Why did no one give a shit when Burton's Batman killed people?

Why did no one give a shit when Burton's Batman killed people?

Because most of Sup Forums irrationally hate Synder for what's done to the DCU, including me

I sure that if Sup Forums had existed back then we would have bitched too

Because there's an inherent difference between a movie that's going to spawn maybe a few sequels about the character, and a movie that's part of an ongoing "cinematic universe" with the intention of being the "definitive version" of the character going forwards.

He only became Batmurderer after he found out Joker killed his parents. After watching Selina kill herself over revenge in Returns he went back to his no kill rule for Batman Forever and Batman and Robin.

It's not irrational to expect a film based on a character to retain that characters key traits.

I'm certain that people did bitch.

This

My biggest problem is all the Snyderfags telling me that Batman kills people indiscriminately in TDKR, that Batman has never had a no kill rule and that the scene in Year One where Bats knocks the hooligan off the fire escape and catches him, only happened because he was a kid and not because Batman would save anyone he could.

No there isn't.

90% of Sup Forums wasn't born.

Because Batman 89 and Batman Returns were enjoyable movies. Superman vs Batman wasn't. A good movie or comic can get away with things that a bad one will be endlessly scrutinized over.

Because Snyder took it to such extremes it made it impossible to overlook. It's about how you film it and what you draw attention to.

It's basically like pandering. Burton was like the professional writer who made a cast of minorities for his story but didn't actually draw attention to their minority status, so nobody minded it. Snyder then is the equivalent of a guy going "LOOK at ME. I MADE so MANY minorities! Aren't I GREAT???" And everyone thinks he's obnoxious.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that Burton's Batman killed people. But at least Burton's movies don't revel in excessive violence so it's easier to swallow.

People point it out all the time you shitlord. It just hasn't been relevant in close to two fucking decades so you don't see non-stop threads about it. It's like asking why does no one give a shit that Adam West's costume looks like shit but flips out over the reveal of any new design for an upcoming film.

>Superman vs Batman wasn't.
I beg to differ.

Most batman fans are from Nolanman these days

"No killing" was pushed pretty hard there

At the time, most of the people who saw the Burton films likely didn't know Batman had his "one rule" in the comics. (I'm sure Burton either didn't know or didn't care.) The overriding public image of Batman was still the campy '60s version, not DKR!Bats.

Because it was a fun movie.

It's also a bit of this. The number of people Batman killed in the Burton films was low, the people Batman killed were clear-cut "bad guys", and the films never dwelled on Batman killing people. A little fudging for the sake of entertainment isn't a bad thing.

Batman killing that clown with the bomb in Returns is still completely fucked up, though.

He kinda has a point. I bet you have no problem with Batman killing people in BvS because you enjoyed the film overall. It's that way for me.

Burton's Batman didn't have a movie worth of motivation to take down someone for not caring enough about collateral damage, then proceed to kill a shitload of people because he didn't care about it either.

In Forever, he made Two-Face fall by throwing coins at him.

>Batman killing that clown with the bomb in Returns is still completely fucked up, though.
Even the clown killing gets a sort of a pass because the whole sequence is shot as slapstick. You don't get the sense that the clown is dead, you get the sense that he's gonna crawl out dazed and covered in soot like Yosemite Sam.

Burton's whimsical and fairytale-ish style lets him get away with a lot more than Snyder's ultragrittiness.

I've no problem with killing per se, but he slaughters random mooks while Joker is still alive AND spends time to save Harley, who helped kill Robin? That's some weapons grade bullshit right there.

First of all, Second of all, Usenet.

Because in order to give a shit, you actually have to care.

first of all, people did complain, there just wasnt internet yet
second of all, batman 1989 is considered a good overall movie, outside of Sup Forums, meaning its much easier to accept its flaws and when you point it out its usually good natured ribbing
BvS is considered, again outside of Sup Forums, as not a good movie, so pointing this out is generally just the cherry on top of a whole bunch of other problems

Who said they were attempting to become the "definitive version" of the characters? Do you realize how little sense does that make?

It was the 90s.

That wasn't Burton's Batman, though.

Back in those days, people were more receptive about change in adaptations.

Exactly. Overthinking stuff like 'that building he just blew up was full of people!' is really missing the point. If Burton wanted Batman to be a killer he would have shown implicit bat-murder. I hold that Burton Batman is not a killer, dispite his seemingly loose cannon attitude towards destruction and violence.

Fun Fact: the original script for Batman Forever addressed this!

dailyscript.com/scripts/batman_forever.html
>TWO-FACE
>Batman doesn't kill? Bullshit.
>(epiphinous)
>You're a killer too.

Also,
>The second expert PIPES in, DR. DAVID AIMS.

>AIMS
>What is the Dark Knight's credo?
Batman does not kill? What of those
slain during his fight with Jack
Napier aka Joker? Or in his
Christmas conflict with the orphan
Cobblepot? Batman belongs behind
bars, not his morally disadvantaged
victims.

We literally see that one Joker goon fall to his death when Batman headscissors him in the belltower.

And people have clung to that shit pretty hard now

>"No killing" was pushed pretty hard there

Even then he still kills people in every movie and TDKR basically ignores that rule

Fun fact: this didn't kill Joker! He survived and came back in Batman: The Video Game.

It makes a lot of sense. Just because your tiny brain can't process what was said doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This. There were even petitions to get Michael Keaton off the movie before it even came out.

because.....seriously i don't know.

i wouldn't mind if Batman killed, but like as a last resort.

he woild be more interesting if he didnt want to kill

He lived. He's lying on the ground with a bandaged stomach during one of penguin's rant after that scene.

