I find interesting how movies respect more the "no guns" than the fact that he is a detective or a father figure to the bat family, two way more important traits of the character
Platy News I especially think the detective part could be played up, because it shows his intellectual intelligence, whereas the bat family is always a challenge to bring to the big screen.
You know, as opposed to physical intelligence (knowing how to use his body), a primal intelligence (big lizard brain, powerful predatory instincts) , etc.
There is a theory of multiple intelligences, which you are getting towards, but no. It would be a combintion of several of the multiple intelligences. I don't remember them all off top of my head.
Really Batmans one rule has always been to never succumb to corruption. The Gotham cops were always being bought off or bargained with allowing criminals to run rampant. Also lawyers and judges. But it can also be said that Batmans one rule is no murdering. He won't just go around shooting or murdering criminals. He fights them, battles them. This is why he must be trained so well. His combat and detective skills must be at their peak. As well as his physical strength and dexterity. Other characters have powers but Batman is just a man. But he shows us what a man can accomplish when he challenges and exceeds his limits.
One day, I'd like to see an adapted version of Batman with an amalgamated continuity. He'd start out all Detective Comics #27 with the blue gloves and the gun (the gun could even be Joe Chill's) then Robin turns up and he has to cool off because reasons, or whatever, and so then we have a goofier Bats trying to be a father-figure, then Robin leaves and we get the darker 70s-90s version, then eventually we end up with the very technological Batman we see in comics and adaptations today. Maybe even end with Batman Beyond...
@@DayOldMeat I'd divide them like this: 1939-1940 pulp caped crusader 40s-early 80s lighthearted detective Late 80s-2010 modern dark knight 2011-nowadays technological vigilante
in Night Wing #33 of the 2001 series, there is a flashback where Batman is handing a gun to a young Robin (Dick Grayson )and this is what the script says... Robin: I thought you hated guns. Batman: But I don't fear them. There's a big difference. They're used against us so often we need to know them, respect them. You need to know how the work. To know even more than the punks who rely on them for courage. We'll even practice throwing them. Robin: What's after this? Chainsaws at twenty paces? Batman: (a slight smile): Next week.
There is another misconception here: Batman's rule is not "no killing" it is "no murdering". Batman, of course, does not murder his enemies in cold blood, but in the middle of a fight or a battle, it is both morally and legally acceptable to kill an opponent in self defense to save his own life or life of innocents for Batman as well as any individual whether it be civilian or a law officer.; and throughout the years it happened from time to time. And it is usually these examples people put forward when talking about Batman killing people.
Sure, but come on... The Joker? The most dangerous criminal in Gotham? If there was any instance where Batman should've broken his 'no killing'-rule, it was in his fights with the Joker. Hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people died because he didn't kill Joker and basically allowed him to come up with new schemes. It makes you wonder why lesser criminals weren't so lucky.
Jaros Bodytko Ya I agree. You'd think that batman would have already killed him in "self defense" or other wise. And why has he not gotten killed by the law or other?
Uh-hunh. Because of course in comic books, you'd NEVER see the Joker coming back with ghost or zombie powers or using someone's decision to kill him to con the would-be hero into killing some innocent guy made up to look like the Joker. I class that reasoning among other common sense solutions that don't hold water in a world with jet packs and talking apes.
David Johnston You're missing the point. It's not about whether the Joker would somehow come back from the dead, because of course he would, it's the freaking Joker. The question is why Batman doesn't kill him in the first place, whether in self defence or to prevent future crimes from happening. He has killed lesser criminals before, either by accident or intentionally, but with the Joker he just won't do it, knowing full well that he can't be reformed. That makes Batman responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, simply by allowing to Joker to live. That makes his 'no killing' rule pointless.
One of the most misunderstood beliefs in the United Sates is that there is a federal law that requires guns to be registered. There is some base to this belief, but it is very wrong. The 1911-style pistols of Bat Man or The Shadow would not require federal registration. The National Firearms Act required firearms like machine guns, rifles/shotguns with short barrels and other items such as silences and "destructive devices" to be registered. All the items are still legal, but you have to clear the necessary background checks and pay a $200 tax (which was a LOT of money back when the NFA became law). Semi-auto and manual loading pistols, shotguns and rifles are not registered with the federal government. However, there are some states that require registration of firearms. If you live in one of those states, it is easy to assume its the same every where else.
You are correct that Batman's gun would not need to be registered, but the NFA and prior crime and gun violence during that time still led to critics being uncomfortable with Batman wielding a gun and still being called a hero.
+NerdSync Consider how often "critics" are uncomfortable with something that society in general either doesn't care about or in fact favors. I am quite certain you are correct about *why* Batman went from freely using firearms to decrying their usage, but I think we just hit upon why it was a mandate from above and not the natural evolution of the character.
He had a thing called a _Bat-Launcher_ in the game _Batman: Vengeance._ It fired (as far as I can remember) net-guns, taser pellets, and electric mines, and it SEEMED to be nothing more than the Bat-grapple, but with the grapple part removed. If you're of a more cynical mind, as I am, it's there for no other reason than "it fulfills the 'first-person shooter' requirement of early-2000s video games."
I favorite play with this idea was in Batman Year 2, when Batman almost... "threw shade" at Joe Chill. Threw shade, like a shadow... Shot him is what I'm trying to say. I was hoping there was more about the classic Batman interpretation using guns, all the time, right after saying he doesn't use guns.
I have always felt that a large part of Batman is the legend and the legacy that follows him. He dresses like a bat and hides in the shadows in order to put up a sort of vail, separating himself from the world of mere men. He, in a way, transcends humanity. It is this that strikes fear into the hearts of evil: The ultimate crime prevention. In my opinion, a gun would ruin all of that and pull him back down to a more mortal level. It would prove that he is just human, just a vigilante, just another being that can make flaws and mistakes. The story of Batman is what makes Batman so effective. As such, I like that he has this 'no guns rule.' It sends a message. It adds to the lore. He doesn't carry a gun... because he doesn't need one.... (raises one eye brow ominously)
The Dark Knight trilogy was definitely the best representation of his rule. He lets Ra's Al Ghul die on the train because he got himself into that situation, Batman's hands are clean. He pushes Two Face off the building because otherwise an innocent kid would die. But when he kicks Joker off the building he catches him with the grappling gun because it would be his fault if Joker had died.
Because Joker had already gotten inside Batman's head and planted the idea that "You're going to have to break your ONE LITTLE RULE," and Bats now has to prove that Joker is alone in having no rules.
Nicholas Tosoni personally I kind of wished batman would just let joker die who in their right minds in Gotham apart from batman give a damn about a homocidal sociopath ?
Didn't Batman also blow up that train to "let" Raz die? I remember it being something like "I won't kill you *blows up train parts so that it will explode or crash or something* But I don't have to save you. *Leaps off of train to let Raz explode or something*" That's a little less....clean...
