Why does continuity in comics matter to you?

[TheRay]

He had to know that starting a fire around a huge pile of explosives and he was fine with the deaths that would result because you know bad guys.

Doesn't matter. You have to prove that he intended to kill with the fire, not simply that there were risks present. As far as we know Batman has a rule against direct killing, nothing more. From what I've read the fire was intended to be a distraction and they were highly trained ninjas who should have been trained for any situation.

[babyblob]

Doesn't matter. You have to prove that he intended to kill with the fire, not simply that there were risks present. As far as we know Batman has a rule against direct killing, nothing more. From what I've read the fire was intended to be a distraction and they were highly trained ninjas who should have been trained for any situation.

In the legal sense you do not have to prove they intended to kill. I start a fire, there is a person in that house. A firemen comes to put out fire. my fir causes an explosion and said person and firemen die I still go to jail for murder. it does not matter that all I wanted to do was burn a building. My fire resulted in the deaths on 2 people. Bruce is a damn smart guy. he knew that there were chances people who get hurt badly or die. In the eyes of the Law Batman committed murder.

Then the scene where he is being chased by the police. Sent out those spoked balls and busted the tire. Cop car flipped over. Cop could have died. if he did that is murder. So for a guy who is so against murder he does a lot of **** that could cause a lot of deaths. People are just fine with it because of his intent or whatever. they stick to "Well he wasnt directly responsible so its okay." when you commit a violent act or crime that results in a death it is directly your fault.

[godisawesome]

I’ve generally run off the idea that Nolan’s Batman doesn’t do “executions” more as a standard of minimal restraint and as part of his general effort to support the justice system rather than replace it. Its attached to how much the Nolan Batman doesn’t actually seem to do “patrolling” as much as attempt strategic strikes against organized crime. He wants the city to to win and the law to win as much as possible, even though he’s an outlaw vigilante by his very nature.

It’s a ridiculous measure, but arguably as much of a “righteous” one as the character can make in his setting.

[D.Z]

For Marvel yes it matters, but editors tend to forget some stuff.

For DC... rebooting is basically their tradition at this point, it's fun to see what is different reality wise for me,

[Jim Kelly]

For Marvel yes it matters, but editors tend to forget some stuff.

For DC... rebooting is basically their tradition at this point, it's fun to see what is different reality wise for me,

For me, at one time maybe, but now not so much anymore. I think for it to be effective the different continuities have to be adjacent and not one overwriting the other.

Like what made the classic Marvel WHAT IF? work is that the reader had to know the actual continuity. The more continuity you knew, the better. Because each "What If . . .?" story changed some event in continuity to ask the question. But it wasn't erasing continuity in reality--so you could enjoy both scenarios.

With the 1960s Superman imaginary stories, they depended on readers knowing their established Superman legend and the part each character played in that mythology. If you didn't know how the Superman story is supposed to go, you wouldn't appreciate what was so different about this one. And usually there were little ironic winks to the readers that referenced how something happened in the "true" story versus how it was unfolding in this story.

An ELSEWORLDS like WORLD'S FUNNEST exploited the reader's knowledge of Batman and Superman in their different iterations and the worlds that went with each. You got more out of it, the more you knew. But with most ELSEWORLDS, that wasn't really the case. The ongoing continuity was in so much flux in the 1990s that they couldn't play with that continuity--so the ELSEWORLDS were just completely unto themselves and unrelated to any existing continuity.

Now, when the publisher reboots their universe yet again--they are mainly doing it so new readers don't have to know any continuity.

But what will make the Disney Plus WHAT IF . . . ? work is the audience having seen all the movies and knowing what happened in them. They now have so much built-up continuity and so many followers for such a concept to work.

[DrNewGod]

For Marvel yes it matters, but editors tend to forget some stuff.

And in some cases, editors and writers at Marvel have deliberately ignored, tweaked or rewritten stuff. Where Tony Stark got the injury that set him on the road to becoming Iron Man has been tweaked. That Sub-Mariner has more than once demonstrated Aquaman-esque sea creature control has been ignored. That Captain America spent most of his WWII time fighting saboteurs and crooks in NYC, rather than facing The Axis overseas has been rewritten.

For DC... rebooting is basically their tradition at this point, it's fun to see what is different reality wise for me,

As Jim Kelly said, it would have been better for them to add worlds, rather than erase one for another.

[TheRay]

In the legal sense you do not have to prove they intended to kill.

No, in the legal sense you absolutely do have to prove intent in this case, but even if you didn’t this isn’t a court of law. You’re talking about murder in the first degree vs murder in the second degree. These are vastly different ideas. As I said before Batman never claims to have a rule against indirectly killing or killing without intent.

[DrNewGod]

No, in the legal sense you absolutely do have to prove intent in this case, but even if you didn’t this isn’t a court of law. You’re talking about murder in the first degree vs murder in the second degree. These are vastly different ideas. As I said before Batman never claims to have a rule against indirectly killing or killing without intent.

Agree. The term is Mens Rea, meaning an act can be criminal, but the highest penalties are warranted only when it was deliberate. You could say Wayne was culpable in the mayhem-induced injuries at Ras Al Ghul's palace, but not that he inflicted them with intent.

[TheRay]

Which is salient here because the rule is legally ambiguous. Everywhere I’ve seen says the rule is “Batman doesn’t kill”. The operative word here is “kill”, which, legally, opens the door for argumentation such as the one unfolding in this thread because how exactly do you define “kill” in reference to his rule alters the meaning of it. This is the position I’m arguing for. If you interpret the rule as saying “kill” to mean taking a life regardless of the circumstances, then the example given would violate that rule but only based on the frame by which you looked at the rule. Since legally there’s more than one definition of “kill” I would say it’s up to the individual to decide what does and doesn’t violate the rule until it’s elaborated on.

[babyblob]

No, in the legal sense you absolutely do have to prove intent in this case, but even if you didn’t this isn’t a court of law. You’re talking about murder in the first degree vs murder in the second degree. These are vastly different ideas. As I said before Batman never claims to have a rule against indirectly killing or killing without intent.

I phrased it badly. You have to prove intent for murder in the first vs second you are right. my point was more my burning down the building and killing two people would still have me go to jail for murder. be it first or second.

my point was Batman's no kill rule doesnt really fly when he has killed and often puts normal people at great risk while he is doing what he does that has and may again result in people being killed.

But no need to keep debating. I say Batman is a murder in that movie. Others say no because it was indirect or he didnt mean to. Different views for different people.

[TheRay]

Yeah that’s what I just said, but let me add also that second degree unintentional murder really only becomes murder in this case because arson is involved, not necessarily just because he killed someone. My point here being that extenuating circumstances are involved here and that’s what makes it a question of what framework are you using.