?
I don’t hate Batman’s no kill rule. I hate Gotham’s justice system that won’t execute the criminals he brings in.
Batman's rogues' gallery contains supervillains. Gotham's jails, prisons, and Arkham Asylum are made for physically ordinary offenders, not super-geniuses who could turn floor lamps into death rays! Killer Croc, Bane, and Clayface have super strength, so they can snap handcuffs, bend bars, and punch through stone walls. Poison Ivy has mind-control and plant-control technology, so she could easily brainwash the guards into releasing her, or she could sic her plant monsters made of the lawns, trees, and bushes around the prison on the guards. Clayface can also shapeshift, and walk out the front door, in the form of a guard, or the warden!
@@darlalathan6143 since it seems you don’t know this because of your post, Gotham’s justice system executed the Joker once. A “Supervillain”, but he came back to life or faked it(can’t remember atm), and couldn’t be executed again due to double jeopardy. My point stands. Supervillain or criminal doesn’t matter. The real failure is their justice system
Right. And when people act like Bruce Wayne couldn't lobby for the death penalty or something.
Lets be honest. Batman might not want to kill his Supervillains. But realistically as Bruce Wayne he'd be using his immense wealth to lobby the state to reinstate the death penalty.
Here’s the issue: Batman isn’t. A cop he isn’t a authority he’s a vigilante: if he beleaves the gov will do it’s job to enforce the law, why be Batman???
I think the big reason why the Batman no-kill catches so much shit has a lot to do with the writers. They have no idea of how to make his villains interesting without them killing people, apparently forgetting that Batman is a detective and you can pretty much do anything under that umbrella. Have him deal with a villain that deals in blackmail, or a thief, or anything but a damn serial killer.
FR
Also his villains are meant to be the Mafia with a punny gimmick...not your average supervillain.
They can even do some really interesting shenanigans if they want to prove that good, bad and gray come in all shapes and sizes, since "the hammers of justice are unisex!" "(Batman's) an equal opportunity crime fighter"
A Poison Ivy vs Catwoman feud story can really get things going. I mean you could even have it set up to the following plot just to show how messed up Gotham is.
Pam and Selina both are shown to be sympathetic to Gotham's orphans in Alleytown known as "Alleytown Strays", but Pam is still a villain even if she does care for the kids and wants to use her plants for world domination as 🎵"she just can't wait to be Queen" 🎵 and uses her kids for minions interestingly named Louie Lilac, Foxglove and Black Orchid. Selina clearly thinking more along the lines of Bruce treats her "three little kittens" (named Hatshepsut "Hattie", Tutunkhamen "Tut" and Cleopatra "Cleo") a bit similar to Bruce's bird in the hand...to contrast Ivy's flower children that she's more villainous toward, both groups accept this life at first helping their respective mommies with their "shopping list" and a meeting where they clash over it occurrs until Bruce and Tim get involved. Bruce tries to talk sense into the Alleytown strays...but he's enthralled by Ivy and it's not like the strays wanted to listen, so Tim asks Selina what's up with all this, and Selina doesn't really want to spoil Bruce's fun even winking to her kittens about them having a little birdie brother to mess with so she and her kittens go home, so she leaves a yarn of rhymes for them to follow to Ivy. Batman and Robin deduce the plot of how this is going and manage to stop Ivy from going too far with Selina and her kittens help before they vanish. The flower kids are then given a choice set...either enter the system and get adopted eventually, go back to Alleytown or suffer with their new mother. Black Orchid and Foxglove decide to enter the system and eventually Black Orchid begins a heroic career starting out as a Teen Titan. Foxglove gets a new life elsewhere...Louie Lilac remains with Ivy...because he enjoys being the bad guy...which makes Ivy very happy...at no point do Batman and Robin have to kill and each time it's demanded Catwoman says "nobody ever tells my flying mouse to kill, not even me, flying mice never kill", he just has to convince some confused people as well as Ivy that it's one thing to try to manipulate them...but to try and manipulate the Alleytown strays? That's going too far...proceeds to an epic fight requiring Bat-weedkiller.
There's even some fun clever Bat-humor here.
Bingo.
You know, it's comments like these that make me feel bad for Bruce. He trained his whole life to be able to fight against all sorts of criminals and gangs, only to ends up fighting supervillains who can do things no ordinary criminal is capable of *constantly.* It's no wonder Gotham is such a shithole despite his efforts both in and outside the mask, yet he still tries anyway and I admire him for that.
@NguyenHuuTrung_ Yeah, he probably thought when he first got started that he would just be lightening the load for the GCPD by taking down gangs run by men like Falcone, but then he has things like shapeshifting mud monster, plant controlling lady, and giant bat monster to deal with.
The issue mainly stems from how authors tackle WHY he doesn't kill. They often paint it as a slippery slope fallacy, saying that Batman wouldn't be able to stop himself from killing. And the reason why people hate this so much is because it's a terrible reason for Batman not to kill.
Edit: People aren't really seeming to understand my point, however, I still stand by it. Batman doesn't have a no kill rule because of the slippery slope ideology, he has a no kill rule because at his core, he believes that nobody should ever have the power to take another person's life. He doesn't want to be a cog in the system that killed his parents. He sees the very act of killing, regardless of how "justified" as absolutely immoral. But what people don't understand is that this is a character flaw. A character flaw that isn't supposed to be seen as him being perfect, but rather, someone who encapsulates morality to a fault. Batman hates the Joker and wishes he was dead, but his sense of morality simply won't allow him to take part in or be complacent in the death of another human being. This is why he won't let characters like Red Hood or Superman kill the Joker because by doing so, he's an accomplice. Killing someone and allowing them to die are the same to him, the only exception being the death penalty Batman also respects the law. It isn't his fault that the people he chooses not to kill don't receive the death penalty and it shouldn't be the job of a vigilante to take the life of a criminal, regardless of his moral stance. Stop applying your views of morality onto Batman. "I would kill the Joker, so Batman should too." Good for you, you're not Batman. What I'm trying to say is that the slippery slope fallacy is a very lazy way to write/interpret Batman's no kill rule and I will always stand by that.
I think that makes perfect sense as a reason. Draw a line in the sand is hard when you make exceptions. You know the actual stupid thing about Batman and supermans no kill rule them teaming up with people like red hood and Lobo who kill all the time. You can make them team up and have it make sense like have Red hood save batman from being kidnaped and batman be anoyed that he has to work with him.
@@daraghokane4236
It's really not. Joker regularly commits horrid acts and has made it clear time and time again that he isn't going to change for the better. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's made it something of his life's mission to torment Bruce into breaking his No Kill Rule. No amount of jail time is going to stop him from hurting and killing others. I think that's a pretty clear line to not cross if he were to go about killing. When his potential victim has shown that there is virtually no good in them and that they're beyond redemption.
@daraghokane4236 the only problem with that line of thought is that a guy with the iron will discipline required to push his body to peak human physicality if not near super human levels of physicality, master every known form of hand to hand combat, an expert at sneaking around, escape artistry, nearly every, if not every field of science, plus who knows what all else. Is incapable of stopping himself from killing unless absolutely necessary is completely laughable
@@barryward2128
Mr. Wins With Prep Time isn't prepped to deal with his own mental issues.
@@barryward2128His own mental issue and his insomnia stop him.😊
“I want Batman to finally cut loose, and kill all his enemies and use a gun!”
You want The Punisher. That’s who you want. Stop wanting Batman be like The Punisher. Hell if anything, if still want a character who is still Batman adjacent, Azrael is who you want. Red Hood is who you want.
Isn't there a Batman who uses guns in the Batman who Laughs run? I forgot what they called him, but he used tons of weapons too.
@@sirnetflix7162 the grim knight
@@sirnetflix7162 Yeah, The Grim Knight.
Batman litterally used guns in the old comics tf you yapping about
@@Hellbat69 Did you watch the video??
There’s a long Reddit post called “Why Batman refuses to kill - an exploration” on the many reasons why Batman doesn’t kill.
I also needed to drop this quote:
“That sudden murder taught Bruce to cherish and respect life as much as it taught him to hate criminals.”
-Bill Finger
there are many speculations to why batman refuses to kill but from my perspective I think that batman doesn't kill to maintain his humanity and morals, to better explain it i am going to use the korean revenge film I saw the devil, good movie by the way, which takes a more realistic approach to a revenge story , as the main question isn't who are you trying to kill, or how are you trying trying to kill them but instead they are how far are you willing to kill that specific person and is it worth it, because during the film the protagonist didn't just break laws but also allowed innocents to get hurt which went against everything he believed in as a cop and at the end it resulted him in being in far more pain than he went through at the beginning of the movie, now let's also apply this to being a vigilante, what lines do you have to cross to kill that target, how much of humanity do you have to abandon, and how much ties with your morals are you willing to cut off,and is killing that target worth what you had to sacrifice. And I believe that at one time batman understood that.
