It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
He'd just call Alfred and make him give the guy a ride, secret identity be damned.
... and a grand pursuit she must be.
Any questions? ;-)
Nicole Kidman definitely one of the highlights of Batman Forever.
Just found this on Youtube...
For those who could stand a bit more Fingering, here are some excerpts of Finger discussing the creation of various Batman characters. They were transcribed from a panel held at a New York Academy Convention in 1966 and printed in issue 14 of the fan magazine Batmania.
Awesome!!!
@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 you will appreciate this mate.
I love that Dini got misty just hearing the lines done in front of him. What a guy.
Dini has been through alot I remember an interview he had with Kevin Smith, Dini loves Batman.
Conroy has so much pathos, delivering TDK lines had so much depth of character in his voice. To be honest I would have Conroy do any of the live action films in animated form, Conroy is Batman.
@Fire_and_Ice_Returns, when Dini was making the animated series he got mugged and that started him down a dark path in his life where he was wondering to himself, "Where is Batman? What good is he if he doesn't help me?" His fiction work and his reality were colliding and giving him trouble. Here's a great interview where he goes into it:
He made a comic inspired by the event and I still haven't read it, but will sometime soon. I think @DarthDimi did a review of it once.
The guy just has a big heart, and you can tell whenever he does interviews. He can still get teared up just talking about how he wrote "Heart of Ice" so he really pours himself into his work and injects a lot of emotion into it that resonates for him too. Not surprising, considering he also created Harley Quinn, a character predicated on an abusive relationship. Deep cuts.
As for Conroy, he's an interesting voice actor for his low range. He's a guy that, when doing that type of voice, he has a low tone, and then a lower one. That he is able to create some emotion or put some heft of humanity behind it for Bruce to peek outside of Batman's mask is great, and why he's so amazing as the character. And really, his voice is exactly how I would picture Bruce/Batman's voice to sound like. He'd have a stiff, deep, slightly robotic voice not only from the past trauma that kicked all his lightness and joy out of him, but also because of how forward thinking and focused he is; the low tone is also a great fear tool, again fitting the character. There's no other voice I've heard for a Batman that gives me the feeling hearing it as Kevin's does, and it suits the character perfectly.
A large part of why the animated Batman is my definitive and most loved Batman is down to Kevin, who nailed him from the start and has only gotten better over time.
Yeah the mugging was what I was referring to, that very interview p.s. Kevin Smith really should get seats or stools for his guests.
Dini is a honest man it's obvious it took its toll on him, he wrote one of my favourite Batman stories ever Heart of Ice.
Agree Conroy is fantastic and it's quite a legacy of appearances as Batman he has, luckily I own the majority of his Batman which I have collected over the years. Mask of the Phantasm is close to being my favourite Batman film, very happy it's getting a Bluray release.
Thanks for that I'll see if its on Kindle sounds fascinating, Batman I think because of the psychology of Bruce/Batman and the Villains and being human and relatable makes him the greatest graphic novel character... Along with Superman ;)
@Fire_and_Ice_Returns, Batman and his rogues seem steeped in psychology, and I think that's what makes them so fascinating, deep and worth reading into. So many villains engage a human fear, whether it's the organized and terrific chaos of the Joker, paralleled with our own unpredictable terrors in the real world, Harvey's constant battle between the good and bad of himself, again a very human concern, and of course Crane's fear, Ivy's lust, and on and on. When I read those stories the villains make me think about aspects of myself, and how well I'm doing avoiding or dealing with the fears or dangers they represent. In that way Batman's comics become more than an assortment of panels, and go much deeper.
You hit the nail on the head many of Batman's Rogues gallery are primal fears/instincts many a reflection or manifestation metaphorically of Batman's psychosis or can be seen as a opposite. Batman's choices are what makes him not one of his own Rogues. Batman is fundamentally good though is often pushed to the edge and his moral code is tested, the way the character has evolved truly is brilliant.
The Rogues are through a mirror darkly
That's a great idea the Hatter would have to be aided by Scarecrow ;)
And as a psychologist, I'm sure Crane would be fascinated to see how Tetch's mind control worked on his "Alice's." ;)
The greatness of the tales of The Dark Knight so many levels
https://www.newsarama.com/35836-report-adam-west-s-final-batman-performance-gets-release-date.html#undefined.gbpl
"Best Buy has listed October 17 as the release date for the animated film Batman Vs. Two-Face, a sequel to Batman: Return of the Caped Crusader, which takes place in the world of the 1960s Batman TV series and which features the late Adam West's final performance as Batman.
The film also features William Shatner as the voice of Two-Face, who never appeared on the original TV show. Julie Newmar and Burt Ward are expected to reprise their roles as Catwoman and Robin, respectively.