@@ShadeSlayer1911 Batman just blew the tail off the train car so he could escape. It would've crashed anyway, Gordon was the one who used the batmobile to collapse the track. Bruce kills a few people earlier in Begins though. The League of Shadows orders him to kill the murderer as a final test. Instead, Bruce sets the temple on fire killing at three people on screen.
I know this is a little old but your next video should be about what Professor X saw in Deadpool's mind in "Deadpool kills the Marvel Universe. " please I think this is a really good topic because i have always wondered why he died and what he saw.
NerdSync would probably bring the theory about "what if Xavier saw the knowledge of the 4th wall and since only Deadpool could endure such an info, Xavier was killed!"
Scott is the real Peter Parker, he love playing with those web shooters. Just look at the room. In the first episode of "Batman Beyond", which a lot of people will mention, Bruce Wayne stop being 'Batman' when he used a gun against a criminal to stop him. Bruce Wayne 'quiting' being 'Batman' for breaking his 'no-gun' rule makes more sense then 'quiting' for a love interest like the Nolan's movies.
Batman in the comics actually owns quite a few guns. Bruce Wayne has been seen hunting with his peers a number of times, plus I remember a scene from an old 90s comic in which Batman showed Robin a HUGE collection of firearms he keeps in the Batcave both to familiarize himself with their operation and to train in countering them. Plus I suppose he would need them for all his forensic work too...
Batman's one rule that I don't think has ever been broken in canon in the main universe. No marriage. Mostly because the fiancee always dies. RIP Silver St. Cloud.
Really love these videos - even for topics I have zero interest in, you make them entertaining and I find myself watching all the way through anyway. GREAT WORK, SCOTT!
It's cool that you bring up the Shadow. He's one of my favorite characters of all time. He now has different values than Batman. The problem with Batman is that he's not consistent with his rules. There are too many interpretations of Batman and that depends on the writer. And that interpretation is what we say is "our" batman. My Batman doesn't kill but a friend of mine loves it when he's murdering left and right in BVS. I think that in spite of your video, Batman in general, has no rules. We would have to specify which one.
I remember in the Injustice comic (in the first couple of issues I believe) Green Arrow said, while spiriting Harley Quinn away so Superman couldn't killer her, something to the effect of "I'm not naive, I know sometimes it's kill or be killed, but what Superman did to Joker was execution." I like that distinction. I think if Batman has a similar outlook, it would allow him to stick to his no kill rule, but it wouldn't be that big a deal when he breaks it, like honestly intending on killing Darkseid or something, because in that case, it's very sensible to reason that either Darkseid dies, or everyone else does.
In series premiere of Batman Beyond we see Bruce/Batman extremely shaken after being forced to use a gun. There are also a couple instances in Justice League Unlimited where Batman is disgusted by guns. As for the no killing rule, bummer for the innocent people die under Batman's ruthless fists meanwhile, we have the Joker dropping bodies left and right, and Batman goes out of his way not to kill him. I felt like Batman killing people is what spoiled Batman Very Superman for me, and the whole DC Cinematic Universe for that matter.
It shouldn't spoil it for you. At least in this rendition of the Batman story it is explained why he has changed and the problem with the change. He went off the deep end essentially. That's the character arc that he must come back from.
Personally I liked how his one rule was used as a corner stone to Bruce Wayne's retirement in Batman Beyond. During the opening scene of the first episode we are shown batman grabbing a gun during a heart-attack ... while he didn't actually kill with the gun, it was clear that he felt that he was only a hair away from crossing that line.
Comics in a nutshell: "There was this really climatic and powerful ending, and it was so meaningful... You know, until they undid everything that happened in later stories. ...Yay, comics."
I would not mind Batman using guns. What I really detest is superheroes torturing people, even if they are villains. Unfortunately, there are countless examples of this. Comics and fiction in general treat torture way too lightly. Maybe you could have an episode about that?
Come on, isn't it enough that Bill Finger got the short end of the stick. Why are you mostly saying that Kane wrote the stories when most evidence say he had little real influence outside of the name & artwork? I know that it is a controversial subject and I am no Bob Kane hater, just asking. Is it a legal thing? I mean Finger didn't get true credit for his controbutions to Batman until this year right? Anyway sorry for the bad spelling and love your videos. and BTW I personally have no problem with Batman killing in comics or movies for the most part (do Batman kill animals outside of that one episode of The New Batman Adventures?) and I wish more people knew about & respected the golden age Batman.
"Ted, what's my one rule?" "You can tell how old a girl is by her elbows?" "My other one rule." "Flax seed relieves upset stomach?" "My other one rule." "Always have a fake pair of concert tickets in case Lily invites you somewhere stupid?" "My other one rule." "If you're gonna get it on in a portable toilet, do it early in the day?" "My other one rule." "No killing with guns?"
I'm so glad you made this video. I've actually been super irritated every time I hear someone talk about how Batman doesn't kill, because it shows that they haven't done even the slightest amount of research into the character. I don't even know where that concept came from.
I know it was just for video purposes here, but it makes me sad people still think the KNIGHTMARE scene from BvS where he shoots people as him killing people, when, it's a.. ya know... a nightmare.
You don't seem to know too much about firearms laws in the US. There is no need to register your firearm unless it is an NFA item (Machine guns, destructive devices, etc...) And yes, the NFA does infringe on your right. Not technically, but it makes it darn near impossible for you to get a machine gun without a large sum of money at hand. Why keep machine guns away from law abiding citizens? They aren't exactly going to kill anyone with them. Only people who are going to go around killing people are criminals, which aren't going to follow the law anyway.
The people who wrote the bill of rights fought a war against a tyrannical government. In their minds there was no distinction between military and civilian weapons. That being said Washington would probably advocate the right to bear a law-80
I generally think of Batman’s One Rule as “don’t intentionally allow a person to die.” Accidental killing isn’t an issue, it happens. Killing as an absolute last resort is pushing it but not necessarily an issue, but no willful killing. I think a lot of Batman’s appeal comes from the fact that he won’t do the wrong thing for the right reasons. Not to the same extent as Superman of course, but it’s still an important part of his character.
Rbdn T That makes no sense as an answer. What's so special about Joker? Why would killing Joker push him over the edge when killing other bad guys didn't? In those continuities where Batman simply doesn't kill, it makes sense that rule would apply to Joker as well, but if he's already killing a bunch of people, why wouldn't he kill someone as dangerous as Joker?
Karl-Kristoffer Johnsson Exactly! That's why I say Batman doesn't kill. Sometimes certain writers just don't understand that, and in those cases you just have to kind of ignore it.
Because writers misinterpreted "I don't kill with guns" as "I don't kill" and wrote the character that way to the point that "I don't kill" is now the standard for Batman.
