In Batman Begins, the explosive chain reaction that Bruce started caused many deaths (8 onscreen) but they most likely weren't intended. Bruce wanted to have a distraction to escape and weaken the League of Shadow ninjas, but the fire caused more than he counted on. Batman lets Ra's Al Ghul die by leaving him in a racing train whose controls has been disabled.
In The Dark Knight Batman saves Joker from certain death but soon after kills Two-Face by throwing him and himself off the ledge.
you said that tim burton was not a comic book reader but neither is chris nolan. he thinks(burton too) that batman is a young batman and will never have a robin in their films when in comics batman was around three years when robin came into the picture
I do disssagree with you, it goes against the core of the character and condricts Batman, he doesn't kill becuase he believes it is wrong and by killing that would make him no better than the Joker etc. It's not the genric thing with alot of superheroes. it is uqiue to the character and Batman shoulld never kill.
but i respect your opinion and I understand your point of view
Batman killed in forever, he could've saved Two Face by grappling his legs, but he didn't he let him fall to his death, after throwing the coins, Batman killed twoface in the dark knight when he could've thrown a batarang and knocked him out, but he decided to kill
Yeah a movie where HArry Potter has no magic and kills people with a gun. That's a valid ADAPTATION. Spider-man wiht no powers that's a good ADAPTATION. a Punisher who DOESN'T kill sounds like the makings of a great movie to me. Hulk where he's small and blue now there's something that's totally valid. And of course none of these woudl make or break a film as an ADAPTATION!
@blowshimselfupdude - OK I get the Point in All of those cases Especially Harry Potter, but I don't think Batman Killing was the Only or Main Reason those Movie Failed as a Adaptation there where a lot of things that where Wrong with the First 2, but it's Not Worth getting this Upset over, I mean Is the Fact that Batman Wont Kill the Defining thing about Him is it the thing that You Immediately think of when you think of Batman? When I think Batman I think "Vigilante or Roge's Gallery"
@blowshimselfupdude - Yeah It dose Define Him I Agree, but It Is Not the First thing I think of when I think of Batman its maybe the 3'ed or 4'th thing I think of, I think of Vigilante witch is basically the No Powers thing like You Said, then I think of His Villains because I enjoy The Roge's Gallery all most More than The Man Himself
@A4F7IPictures Except you can do Batman stories without them. It's been done. There's lots of stories and episodes where it's just the mob. So they are not as intrinsic to the character as not killing. It IS the hcaracter. Having him kill is IMPROTANT as it is part of the very core of the character. It imidiately makes them bad Batman movies. Everythign else makes them terrible movies.
@blowshimselfupdude - Them Being Bad Film's is All Just A Matter of Your Own Opinion Dude, Lot Of People Still Like Them Including Me, but That Dose Not make ether of Us Right or Wrong, It's just a Film and a Matter of Opinion
@blowshimselfupdude - Your Right I can't really look at them Critically and the Nostalgia Factor dose sway my opinion of the Film's Agreed, but that is Apparently the same way You feel about Forever & Part 4 because You are Very Un-Critical about the 2 Schumacher Films In Your Reviews, and You have even said You feel that way about Forever because You saw it First as a Child in a Drive-In Theater, It's all a Matter of Opinion and What You saw First as a Child it's Nostalgia pure and simple
@A4F7IPictures Actually it isn't at all. I can still see that &Robin is a terrible movie. I like it because it sucks so much. I DON'T have this with Forever. I am critical of it. And it's the onyl one that can actually hold up as a movie.
@blowshimselfupdude - OK whatever You say Eric, That's Fine You like Forever & Robin, It IS a matter of Opinion they are Not the Best Film's ever made and there Not the Worst, why Do you insist on Dragging this Out, You Can't Change My Opinion and I Can Not Change Your's, I'm Not trying to Change Anyone's Opinion with My Video's it's Just My Personal Opinion's, so this Needs to Stop and We Need to Get Over this You like 3&4 I Like 1&2 and I'm Not Judging you On your Opinion so Why Jude Me
@blowshimselfupdude They were doing a different and origional take on a very flexible character. They humanised Batman. They gave him real emotions, real problems and made him a real man, as apposed to the super human moral preacher from the comics.
Do you know what cannon means? You seem to missunderstand the word. Cannon is what is factually part of a continuity.
Burton's films aren't cannon in the comics or anything else. The PROBLEM is that it's an ADAPTATION! Not some new cannon. It's an ADAPTATION of a cannon. Where Batman doesn't kill. A 50 year cannon which has 1 year of him killing.
Your basicly saying that if they did a Harry Potter movie without magic that'd be totally cool. And a valid version.
@blowshimselfupdude - I Know that Canon is suppose to be Factually Part of the Story's Continuity, but what I am Trying to say in this Video is that It should be up to Your Personal Choice, but there are Hundreds of Story's (Star Wars Book's Batman Comic's) that are Not considered Canon I think it should be up to the Reader
Yeah the Films where an Adaptation of a Non-Killing Canon and it was Not Very Faithful I Agree, but I'm Not losing any sleep over it I still enjoy the Films
In Batman Begins, the explosive chain reaction that Bruce started caused many deaths (8 onscreen) but they most likely weren't intended. Bruce wanted to have a distraction to escape and weaken the League of Shadow ninjas, but the fire caused more than he counted on. Batman lets Ra's Al Ghul die by leaving him in a racing train whose controls has been disabled.
In The Dark Knight Batman saves Joker from certain death but soon after kills Two-Face by throwing him and himself off the ledge.