The release date for Batman Vs. Two-Face has not been confirmed by Warner Bros."
"...the only risk he runs is that of going to jail with several broken bones, a rearranged nose, and internal bleeding."
Fixed for you.
Also, Batman generally takes down the criminals the cops can't catch. The super criminals. So there is need. There will always be need for Batman.
I hate to keep beating this rotting horse corpse, but this logic again doesn't hold up.
I'm always happy to see Bat fans, as I have always understood the power of the character, but I've also found that many don't think about the real consequences that would come from a murderous Batman who just killed every criminal he met on his path. His code is the thing that sets him apart and has been that way for decades now, so to see it written off as, "He should kill, he can't cause fear without it" is a myopic view that doesn't see the whole picture. I can only speak for myself, but I'd prefer death to a cell any day of the week, because if you're alive you suffer and if you're dead you feel nothing. If Batman kills every criminal in sight he wouldn't be a deterrent force, because deterrence can only happen when you leave a man alive to learn from his mistakes. On top of this the fear of Batman can only live on if he leaves the men alive to tell their friends. To say that you can't be intimidating if you don't kill is just false, as death is final and suffering happens only when your life is spared. By sparing life, Batman teaches through fear, leaving criminals alive to learn a lesson (with some freshly broken bones) instead of cutting out the middle man and just shooting them dead.
It's contradictory that Batman could be expected to be both a symbol of justice and a killer at the same time, because the action is the opposite of true justice that is gained through an impersonal and principled assessment of a criminal by those appointed for the job who are tasked with debating their punishment for their crimes. If Batman acts alone and from his own point of view, he isn't acting for society, but for himself, because he is ignoring society's thoughts and is usurping the power of the GCPD, the city judges, the mayor and everyone else involved in the running of Gotham through his actions.
But this isn't even getting into the complex layers of morality and morality theory that Batman signifies in the comics, actions which are very much in line with the deontological ideas expressed by Immanuel Kant that run in contrast to other moral ideas out there by valuing rationality while acting for the right reason because it's right and because you have a moral obligation to do your duty, and not for any expected gain by completing said action. In Kant's mind we judge the person committing the act and the value of their motives in doing so regardless of what consequences arise from the act, such that a man who acts with good a intention that creates problems isn't damned because of his good motives and a man who acts with bad intentions to create a good end is repelled for his bad motives despite those positive ends he reached. This idea of morality is inherent in Batman's makeup, and has been for a long time.
Ever since the Kane and Finger days Batman has increasingly become more Kantian from a criminal justice perspective, and Bruce follows Kant's teachings of right action at any time and at any expense in his most well known appearances, including Miller's seminal Batman works Year One and The Dark Knight Returns, the landmark run of Denny O'Neil, the iconic 90s animated series and even in Nolan's Batman films. As a Kantian disciple Bruce Wayne acts in accordance to the moral obligations that society has defined for him (and that he defines for himself) no matter what the consequences of that action is, meaning that he won't kill a criminal because robbing a life is crossing a line and is itself a bad motive, even if that man does something horrible at a later date that would warrant such a response. Despite the consequences that could come from not killing, the idea and act of killing is so ruinous and wrong that one should avoid it at all costs, the basic outline of Bruce's response to crime and the general idea of what Kant meant when he outlined the importance of acting with good intentions no matter the consequences because of the goodness of said act alone.
If Bruce was utilitarian, an opposing perspective in relation to Kant's teachings, he would only act in a way that creates the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. In the hypothetical scenario above, Bruce would kill any criminals because he couldn't trust what they would do in the weeks, months or years ahead, and there would be a need to protect society from their possible acts. The problem with utilitarianism, however, is when does it stop? You kill one or two in an attempt to justify your protection of society, but over time the bodies will rack up and soon you'll be killing those who pose no threat, or those who you haven't seen commit a crime yet, despite a bad record that predicts criminality. Whereas Kant's concept of deontology focuses on the rightness or wrongness of a person's motives to value the overall action, utilitarianism focuses on consequences, where any act, no matter how barbaric, could be justified if the consequences of said action proved to do the greatest amount of good for the largest amount of people. Because of this utilitarianism ultimately becomes dangerous from a societal perspective, as there would come a point where any heinous action could be justified under the guise of protection.
Deontology in contrast leaves no room for comforting justification, as Kant made it clear than any abiding actor would respond in a manner that reflected the moral obligations expected of them that spoke to a higher value of action. There would be no need to justify an act of killing from Kant's perspective because one could never rightly kill in the first place while acting as a deontologist because of the evil motive behind such an action. This is the perspective from which Batman plays from, valuing action over consequence, and why the choice to kill makes no logical sense for him, amongst many other factors.