Kid named finger:
His rule is dumb
The biggest problem with asking the question "why Batman doesn't kill" is that the reasons vary per adaptation or version. Sometimes it's Batman worrying that if he kills it will become easier. Another version it's because it's the goal of the Joker and Batman doesn't want Joker to win. There is no definitive answer to this because of the nature of comic reboots and retcons and adaptations. So, it's ultimately pointless to search for a definitive answer because there isn't one. You'd instead need to look at all of these version's reason for not killing and go from there.
@@thegreatacolyt1277 Doctors take a promise not to kill, Batman did the same, Its not stupid that is what makes him better then the joker and the Riddler they kill he doesn't.
The way Batman has been portrayed in recent years is a guy who’s willing to do anything so long as you survive in the end. I think back to Injustice where Damian says: “ you won’t kill, but you’ll leave them w permanent brain damage”. And I think a lot of people have developed a similar mindset. Batman is dark, and even does some questionable things, but he’s not a thug. That’s really been lost over time.
That's my perspective exactly Batman's method may not be lethal but they are brutal. He can beat a guy so hard that he'll never walk again or eat a meal that isn't through a straw but somehow this dosnt violate the rule.
A lot of this is that writers have fallen in love with making Gotham darker and gritting than basically any city in DC comics so they had to make Batman more violent to compensate.
people have an issue with the no kill rule because writers have to keep moving the goalposts in terms of what his villains can do to make interesting stories. It was completely acceptable when the worst that Joker ever did was throw Jello at buildings and put whoopie cushions on the chairs of city officials on live tv; now he's straight up butchering schools of children. Of course audiences will have a problem with it, but thats on the fault of the writers, not the long-standing characters and stories
In the words of Jason Todd, talking about joker"I'm not asking you to kill every thug on the street, just him."
Cassandra Cain is a good example of why batman doesn't kill. The clayface development before his death was actually depressing.
In the words of Cassandra Cain, "I know I'm not good. But he tried to be..... Maybe they'll kill me too." She was raised as an assassin and became Batgirl.
The solution would have been to cripple villain's if they keep breaking out of prison. How much of a threat do you think joker is if he's in a wheelchair with one arm?Pull a "steal enough times and I'm stealing your arm"
Also note: batman has crippled opponents before, he just doesn't do it to main villains for some reason.
Exactly! Some villains are doing such horrible things that even if Batman doesn’t kill them then Gotham should at least give them the death penalty. Ofc not all his villains deserve death but some definitely do
There was a comic where the joker got his back broken Zur-En-Arrh did it if I remembered right. Also we see what happens with Batman "kills" it activates Failsafe and shit hits the fan
@@almessasorrow4950 Honestly, even if he did they'd probably be fine lol.
Have you seen the KG Beast?
Neck broken, bloodied, broken, starving, stuck in the icy mountains completely limp.
Walked it off and came back arguably better than ever.
that search history is WILD
I love man ham aslume 2:23
Damn, beat me to it. LOL
He forgot to use his prep time.
came exactly for this comment
"nightwing booty pics" like BROO
Marvel heroes are better than Dc heroes because they actually kill their villains
I love the way the writers on Daredevil wrote Catholicism as part of his character, not making it preachy but actually show the struggle of someone going through it…there is no black and white answer for a lot of evil in the world, but finding the strength to do good in a world full of darkness is what it means to be a hero. Also the rooftop moments between DD and Punisher were the best written scenes in the whole show, followed by a descending oner stairwell fight scene…this show cooked a whole Michelin star course meal in one episode!
If Batman breaks his 'No Kill Rule'. That should be his last day as Batman. Just like Batman Beyond!
W
Also because if he does this he goes what his entire mission and goal is
I don't necessarily think that should always be the only way to do it. As long as the topic is taken seriously and he's not just taking killing lightly. It's less so a "rule where if you break it you have lost redemption" but rather "a mental wall to guide you from going down the wrong path." Just because he's killed someone doesn't necessarily mean he's no longer batman. Mistakes and compromises can be made. The Daredevil show handled this concept very well.
Oh yeah in one (admittedly fake) universe, batman killed the joker and turned himself in.
The Tim Burton duology...
"i WaNnA sEe WhAt HaPpEnS!" The answer is, 'Whatever you write to happen," Zack. Fictional characters are not science experiments.
And Batman is not a God
Ironically It doesn't happen anything
Apparently Batfleck Will break your neck for Jay walking but the fucking Joker Is perfectly fine as usual
Someone lacks a creative mind
@@kman9884 No. The only results of what Snyder's talking about could possible be are a result of what he already believes and wants these characters to be. He's phrasing it like he isn't in ocmplete control of the situation and using it as an excuse to break what characters are and what they mean to people to fit his own agenda. That's it. No creativity whatsoever.
@@Goldnfoxx I know what would happen if Batman and superman kill or break there morals they would turn stop being heros and give themselves up in disgust. Hell the Punisher sent himself to jail in some comic runs after he killed a innocent person
I don't have an issue with his no killing rule. I have an issue with his constant need to save the Joker.
Eh the Joker always survives anyways by saving him Batman makes sure he can get behind bars.
I really hate the comic where batman saves the Joker from the death penalty.
Not only because it saves him, but because it makes no sense that Gotam has the death penalty and the Joker is not killed just because he did not commit the crime he was accused of, as if he had not committed other much worse crimes.
@@SCP-049-k7p It actually does make sense. You need to guilty of the crime you are accused of to be be convicted and if you are not guilty of that crime, you can't punished for it. So they would have to bring new charges against the Joker which included those worse crimes most of which wouldn't get convictions due to the insanity defense.
@@emberfist8347 Well, that and the fact that Gotam is full of corruption, so I guess it makes sense that the Joker hasn't been killed for previous crimes.
"oH sO yOu JuSt WaNt BaTmAn To Be ThE pUnIsHeR? yOu'Re NoT a ReAl BaTmAn FaN!"
Batman’s no-kill rule isn't a problem with his character. It's a problem with modern storytelling. No matter what Bats does with the Joker, the status quo has to remain true. That's what makes Invincible so refreshing, the stories are allowed to progress
Invincible is a 21 year old comic, its not new.
@@joshheralal8758
It's new compared to DC Comics, which has been around for 50 years.
@@twinodoom 50 years? what dc are U talkin ab lol.
edit: ahh i see it started getting called dc comics in 1977. was confused bc batman has been around since the 1930s and stuff
@@bigjawline9235Same year as when Star Wars came out, 1977 was some year.
I get the Idea but i also feel like it better to see what Writers can do with stories like Krokan Xmen then basically marking a whole section in red and saying "not canon"
Also stuff like that is easier to make.
It feels like "I hate Dark Souls cuz it sword abd board ganeplay"... like that most of the combat.
Making skyrim gameplay look interesting. 😂
Also alot of people dont read comics and dont realize that batman have almost lost control a few times. Right after Jason died, batman LEGIT said screw the no-kill rule and was gonna end joker once and for all. He couldn't do it not because of morals but only because superman stopped him since killing joker would start WW3.
That's why I hate when people say Bruce is a bad dad, he was willing to do ANYTHING to make Joker pay for taking away his son. He wanted to do a better job raising Jason since his relationship with Dick was rocky(How Dick left to become Nightwing), he wanted to be a better father and mentor to help Jason avoid being resentful.
Not anyone want to waste their life on reading comics
Womp womp
Dang didn’t know that Superman indirectly caused Jason to resent Bruce that’s kinda sad
Because dc fans don’t read comics. If they did then they wouldn’t be stuck in 2013 thinking and saying the same stuff over and over.
So here's the elephant in the room about the whole "Batman doesn't kill" debate that is always ignored.
Why are the criminals never sentenced to death by jury or judges or lawyers? How about why not put the blame on those that are in charge of those choices in the first place?
Or better yet why haven’t the cia or feds sent out armies of government hitmen on joker yet 😂
Because 99% of them are insane. You can’t sentence someone to death if they are proven insane in a court of law which almost all of his villains are. Also Gotham doesn’t have a rule allowing you to re-attempt an execution if you fail the first time which is the backstory for a minor villain named Galvan who survived the electric chair and got electricity based powers from a botched suicide attempt.
@@emberfist8347So, yes, normally you cannot execute insane criminals because they did not know what they were doing when the crime occurred. That being said, not a single member of Batman's rogues are actually insane, just psychopaths. Even Joker isn't really insane, he's fully aware of what he's doing and even revels in it. He comes up with complicated schemes and other nonsense just so he can enjoy it. An actually insane person can't do that because they are unable to understand what is going on and what they are doing.
