Discussion in 'Movies and Television' started by SaberPrime, Jul 26, 2012.
lol the movie wouldn't even be watchable with out Arnold saying those puns.
Everyone knows that, he's just giving an opinion.
batman movies are allways great, why? because he's batman!
But have you noticed, outside of Adam West's Batman.........each seemed willing to kill, which is out of character compared to most of the source martial.
*West-Batman kills burglar*
"Holy lawsuit, Batman! You might want to find a place to lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder!"
Most of them do burn up before they hit the Earth but not all of them. There was one about 3 months ago that exploded into smaller pieces before actually hitting the Earth. And I do mean exploded it woke me up the morning it happened and I don't get woken up very easily.
Meteor Explosion! - YouTube
Some kid found a piece of it near by where I live and some N.A.S.A. scientist offered him like $5,000 for it but he turned it down. He was in the news paper for it though.
Ah, I see what you did there, very puny.
Oh yeah... and the movie Batman is not a murderer. The villains who died were by ACCIDENT. In the very first movie Batman tried to save Joker when he fell off the roof. It's not like he pushed him off and then walked away.
sorry but thats just not true.In that same film Batman blew up a factor filled with people, its likely not everyone got out.He even chucked 1 guy down the bell tower shaft.That guy likely died.
In the next film he took a bomb and put it in the pants of a bad guy and knocked him down a hole to blow up.
I can go on if you like?
On the topic of Batman killing... I don't wish to start an argument, but I'll just leave this here:
He killed in some of the earlier Batman comics.
Bat-Keaton has killed. He kicks one of The Joker's thugs down the stairwell of the clock tower thing. You know, a hundred feet or so. Then in Batman Returns he turns the Bat-Mobile around and uses the jet engine to virtually incinerate one of The Penguin's circus freaks. And then of course he stuffs some sticks of dynamite down a circus freak's pants and kicks him into a hole - with the dynamite then detonating. All while he grinned.
Now, you can argue whether or not the victims were actually killed or not, or whether they were merely "seriously and possibly permanently injured". But the intent is still there, especially when shoving dynamite down someone's pants or kicking down clock tower stairwell. You don't do that and think "it's okay because I'm not shooting them in the brain". Even if they don't die, you might as well have killed them.
I think it's the fact that (save for the above-mentioned examples), his more brutal actions are ambiguous. Whether it's Bat-Keaton, Bat-Kilmer, Bat-Clooney or Bat-Bale, they're violent, but they obviously don't want Batman shooting a bullet into someone's brain or stabbing a knife through their heart. But breaking bones, severe lacerations and contusions, putting people in full-body casts and causing severe psychological trauma are his MO. Or letting the villain die ("I won't kill you...but I don't have to save you"). That's fine. He is the judge as to when his actions are deemed "too excessive". I mean, driving the Bat-cycle through a mall (or whatever it was) in TDK is extremely dangerous; he risked running people over and/or colliding with them. Punching the lights out of random Gotham goons and whatnot? It's okay because he doesn't kill them. Driving the tumbler on roofs risks them caving in and him flattening a family. The "he doesn't kill" is basically him sticking to his moral code that he doesn't want to become those that he hunts (and beats to bloody pulps).
I have a feeling I'm going to regret posting this... someone's just gonna' wipe the floor with me.
and in some of the later books as well.
No he didn't. I've seen it somewhat recently, there aren't even any thugs in that building. He chases Joker and his love interest for the movie into the clock tower. The 3 of them are the only ones in the building, no thugs.
This one I haven't seen in a while and while I do vaguely remember some dynamite I'm pretty sure it wasn't Batman who shoved it down the guy's pants. I think the thugs had dynamite on them already that they intended to blow something up with and having a comically long fuse the guy just stuck it in his own back pocket to fight Batman not expecting it to go off any time soon.
Batman Scene 26 Danny Elfman Music - YouTube
Batman kills the guy.
Batman kills a fat dude - YouTube
Visibly holding a pack of dynamite at the beginning of the scene. He totally killed that dude.
you need to watch it again.
He fought 3 thugs in that building from what I remember,.
you are wrong again.
Batman took the explosives from 1 badguy, and stuck it on the pants of the other
Really, watch the films again before you continue making these wrong statements.