I think Batman is more interesting when he doesn't kill. By refusing to kill you can turn his fights with the Joker into a philosophical battle. Writers are forced to come up with more creative ways of defeating the villains. Fans have come up with a theory that Batman knows he's is crazy and his refusal to kill is how he holds on too the little bit of sanity he has left. Other fans have argued that if Batman kills, he won't be able to stop because it will be easier to justify other murders.
No guns and no killing. killing only if Batman reaches the end of his limitations and must decide to kill in order to save an innocent. Malicious and or lazy rationals need not apply. If there is even a remote possibility that the job can be done without killing, then Batman is honour bound to pursue it.
hence ur an idiot the movie tells u he a shadow of his former self , a broken bat so he would not b the same as he was b4 until the end wen he begin to try and return to his old self
There have been "broken jaded war-hardened Robin-less" Batmen before that has stilled upheld his rules. Is Batman's convictions really so weak that he'll break his ethics just because he feels bad?
Batman would have killed the Joker in A Death in the Family if the helicopter had not already been on a crash course into the ocean (and he would have killed him earlier if not for Superman's intervention), so I think it's fair to say that a Robin-less Batman is capable of killing.
Perfect example of the One Rule being "No Killing With Guns": _The Dark Knight Returns_, the most brutal Batman ever created, stormed the Mutant gang's hangout spot with his gigantic tank that Dick called the "Batmobile", and started shooting at the Mutants that attacked him. "Rubber bullets. Honest." - Batman, _The Dark Knight Triumphant_, 1986
Batman using a stun gun would be enough, wouldn't it? A weapon that doesn't kill upon contact, but disables the criminal long enough for Batman to have the criminal be carried off to prison. That way, he doesn't become a killer like Joe Chill.
electricmastro no, not always, but there's a chance you could accidentally kill someone with a stun gun if they have a pacemaker or other medical issues.
You neglected to show any of the many panels where Batman says he doesn't and won't kill AT ALL. Comics are contradictory, you just have to go with what you think is best. Then find people who agree with you and go gang up on people who have a different opinion. I say Batman doesn't kill EVER. Who wants to fight me, and who's with me?
I'm with you, because if Batman kills, when the whole point of his "no killing" or "no guns" rule is completely lost. If he can justify atleast one kill, he can justify them all. I don't care about movies or shows, because usually they are they own thing. BUT, if Batman there states what he "doesn't kills", then it becomes problem.
B Black Hmm... Is it "no fighting at all" rule or "no fighting with words" or "no fighting with fists" or "no fighting which injures" or "no fighting with put any word here".
NerdSync 'member the first episode of Batman Beyond? Bruce uses a gun and gets so disgusted with himself that he stops being Batman. Years later, Terry steps in, etc.
+Stephan Berger He didn't use it...He just pointed it at the criminal to intimidate him cuz he was scared..His age caught up and his body failed him and he was backed into a corner
Stephan Berger The comic adaptation of the Batman Beyond first episode "Rebirth" starts with a prologue deleted from the show. It depicts Batman first using the new exoskeleton technology to take down some gun wielding thugs, which ends with the Dark Knight stating "I don't like guns." This was in case the scene of Bruce in the Beyond suit being disgusted at himself for using a gun flew over the heads of members of the audience who are not familiar with Batman.
I like the version of Batman who doesn't use guns. It makes him feel more heroic and it brings some light into a story and a character which are both very dark
I prefer the Golden Age better Batman doesn't murder with guns if bad guys are fighting back he will shoot back if they are unarmed and not threatening anyone else with any type of weapon then he would not shoot them or kill them. thank you .and thank you Zack Snyder and ben affleck best Batman fight scenes ever!!!!
I like the rule "no killing with guns" much more than just "no killing". You can't avoid killing people if your day job (or night job) is running around and punching guys in the face really hard. Accidents happen and Batman can't let himself be bothered by every single one of them. I think that "try not to kill" is a good rule for a superhero. Even considering all the reasons you gave in the video, I think the main reason for his rule (whatever it may be) is so he can't just kill his villains in the very first issue they appear in. It would be a shame if Joker got shot in the face during one of his first laughs on the panels. If they wanted to make villains reappear in later issues, they would have to make them kind of immortal like Ra's or make Batman never beat them which would suck. With a rule he can be a hero, a real one, not a mental vigilante who can't beat any of his enemies. Now it is: beat them, put them in Arkham, they break out, repeat. ANd I like it. Batman killed even in the newest "Killing Joke" movie. He threw a midget into the spikes and there was even a sound of those spikes piercing through him.
"He can't just *kill his villains in the very first issue they appear in*. It would be a shame if *Joker* got shot in the face during of his first laughs on the panels" Funny what you mention it.
I think that Batman's non-lethal use of guns is just another part of his character. If I hear Batman, that's one of the things that just comes to mind.
Another moment which kind of "turned the corner" a bit for Batman using guns was Cosmic Odyssey, when Batman realizes he's physically outmatched against an alien (maybe a parademon, but I can't remember because it's been 20 years since I read it). So he uses the aliens energy gun against it. At the time, the fan debate was something like, "so maybe he will use alien guns, just no human ones", which made no sense at all.
But the Batman from the main timeline. Has been around the Golden Age. Who debuted in 1939. But it used to be a separate universe before. Since the retcons and reboots of the DC multiverse. This justified the importance of DC's Golden Age. It was revealed that the Gold and Silver ages have always been a part of DC lore. This entire time.
In terms of the Modern concept of Batman I've always accepted the " Don't kill" rule to be his only rule and everything else be an extension of that, not necessarily multiple rules. If you think about who batman is as a character this makes perfect sense. In other words, we all know batman is highly skilled in hand to hand combat and is extremely smart, perhaps the nature of guns being extremely damaging and unpredictable in result on impact (ricochet internally etc) is too random and gives batman less control, especially if an enemy is moving while shot etc. Due to the intelligence of batman, he would obviously know how to take down an enemy without causing any lethal results. Hope that makes sense. Awesome video as usual scott!
Every version of batman as another 'one rule'. In the animated DC-universe, Batman was angry at Damian Wayne for wanting to kill Dollmaker (I.E. Rule = no killing), while in the Dark Knight trilogy, he doesn't kill people himself, but won't necessarily save them if they don't deserve it (ex. Ra's Al Ghul) (I.E. Rule = no actively killing). And in the the DCEU, he uses guns (on his batvehicles and in the Knightmare sequence) and kills people both with and without guns (I.E. Rule = try not to kill). So in the 'Batman Beyond' universe, his rule would have ben no guns.
In the comics, he do not kill the guy, I pretty sure he does the same in the animated version. The evidence of that is after the gun holding thing, the police give some charges against Batman and no killing/murder on that list (www.cbr.com/movie-legends-revealed-did-batman-actually-kill-anyone-in-the-dark-knight-returns/).