The main issue with Batman killing is that it doesn't fit into the framework of his life and job under the cowl, and would actually impeded his mission at every step instead of aiding it, as some seem to think. Despite the fantastical nature of the comic book universe he occupies, Batman and his world is heavily grounded and pulls from the same rules of our reality, including those relating to law and order. Just as it would be criminal for a police department and city commissioner to support a murderous vigilante in our world, inviting civil unrest and inciting possible anarchy, the GCPD and Gordon would never find themselves aligning with a Batman that killed. Bruce is already crossing legal lines by being a man outside the law, so if he killed it would only complicate matters more. Gordon and the city embrace Batman over time to be a partner to the GCPD, but imagine how quickly it would all turn around if Bruce started killing the criminals he fought just because he thought it was the easier way to do his job? Gordon would be beside himself as bodies piled up and his old friend decided to make himself judge jury and executioner, and amid upheaval in the GCPD a manhunt for Batman would be mounted because, by that point, he'd be no different from those like Joker or Two-Face who kill to meet their own selfish goals.
Bruce would inevitably isolate himself from all of his support, with Alfred, Batgirl, his Robins and everyone in between standing against his new modus operandi as Kantian followers in conflict with the now utilitarian Batman. With nobody to stand with him and his actions placing him on an island on his own, what good has Bruce done by killing? He's ruined any last fiber of respect he already lost by being a vigilante, has lost the support and trust of the GCPD, lost his family through his selfishness, and bent to a warped mentality that is closer to Joe Chill than the parents who raised him. He took the easy way, forgetting the value of rehabilitation instead of punitive response, the weight of his decision and the vow he made long ago to avoid such courses of action.
This is a long way of saying that there comes a point where one asks too much of a man, and that is the inherent fault of utilitarianism from this standpoint. From a utilitarian point of view Joker should die for all he's done and could do, but to ask such an act to be completed by Batman is to expect far too much from him. I hear the argument from fans all the time, who view Bruce as weak or selfish for not going through with it after all these years, not understanding or appreciating the context of the situation and the torment his own morals would be put into. It's very easy to shout, "Kill him!" from the stands when it's not you on the field doing the act, and taking it upon yourself to end another person's life not on accident, but through methodical and brutal execution. By bending to the will of those who want him to kill anyone posing a threat, all that pressure and expectation is put on Bruce's shoulders and his shoulders alone, to the point that his actions are not his own any more and he is forced or expected to go to the very limits or-in this case-over the edge of what he is comfortable with doing as a man. To ask a man to kill another just because you think the other guy deserves it shows a lack of respect and appreciation for the mind and soul of who you're sending off on your errand of murder.
So let's say that Batman kills the Joker, kills him dead. After that point he's captured when he has no place to go, unmasked in front of the public and sent to rot in a cell for the rest of his life for going too far, farther than a man should be expected to go. With Batman in jail, who will be there to defend the city? If what's left of the Bat family fails to stop the rising forces of the rogues that would join up to wipe them out in the hero's absence, the city would be put into new states of fear and agony with no end in sight and with no strong force to rescue them. Quite simply, the consequences of the action expected of Batman would logically prove to be too much and should be avoided not only for the immediate wrongness of the act, but also for all it would undo in his life, fallout that would stop him from fighting crime altogether as the city would rise against him and rally for his head. It would be a selfish society that expected their hero to kill anyone they desired killed to gain a warped sense of security and justice without trial or sentencing, and it would be that society that would deserve all the regression, upheaval and moral poverty that would form inside it in reaction to that leap too far.
Long story short, don't expect Batman to kill. Killing is bad.
I don't disagree with that.
@0BradyM0Bondfanatic7, I wasn't saying Batman "should kill because he can't cause fear without it." In fact, I don't think he should kill at all, for the moral and practical reasons you stated.
What I was trying to say is that if all Batman does is catch criminals to send them to jail, then he isn't significantly more frightening to a criminal than a cop. Therefore, the bat is less of a symbol to be feared and more of a symbol of justice and a representation of Batman himself as a "creature of the night." At least, that's the impression I got from the Nolan films. In Batman Begins, Batman is truly frightening to the bad guys, but in the later films, as he becomes known to everybody, he no longer stands for fear so much as justice. As he becomes better known, he becomes less scary. My mentioning the act of killing was only to provide a point of comparison.
Maybe this was a silly point to make. At least it elicited a thorough and interesting post from you.