New Jersey doesn't have a death penalty
@@pyrolee17 The comics showed Gotham having one.
Also the thing with punisher is he doesn't want anyone to do what he does. When cops start using his symbol out on patrol as a way to show they support his methods, he confronts them and makes them stop because they should be a better example to the citizens
That's the writters being mad that people agree with frank so they make him a self hating loser to compensate.
@@wingsoffreedom3589 no fank has always thought war is hell what I'm doing is bad but needed. Frank doesn't think he is a good person one it was petty revenge kill the people who killed his family not to make the city safer just for himself
@@wingsoffreedom3589 It's kind of wild how the ONE trait frank has that partially redeems him, being his acknowledgement of how wrong what he does is, is criticized like this. If you think punisher is in the right you're just dumb, there's not much else about it.
@@wingsoffreedom3589of course someone with a eren profile pic would have that 14 yo edgy opinion
That's because many fascists and murderer cops and military torturers picked the Punisher symbol, and Marvel had to make damage control to show that they don't endorse trigger-happy cops or soldiers wanting to murder brown people.
Another one that i absolutely hate is when people say that Batman endangers children by having them fight crime as robin. And YET nobody is talking about kid flash, super boy, miles morales, etc… and than they will say “well those kids have powers” it doesn’t matter their still children at the end of the day plus if u really wanna go there than why don’t u criticize green arrow for having sidekicks like speedy ?
It’s even more frustrating because they act like anyone of those characters *ever* had their mentors specifically searching for a young child to take into crime fighting with them. Peter, Barry, Bruce, and Clark, all of them simply wanted to help their younger mentees/counterparts in any way they possibly could, the choice to specifically become a hero and help others is ALWAYS on the kids side. Often at times against the protestations OF the mentors (again, Spider-Man, Flash, Batman, and Superman).
So the double standards that people have for Batman is especially annoying. Even more so when they just completely make up a lot of BS, or more accurately, twist everything to fit their incorrect perspective.
@@angle188 yeah exact this is why u can’t take people online seriously more than half the time because the bull shit they would use to fit their incorrect narrative is absolutely insane. Superman is boring because he’s a goody to shoes, he’s to powerful, he wins alot. Like bro every super hero outside of the anti heroes are goody to shoes. I don’t see u complaining about how powerful hulk and Thor are. Literally every one of ur favorite heroes win all the time
Facts. The “but they have powers” argument doesn’t work also because the robins basically get trained into being “superhuman”. How many eleven year olds you know that can take on dozens of grown men all with guns?
@@crimsoncross8823 not even dozens probably like 20 casually. Which is actually another thing that I hate is when people criticize Batman for showing strength well beyond a real life peak human. But than no one wants to complain about the feats daredevil, nightwing, green arrow, black widow, etc etc etc have pulled off.
Pretty sure Peter didn't train and encourage Miles to go out and fight crime. Miles did that all on his own
The problem with the "no kill" rule (not just batman) is that it makes the heroes look not virtuous but self righteous, since comics basically have no continuity for the sake of sales and no outcome can ever be permanent (death is never permanent and it takes away the impact of a hero's sacrifice in a story line just to be resurrected eventually through some deus ex machina) the actions of heroes seem almost unimportant, their choices are irrelevant making heroes not forces of good but tools to maintain the status quo, which is why villains are more interesting since they have a purpose at least.
The editorial choices of forsaking continuity for the sake of sales makes the villains look like they always walk with impunity for their actions, the hero is redundant since it doesn't matter if the villain goes to jail, the villain never has a reckoning in any way.
This is specially egregious with super powered villains that only the hero can take on, at that point the law doesn't matter since it can't be enforced through regular means, only the hero can be judge, jury and executioner since no one else can do anything about the super villain.
Movies do fix this issue because it grounds the superhero genre to reality by setting real stakes if the villain is not dealt with( in Man of Steel Zod HAD to die, he wasn't going to stop and no one could do anything about it until humanity was extinct)
This comment needs more likes
Well that because Superman is not mentally insane but Batman is 5:25
Snyder is the kind to hear "The Virgin Mary" and say "No. She had trains ran on her left and right and God just happened to get in there. Jesus was a fluke and has to live with that.".
A character has defined elements. Work with them or pick another character.
So Snyder is just a cynic?
Haha, this sounds like Ian Flynn's way of writing
@@darlalathan6143 yes
Wildest sentence I've ever read
@@knuxuki1013 Nah, you’re thinking of Ken Penders, Ian Flynn is much more cheerful.
One thing I did like about Tim Burton's and Joel Schumacher's Batman is that when he killed the Joker in the 1st movie, in Returns he just sits alone in the study, thinking and waiting for the signal and sees the first sign of redemption in Selina, In Forever, He says to Grayson that killing won't solve anything it'll just make it worse. And in Batman and Robin (which sucks ass btw) Bruce gave Mr. Freeze a second chance in life. He killed people in the first movie but in the end he gave a person of trauma a second chance.
huh i never put that together before, that's actually kinda a cool character arc even if batman probs shouldn't have been killing in the first place
@@kolbiecrsnbot If I ever get the chance I might make an else world's story about this specific character arc
Interesting. Now, what did he do at the very beginning of Batman Returns? Torch a guy with the Batmobile and blow up another guy. Ok.
@@quantumvideoscz2052 Didn't resolve anything did it? In Batman Forever Bruce's Monologue just defines why Killing and most importantly, Vengeance doesn't solve anything it just makes an empty black hole. Sure he did kill Two-Face at the end and yeah that bugged me too. But like I said with Bat Nipples and Ass he didn't kill Freeze he wanted to save him. He wants to redeem him
@@VictoryArtz he wants bat nipples for everyone
The difference between Batman and other superheroes is that other superheroes do not want to kill, Batman WILL NOT kill.
The police shoot unarmed non dangerous people all the time but for some reason don't with The Joker.
Precisely. Like, how come a cop didn't shoot the Joker a long time ago?
But Joker is white tho
A cop dressed up as Batman and shot the Joker multiple times.... Despite having as many bullets as Murphy in the start of Robocop Joker survived and just got more insane than ever.
@@nont18411 ahh not the race bait comment
@@trollmaster4523 what lmao
Man appreciates the the beauty of Isabella Merced, Dick's wagon, and Henry's built dad bod... and the greatest hero, Man.
Is he stupid?
Dick is Man’s greatest achievement
Yeah if the greatest hero was to let the world burn simply because he wants his number one villain to survive then yeah
Man Ham Aslume
Man Ham Shity
Man Ham Oranges
Man Ham Nite
What he was describing isn't Batman.
That's Tony Stark when he gives into his vices.
Hi! Can I ask you the source of your profile pic?
I think people hate on the rule is because of what his villains do. Because really, if Joker was real he would’ve been skinned alive by the public if he tried to do anything vile or after he did one of his scheme. No morality code is going to stop the people from blasting the joker
The villains are becoming less defensible and many see them that aren’t worth saving
This 👆🏻👆🏻
Doc ock a year of peters life ruined ĥim and his girlfriends relationship aligned with the fuck nazis and tries to burn the world
I've always wondered why no cops have tried offing some of the villains in Gotham. Like if say the Joker, Two-Face, or Penguin are shooting at you, as an officer you're more than free to retaliate in self defense/qualified immunity.
Because Joker makes DC money@@GTX9999-9
@@GTX9999-9because Joker makes money
It makes me mad watching Snyder doing that interview talking about Batman. He wanted to make Batman a horrible person. Oh he's a drunk, he kills people. He wanted a punisher. Batman and Superman, Spiderman too are good representations of what we should strive to be. But no Snyder and others don't want that. They want gritty heroes in with ugly personas
Snyder just doesn't know how to write. He thinks violence and edge in and of it self is ineresting and cool. It's the big reason why his adaptation of watchmen sucks ass. The violence was meant to disgust, shock and make us question things about these characters and their world. Snyder just turns it into pointless action flick slock.
Well, Batman also killed Burton and Nolan, but then no one cared?
See, I think it’d be different if we didn’t already have so many different versions of Batman. If Batman didn’t kill in the comics, and Snyder’s version was the only one that existed outside of it, I could see it being more of an issue. But you have Conroy, Bale, the Arkham games, telltale, etc. so I didn’t mind Batfleck killing in the one movie, but I’m also not a comic book purist so maybe I don’t get it
@@thunderer5224
It’s not even Batman killing in and of itself. It’s Snyder’s laughably immature understanding of the character. Your first reaction to being told “X isn’t an option” is “I want to do x”? What are you, Snyder, four?
As for adaptations, the average person only sees the movies, not the animated stuff or the games. That cuts depiction numbers by more than half.
@@ii-mp1sp
Do you live under a rock? People were mad when Nolan had the “I won’t kill you but I won’t save you” line. The one real kill, Dent, also had something important: consequences.