+RoboGuns14 Honestly Batman killed plenty of people in the dark knight trilogy, He blew up a building with people inside it, when he quit the league. And all his vehicles also have guns and missiles and he do use them against people and vehicles which results in deaths. While the DCEU Batman are more aggressive in his use of lethal weaponry he is at least not lying to himself about what he does.
Dennis A. Thomsen maybe not the best place to said that, the first comments are about Batman Beyond (one of the animated DC show). The last are about The Dark Knight Return from Frank Miller (the graphic novel) and its adaptation
As always, very good video. You included some history which is a hobby of mine. I have enjoyed your entire month of Batman. I enjoyed the unique range of topics for this videos. I really thought the video on how to say Ra's Al Ghul was very cleverly done.
I always thought of the no guns rule as an extension of the no killing rule. I always see Batmans decisions on how he fights crime as way to scare criminals more and more. That's why, I think at least, he doesn't use escrima sticks like Nightwing or tazers , because it shows how strong he is and how he doesn't need any weapon, only his fists to defeat any criminal, and this rule could aso be applied to guns.
leotamer5 Hence the "silly" in my sentence. Had they been killed by a bow and arrow, would there be a No killing by bow and arrow rule? It basically means killing is ok, but not by this type of weapon, that's stupid.
It's not a moral choice like "it's bad to use guns". Otherwise he would hate cops. it's connected to his trauma. In a way it's more like a taboo, it's not realy rational. Then again, Batman is crazy, so that makes sense.
I've always wanted batman to kill if there's no way to avoiding it, treat it as a last resort. Look at ironman as an example: He HATES killing and does so only in extreme circumstances. Besides how long could you fear a man who's threats are ultimately hollow?
The NFA only requires the registration of certain guns. Specifically full automatics, silencers, and short barrel rifles and shotguns. There's more, but those are the important ones to know. Even today in the U.S. there is no requirement to register a firearm, counter to popular belief.
Your argument makes a lot of sense. When it comes to movie continuities, I'd say that each new adaptation of Batman is different. For example, in the Dark Knight trilogy, he would terrify his enemies, to the point where many of them would give up in fear, making it unnecessary for him to kill.
Personally I think it makes more sense that he has multiple rules, like don't kill, don't use guns and a lot of other stuff. It may have not been intended originally, but it has made the character what he is to not kill. Plus if he did kill then it destroys under the red hood storyline completely, and why is the joker still alive ?
Batman's one rule is put the word "bat"in front of all your gadget names.
Stephen Rabe yep
i think you mean his bat gadgets
I believe you mean his one bat-rule.
*BatWords
*BatNames
True suprised there ain't a bat gun
"I have to become what i fear most" *Dresses up as a Pistol, going around shooting Villians*
Crimson Gamer boy I guess everyone fears death
Sounds like something I’d hear from Mr.Sundaymovies
Gunman
The dark pistol returns
Gatman
This cracked me up 😂
I think batman's one rule is to do whatever the writer wants him to do.
👍👍👍
Batmans one rule is no more nipple suits:D
That's probably more of a guideline.
Batman: NEVER AGAIN NEVER SPEAK OF IT ALFRED NEEEVVVVERRRR
BlitzKnight That's literally every fictional character ever.
I find interesting how movies respect more the "no guns" than the fact that he is a detective or a father figure to the bat family, two way more important traits of the character
Platy News I especially think the detective part could be played up, because it shows his intellectual intelligence, whereas the bat family is always a challenge to bring to the big screen.
Conor LaMere Did you just say intellectual intelligence?
Bro wtf??
You know, as opposed to physical intelligence (knowing how to use his body), a primal intelligence (big lizard brain, powerful predatory instincts) , etc.
Travis Smith Yes but what you said was basically "Smart Smartness."
There is a theory of multiple intelligences, which you are getting towards, but no.
It would be a combintion of several of the multiple intelligences. I don't remember them all off top of my head.
We had to re-upload the video because we accidentally used a picture of Steve Ditko when we meant to use Bill Finger. Sorry for the confusion.
NerdSync ALL MY COMMENTS ARE GONE! its fine lol
NerdSync Scott you made a comic misconception lol
+
Good....good
NerdSync no problem
Really Batmans one rule has always been to never succumb to corruption. The Gotham cops were always being bought off or bargained with allowing criminals to run rampant. Also lawyers and judges. But it can also be said that Batmans one rule is no murdering. He won't just go around shooting or murdering criminals. He fights them, battles them. This is why he must be trained so well. His combat and detective skills must be at their peak. As well as his physical strength and dexterity. Other characters have powers but Batman is just a man. But he shows us what a man can accomplish when he challenges and exceeds his limits.
Batman's one rule is brooding over his dead parents.
And Rachel.
Amie Mallich Not a canon character. She was made for the film.
5:22 "Kid friendly".
Yeah right. The guy's enemy is the Joker who regularly gasses kindergarden schools for kicks.
yeah
except jokers often depicted as much goofier as well, most notably the 60s show. the 60s show in general is how the franchise was viewed for years
One day, I'd like to see an adapted version of Batman with an amalgamated continuity. He'd start out all Detective Comics #27 with the blue gloves and the gun (the gun could even be Joe Chill's) then Robin turns up and he has to cool off because reasons, or whatever, and so then we have a goofier Bats trying to be a father-figure, then Robin leaves and we get the darker 70s-90s version, then eventually we end up with the very technological Batman we see in comics and adaptations today. Maybe even end with Batman Beyond...
So basically Spider-man: Lifestory but with Batman
@@TupocalypseShakur Yes! Exactly!
70s Batman is totally different from 90s Batman
@@Ian-hj4yt Agreed. I was thinking of 90s as end of the 80s. 90s-00s Batman would be moving towards a technology-based Batman via Azrael's Batman.
@@DayOldMeat I'd divide them like this:
1939-1940 pulp caped crusader
40s-early 80s lighthearted detective
Late 80s-2010 modern dark knight
2011-nowadays technological vigilante
"Bob Kane... kept writing up stories."
Insert obligatory mention of Bill Finger here.
Remember that time Bruce Wayne was working undercover at a grocery store and had a panic attack when he need to use a scan gun? Good times.
in Night Wing #33 of the 2001 series, there is a flashback where Batman is handing a gun to a young Robin (Dick Grayson )and this is what the script says... Robin: I thought you hated guns. Batman: But I don't fear them. There's a big difference. They're used against us so often we need to know them, respect them. You need to know how the work. To know even more than the punks who rely on them for courage. We'll even practice throwing them. Robin: What's after this? Chainsaws at twenty paces? Batman: (a slight smile): Next week.
That’s adorable.