I would still say that, acting non-lethally, Batman would terrify me way more than a cop. For one, he doesn't follow anyone's rules, so that's already opening him up to a freedom of operation where he can break bones and go that extra length that a Gotham PD cop would be fired for reaching under Gordon's watch. In the same token, Batman has a heavy range of weapons, from batarangs to smoke pellets and the blades on his gloves, in addition to his car that could catch any other one in the city in a chase. So from a criminal perspective he is far and away more resourceful than a cop could ever be, has a diverse background in bone crushing combat, and doesn't have anyone looking over his shoulder telling him when to stop. I think that alone would create a good amount of fear, as he can just get to you better, faster and stronger.
Your point about a myth not being as powerful the more it's known does have a kernel of truth to it, but I think Batman in most media has been able to keep his fearful symbol alive. I've read a lot of comics where Batman actually has to rethink how he acts as a crime fighter when he comes upon civilians he wants to save and they run from him in fear. It's at these times that he learns the power of his symbol and how you can sometimes scare not just your enemies, but also those you are trying to protect. For Batman fear is a double-edge sword, a great tool for criminals, but something he must yield with responsibility because the innocent public are just as susceptible to viewing him as a monster. And in a way that's another reason why him killing wouldn't be advisable, because his public would turn on him and many would despise him for acting that way.
You bring up Nolan, and I think even in his films Batman is able to retain that symbol of fear, as we can still see even in The Dark Knight as the goons at the beginning shutter at the noise of him when he arrives. Despite him being more known, that has only made his legend larger. Instead of just being a story people hear told, Batman has all the mythic quality of a monster that is also supported by the fact that he's real, and I think that makes him more powerful. I think The Dark Knight Rises is where this idea of fear could maybe be challenged, because in that movie Batman must symbolically do the unthinkable to beat Bane and come out of the shadows into the light. In that sense the movie depicts the idea or symbol of Batman as one of justice, who will go to any lengths to do what is right for society. The third film doesn't focus much on his power as a tool for fear, and instead shows him coming out of the gutter one last time to help the city he loves as a brighter and more overt symbol. It's quite powerful to finally see Batman on the streets fighting with the cops of the city he could only be partners with from the shadows in the previous films, showing that his symbol has become something more, and that he has been embraced by everyone as a protector. When a statue is made of him in memory of his sacrifice, it is a visual symbol of him becoming more than a tool of fear because he is viewed as a source of justice for the good of society. I imagine that even some criminals gained respect for Batman that day, for taking a bomb and risking his own life to save everyone, no matter their background or history.
So really I think Rises and its story simply shows us all that Batman can be. In Begins he was new on the scene as was all the more powerful and fearsome because the criminals didn't know what to expect, making him something to be scared of. Despite saving the city, the public still didn't know much about him or how he operated, so they weren't as responsive to him. In The Dark Knight Batman is still very much fearsome despite him being more well known to the public, but he also hasn't been fully accepted and some view him as the wrong answer to crime, because they are scared of him or of what threats he brings (like Joker). It's only in Rises where the public finally understand and support Batman for something more than his fear tactics, seeing why he fights so hard. He is rallied behind in the daylight on the streets by people who know he's more than a fear symbol, but one of justice and protection too, seeing all his aspects. So in a way I think Rises doesn't show the limit of Batman's ability to cause fear, but instead shows him being accepted and supported as a righteous figure of good in the eyes of those he's been going out on a limb for the entire time. It's less about the criminals being less fearful, but the public being more aware of him.
I hope that makes sense. I also didn't mean to go off on such a long post yesterday. I got passionate about the subject and what I was inspired by during my university criminal justice courses came out. ;) I just think it's great that discussions of Batman can lead so organically into discussions of morality, as the comics are very much grounded in real philosophy in those areas. Cheers.
While that may be so, Batman still doesn't kill in the sense that he won't pull a gun and flat-out shoot someone dead, except in the earliest of earliest newspaper "funnies". Batman doesn't pack any tools of death when he suits up. He doesn't consider cold assassination as a solution to anything. He won't be morally corrupted into premeditated murder. And he will exhaust all his options - and then some - before resorting to an elimination through inaction (i.e. not killing but not saving either) or by targeting a larger threat (a truck with a nuke on board) which involves collateral casualties.
He never did that in the early Batman comics either. Guns were always a last resort, whether against the Monk and his vampires (silver bullets for all) or against Hugo Strange's giants . As I wrote earlier, "Even in 1939 Batman never went around 'gleefully' gunning down criminals. He rarely even used a gun, probably because fisticuffs were more exciting on the page. The sole occasion when he used a gun to kill someone (aside from pumping silver bullets into a vampire) was in Batman #1, when he swoops down in the bat-plane to machine-gun one of Hugo Strange's giants. 'Much as I hate to take human life, I’m afraid this time it’s necessary!' he says, showing that it was possible for Batman to occasionally employ lethal force without being a trigger-happy Punisher clone."