As for Burton’s version, it was not only the first adaptation since the 60’s, but it’s widely noted as being inaccurate in that regard.
I agreed until 8:00
That’s not the reason he’s doesn’t kill. He doesn’t kill because he values all human life.
But many of his villains can't be considered human (and by that I don't mean Killer Croc and Man bat).
That was tru until the dumb retcons
That's insane
“Guns are the weapons of cowards” The dark knight returns. Snyder supposed favorite Batman comic. Obviously Snyder read a cliff note version of the book. Zack, Batman brakes a rifle in the dam comic!
At least batfleck quit killing (at least humans batfleck has murked some parademons) no ?
If I remember correctly there is a clip out there were Zack Snyder unironically says "Batman doesn't kill directly. It's only manslaughter".
Snyder is great at recreating scenes from the comics, but he usually tends to miss or ignore the whole context of their stories.
Sadly surface level references is what people consider as ''comic accurate'' nowadays
The only thimg Snyder took from TDKR is yje batarmor amd the odea of Batman and Superman fighting. A fight, I may add, Batman did not win. He had to fakr a heart attack to get out of it.
Says the man who sneaks around to get the drop on their enemies, uses smoke bombs, grappling 'gun' and other cowardly tactics.
2:23 Dawg you need to either have a sit down with Black Canary or a visit to the Sanctuary to talk about that search history 💀
😂
I will gladly sit down with Black Canary any day.
@@MrDj232fair honestly 😂
I noticed that shit too I'm nit gone lie😅😂😂😂😂😂
The thing that stuck out to me about Snyder's take was that he misunderstands why Batman even does what he does in the first place. He attributes severe coping mechanisms to his spin on the character, as if Batman doesn't live the extreme life he lives TO COPE WITH HIS TRAUMA.
Eh Bruce loosing his ability to care for scum after his son died and Harvey's fall into madness is fair.
@@kwayneboy1524 he can lose his ability to care, but his way of coping with the death of his parents is to put all of the responsibility of the lives of everyone around him on himself. The Joker killing Robin isn't enough to shake his resolve. He is quite actually insane when it comes to obeying his code.
@@kwayneboy1524 I don't think you get the character, your just putting yourself into the character. Batman vs Superman was terrible for every character, It would have been better in story if batman never Killed. That would make it make more sense why He said your not even a man before almost killings superman he is saying there I don't kill people i'll make an exception this time your not human, And when the Allen superman said save my mom Batman sees the humanity in the alien and goes O crap I almost killed a person. Batman would not star killing drug dealers and users because Joker killed Robin that makes no sense if anything he would just kill joker
@@cydude5856 I hate this idea of making kind characters edgy and cool, Nobody wants to make g rated Punisher who after killing the wrong target takes a vow to never kill again. Except that is actually a better story and less over done then evil superman. Can new unarmed Frank Castle talk the shooter down how long before he snaps and goes back to his old ways can he become a better person? To me that is more intresting then what if batman killed criminals, answer the punihser would have a bat on his chest instead of a skull
@daraghokane4236 Snyder approaches the flip of Batman as if no one has ever thought of it before, but the truth is that people definitely have. The result is just a lot less interesting than Batman vanilla. Thomas Wayne, a Batman that kills and remains interesting, isn't interesting because he kills. He's interesting because he's Thomas Wayne, and that flips the entire script of Batman's character.
Bro search history is kind of sus man💀 2:23
Yeah why would he search for dick booty picks? You can see that all the time!
Paradise lost and nightwing booty pics in the same search history is crazy tonal whiplash
Yh just noticed 😂
I think the biggest reason people hate on the No-Kill Rule is because of how modern writers depict most of Batman's villains as unrelenting mass murderers. The problem isn't Batman or his rule, it's how his villains are potrayed.
Ever since New 52, Joker has been presented as a mass-murdering psycho who leaves a sea of bodies in his wake, yet Batman doesn't do anything to stop him.
Don't get me wrong, I admire Batman and him not killing, but it makes him look bad with the way his villains are written.
Then the justice system should do something about that not batman
@@redninja3056
Except the system is corrupt and batman knows it so why hasn't he done anything about it.
He fails at protecting Gotham because he's being wilfully ignorant of the fact that the law will not do the right thing, the law being imperfect is the reason he exists so his adamant nature of working with it is ultimately stupid and has proven to not be productive.
@@redninja3056 I mean, I get it, but the problem is that the justice system doesn't allow for killing the criminally insane.
@@redninja3056and they do but joker breaks out and bombs another school. Now what?
@@angellara7040 then batman captures him and the justice system puts him on the electric chair it's that simple
10:15 The peak of what Batman is supposed to be is shown in Justice League: Unlimited when he has the extremely emotional scene with Ace. Also, Batman realizes that if he starts to kill criminals, no one, not any of the Robins, or even Alfred, could bring him back from the monster he would become.
The exploration of this topic was very interesting in Chip Zdarsky's Daredevil 2019 run (he also writes Batman now). Daredevil accidentally kills a criminal by pushing him a little too hard, and the criminal was already sick but still robbing stores. With how much beating supes give to criminals, it is bound to happen to someone at some point.. And it goes pretty deep into the meaning of it all and just how important this rule is.
The argument of saying Batman's responsible for the lives taken by villains he doesn't kill always was stupid for me. Really? HE'S to blame? Not the people of Arkham or Black Gate who are grossly incompetent at keeping these criminals locked or curing them? Not the police who ARE legally allowed to kill these criminals in self-defense but don't? It's not like Batman's the only one who has opportunity to end their rampage.
Plus that goes with the misconception that the no-kill rule is the only reason these villains are still alive. It's not! Do they have *any* idea how many times Joker was left for dead only to be back all dandy a few months or even days later? Even if somehow Batman did kill them outside of What if, they'd just resurrect. It's not Batman keeping them alive, it's the writers.
The law is responsible no one is saying they aren't but Batman keeps relying on them despite knowing their blatant and obvious faults he fuels prisons despite knowing the suicide squad program exist and how half of its roster is his villains.
Batman shares responsibility as he wants to make Gotham better and breaks the law to enforce his code of ethics yet it doesn't really improve anything the moment he disappears the city practically reduces itself into rubble that is not the sign of a stable city especially when he had in universe 15 to 20 years to work on improving it.
Batman contributes to joker being alive or resurrected on numerous occasions he uses the Lazarus pit to revive joker an one time when dick killed joker for "killing" Tim guess who saved jokers life it was Batman besides not keeping the clown properly under lock and key he consistently saves joker making him directly responsible for clown being able to continue his murder spree all it had to do is let the clown die from debris or falling but nope he just has to save the psychotic genocidal clown.
OK let's say law is responsible
For almost 80 years in comic batman knew about it and he didn't do nothing ?
at some point i do hold Batman some what responsible. If Batman does not want to kill Joker himself. Fine but he shouldn't save him from certain death or stop some one who is willing to kill joker, a solution to the problem presents itself but Bruce still steps in and stop it from happening. only because its a solution he does not like.
at what point does his code start to become a hinderence to his own goal?
To be fair on the officers joker has crazy plot armor
@@devildavinexactly he doesn’t have to kill fine but you don’t have to help them either.
I don't know if you know this but, joker from 1940 are not the same joker from present. Thus the rule of killing in itself are from a past time.
I think people are frustrated, that the villain can do whatever they want but this one Hero can only capture them and see as the villain escape again from prison to do evil thing.
he's talking about the dumbass writing that evolved with the joker
Okay, but him saving joker to the point of fighting the Punisher and Jason so Joker can escape is absolute bullshit. I don’t mind Spider-man’s no kill rule, because he does make exceptions for the worst of the worst. Meanwhile, Batman actively DEFENDS the worst of the worst and fights those that would bring them to Justice to protect them. Him fighting Jason for killing Penguin when Jason was trying to save Bizarro and Artemis was the most braindead thing ever and truly cemented my hatred for how a lot of writers write modern Batman.
Again with the double standards Spiderman once took a bullet to save green goblin, literally jumped in front of a bullet that was meant for goblin spidey saves his villains all time the time and so does superman for that matter
@@someguy-bv3il maybe, but once again Peter makes exceptions. He has also killed the Green Goblin before, more than once, and generally Peter has more of an excuse to protect his villains because the Spider-Man comics do a much better job of showcasing why he’d want to give them a second chance. The joker cannot be saved, and it’s been proven through his numerous heinous actions. Batman wanting to spare him makes no sense because there’s no reason for him to live. He cannot become better, he’s a maniac through and through.
Spider-Man’s equivalent to Joker, Cletus, shares this idea of not being a good person, but Peter’s mercy towards Cletus is related when he ends up redeeming himself and sacrificing himself for the greater good, proving that in the end, Peter was right about him.