There is another misconception here: Batman's rule is not "no killing" it is "no murdering". Batman, of course, does not murder his enemies in cold blood, but in the middle of a fight or a battle, it is both morally and legally acceptable to kill an opponent in self defense to save his own life or life of innocents for Batman as well as any individual whether it be civilian or a law officer.; and throughout the years it happened from time to time. And it is usually these examples people put forward when talking about Batman killing people.
Well thought out! I bet you'll get the NerdSync note prize next week.
Sure, but come on... The Joker? The most dangerous criminal in Gotham? If there was any instance where Batman should've broken his 'no killing'-rule, it was in his fights with the Joker. Hundreds, if not thousands of innocent people died because he didn't kill Joker and basically allowed him to come up with new schemes. It makes you wonder why lesser criminals weren't so lucky.
Jaros Bodytko Ya I agree. You'd think that batman would have already killed him in "self defense" or other wise. And why has he not gotten killed by the law or other?
Uh-hunh. Because of course in comic books, you'd NEVER see the Joker coming back with ghost or zombie powers or using someone's decision to kill him to con the would-be hero into killing some innocent guy made up to look like the Joker. I class that reasoning among other common sense solutions that don't hold water in a world with jet packs and talking apes.
David Johnston You're missing the point. It's not about whether the Joker would somehow come back from the dead, because of course he would, it's the freaking Joker. The question is why Batman doesn't kill him in the first place, whether in self defence or to prevent future crimes from happening. He has killed lesser criminals before, either by accident or intentionally, but with the Joker he just won't do it, knowing full well that he can't be reformed. That makes Batman responsible for thousands of innocent deaths, simply by allowing to Joker to live. That makes his 'no killing' rule pointless.
One of the most misunderstood beliefs in the United Sates is that there is a federal law that requires guns to be registered. There is some base to this belief, but it is very wrong. The 1911-style pistols of Bat Man or The Shadow would not require federal registration.
The National Firearms Act required firearms like machine guns, rifles/shotguns with short barrels and other items such as silences and "destructive devices" to be registered. All the items are still legal, but you have to clear the necessary background checks and pay a $200 tax (which was a LOT of money back when the NFA became law).
Semi-auto and manual loading pistols, shotguns and rifles are not registered with the federal government. However, there are some states that require registration of firearms. If you live in one of those states, it is easy to assume its the same every where else.
You are correct that Batman's gun would not need to be registered, but the NFA and prior crime and gun violence during that time still led to critics being uncomfortable with Batman wielding a gun and still being called a hero.
+NerdSync
Consider how often "critics" are uncomfortable with something that society in general either doesn't care about or in fact favors. I am quite certain you are correct about *why* Batman went from freely using firearms to decrying their usage, but I think we just hit upon why it was a mandate from above and not the natural evolution of the character.
However, manufacture and sale of new machine guns is prohibited so it's becoming *very* expensive to own a machine gun (like $12,000 just to start).
It's still highly unconditional and should be repealed.
it would be fine if it was called a bat gun
And had to have wings made by paper mache and spray painted black.
He had a thing called a _Bat-Launcher_ in the game _Batman: Vengeance._
It fired (as far as I can remember) net-guns, taser pellets, and electric mines, and it SEEMED to be nothing more than the Bat-grapple, but with the grapple part removed. If you're of a more cynical mind, as I am, it's there for no other reason than "it fulfills the 'first-person shooter' requirement of early-2000s video games."
I favorite play with this idea was in Batman Year 2, when Batman almost... "threw shade" at Joe Chill. Threw shade, like a shadow... Shot him is what I'm trying to say.
I was hoping there was more about the classic Batman interpretation using guns, all the time, right after saying he doesn't use guns.
I have always felt that a large part of Batman is the legend and the legacy that follows him. He dresses like a bat and hides in the shadows in order to put up a sort of vail, separating himself from the world of mere men. He, in a way, transcends humanity. It is this that strikes fear into the hearts of evil: The ultimate crime prevention. In my opinion, a gun would ruin all of that and pull him back down to a more mortal level. It would prove that he is just human, just a vigilante, just another being that can make flaws and mistakes. The story of Batman is what makes Batman so effective. As such, I like that he has this 'no guns rule.' It sends a message. It adds to the lore. He doesn't carry a gun... because he doesn't need one.... (raises one eye brow ominously)
The Dark Knight trilogy was definitely the best representation of his rule.
He lets Ra's Al Ghul die on the train because he got himself into that situation, Batman's hands are clean. He pushes Two Face off the building because otherwise an innocent kid would die. But when he kicks Joker off the building he catches him with the grappling gun because it would be his fault if Joker had died.
Because Joker had already gotten inside Batman's head and planted the idea that "You're going to have to break your ONE LITTLE RULE," and Bats now has to prove that Joker is alone in having no rules.
Nicholas Tosoni personally I kind of wished batman would just let joker die who in their right minds in Gotham apart from batman give a damn about a homocidal sociopath ?
@@radmanpedram3214 homocidal? I think you mean homicidal.
He isn't gay.
Didn't Batman also blow up that train to "let" Raz die? I remember it being something like "I won't kill you *blows up train parts so that it will explode or crash or something* But I don't have to save you. *Leaps off of train to let Raz explode or something*"
That's a little less....clean...
@@ShadeSlayer1911 Batman just blew the tail off the train car so he could escape. It would've crashed anyway, Gordon was the one who used the batmobile to collapse the track.
Bruce kills a few people earlier in Begins though. The League of Shadows orders him to kill the murderer as a final test. Instead, Bruce sets the temple on fire killing at three people on screen.
I thought he didn't use guns because his parents were killed by a gun
aLadNamedLoaf well that is part of the reason
I thought Alfred banned him from using it
I know this is a little old but your next video should be about what Professor X saw in Deadpool's mind in "Deadpool kills the Marvel Universe. " please I think this is a really good topic because i have always wondered why he died and what he saw.
russell is fun he saw all the tragedy rape murder was made just to amuse people and he went insane
Thekillerofzs maybe theres more
NerdSync would probably bring the theory about "what if Xavier saw the knowledge of the 4th wall and since only Deadpool could endure such an info, Xavier was killed!"
Sarcastic Duck thats a great theory
russell is fun
thx :p
Scott is the real Peter Parker, he love playing with those web shooters. Just look at the room. In the first episode of "Batman Beyond", which a lot of people will mention, Bruce Wayne stop being 'Batman' when he used a gun against a criminal to stop him. Bruce Wayne 'quiting' being 'Batman' for breaking his 'no-gun' rule makes more sense then 'quiting' for a love interest like the Nolan's movies.
It not just for the love interest, He also killing someone...
And he thing the Batman is no more needed in Gotham
Lets be real batman is just as insane as the villains he fights but at least he tries to be a good guy.
@@Jebu911 most Batman villains aren’t insane and neither is Bruce.
