Dan Slott suggests something big is coming in Spider-Man #7

[Frontier]

The Battleworld mini's weren't always consistent.

[Dan Slott]

It's always strange to me when I see someone online with a very specific take on a pivotal scene-- one that doesn't jibe with what's on the page and in the script-- and they argue about that personal head canon.

It's like a one man Mandela Effect.

A good example of this are the people who believe Batman shot AND KILLED the kidnapper in DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.
When there's dialogue that goes contrary to that.
And then there are later scenes that CONFIRM that Batman has never killed-- and that it's not until the public at large falsely believes that he's killed the Joker (of all people), and that he is a "killer", that the new Commissioner can go after Bats with lethal force.
That's a BIG plot point and it totally doesn't work story-wise if Batman *had* killed the kidnapper earlier.

The shocking moment of the kidnapper sequence is how cold and indifferent Batman was to using the gun to shoot and wound (not kill) the kidnapper-- after he'd been struggling with whether he could or should use a gun earlier in DKR. Later, he renews his convictions about guns when he breaks one and calls it the weapon of a coward.

Anyway... It still is weird to me when someone so goes to bat for their head canon over what's physically on the page.

Side note: There's a video interview of Z. Snyder going to bat for the wrong interpretation of that sequence, and how he uses that to justify Batman killing goons in BATMAN V SUPERMAN.

[Rift]

Hellion was physically on the pages with Pete. Wish we got more of that, Peter interacting with his favorite student. People need to remember that Hellion is important to Peter and Spider-lore, instead of headcanoning that he isn't.

[CaptainUniverse]

Hellion was physically on the pages with Pete. Wish we got more of that, Peter interacting with his favorite student. People need to remember that Hellion is important to Peter and Spider-lore, instead of headcanoning that he isn't.

The same goes for Captain Universe. People need to know this stuff, it is very important.

[Rift]

The same goes for Captain Universe. People need to know this stuff, it is very important.

Yeah, especially since Hellion sort of dated her.

[CaptainUniverse]

Yeah, especially since Hellion sort of dated her.

Poor Hellion...tsk, tsk...got rejected after the first kiss.

[marhawkman]

It's always strange to me when I see someone online with a very specific take on a pivotal scene-- one that doesn't jibe with what's on the page and in the script-- and they argue about that personal head canon.

It's like a one man Mandela Effect.

A good example of this are the people who believe Batman shot AND KILLED the kidnapper in DARK KNIGHT RETURNS.
When there's dialogue that goes contrary to that.
And then there are later scenes that CONFIRM that Batman has never killed-- and that it's not until the public at large falsely believes that he's killed the Joker (of all people), and that he is a "killer", that the new Commissioner can go after Bats with lethal force.
That's a BIG plot point and it totally doesn't work story-wise if Batman *had* killed the kidnapper earlier.

The shocking moment of the kidnapper sequence is how cold and indifferent Batman was to using the gun to shoot and wound (not kill) the kidnapper-- after he'd been struggling with whether he could or should use a gun earlier in DKR. Later, he renews his convictions about guns when he breaks one and calls it the weapon of a coward.

Anyway... It still is weird to me when someone so goes to bat for their head canon over what's physically on the page.

Side note: There's a video interview of Z. Snyder going to bat for the wrong interpretation of that sequence, and how he uses that to justify Batman killing goons in BATMAN V SUPERMAN.

This is one of those things that's kinda in the "Well, yes, but actually no" category. Why?

It relies on an omniscient PoV. IE the reader has to know certain things to be facts in-universe or it won't give the correct conclusions. Which isn't necessarily obvious just reading the book. That Batman thing... how would the cops know if Batman HAD killed someone? It's unusual for their to be witnesses to Batman's activities in general. The cops can't prove it one way or the other mostly due to lack of evidence. But when the evidence doesn't have proof that he has the cops aren't willing to try to look for it either.

Also... The statement "Batman has never killed", is unambiguously false when you go back to the original Batman comics run. So which version/s of Batman is it true for?

And quite frankly Batman's many, many crimes HAVE resulted in deaths.... indirectly perhaps, but well it's happened, like that OMAC fiasco.

[Digifiend]

Re: Batman - silver age onwards. Him carrying a gun and killing people was only a thing pre-Robin, and therefore only applies to the pre-Crisis Earth-2 i.e. golden age version.

[marhawkman]

Re: Batman - silver age onwards. Him carrying a gun and killing people was only a thing pre-Robin, and therefore only applies to the pre-Crisis Earth-2 i.e. golden age version.

hmm, yeah, Golden Age Batman didn't have that "heroes don't kill" mentality. He thought more like a cop: "I don't want to kill anyone, but I might have to."

[Rift]

Poor Hellion...tsk, tsk...got rejected after the first kiss.

[CaptainUniverse]

[Lee]

He thought more like a cop: "I don't want to kill anyone

Hmmmmmm...