@@someguy-bv3il generally, Spider-Man’s villains are just better people than Batman’s so it makes more sense why he’d spare them.
@@TheUnknownGruntProductions there are a lot of stories in which batman does kill the joker like a lot, and there are some stories in which joker gets rehabilitated so by that logic batman sparing the joker makes sense, also I don't agree that spiderman villains are "better people" than batman villains I will argue carnage is more evil than joker in fact there was a dc/marvel crossover comic in which joker and carnage met even joker was shocked at how evil and twisted carnage and speaking of evil villains superman has saved mongul from death fucking mongul who has canonically killed millions of people everyway i look at it just seems like doublestandards
@@someguy-bv3il On average, most of Pete’s villains are better people. Electro most of the time is a man who accidentally got mutated to have electric powers, Sandman is a down on his luck thief who also gets accidentally mutated to have sand powers via experiment and has been shown to have a pretty good moral compass as far as villains, go, even Rhino has sympathetic origins and moments. The stories you’re talking about where Bruce kills joker and joker becomes rehabilitated are mostly esleworlds, or just generally not in the main canon. I’m taking about 616 versus DC’s main Earths. And that Carnage and Joker comic is laughable considering Joker has done far worse things than Carnage.
Bro that clip of Snyder💀 how did he have control of these characters let alone Batman
Keep bro outta the kitchen
Who let Reeves have control? Dude made Bruce a sniveling 20 year old emo kid, had some mid 20s black lady become mayor of Gotham following a mafia rule, smeared Thomas Wayne’s name because he’s rich, and then wrapped it all up by having Batman believe he needs to become… *Hope* ?? Superman’s theme?
Dude had zero fucking idea what he was writing for
@@kman9884? Batman reflects HOPE for Gotham more than superman for metropolis wtf
@@kman9884 I love it when people say “Batman isn’t hope that’s Superman’s thing!” Its just wrong lmao. More proof that no one actually read dark knight returns and got the point of it. He literally inspires hope in that story despite that being the Batman story where he acts hyper edgy and crazy
@@kman9884 batman is hope, what do you think the light on the sky for? Yes ,a warning to the criminals but also hope for the civilians can go home safely, and what time do you think you finish your job? yes at night... and with Batman, people can be saved, and able to reunite with their family, they HOPE for Batman to protect them, if that's not HOPE I don't know what is. And the emo stuff is basically Batman but naked, no cowl, no suit, that's him without Bruce Wayne persona.
The real problem is the status quo. Batman's ways don't work, 'cause Gotham has to remain the same to "need" a Batman... to sell comics.
Same goes for every character
I feel like it's less of a problem with the no-kill rule and how Batman enforces it on others. He won't let other vigilantes kill villains because their actions violate “his” code and “his” morals. This usually results in him saving people like the Joker. He doesn't have to kill villains but doesn't need to save them. Plus, other heroes with no-kill approaches, like Spiderman and Superman, can break their codes if the threat warrants it. The fact that Batman, in most cases, refuses to even in situations where it is required and then gets on his bat moral high ground to others despite his mistakes is more so what annoys people
Can you give me an example of spiderman or superman breaking their code? Superman once saved mongul fucking mongul who canononicly has killed millions and spiderman once took a bullet to save green goblin
@@someguy-bv3il Superman killed Doomsday or at least intended to kill him, he's also made it abundantly clear we would merk Joker (not counting Injustice) if he ever tried bombing Gotham. He's also killed Darkside and pre-52 he killed Zod too. Spider-Man while the main universe variant hasn’t intentionally killed to my knowledge he has deliberately allowed GG to impale himself on his own glider after he killed Gwen, was willing to kill Morlun, King Pin and Itsy Bitsy
@@AidanKerr I don't think doomsday counts since he was more like a mindless animal rather than an actual person, i suppose darkside counts but batman also has killed darkside in final crises, my point being that as an avid reader of all 3 it always felt to me that superman and spiderman are about as adamant about the whole "no one dies when I'm around" rule as much as batman is and it always confuses me some people say they are more "flexible" especially superman one of his most defining traits is that he wants to save as many lives as possible even if they are bad guys
@@someguy-bv3il Thats fair enough, wasn't trying to decredit what you were saying and you meme some good points, I had no clue about Batman killing Darkside though, so that was cool to learn. I just feel like from what I've seen from the 3 characters Sups and Spidy are more willing to cross that line than bats, for better and for worse.
That’s what makes Batman interesting imo compared to someone like spider man or Superman, Batman literally won’t kill no matter what, and he will actively try and save anyone no matter what they’ve done from dying. It shows you that Batman isn’t perfect, he’s flawed and illogical just like how someone who watched their parents die in front of them would be
"Batman and Spider-Man should kill. They're half-measures. Not like Punisher, Venom, and Red Hood who get stuff done."
I can't help but smile over every fan of those types of characters, because every fan of them just proves Batman, Spider-Man, etc. right for not killing. Because if they did, characters like Punisher, Venom, and Red Hood wouldn't be breathing today.
Wtf does that even mean?
@@thesmithmemes373 Punisher and Venom were Spider-Man villains. Red Hood became a Batman villain for many years before becoming an anti-hero.
Not only that but the punisher and red hood have done nothing about major villains. They haven’t killed any significant villain ever.
Most Marvel characters do kill though.
An alien parasite that enjoys killing, a former Robin on a murder rampage, and a deranged adrenaline junkie hunting the most dangerous game for entertainment. What a shock that people don't want aspirational heroes to act like that.
Some people seem to want heroes to all go full Punisher and just kill every bad guy they come across which is ridiculous.
I think people hate on Batman’s no kill rule specifically because he’s so adamant about it. Other superheroes have it, but they don’t really mention it.
Well yeah because people keep questioning him in universe
spiderman literally told dare devil to give him his mask after he killed someone, Huntress was kicked off the justice league for killing, Captain America protested against wolverine joining the Avengers because his a killer, Superman literally took away Manchester Black's powers for being a killer, batman is not the only one adamant about the no kill rule
@@Superdude-rd2gsCap has killed people himself so that’s weird.
@Ghostface833 it's probably because cap believes that they're not soldiers anymore.
Cap has killed dozens of people. Even the mcu has him gunning down nazis @@Superdude-rd2gs
Not every member of the Justice League sticks by the no kill rule. Huntress, Eterigan, and Question are are willing to kill. Jason Todd, killing comes almost second nature to him.
those are unfortunately the few exceptions
probably referring to the core members.
@Joshcoshbagosh even wonder woman trys to hold back and arrow uses trick arrows
Wonder Woman killed Maxwell Lord because it was the best possible thing to do at that moment. Most interpretations of WW follow that tone.
Wonder woman has killed. It's one of the things that set super boy prime off
An often overlooked reason Batman doesn’t kill:
His father was a doctor. He dedicated himself to preserving life, Bruce using his parents’ death as a reason to enact lethal vengeance would spit on their memory.
8:25 That is exactly why I hate the scene in Suicide Squad (2016) where Batman ambushes Deadshot in an alley and beats him up in front of his daughter.
Ye batman would never beat a father in front of his daughter
The biggest problem is that Batmans gallery of villains are mainly psychopaths. Where with Spider-Man, there is way more empathy with the villians. When psychopaths are alllowed to keep being psychopaths, its a little harder to stomach the no kill rule.
But Batman’s villains have chosen to have sympathetic situations and honestly murdering the mentally unstable acting on compulsion would only get him memed on harder I mean people already joke about rich dude beating up the clinically insane
his mission was to prevent crime and set an example for good, not remove psychopaths from society. hes trying to help people from turning themselves into what took his parents from him, not get revenge for it.
@@hgriff14 Yeah, but these guys get out of jail and kill their friends and family every other week. Then what?
I get it but facts don't care about feelings, if you're gonna apply that logic to Batman apply it to every other superhero
@@feelgoodfandom5353Joker is not insane. Insane people don’t go to jail because they have no idea what’s going on but joker is fully aware. He knows he’s evil
that hate is very much justified. Hell it partly to blame for injustice.
Thank you for saying this! It's not like Punisher will ever actually save "future lives" or end crime because crime is endless. Especially in universes with supervillains and evil gods.
By your logic, no heroes should even exist. You can put any superhero in that sentence and it would still be logically consistent. Meaning your point is irrelevant.
@@thesmithmemes373You're so confident too. Let's say life doesn't matter since we all die: should I do nothing? Should I kill people? There's a difference between doing nothing and killing people in search of a permanent solution to an eternal problem. Not to mention universes where the heroes kill as a form of passing judgement become exceedingly violent.
Captain America kills a lot of people and nobody complains about it. He’s even being considered as a “goody two shoes boyscout” hero like Superman.