Im sick of events ruining media
And i love Batober i wish it wasn't over
To say nothing of ruining real life.
Thanks for acknowledging Bill Finger as co-creator of Batman. He very rarely gets his due.
Batman in the comics actually owns quite a few guns. Bruce Wayne has been seen hunting with his peers a number of times, plus I remember a scene from an old 90s comic in which Batman showed Robin a HUGE collection of firearms he keeps in the Batcave both to familiarize himself with their operation and to train in countering them. Plus I suppose he would need them for all his forensic work too...
Batman's one rule that I don't think has ever been broken in canon in the main universe. No marriage. Mostly because the fiancee always dies. RIP Silver St. Cloud.
James Zetterman or goes to a different city, her father dies and she becomes a villain that kills the mob
And catwoman who ditches at the last second
It's no more cowardly to shoot someone than it is to throw a batarang at them.
Neither are cowardly
Really love these videos - even for topics I have zero interest in, you make them entertaining and I find myself watching all the way through anyway. GREAT WORK, SCOTT!
It's cool that you bring up the Shadow. He's one of my favorite characters of all time. He now has different values than Batman. The problem with Batman is that he's not consistent with his rules. There are too many interpretations of Batman and that depends on the writer. And that interpretation is what we say is "our" batman. My Batman doesn't kill but a friend of mine loves it when he's murdering left and right in BVS. I think that in spite of your video, Batman in general, has no rules. We would have to specify which one.
I remember in the Injustice comic (in the first couple of issues I believe) Green Arrow said, while spiriting Harley Quinn away so Superman couldn't killer her, something to the effect of "I'm not naive, I know sometimes it's kill or be killed, but what Superman did to Joker was execution."
I like that distinction. I think if Batman has a similar outlook, it would allow him to stick to his no kill rule, but it wouldn't be that big a deal when he breaks it, like honestly intending on killing Darkseid or something, because in that case, it's very sensible to reason that either Darkseid dies, or everyone else does.
I like golden age Batman. He is Punisher before Punisher
Nac Soberana I too he was also more rational
I like him more with a gun
he was also bootleg version of the shadow
More like read hood because he is not a ex soldier but yeah that true.
In series premiere of Batman Beyond we see Bruce/Batman extremely shaken after being forced to use a gun. There are also a couple instances in Justice League Unlimited where Batman is disgusted by guns.
As for the no killing rule, bummer for the innocent people die under Batman's ruthless fists meanwhile, we have the Joker dropping bodies left and right, and Batman goes out of his way not to kill him.
I felt like Batman killing people is what spoiled Batman Very Superman for me, and the whole DC Cinematic Universe for that matter.
Brian Purcell batman is a complex and problematic character.
It shouldn't spoil it for you. At least in this rendition of the Batman story it is explained why he has changed and the problem with the change. He went off the deep end essentially. That's the character arc that he must come back from.
Personally I liked how his one rule was used as a corner stone to Bruce Wayne's retirement in Batman Beyond.
During the opening scene of the first episode we are shown batman grabbing a gun during a heart-attack ... while he didn't actually kill with the gun, it was clear that he felt that he was only a hair away from crossing that line.
Comics in a nutshell:
"There was this really climatic and powerful ending, and it was so meaningful... You know, until they undid everything that happened in later stories.
...Yay, comics."
I had just figured the comics code authority had something to do with it.
Is it that list where it is written that a villain should die only by its own machinations?
I would not mind Batman using guns. What I really detest is superheroes torturing people, even if they are villains. Unfortunately, there are countless examples of this. Comics and fiction in general treat torture way too lightly. Maybe you could have an episode about that?
Come on, isn't it enough that Bill Finger got the short end of the stick.
Why are you mostly saying that Kane wrote the stories when most evidence say he had little real influence outside of the name & artwork? I know that it is a controversial subject and I am no Bob Kane hater, just asking.
Is it a legal thing? I mean Finger didn't get true credit for his controbutions to Batman until this year right? Anyway sorry for the bad spelling and love your videos. and BTW I personally have no problem with Batman killing in comics or movies for the most part (do Batman kill animals outside of that one episode of The New Batman Adventures?) and I wish more people knew about & respected the golden age Batman.
"Ted, what's my one rule?"
"You can tell how old a girl is by her elbows?"
"My other one rule."
"Flax seed relieves upset stomach?"
"My other one rule."
"Always have a fake pair of concert tickets in case Lily invites you somewhere stupid?"
"My other one rule."
"If you're gonna get it on in a portable toilet, do it early in the day?"
"My other one rule."
"No killing with guns?"
Killer Batman for me is more effective. Just look at the shit Gotham has to go through.
Bruse Wayne has so many one rules he can almost rival Barney from How I Met Your Mother
I'm so glad you made this video. I've actually been super irritated every time I hear someone talk about how Batman doesn't kill, because it shows that they haven't done even the slightest amount of research into the character. I don't even know where that concept came from.
I know it was just for video purposes here, but it makes me sad people still think the KNIGHTMARE scene from BvS where he shoots people as him killing people, when, it's a.. ya know... a nightmare.
I prefer the Golden Age version
I'm rather surprised the CCA wasn't involved in Batman's lack of guns. This is more interesting!
I never knew that. Interesting.
I really enjoyed Batober and hope to see one next year!
good video NerdSync.
P.S. golden-age batman is cool
You don't seem to know too much about firearms laws in the US.
There is no need to register your firearm unless it is an NFA item (Machine guns, destructive devices, etc...)
And yes, the NFA does infringe on your right. Not technically, but it makes it darn near impossible for you to get a machine gun without a large sum of money at hand.
Why keep machine guns away from law abiding citizens? They aren't exactly going to kill anyone with them.
Only people who are going to go around killing people are criminals, which aren't going to follow the law anyway.
Cuttle Fish, eloquently stated.
The people who wrote the bill of rights fought a war against a tyrannical government. In their minds there was no distinction between military and civilian weapons. That being said Washington would probably advocate the right to bear a law-80
Ironic how the NFA didn't hurt the organized crime scene because they were rich enough to afford it, those who they exploited were not.
Out of curiosity, why would you need or want a machine gun?
apc55 English French cuz its fun
I generally think of Batman’s One Rule as “don’t intentionally allow a person to die.” Accidental killing isn’t an issue, it happens. Killing as an absolute last resort is pushing it but not necessarily an issue, but no willful killing. I think a lot of Batman’s appeal comes from the fact that he won’t do the wrong thing for the right reasons. Not to the same extent as Superman of course, but it’s still an important part of his character.
I love Battober, definitely bring it back, it's fantastic!
One thing I'd like to know is how does Bruce Wayne protect people as Batman without any sleep?
B-but Loeb's Batman: The Long Haloween, Holiday! 😢
If he's killed people before, why can't he kill Joker? Doesnt have to be with a gun. He can just snap His neck or something.
