Tim Burton and Batman 3

[Joker]

Didn't kill. Let him die.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

Didn't kill. Let him die.

That must be the start of Snyder's famous "manslaughter not first-degree murder" when justifying his kill-happy Batman in BVS

[Frobisher]

Didn't kill. Let him die.

Batman’s whole “I don’t have to save you” thing reminded me of how Ditko’s loony Objectivist character Mr A would always somehow end up in a contrived situation where the villain basically kills themselves while he watches. Do better, Batman.

[Joker]

Eh, the 'No Kill' thing is fine in the comics, but I'm over that being a defining trait in the movies.

[Surf]

Because Joker hacking commercials and mass media to put on the persona of a showman is a thing the comics' character is never known for doing, not even once, in his entire history.

--
--
--
--

Tuh, all this, bronze-age Joker was a hell of a structural engineer as well. Getting henchmen to build an entire set with the only purpose to kill Batman on television happened at least twice pre-Miller. The rights to camp kind of expire when your actively killing folks, RIP Bob the Goon.

Batman Returns is my favorite Burton film outside of Beetlejuice and I've often dared to say it's my favorite Batman movie that's not Batman Begins. I'm glad he only did the pair and parties passed on a 3. As if '89 and Returns needed to be anymore unique.

Right on for the links earlier Jack, I've never read those Burton thoughts before.

[Scott Taylor]

Eh, the 'No Kill' thing is fine in the comics, but I'm over that being a defining trait in the movies.

No kill was really a DC comics thing caused by censorship rather than being a Batman thing. At the time when this alleged "rule" began for Batman, no comic heroes were being allowed to kill their villains. Is there even any hero in DC who has a "when in doubt, kill" policy?

I think the difference is with Marvel, you got a soldier, a pair of spies, a god, a man in an armored suit, a man with breathtaking anger management issues, etc. With Batman, he's supposed to be just a man who follows a very specific code- and that code specifically forbids killing. And so far, Nolan was the only director to get that, and even then his Batman killed once.

And thats just a double standard. Its not in any of these heroes DNA to kill, unless they have to do that. Batman is not unique in this regard. And in the Snyder movies, the killing was kept to a minimum and was done only to save lives. Just like the case in the MCU.

[Revolutionary_Jack]

No kill was really a DC comics thing caused by censorship rather than being a Batman thing.

A no-kill rule makes sense in serialized comics where you need to keep the villains alive in case of future use and not waste a long-term merchandising property like a villain.

But a superhero movie, certainly Pre-MCU, will exhaust the villains in a single movie. The Batman'89 movie with Jack Nicholson's Joker was meant to represent in one movie the entire emotional spectrum of the Batman-Joker rivalry even if story-wise it's basically Batman-Joker's early outings. Obviously if you keep Joker around, that means the newer villains will have less screentime to make their presence and threat known. And considering how much it cost for Jack Nicholson to play Joker it didn't make sense to keep paying that movie-to-movie.

Right on for the links earlier Jack, I've never read those Burton thoughts before.

Thanks.

[Midvillian1322]

A no-kill rule makes sense in serialized comics where you need to keep the villains alive in case of future use and not waste a long-term merchandising property like a villain.

But a superhero movie, certainly Pre-MCU, will exhaust the villains in a single movie. The Batman'89 movie with Jack Nicholson's Joker was meant to represent in one movie the entire emotional spectrum of the Batman-Joker rivalry even if story-wise it's basically Batman-Joker's early outings. Obviously if you keep Joker around, that means the newer villains will have less screentime to make their presence and threat known. And considering how much it cost for Jack Nicholson to play Joker it didn't make sense to keep paying that movie-to-movie.



Thanks.

To be fair even post MCU. McU kills off most the villains.

[batnbreakfast]

To be fair even post MCU. McU kills off most the villains.

At least we still got Loki, Zemo, Vulture and I guess bringing back Killmonger through some Voodoo could be awesome.

[Joker]

No kill was really a DC comics thing caused by censorship rather than being a Batman thing. At the time when this alleged "rule" began for Batman, no comic heroes were being allowed to kill their villains.

Yup. Batman killed in the early stuff. But Batman not killing has been a part of that character for a long time now.

[CTTT]

But he does commit manslaughter in Batman '89 watching Joker fall to his death and letting Ra's fall to his death in the train in Batman Begins

[Scott Taylor]

But he does commit manslaughter in Batman '89 watching Joker fall to his death and letting Ra's fall to his death in the train in Batman Begins

Right? I get the feeling that people see that as different from killing. I mean, if a President starts a war overseas and gets a bunch of soldiers killed its not his fault either then. Batman could have saved both the Joker and R'as, but he chose not to do that. Thats as good as killing them himself.

[Somecrazyaussie]

From what I recall, Burton was ready and willing to do a third Batman movie, but due to the reactions to Batman Returns, Warner Bros decided to go in a different direction. Burton was still a producer on Batman Forever, I think.

As for Batman and Robin, I won't absolve Schumacher completely for it. But it's been documented that the studio wanted a movie that would sell toys, and imposed their will a lot on the production.

Burton did indeed meet with Warners about Batman 3. According to him, it amounted of him showing sketches of Robin and The Riddler while outlining what he would do. The executives heard him out. But he realized 30 minutes in that they weren't keen and agreed to stay on as a producer. A lot of his ideas were kept though such as Riddler stalking Bruce Wayne etc. The director of Arkham in the movie is even called Dr Burton.

Also, the film was supposed to be called Batman Continues.

I honestly don't mind Batman Forever. What we got was radically different from what was originally intended as the original script was much darker.

[Joker]

Right? I get the feeling that people see that as different from killing. I mean, if a President starts a war overseas and gets a bunch of soldiers killed its not his fault either then. Batman could have saved both the Joker and R'as, but he chose not to do that. Thats as good as killing them himself.

It is different. One is an action. The other is an inaction. The end result might be the same. Peter Parker might have strong feelings about this topic, but letting someone die from their own actions, is different than taking action to end their life.

I understand why it feels like the same thing in regard to a character like Batman who treats life as sacred. I mean, they at least used the R'as death thematically in the series to tie things up. That inaction created a reaction. A mirror of Bruce. The dark reflection.

[Kirby101]

This is in essence, the Trolley Problem in philosophy.