>one rule
2 rules, not guns, no killing

Batman has an aversion to guns because of his parents and the killing thing is threefold:
1. He likes to see his enemies suffer in defeat
2. He's afraid he'd become an unstoppable serial killer if he started
and
3. He's (rightly) paranoid that Gotham would just replace anyone he killed with something much worse

They did. It was a huge thing.
Its just been so long that no one cares anymore.
At the Internet wasn't really a commonplace thing back then so peoples Opinions were pretty much just kept among friends rather then strangers with similar opinions.

Its a combination between the time it was released, meaning we were just happy to get a Batman movie, and from being Burtons own outrageous take on the mythos. Theres a lot that deviates from the comics, especially in the sequel, but I think we're willing to overlook it given how it was done. The difference is that if you're going to make such changes, you have to pull them off. Afflecks Batman is admittedly one of the strongest points about BvS, but there are times in the film where you're thinking "why would he do that?"

We were starved for comic adaptions back then so we forgave it happily, today we expect more.
>Because Snyder took it to such extremes it made it impossible to overlook
Fuck you, Keaton dropping a stick of Dynamite next to a goons dick was a fuck ton more extreme and calling attention to then anything Snyder did.
And Burton did fucking nothing with it, Snyder genuinely incorporated Batman killing into the plot and as apart of this Batman's arc.

No Snyder no hate. That's the rule.

When you're as twisted as Burton, nothing come as a surprise.

because he's an auteur

Except...
1.) Bruce's problem with Superman had little to do with the collateral damage and more to do with him becoming a over-lording tyrant.
2.) Superman did care about collateral damage hence him never punching/pushing/throwing Zod into any buildings in Metropolis. Hence him trying to Punch Zod out of town and managing to get him to the very edge of down town before Zod swerved back in.

>I've no problem with killing per se, but he slaughters random mooks while Joker is still alive AND spends time to save Harley, who helped kill Robin? That's some weapons grade bullshit right there.
He hasn't encountered the Joker since he started killing.

Which Im surprised we dont bitch about Danny's Penguin more often. I love Devito and think the casting was great, but the direction they took the character was batshit insane. The mobster who is supposed to be a parody of high class society......and for some reason he has more in common with Killer Croc. Actually that sounds like a better movie, Croc and his circus family running for Mayor

>why would he do that?
A Death in the Family, The Killing Joke, and Detective Comics #741

>If Burton wanted Batman to be a killer he would have shown implicit bat-murder
HE PUT A STICK OF FUCKING DYNAMITE IN A GOON'S PANTS BLOWING HIM TO PIECES!

back in those days superhero movies were so rare, people were just happy to see them. nobody expected them to be accurate to the characters in the comics.

Good times.

No you don't. It's not possible to think BvS was good.

If you think you do, you're wrong.

Nah, it's like this user said above ():

>Burton's whimsical and fairytale-ish style lets him get away with a lot more than Snyder's ultragrittiness.

Burton's movie, like most of his movies, has a cartoonish quality to it that minimizes the impact of the violence.

And that's the real answer to this question: Snyder's super-serious approach forces you to take the violence seriously. It's like Bugs Bunny hitting someone with an anvil vs. a character in a serious crime film beating a guy to death with an anvil.

If nothing else, that scene where he bit that guys' nose off wouldn't be such a non-sequitur.

No place to give one?

He killed more people in the first button film than in the much maligned Batman returns.

Because Burton Batman actually killed the Joker

Didn't Joker get killed off in the game too?

don't forget batman TAS. Tim burton revived batman, but batman tas defined it for generations of fan afterward.

NolanBat basically built off TAS.

In BVS, Batman people exaggerate how he kills people

People die in Batman's wake, but to me it feels more like "if you get in my way, you might die and I won't give a fuck" rather than "I'm coming to murder you" which is how people often seem to present it

My biggest problem with Snyderbats isn't that he kills, its that hes an unlikable idiotic asshole. If you want to make Batman a killer, fine. Its a different take on the character and I'm okay with it. But Snyder turned both Batman and Superman into joyless moronic sadists and he seems to think that he's deepening or maturing the characters by doing it. Its clear from interviews with the man and from his films that he has an extremely childish understanding of character (dark and edgy characters are cool and deep! bright and happy character are lame and shallow!).

I dislike Snyderbats not because he kills, but because he's a jerk who wants to kill an altruistic superhero for no real reason. I can't get behind a character whose entire goal is to murder a hero. I can't root for Batman when he's violently beating a helpless Superman. I might have thought that kind of thing was cool when I was in middle school, but it now it just seems...mean.

- WB wanted to distantiate from the Adam West show
- Ultraviolent heroes were hot at the time, see Rambo, Robocop or any Schwarzenegger movie
- The internet didn't exist so the social misfits didn't have a voice, what bring point 1 and 2.
- Before 9/11, America want to go forward rather than backwards so everything has to be hip. Batman was old and campy on the American conciousness but the movie made him cool. Post 9/11 it was about being inspirational and often nostalgic toward more simple times. A childhood icon killing indiscriminately wasn't cool anymore

>but it now it just seems...mean.

Kill yourself, literally

>your ableism is triggering me!
>you are not allowed to enjoy things I can't due to my rampaging sensory processing disorder!

They did, but there was nor forum for comic book nerds to come togethet and talk about it.

Post stitches

He blew up a chemical factory full of people. He shot at The Joker with the Batplane. They failed but the intent was there.

This. BVS Batman doesn't commit murder so much as he approaches conflicts as mortal combat.

They did. Lurk more, maybe.

>Superman did care about collateral damage

Haha!

Batty Bwoi