Batman doesn’t have to go to the extreme and become the Punisher if he started killing people. He could become like Cap.
But if Batman should be about his “no kill rule”, then DC must stop making villains commit irredeemable crimes and have incarceration as a last resort to make this moral code make sense. Or else, there will always be this debate about Batman’s incompetence forever.
@@nont18411Cap has only ever killed in the heat of the moment. He's never intended to kill someone from the onset. He also doesn't kill "a lot" of people.
@@nont18411Why does no one ever talk about Punisher's incompetence? He's never gonna clear out New York.
I'll be honest, i don't hate Batman's no kill rule. I just hate how he tries to save people like Joker when they are gonna die from their own actions. Arkham City Batman displays this perfectly at the end, despite poisoning so many people with his Titan Poisoned Blood, despite killing Talia, the woman he loved, despite crippling Barbara Gordon and killing Jason Todd who was his second ADOPTED SON, Batman would have saved Joker with the cure if Joker hadn't caused its vial to break and thus no longer be able to be taken. Sure render Clayface to being trapped as a bunch of pieces soldified by a Lazarus Pit without batting an eye, but being willing to leave Joker to die by something he did to himself is too much. It doesn't even break his no kill rule, because he isn't the one who killed him.
Exactly bro.
It works in the Dark Knight as well. Batman put the Joker in jail and that’s it. We never see him again. I know that it’s mainly because of Heath Ledger’s death but using prison/Arkham as the last resort for the Joker is effective to make Batman‘s “no kill rule” actually means something.
The most egregious example for me is whe Joker got turned into a vampire in The Batman(2001) and he tried to cure him. That's not letting Joker live, that's bringing him back to life.
It’s implied in Arkham Knight that he wasn’t actually gonna save him. Sure it’s the Joker that says this but that Joker was actually just Batman’s subconscious in the form of Joker. That was basically Batman telling himself that he was actually gonna let Joker die and he’s been lying to himself the whole time.
@@dariusporter358which is just inconsistent and stupid.If you let him kill himself just do it don’t save him and then let him kill people then decide to let him kill himself and not save him
The reason people despise the no kill rule for Batman is because of the joker every single comic or show or movie has him commit crimes that have a death toll that can not be ignored but Batman just puts him back into Arkham just so he can break out and kill thousands next Tuesday it’s fucking stupid.
Exactly.
That’s a fault of gothams justice system if anything
It makes complete sense batman wouldn't kill he lost his parents and knows how painful that loss is he became batman to prevent anyone to go through losing a loved one so of course he wouldn't kill somone potentially causing that pain to someone eles.
Yeah and many of these heroes will be traumatized if they start killing.
That doesn't explain why Joker lives.
@@anonymous_5016 you know why he lives don't play dumb even if he killed him the writers will bring him back because he's to valuable of antognist to get killed off
@@Chriso22 It’s DC fault then to make Batman no kill rule looks stupid. If they wanted to make this rule look legit, they should have used incarceration of the Joker as the last resort or at least made him gone for a very very long time, not kept bringing him back right away and made him kill even more people but like you said, Joker is a cash cow.
Yeah. Batman doesn't want anyone to go through the pain he went through which is why he lets mass murdering villains live to kill thousands every other weak when they break out instead of killing them. Big Brain Batman.
Batman kills = maybe 20 villains deaths.
Batman no kill = million of innocent deaths.
Yep i bet his parents are proud that he is as useless as the Police.
Batman only exists so he can prevent other people from suffering the same type of trauma he did in that alley.
He wants people to know that there's someone out there looking out for them.
What's the point of a crime victim to inflict the same trauma he suffered on other people ?
Batman is hope.
I recommend people to read Batman Ego, it's a perfect story that explains Batman's mindset and morals.
Yes thank you Batman does kill sometimes but if it's necessary like let's say joker had robin at gun point than than yes I understand
@@Sai-gp3pq Ever heard of a Batarang?
8:13 this is true, because I find that even tho villians like Posion Ivy do massage damage in their attempts at world wild mass murder/terrorism of all humans, or SA’s people, people still are mostly only adimit about only killing joker, and then either pretending every other villans is just flawed and misunderstood with no fault of their own (again like Ivy, if Batman killed Ivy, Harley, killed coc, people would loose it and get mad that Batman killed those ‘misunderstood’ villains) or they just kinda forget some of Batman’s villains lowkey are all pretty disgusting and messed up, and not just joker.
Then again in recent comics they have been making the Joker more ‘edgy’ with the face stuff.
Part of me hates his no-killing rule because as Bruce Wayne, he has both the ressources and intelligence to create an inescapable prison for his rogue like his Zur personna.
He couldn’t actually. Arkham is cursed more or less no amount of security could stop that.
🕑 nightwing booty pics
🕚 henry cavill shirtless
🕙 does isabela merced have a boyfriend
🕘 is zack snyder dumb?
📸 Boys, we got 'em!
Let’s be real here, the real issue here is that Gotham hasn’t reinstated the Death Penalty at this point
Would Batman even let the death penalty happen if it was legally reinstated? Haha
@@OscarASevilla no.
@OscarASevilla yes, he has said multiple times it's up to the justice system to deal with criminals, his problem is being judge, jury, and executioner. Anyone who says otherwise either lacks knowledge on batman or is lying
Not to mention the US government. The Joker in particular has committed enough criminal acts outside Gotham to be labeled an international terrorist. If Gotham won't put Joker down, there's nothing stopping the US government from doing it.
@@immortalfrieza great point! Haha
What I really want is for the writers to stop making Batman the villian by writing criminals so evil and irredeamable that he becomes evil by proxy for not snapping their necks. Looking at you Mr. "Boiled an infant alive and made the father drink the child-broth" Joker. Yes, he actually did that.
Your search history is so relatable ngl
People see Batman in one or more of these ways.
1 prep time he solos.
2 the cold or brutal warrior.
3 orphan.
4 the compassion hidden within the dark.
5 they don't see Bruce but only Batman.
I see him as the kid who grew up too fast I say that because after his parents... you know what he never enjoyed the rest of his childhood who could blame him for that and then he started his path to becoming the dark knight.
Bro, you were 100% right on the money with this. Here's my two cents: Taking the villain's life should never be the first option. The first option should always be to bring them to justice the right way. A hero (Bruce in this case, specifically, but superheroes in general.) should only kill when it's ABSOLUTELY 100% necessary, i.e., a case of what the law calls justifiable homicide. But, that's the point. Justifiable homicide is the EXCEPTION, not the rule, according to the law. A hero should never murder. EVER. And even if it comes down to killing a bad guy, the hero should always at least try to find another way. Even if a situation comes when a hero has to make that kind of choice, it should never be taken lightly, nor should it be reveled in. EVER. A hero is supposed to be a symbol of justice, good, hope, redemption (Yes, even giving a chance to those who seemingly don't deserve it.), and courage. Especially having the courage and strength of chareacter to show mercy to even their most evil of enemies. It is never the hero's fault if the villain escapes and commits more heinous crimes. That is a failure of the justice system. PERIOD.
Yeah he does not kill because Christian
10 commandments and all. Remember America used to be super Christian back then.
That's the best reason for a no-kill rule, ever!
@@leahp1765 Well, he is a modern Christian, who doesn't fight other Christians or Muslims in the Reformation or Crusades, or burn witches and Jews in the Inquisition, etc. He doesn't even shoot up gay bars, brainwash LGBT kids in reparative therapy, or bomb abortion clinics, either. He just goes to church on Sunday, and doesn't hurt anybody- -except dangerous, violent criminals!
@darlalathan6143 Thanks. I'm really passionate about superheroes, especially Batman, being symbols of ironclad honor, goodness, hope, and redemption. Even if that means having the strength of character to have mercy on their most evil of enemies and give them a chance, no matter how small or miniscule it may be, to be better and change their evil ways if they so choose. And if they don't take the chance to be better because they don't *want* to be better, then that's when they bring them to justice the right way and let the justice system, no matter how flawed it may be, take care of the rest. But they, including Batman, should always be willing to at least try. But like I said, option b still stands as a better alternative if possible.
As Samanda Watson from Arrow once said, "We protect the rights of people who don't deserve them to protect them for everyone." Even in fiction, as flawed as the justice system may be, it's the only one we've got.
So, what do you think about what I said? Let me leave you with this question. This applies to real life and fiction, even superhero fiction, because art imitates life and life imitates art: When all is said and done, will you have the strength of character to let go of whatever an enemy did to you, no matter how small or large and no matter how long ago or recent it was, or will you be weak and wrongfully take revenge, refusing to heal and let justice, however long it may take, run it's course while you heal, let go, and forgive? 😄😁😄
5:29 It was also one of the moments that proved Azriel wasn't worthy of being the heir to the Bat.