PauliReenactment 1 year ago
you said that tim burton was not a comic book reader but neither is chris nolan. he thinks(burton too) that batman is a young batman and will never have a robin in their films when in comics batman was around three years when robin came into the picture
TWOMERCY 1 year ago
the response worked now
I do disssagree with you, it goes against the core of the character and condricts Batman, he doesn't kill becuase he believes it is wrong and by killing that would make him no better than the Joker etc. It's not the genric thing with alot of superheroes. it is uqiue to the character and Batman shoulld never kill.
but i respect your opinion and I understand your point of view
thezamzie 1 year ago
i tried to apporve the respinse but when i go too click it I can't it won't let me. i tried. all the words dissapear idk
thezamzie 1 year ago
cool
TTHEBLACKR0CK 1 year ago
Batman killed in forever, he could've saved Two Face by grappling his legs, but he didn't he let him fall to his death, after throwing the coins, Batman killed twoface in the dark knight when he could've thrown a batarang and knocked him out, but he decided to kill
garlengreen 1 year ago
Yeah a movie where HArry Potter has no magic and kills people with a gun. That's a valid ADAPTATION. Spider-man wiht no powers that's a good ADAPTATION. a Punisher who DOESN'T kill sounds like the makings of a great movie to me. Hulk where he's small and blue now there's something that's totally valid. And of course none of these woudl make or break a film as an ADAPTATION!
blowshimselfupdude 1 year ago
@blowshimselfupdude - OK I get the Point in All of those cases Especially Harry Potter, but I don't think Batman Killing was the Only or Main Reason those Movie Failed as a Adaptation there where a lot of things that where Wrong with the First 2, but it's Not Worth getting this Upset over, I mean Is the Fact that Batman Wont Kill the Defining thing about Him is it the thing that You Immediately think of when you think of Batman? When I think Batman I think "Vigilante or Roge's Gallery"
A4F7IPictures 1 year ago
@A4F7IPictures Yes actually it IS. It is infact the second most deffining thing about him (firs tbeing no powers).
blowshimselfupdude 1 year ago
@blowshimselfupdude - Yeah It dose Define Him I Agree, but It Is Not the First thing I think of when I think of Batman its maybe the 3'ed or 4'th thing I think of, I think of Vigilante witch is basically the No Powers thing like You Said, then I think of His Villains because I enjoy The Roge's Gallery all most More than The Man Himself
A4F7IPictures 1 year ago 2
@A4F7IPictures Except you can do Batman stories without them. It's been done. There's lots of stories and episodes where it's just the mob. So they are not as intrinsic to the character as not killing. It IS the hcaracter. Having him kill is IMPROTANT as it is part of the very core of the character. It imidiately makes them bad Batman movies. Everythign else makes them terrible movies.
blowshimselfupdude 1 year ago
@blowshimselfupdude - Them Being Bad Film's is All Just A Matter of Your Own Opinion Dude, Lot Of People Still Like Them Including Me, but That Dose Not make ether of Us Right or Wrong, It's just a Film and a Matter of Opinion
A4F7IPictures 1 year ago
@A4F7IPictures But you yourself said you aren't able to look at them critically nd are blinded by nostalgia.
blowshimselfupdude 1 year ago
@blowshimselfupdude - Your Right I can't really look at them Critically and the Nostalgia Factor dose sway my opinion of the Film's Agreed, but that is Apparently the same way You feel about Forever & Part 4 because You are Very Un-Critical about the 2 Schumacher Films In Your Reviews, and You have even said You feel that way about Forever because You saw it First as a Child in a Drive-In Theater, It's all a Matter of Opinion and What You saw First as a Child it's Nostalgia pure and simple
A4F7IPictures 1 year ago
@A4F7IPictures Actually it isn't at all. I can still see that &Robin is a terrible movie. I like it because it sucks so much. I DON'T have this with Forever. I am critical of it. And it's the onyl one that can actually hold up as a movie.
blowshimselfupdude 1 year ago
@blowshimselfupdude - OK whatever You say Eric, That's Fine You like Forever & Robin, It IS a matter of Opinion they are Not the Best Film's ever made and there Not the Worst, why Do you insist on Dragging this Out, You Can't Change My Opinion and I Can Not Change Your's, I'm Not trying to Change Anyone's Opinion with My Video's it's Just My Personal Opinion's, so this Needs to Stop and We Need to Get Over this You like 3&4 I Like 1&2 and I'm Not Judging you On your Opinion so Why Jude Me
A4F7IPictures 1 year ago
@blowshimselfupdude They were doing a different and origional take on a very flexible character. They humanised Batman. They gave him real emotions, real problems and made him a real man, as apposed to the super human moral preacher from the comics.
Just my 2 cents.
SurgicClips69 7 months ago
Do you know what cannon means? You seem to missunderstand the word. Cannon is what is factually part of a continuity.
Burton's films aren't cannon in the comics or anything else. The PROBLEM is that it's an ADAPTATION! Not some new cannon. It's an ADAPTATION of a cannon. Where Batman doesn't kill. A 50 year cannon which has 1 year of him killing.
Your basicly saying that if they did a Harry Potter movie without magic that'd be totally cool. And a valid version.
blowshimselfupdude 1 year ago
@blowshimselfupdude - I Know that Canon is suppose to be Factually Part of the Story's Continuity, but what I am Trying to say in this Video is that It should be up to Your Personal Choice, but there are Hundreds of Story's (Star Wars Book's Batman Comic's) that are Not considered Canon I think it should be up to the Reader
Yeah the Films where an Adaptation of a Non-Killing Canon and it was Not Very Faithful I Agree, but I'm Not losing any sleep over it I still enjoy the Films
A4F7IPictures 1 year ago