VK Produções Isn't because he believes if he kills joker he will fall into darkness and kill all his villians
Rbdn T That makes no sense as an answer. What's so special about Joker? Why would killing Joker push him over the edge when killing other bad guys didn't?
In those continuities where Batman simply doesn't kill, it makes sense that rule would apply to Joker as well, but if he's already killing a bunch of people, why wouldn't he kill someone as dangerous as Joker?
Karl-Kristoffer Johnsson Exactly! That's why I say Batman doesn't kill. Sometimes certain writers just don't understand that, and in those cases you just have to kind of ignore it.
Because writers misinterpreted "I don't kill with guns" as "I don't kill" and wrote the character that way to the point that "I don't kill" is now the standard for Batman.
writers need a reason for Batman and joker to fight every issue
In my opinion for the rules it depends on the writer at the time.
I think Batman is more interesting when he doesn't kill. By refusing to kill you can turn his fights with the Joker into a philosophical battle. Writers are forced to come up with more creative ways of defeating the villains. Fans have come up with a theory that Batman knows he's is crazy and his refusal to kill is how he holds on too the little bit of sanity he has left. Other fans have argued that if Batman kills, he won't be able to stop because it will be easier to justify other murders.
It kind of makes him the bad guy too.
Batman's one rule: no killing
Bruce Wayne's one rule: no fat chicks
"yeeeei... comics"
made me lol and woke up my nephew.
But it's true: always a plot twist awaits in comics!
Man, that little Spidey really went to town on your room.
I think the "only villains use guns" idea is absolutely pathetic.
No guns and no killing. killing only if Batman reaches the end of his limitations and must decide to kill in order to save an innocent. Malicious and or lazy rationals need not apply. If there is even a remote possibility that the job can be done without killing, then Batman is honour bound to pursue it.
hence, I hate Affleck's Batman.
hence ur an idiot the movie tells u he a shadow of his former self , a broken bat so he would not b the same as he was b4 until the end wen he begin to try and return to his old self
There have been "broken jaded war-hardened Robin-less" Batmen before that has stilled upheld his rules. Is Batman's convictions really so weak that he'll break his ethics just because he feels bad?
Batman would have killed the Joker in A Death in the Family if the helicopter had not already been on a crash course into the ocean (and he would have killed him earlier if not for Superman's intervention), so I think it's fair to say that a Robin-less Batman is capable of killing.
Which makes him the bad guy
Perfect example of the One Rule being "No Killing With Guns": _The Dark Knight Returns_, the most brutal Batman ever created, stormed the Mutant gang's hangout spot with his gigantic tank that Dick called the "Batmobile", and started shooting at the Mutants that attacked him. "Rubber bullets. Honest." - Batman, _The Dark Knight Triumphant_, 1986
An au with golden age Batman would be neat
That intro made me want you to make a video on Rainbow Batman XD
Batman using a stun gun would be enough, wouldn't it? A weapon that doesn't kill upon contact, but disables the criminal long enough for Batman to have the criminal be carried off to prison. That way, he doesn't become a killer like Joe Chill.
electricmastro a stun gun can kill a person
Are they always?
He does use one in the Arkham games
electricmastro no, not always, but there's a chance you could accidentally kill someone with a stun gun if they have a pacemaker or other medical issues.
Which is something that the Penguin probably screens for when he hires a new pack of goons anyway, so it could still work.
You just opened my eyes to batman rules, Scott thank you!
I love that sources are ever present in these videos!
You neglected to show any of the many panels where Batman says he doesn't and won't kill AT ALL. Comics are contradictory, you just have to go with what you think is best. Then find people who agree with you and go gang up on people who have a different opinion. I say Batman doesn't kill EVER. Who wants to fight me, and who's with me?
I disagree but I won't fight you. I don't have a reason to and I don't even know where you live.
I'm with you, because if Batman kills, when the whole point of his "no killing" or "no guns" rule is completely lost. If he can justify atleast one kill, he can justify them all.
I don't care about movies or shows, because usually they are they own thing. BUT, if Batman there states what he "doesn't kills", then it becomes problem.
I disagree with you but I won't you, I have one rule. No fighting. And I won't break it!
B Black Hmm... Is it "no fighting at all" rule or "no fighting with words" or "no fighting with fists" or "no fighting which injures" or "no fighting with put any word here".
Mmmm...depends on who my writer is- er, uh...*clears throat* I mean, yeah! All of that!
One of the 1st 10 twice on the same video awesome
Nice!
Thanks
NerdSync 'member the first episode of Batman Beyond? Bruce uses a gun and gets so disgusted with himself that he stops being Batman. Years later, Terry steps in, etc.
+Stephan Berger He didn't use it...He just pointed it at the criminal to intimidate him cuz he was scared..His age caught up and his body failed him and he was backed into a corner
Stephan Berger The comic adaptation of the Batman Beyond first episode "Rebirth" starts with a prologue deleted from the show. It depicts Batman first using the new exoskeleton technology to take down some gun wielding thugs, which ends with the Dark Knight stating "I don't like guns." This was in case the scene of Bruce in the Beyond suit being disgusted at himself for using a gun flew over the heads of members of the audience who are not familiar with Batman.
On your desk you have a green lantern. Dun dun chh.
"villians carry guns"
Cyborg: Hey guys check out my new arm cannon!
(*you can see Green Lantern create machineguns and fire*)
His rule is to go nuts whenever someone says his mothers name
I always assumed his one rule was don’t say the name “Martha”.
Really liked the Green Lanterrn that you used this episode ;)
I like the version of Batman who doesn't use guns. It makes him feel more heroic and it brings some light into a story and a character which are both very dark
I prefer the Golden Age better Batman doesn't murder with guns if bad guys are fighting back he will shoot back if they are unarmed and not threatening anyone else with any type of weapon then he would not shoot them or kill them. thank you .and thank you Zack Snyder and ben affleck best Batman fight scenes ever!!!!
I like the rule "no killing with guns" much more than just "no killing". You can't avoid killing people if your day job (or night job) is running around and punching guys in the face really hard. Accidents happen and Batman can't let himself be bothered by every single one of them. I think that "try not to kill" is a good rule for a superhero.
Even considering all the reasons you gave in the video, I think the main reason for his rule (whatever it may be) is so he can't just kill his villains in the very first issue they appear in. It would be a shame if Joker got shot in the face during one of his first laughs on the panels. If they wanted to make villains reappear in later issues, they would have to make them kind of immortal like Ra's or make Batman never beat them which would suck. With a rule he can be a hero, a real one, not a mental vigilante who can't beat any of his enemies. Now it is: beat them, put them in Arkham, they break out, repeat. ANd I like it.
Batman killed even in the newest "Killing Joke" movie. He threw a midget into the spikes and there was even a sound of those spikes piercing through him.