Many people in the comment section misunderstood Spider-Man and Kingpin situation it was Peter who was fighting and willing to kill Kingpin not Spider-Man.
I think a lot of those kills under the jokers belt is the result of bad writing with the intention to just get shock value.
Like the story about joker killing a bunch of kids, dismembering them, and sewing different limbs on the different kids so parents couldn’t tell… that doesn’t make me want Batman to kill the Joker, that makes me want to put the comic book down.
Not only that, the Joker also
- Torturing and killing Jason Todd
- Crippling and raping Barbara Gordon while also torturing her father Jim Gordon
- Using fear gas to make Superman hallucinating his own wife and child as Doomsday which caused him to accidentally kill them and triggered a nuke in Metropolis that killed millions of people
- And many more
Nobody in the right mind would consider these actions by the Joker as “redeemable” but somehow Batman (more like DC writers) thought they are
Yeah, I feel like they took the Joker to far. Every Bat family memeber hates him, the police hate him, and even the other criminals of Gotham hate him. You shouldn't be asking why Batman hasn't killed him, you should be asking why no one else in Gotham has killed him.
@@nont18411 The Joker is more about him being insane so he cannot be properly held accountable.
@@oliveragag8576 still shouldn’t get away with it
The Joker got stale years ago.
Well because he’s supposed to be super smart yet allows dudes like the joker to run free. He could build his OWN prison and keep joker locked up forever to be honest 😂
The justice system allows the joker to go free
@@karabo171and batman knows that justice system is corrupt
Wait I kinda want a game or comic on this idea. Could you imagine bat prison with batman as the warden making the ultimate unescapable prison. Each comic or episode is from the villains point of view as they try to escape only for the advanced security or one of the bat family to recapture them.
1:12, I pause here, yeah that scene with Daredevil, it was a very powerful moment, I loved it, my uncle hates the fact that Daredevil doesn't kill, all because he dresses up as a devil and has it in its name, he's a god believer so
The problem with a lot of filmmakers is they think they know better than the writers. Zack Snyder is a perfect example of a filmmaker who thinks he knows better than his writers, when all he knows how to do is screw things up and put it in slow motion with very little exception
It’s like when he changed Ken Clark’s death from a heart attack to him getting sucked up in a tornado. I imagine if he made a Spider-Man film he would make it so Uncle Ben randomly had a stroke.
He wasn't the writer tho😂
@@Cimo8 right, but as Director it's his decision in the end to film it and include it. and please don't come back at me about final cut.
@@CappyLarou Why? Because all of his cuts were generally seen as better? It's just annoying when people place all the blame on him when it's been known for years at this point that WB forced him into a lot of his decisions. Though I agree that if you're going to make an adaptation, it makes sense for it to be the main version of that character. And maybe it's just the difference between Marvel and DC fans but the MCU was at least given a chance to become what it used to be😂 No one gave that chance to the DCEU.
2021: Everyone licks Snyder's Justice League, Snyder himself and his actors.
2024: Everyone openly hates Snyder, his League, and his actors.
Can you explain this general hypocrisy?
Bruce Wayne helps fund for Arkham's security, GCPD upgrades, being a philanthropist to tackle the real issue of Gotham's crime which is unemployment, the lack of access towards better education, etc. A lot of the thugs he beat up were sent to a rehab system that Wayne probably helped design so that they can have a better chance of getting a job and not repeating the cycle. This last part reminds me of BTAS (or, was it TNBA?) where Nightwing and Robin (Tim Drake) returned a wallet of a guy who was almost got mugged. I believe the episode was "Old Wounds". Awesome watch that highlights Batman's compassion and moral compass. In conclusion, Batman/Bruce Wayne has done everything he can to help make Gotham a better place. Corruption will always exist. Batman realizes this. But, the point is to not stop trying.
Finally, someone in the comics who gets it.
9:17 I’m honestly impressed you used this interview, instead of the one where he quotes Manchester Black. Because I would not be able to resist proving exactly what makes his point dumb
Well if the same criminal he didn't kill escape the prison in less than a week people wouldn't be as mad
The whole thing is kinda dumb to begin with because joker would have gotten the death penalty a LOONGGG time ago for the things he's done. The justice system aka the courts, would sentence him for dea th..why is all the burden/blame on batman?? Joker should have received the dea th penalty yearssss ago..
The whole thing is kinda dumb to begin with because joker would have gotten the death penalty a LOONGGG time ago for the things he's done. The justice system aka the courts, would sentence him for dea th..why is all the burden/blame on batman?? Joker should have received the dea th penalty yearssss ago..
Bro you became my favorite comic RUclipsr. I been agreeing with all your takes lately. Literally every member of the League has a no-kill rule except maybe WW and that's if there's really really REALLY no choice.
One thing that really irks me with this topic that NOBODY every brings up is GCPD. Its more of a plot hole that no officer ever killed a supervillain in "self-defense" than Batman not killing them. Our cops in America are trigger happy as hell if you even look in their direction and it makes little sense that GCPD hasnt gunned down the joker or two-face while they're on their rampage.
Hell, im even more surprised that a corrupt cop just won't shoot joker while he's in custody in the back of the cop car. Especially back when half the force was corrupt.
Why haven’t the feds or cia killed joker either?
I think the problem here is that Batman's villains are underpowered, and DC's scriptwriters are naive about American police brutality. Boost Batman villains up to Terminator level, and you now have a good reason why Gotham's dirty cops can't kill them! It would also explain why the GCPD needs Batman to catch the Joker, Poison Ivy, the Riddler, etc., and why Batman doesn't kill them all.
The fact Batman and Harley are friends is another problem. Yet he has so much energy for Red Hood or even injustice superman. He is a hypocrite. The things Harley has done is inexcusable and if she was real she would have been shot long ago.
It's perfectly fine that Batman doesn't kill, he can't. Under the Red Hood explains it nicely. Even if you want to cap and act like Batman has a proper moral or ethical reason (which he doesn't), it is at least something that makes sense. He decided not to kill. Ok. But one thing will ALWAYS piss me off: he SAVES his villains from death even when he's not the reason for it. He's literally so insane he saves the Joker multiple times in both the comics and outaide of it. Hell, he tries to save him in Arkham City but the Joker breaks the cure vial.
I think the issue with Batman's no kill rule is that it's becoming harder and harder to justify it when his rogues do increasingly terrible things. DC has a bad addiction to Batman, and due to that addiction, they keep allowing writers to push the boundaries for his criminals. While yes certain stories are fun and entertaining it does change how nearly every big Batman story usually has his villains leaving a massive trail of bodies. This is especially true with characters like the Joker who has consistently been shown to have whole storylines where he just leaves rooms filled with dead bodies. Then you have some characters who kinda just disappear, and its stated they haven't done anything for a while only for them to come back and start dropping bodies left and right like with The Penguin, for example. I don't fully believe in the idea that Batman should kill, but his argument for why he shouldn't is getting harder to accept when his rogues in particular are doing some of the most vile stuff in DC comics still.
I mean the point is that batman cannot allow himself to kill, no matter what, irrespective of whether you or i believe killing joker is fine, batman himself cannot allow himself to kill, now should batman stories show how the system needs to be fixed and batman should try and fix it more? yes. but, that doesnt mean batman should kill.
@@thomasmcconville9199 Then the story should justify this rule better, not keep making his villains committing even more horrible crimes and keep escaping from Arkham right away after Batman just caught them.
@@nont18411 the story does justify the rule, it isnt the most logical solution, it's Batmans own psychological trauma won't allow him to cross that line, because if he does he doesn't know where to stop, I think that's the point of zurr en ah, not sure tho havent kept up with the newer runs too much
@@thomasmcconville9199 I’m not talking about Batman. I’m talking about his villains. DC should have put some limitations of the crimes those villains are able to commit to make Batman’s moral code make sense. The Joker in DCAU and the Dark Knight were great because the no kill rule were actually effective in stopping them. The Joker in Under the Red Hood, Killing Joke and Injustice, on the other hand. I would say that Superman wasn’t that wrong when he punched through the Joker’s heart.
@@nont18411 i get that you think joker deserves to be killed, that doesn't matter, heck you probably should think that, but batman cannot allow himself to do that, ur missing the point if you think any level of crime or evil should justify killing in batmans mind, it can't, it is the one line he can't cross
I fully agree with this.
The reason why Batman is a great character is cause he understands himself not to temptation of murder.
Batman's literally backstory makes it so that he won't kill anyone. Not because he wants to,but due to the fact it's too easy to do so.
We've seen how brutal he can be towards his teammates. So what's really at here for Batman?
His hole reasoning why he became Batman in the first f-ing place.
To uphold principles that not even Nightwing could accomplish.