Sorry SaberPrime, but you're 0-2...Bat-Keaton was a killer. I mean, it's not like we saw the dead bodies (besides Joker), but he did all sorts of brutally violent things that most people would not survive.
And? SaberPrime said that Burton's Batman wasn't a killer...
no, batman saved raij before returning to Gotham, and at the end batman said to raij, and I quote, (I wont kill you, but I do not have to save you)
Now you are being really unfair on batman, when batman is still human. Two face was on the verge of killing Gordon's son, he had to act fast, he could not stand there and hope Harvey's coin would fall on heads, and he could not save both the boy and Harvey. That would be impossible, Bats cannot do everything and control everything, or Batman would not learn lessons through his painful journey has batman
He flipped the cop cars in the race against time to save Rachel, because scarecrow had given Rachel such a concentrated dose, it was about to kill her. So he had no time to think, and he was trying to disappear to get to the antidote, so the cops would not know where batman's location is. If he did not, Rachel would be dead, and Gotham would be in ruins
The league of shadows were going against what Bruce wanted for Batman, they wanted Batman to execute a prisoner, and Batman refused, so he did that to dissapear and take out the league of shadows who outnumbered Batman. It may have killed quiet allot of the league of shadows, but it did not. So it was smart of Bruce
Now the dogs, Cmon, they were attacking him, and the joker was battering him with a lead pipe. So to expect Batman to not get rid of the dogs, so he could get his hands on the Joker, would have been stupid of Batman, especially when the Joker is about to blow up both boats. It was what any good human would do, heck Batman hacked every phone in Gotham to find the demonic clown, so the worry of killing the dogs, was the last thing on Batman's mind
So overall Batman stuck to his principles, he went to such depths and not kill anyone, but sometimes certain things are out of his control
No he didn't. Ra's killed himself. He was the one that broke the train controls when Batman tried to stop it. And even if you make the case that the rail breaking was what caused his death, Gordon did that, not Batman. Batman tried to stop the train without killing his former mentor, but Gordon had to blow up the tracks in case he couldn't. Like Batman said, he's not going to kill Ra's, but he didn't have to save him.
He tossed the dogs into a net, not off a building. Two-Face was an accident. Batman had just be shot (in the armour, but getting shot is still getting shot) and was tackling Two-face to save the boy. That's also kind of the point. Two-Face was the only time you could really make the case that he killed someone, even if accidentally. That probably didn't help his whole being a sad hermit thing.
No, he blew up their house, and gave them plenty of time to escape.
Potentially, but not actually. He has a rule against killing. He'll still mess people up, though.
I will put down all 7 batman films, just the live action films
89, returns, forever, B and R are all equally bad for different reasons
I was going to make a subject, are the Burton batman films lacking substance? I was going to put 89 as one of the worst ones, just because the film is not even about batman. I call Batman89, Joker89, because that's what it was, a glorified joker film, heck even batman has a bigger death toll than the Joker. So 89 does have all its principles all backwards. But returns does take the cake, on how bad you can make a batman film. B and R basically spawns the new line of Nolan films, so I can forgive B and R
I've always felt the Burton Batman movies work best as movie stills, because just looking at the imagery, they nailed what Batman was at the time. Unfortunately, it's the characterization that was way off, in my opinion. It's like someone handed some Batman comics to Burton and company, and they flipped through it, looking at the pictures, but didn't bother to read anything.
Hardly.Once he set the house on fire he was responsible for any that died there.
I hate my lack of memory some times... however the guy tried to kill him and if he hadn't done that he never would of fell to his death so at least it's with good reason and like 3 other guys were simply knocked out before that.
I've give you that one. Where did he get the dynamite from though? Also the smile before the guy looks down was completely out of character. Remind me again why so many people liked Keaton as Batman?
I had to give this some thought as to how to argue a statement that requires some spoilers. What I decided on is that I'm not going to show you exactly what I'm arguing against. It might be something that was said in only one of these quotes or something that was said in both quotes but you won't know unless you read the spoiler.
Batman didn't kill Ra's and Ra's didn't kill himself, in fact Ra's never died at all. Though it wasn't said in the Nolan films that the guy is over 6,000 years old. He did however appear in Dark Knight Rises and had a line about immortality so Ra's never died.
Wow it sucks having to write an entire argument behind spoiler tags.
Separate names with a comma.