I always preferred supermans morals,he kills when it's ABSOLUTELY,100% UNAVOIDABLE.Batman should just cripple the Joker though.
"He can't just *kill his villains in the very first issue they appear in*. It would be a shame if *Joker* got shot in the face during of his first laughs on the panels"
Funny what you mention it.
If you mean when they first met in the killing joke's Joker's origin, Batman didn't want to kill him and he wasn't Joker yet.
Mateusz Bielecki I'm talking about Joker's first issue.
Don't know the issue. What happened there? Was he actually shot by Batman?
I think that Batman's non-lethal use of guns is just another part of his character. If I hear Batman, that's one of the things that just comes to mind.
Another moment which kind of "turned the corner" a bit for Batman using guns was Cosmic Odyssey, when Batman realizes he's physically outmatched against an alien (maybe a parademon, but I can't remember because it's been 20 years since I read it). So he uses the aliens energy gun against it. At the time, the fan debate was something like, "so maybe he will use alien guns, just no human ones", which made no sense at all.
Batman is okay with killing? Explain why the Joker is still alive.
+Sadib cause joker is insane, so it is kind of wrong to kill someone with mental problems
Los Venaos It might be even easier.
Because the joker wants him to.
J Turner So? Make everyone happy.
***** Because he fears he will become like him.
Do it again next year!
But the Batman from the main timeline. Has been around the Golden Age. Who debuted in 1939. But it used to be a separate universe before. Since the retcons and reboots of the DC multiverse. This justified the importance of DC's Golden Age. It was revealed that the Gold and Silver ages have always been a part of DC lore. This entire time.
In terms of the Modern concept of Batman I've always accepted the " Don't kill" rule to be his only rule and everything else be an extension of that, not necessarily multiple rules.
If you think about who batman is as a character this makes perfect sense.
In other words, we all know batman is highly skilled in hand to hand combat and is extremely smart, perhaps the nature of guns being extremely damaging and unpredictable in result on impact (ricochet internally etc) is too random and gives batman less control, especially if an enemy is moving while shot etc.
Due to the intelligence of batman, he would obviously know how to take down an enemy without causing any lethal results.
Hope that makes sense.
Awesome video as usual scott!
in Batman beyond Batman retires because he get to use a gun to defend himself so surely his one rule would have been no guns
Every version of batman as another 'one rule'.
In the animated DC-universe, Batman was angry at Damian Wayne for wanting to kill Dollmaker (I.E. Rule = no killing), while in the Dark Knight trilogy, he doesn't kill people himself, but won't necessarily save them if they don't deserve it (ex. Ra's Al Ghul) (I.E. Rule = no actively killing). And in the the DCEU, he uses guns (on his batvehicles and in the Knightmare sequence) and kills people both with and without guns (I.E. Rule = try not to kill). So in the 'Batman Beyond' universe, his rule would have ben no guns.
The Dark Knight Returns part 2 animated film... Not shown, though, f I remember correctly.
In the comics, he do not kill the guy, I pretty sure he does the same in the animated version.
The evidence of that is after the gun holding thing, the police give some charges against Batman and no killing/murder on that list (www.cbr.com/movie-legends-revealed-did-batman-actually-kill-anyone-in-the-dark-knight-returns/).
+RoboGuns14
Honestly Batman killed plenty of people in the dark knight trilogy, He blew up a building with people inside it, when he quit the league. And all his vehicles also have guns and missiles and he do use them against people and vehicles which results in deaths. While the DCEU Batman are more aggressive in his use of lethal weaponry he is at least not lying to himself about what he does.
Dennis A. Thomsen
maybe not the best place to said that, the first comments are about Batman Beyond (one of the animated DC show). The last are about The Dark Knight Return from Frank Miller (the graphic novel) and its adaptation
Batman is a knockoff of The Shadow...shots fired....there I said it.
That’s not a controversial opinion. He literally is.
"bat's what is your ONE rule?"
"[ah damn what could i say um..no guns, no killing, wait i got it] ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW IS.. IM BATMAN"
As always, very good video. You included some history which is a hobby of mine. I have enjoyed your entire month of Batman. I enjoyed the unique range of topics for this videos. I really thought the video on how to say Ra's Al Ghul was very cleverly done.
I always thought of the no guns rule as an extension of the no killing rule. I always see Batmans decisions on how he fights crime as way to scare criminals more and more. That's why, I think at least, he doesn't use escrima sticks like Nightwing or tazers , because it shows how strong he is and how he doesn't need any weapon, only his fists to defeat any criminal, and this rule could aso be applied to guns.
No killing by guns? That's quite a silly rule?
The Punisher will think otherwise
Would you feel that way if your parents was murdered by guns when you was 8? It isn't logical, but there is a reason behind it.
leotamer5
Hence the "silly" in my sentence. Had they been killed by a bow and arrow, would there be a No killing by bow and arrow rule?
It basically means killing is ok, but not by this type of weapon, that's stupid.
It's not a moral choice like "it's bad to use guns". Otherwise he would hate cops. it's connected to his trauma. In a way it's more like a taboo, it's not realy rational.
Then again, Batman is crazy, so that makes sense.
Pls do more themed months, I find them extremely enjoyable.
Hell yeah, I loved Batman Month (The Long Halloween) -- Please bring it back next time around, NerdSync!
I've always wanted batman to kill if there's no way to avoiding it, treat it as a last resort.
Look at ironman as an example: He HATES killing and does so only in extreme circumstances. Besides how long could you fear a man who's threats are ultimately hollow?
Batman's underage sidekick Robin, is that a rule?
8:08
actually it does say he doesn't use guns period. It says explicitely he never carries a gun.
I love the golden age, the art style, the guns, the gangsters, the guns, the silly looking cops, the guns, Batmans purple glowes and the guns!
swag
We got it!
This really cleared things up. I was never sure if his One Rule was no killing, or no guns.
The NFA only requires the registration of certain guns. Specifically full automatics, silencers, and short barrel rifles and shotguns. There's more, but those are the important ones to know. Even today in the U.S. there is no requirement to register a firearm, counter to popular belief.
It's still unconstitutional and needs to be repealed.
scott this part made me die 0:44
and of laughter btw i love your videos you need 1 million subs or i think
Your argument makes a lot of sense. When it comes to movie continuities, I'd say that each new adaptation of Batman is different. For example, in the Dark Knight trilogy, he would terrify his enemies, to the point where many of them would give up in fear, making it unnecessary for him to kill.
Personally I think it makes more sense that he has multiple rules, like don't kill, don't use guns and a lot of other stuff. It may have not been intended originally, but it has made the character what he is to not kill.
Plus if he did kill then it destroys under the red hood storyline completely, and why is the joker still alive ?
Batman's death was undone in the final page of the same comic he died in
3:25 well that worked wonderfully didn't it