Not killing i get, BUT SAVING JOKERS LIFE IS ANOTHER WHOLE STORY
That’s………fair
Mercy is dead. It saddens me.
Letting somebody die makes you responsible for their death
Spiderman and other heroes do the same to the main villian 😂
And almost none of them has a villain who's comparable to joker@@GreenEagle-p7z
The No Kill rule is what makes Batman something more than many other heroes and anti-heroes, not as a Moral high-ground, but as an example of sheer determination to never fall under the temptation of crossing the line. Just like Joker said in the Dark night, and that's why he's capable of using a Green lantern ring, because Batman's superpower is his will power.
Thanks for the video
The no-kill rule is fine on paper, but how it's done sometimes doesn't. For example, batman won't kill, but he's willing to give you brain damage or leave you cripple. When written well, I'd still say the no kill rule works, but it's something not everyone can write
"Batman drinks and fcks to forget. Like anybody, like that's a common way to deal with trauma" No, that's your pathetic way you would deal with trauma. If you are weak and nihilistic that does not mean someone else will be. Tired of directors not allowing themselves to explore how other people would react and deal with things, instead they insert all their own sht.
Being Batman….IS HOW HE DEALS WITH IT! Like Jesus it’s not like it’s written in the comics come on. Though I do think he may also be a playboy to help but an alcoholic is a bit much
It's more interesting and makes him more human
@@honeyjm8324 The thing is he is so much batman that Bruce Wayne is his alter ego, he is never not batman, and he can never stop being batman, even when he gets too old he has to be batman.
A few good series touch on this detail, a particularly rough one is in the Harley Quinn show, every moment in his mind he relives his parents death, he can never forget.
@@andrewgreeb916 as much as I get that I feel like that limits him and it feels weird to say that Bruce Wayne is his mask I more feel like Bruce Wayne is his happiness that he doesn’t get to let out, cause he can’t be the Batman that gives people hope without remembering who he was born as
Batman doesn't deal with trauma "like anybody." He deals with trauma through bringing criminals to justice, and trying to prevent that tragedy from repeating for others.
I've had the exact same thought with people not being consistent with critising all heroes who don't kill. Maybe it's because it's a more consistent and focused on theme in Batman media than alot of other superheroes but still people should be able to think a bit more and be consistent. That quote from Bill Finger was great to see, and needs to be used more in response to the "Batman should kill" BS. Because that's coming straight from the guy who basically created Batman and it's something he understood and that was intended pretty much from the beginning with the character.
If batman kills it has to be a big moment and a big shift in his character, it cant just be a throw away thing 9:19
interesting thing about bringing up keatons batman. Batman Forever is set in that same universe and Val Kilmer's Batman addresses his experience about choosing to kill and the terrible path it puts you on. He uses it to try to dissuade Dick from trying to kill Two-Face.
I can understand him not killing random street thugs, there's no need to. But the joker should be a clear exception. As long as he breathes people Will die and there will be chaos. And Batman knows this. As a hero isn't your main priority saving as many lives as possible?
The justice system could easily put him on death row bruh batman don't need to kill people
@@karabo171 You can also say he doesn't need to go out at night going after criminals when he's not a police officer yet here we are 🤷
There will always be chaos. Killing Joker doesn't result in less of it. If anything based on the comics it leads to more.
@@mightguy3118 him being a vigilante is a result of Gotham's bad justice system and these criminals still being in the streets is because of the horrible prison system, all I'm saying is batman always captures these people. The justice system is who's failing Gotham not him
@@karabo171
But then Batman is a pointless figure he isn't actually doing anything to improve Gotham as the justice systems corruption is still there and even worse he knows about it.
Him trusting the flawed system despite knowing it's flawed makes him an idiot especially when his supposed goal is protecting Gotham and it's civilians.
Found this channel randomly, but seeing your batman takes gives me faith that there's hope for this fandom. I think the no kill rule will become a major element of the DCU batman seeing as Damian will be his robin. I hope they handle it in a way that casuals can digest so that nonsense arguments dont start popping out of nowhere.
10:05 yo he made thomas wayne batman from flash point universe
Batman shouldn’t kill from the very start and makes no sense for him to kill in my opinion.
I don't care about the rule itself. I CARE about how it is made to look stupid by how much Batman's villains escalate.
A prime example of this is the Injustice storyline, in the story Joker blows up Metropolis, just straight up kills millions with a nuke. Here Batman preaching to not kill the Joker is morronic due to the sheer level of the crime, and it is one of the few good points Superman had, keeping the Joker alive might have preserved one life but hundreds of thousands lost their families due to it.
How many kids have ended up as lil Bruce Wayne in that alley due to Batman's rogue gallery being seemingly immune to death?
100% agree.
The issue with his no kill rule is that it's to maintain the status quo. However, its not justifiable when a majority of his villains have gone off the deep end and crossed that line habitually without remorse. It just makes him look stubborn, childish, and ineffective. It's even worse when he saves the villains from somebody else trying to kill them. Batman is essentially handcuffed by editorial
TLDR; Don't portray Batman's rogues as unrepentant habitual mass killers when you know Batman isn't allowed to eliminate them due to status quo and sales. It just breaks the suspension of disbelief and makes fans desire for him to kill *only when necessary and not on a murder spree*.
The hate for the no kill rule I believe mostly stems from how far the Joker in particular is allowed to push the envelope in terms of how much damage he is allowed to do. I think this is another thing from that bled over from Dark Knight Returns unfortunately, because in DKR Joker kills like 100 people in one night. Which up until this point is the most extreme the Joker is ever portrayed regardless of continuity. The reason, narratively is that the Joker knows that it’s his last hurrah so that’s why he is more extreme than every other story. But the future writers took this part and made a firm part of the Joker’s normal behaviour without understanding of the context of why Frank Miller initially wrote him that way in DKR.
I think it’s also worth noting that when people invoke comparisons to DKR it is about as silly as the golden age Batman defense if not more because the reasons things are so extreme in DKR from Batman to the Joker is because it was meant to be the last Batman story, it is not how the characters normally act. I’m also sick and tired of the Snyder cultists saying that Batman kills in DKR which he straight never does and anyone who says otherwise, read it again, Batman does not kill a single person in DKR.
Batman’s no kill rule became established in Batman issue 4 or at least that was the first time it was put in text in 1941. Even before that happens Batman never walked around with a gun shooting criminals. The only time he “kills” someone with a gun in that pre-Robin era that everyone cites is Vampires via silver bullets. Considering that vampires are already undead, that one example doesn’t even work. All of his other kills in the formative years are incidental at best, and it becomes real obvious when people use that as defense knowing full well that they have never read any of the golden age stuff.
Another reason why we need a proper introduction of Cassandra Cain's Batgirl in films is because she's probably the member of the Bat Family who respects the no killing rule the most. Being raised into becoming an assassin instead of being a normal child ruined her, and when she was tricked into killing someone (at a VERY young age i might add) messed her up, she even scolded Batwoman for killing Clayface, saying how the Bat Symbol is special because "it means never kill". The fact Cass shed tears over a villain as dangerous as Clay Face just shows how Batman's no killing rule has a positive inspiration on the characters that follow Batman.
Wanna know what’s funny in arrow when Oliver decides not to kill in season 2 it actually helped him with lance he only did it once in that season and was against someone who really had no realistic way to stop since he could’ve killed felicity and probably snitched
I do think it is stupid when they have him save the lives of people like the joker. He should not be doing that.
Facts. Not killing the joker is one thing but going out your way to save his life? I bet Batman would choose saving the jokers life over a hostage lmao
Seriously why if your not gonna have Batman kill then do the whole: I'm not gonna kill you but I don't have to save you! Boom! Problem solved
Exactly. Like in Arkham City. The clown kills a bunch of people including Batman's love interest Talia and Bruce is just willing to save him. Not to mention Joker's deadly illness is 100% his own fault for injecting himself with TITAN.
Eh I feel like joker had “died” many times from his devices and still comes back. Spoilers, but didn’t he and Batman at one point in synders life literally get crushed to death underground only to both come back somehow?
Truth is,comics have a history of using these villains over and over as part of their never ending story.
@@neostardustdragon1018 that was a stupid thing in good movie
THANK YOU. About the only good note in BvS was when, after the example of Superman, Batman refused to kill Luthor in his cell. That should have been a stronger story arc, a fallen hero returning to the ideals of his youth.
Yet he still kills others before and after.
I always thought it was because of the sentence "If you justify doing something once, you will justify doing it again". Which is also a really good real life lesson which seuper hero media was meant to trach back in the day. Nowadays its just over the top edgy CGI nonsense.
Sure. But what if that thing is 100% justified in that moment? What if it literally is the best possible thing to do?
@@quantumvideoscz2052That's different. He shot Darkseid