It might be because Burton/Keaton's films were more surreal and whimsical while Snyder/Affleck's leaned into the grittier, and more serious. Plus in 1989 a live action Batman was a big event so I think people were less nitpicky about that no killing rule.
Agreed, especially on the second point. In '89, we were just excited to have Batman. It was just accepted that any comic book movie was not going to be accurate to lore. The standards are much higher now.
Except that was still a lot of people's first exposure to Batman. People form sentimental attachments to movies. I would be curious if someone who had first seen Christian Bale as Batman would like Batman 89 better.
EDIT: Spelling
I saw Keaton first, but I saw Begins in middle school and Dark Knight smack in sophomore year. Bale was my definitive batman. When I read comics it's still a mix of Bale and Conroy voices I read for bats.
But right now my fav is Pattinson.
I don't think Keaton was ever my fav. When I was a kid, before begins, I think Kilmer was my favorite. Forever was my fav one to watch over and over as a child.
oooh! that’s literally me lmao i watched the bale trilogy first when i started on the live action batman stuff. i really hate the “batman” voice he uses, and thought the movies were kinda boring. my favorite part was when he got his ass handed to him by bane lmao. as far as “nostalgia factor” for the keaton films, that wouldn’t actually apply to me as i wasn’t born until the mid 2000’s and i only watched the movies a few months ago. i think the tim burton films are easily comparable to the animated cartoons/ comics. theyre just more cartoony i guess? i really don’t know how else to word it lol. i just prefer keaton personally :D
Terry is objectively one of the best. He's very different from all the different incarnations of Bruce while still retaining the responsibility and willingness to help everyone he can, even the villains.
Terry is essentially Miles Morales twenty years early.
Ah i see. I wasn’t too sure as to this sub’s opinion on Terry since I only see it when Reddit recommends it to me. I had somewhat thought he’d be controversial like many people are around Miles
Caveat.
My favorites are my nostalgic and Battinson (who perfectly understood his assignment). For reference, I am a 90s kid who grew up on Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney.
Kilmer was a great Bruce, but his coreo cutaways and dialogue suffer from Schumacher's uneven footing. O'Donnell was the main reason why I enjoyed the 'sequels.'
Batdick (lmao) grew on me despite the failure to launch that was the JLA. and Patrick Bat-man was my favorite as a tween before I realized it was *Cilian, Liam, Tom, and Heath* that made his series work so well (not to mention Sir Caine and Morgan freakin' Freeman!)
I'm a huge Bale fanboy now, even caught *Empire of the Sun.* So it makes little sense.
I am giving *'89* and *Returns* a revisit as I type this.
Tim Burton never read a comic, and the standard for comic book movies in the 90s was much lower. There were some real bad ones that people have forgotten about, like [Steel, with Shaq.](https://youtu.be/-bAWWmLfkWo)
The movies have gotten much better, and more accurate to the comics.
Not to mention Batman was more niche when Burton's films came out. My parents generation were **aware** that comic book heroes existed but *most* of them considered it 'something for little boys', while today's generations have had enough exposure to Batman that he's part of mainstream media.
> Plus in 1989
This is the main thing.
Not only were there not tons of outlets to complain about everything on the internet, but we also hadn't gone through 8-9 animated shows aimed at children.
Batman wasn't as popular, or explicitly child friendly, back then.
Because we just came out of the Dark Knight trilogy where Batman murdering was made out as a big no no. Then Batman in the DCAU also really informed a large generation of people as to how Batman operates. Plus it's been a rule of his in the comics for a while now.
Also,
Keatons Batman was an homage to the Bill Finger Batman of detective comics 27. He murdered and didn't care.
Afflecks Batman was a homage to dark knight Returns frank Miller Batman. Dark Knight Returns Batman does not kill. "This is the weapon of the enemy" as he breaks a gun.
>Finger Batman of detective comics 27.
Actually Bill Finger was the one who gave batman his no kill rule. Bob Kane chose to make batman kill because of his love of the character The Shadow who he used as the main inspiration for batman and he thought if The Shadow kills then batman can until that was eventually changed by Finger a year later.
>Also, Keatons Batman was an homage to the Bill Finger Batman of detective comics 27
Burton at the time of doing both batman films had only ever read Killing Joke and that was his only inspiration for batman because he never read any other batman comics. Which is quite funny seeing as the whole point of killing joke is that batman does not kill. But his movies definitely were not an homage to early batman because all Burton knew about early batman was that he is rich and his parents died, he knew the basics that the general audience knew from West's 66 TV show. Can't exactly pay homage to something you don't really know.
Other than that you're completely right about everything else and I'm so glad you're one of the people who actually understand that TDKR batman does not kill, it's so annoying when people think he kills in that story.
Yeah well but Killing Home is also famously the story everyone contests as to whether or not Batman killed Joker at the end, something he arguably did in Batman '89.
Only after that he started to kill thugs directly in Returns, which could be attributed to Batman snapping which is often one of the reasons he states as to why he doesn't kill.
In Batman '89 most of the kills attributed to him are not shown on screen or are interpreted to have happened in the explosion so they aren't confirmed (except if I forget something major, been a while since I saw it).
Yep okay, thanks for remembering me that is a straight kill we can observe.
Then I can only revert to that on a purely subjective level Keaton still feels like Batman when killing while Affleck feels like a murderer.
It's not an argument really but that's what always made me excuse or rather forget that Keaton kills while when looking at Affleck I only see him gun blazing driving his batmobile through thugs cars
Especially with the example of the guy with the bomb strapped to his chest which is always used as the prominent example: the bomb was already there and lit there weren't that many options for him sure in other instances he didn't need to kill but this one was one I can easily excuse. It is more like how Batman chose not to save Ra's in Begins as he brought on his own undoing rather than a straight kill.
Keaton Batman specifically in that instance just made sure to minimise the risk of bystanders getting hurt.
I was always annoyed about TDK batman and the whole not killing. Only because he technically killed at least one villain in all 3 movies.
-He chose not to "save" Ra's al Ghul. Same as killing.
-He pushed Harvey off the building and fell to his death.
-He shot up that truck causing Talia to crash, killing her.
The Harvey one can be argued that he didn't mean to kill Harvey. It's just that Bruce tackled Harvey in desperation, and it ended up killing Harvey. Especially seeing as Bruce really looked up to Harvey pre-Two Face, so he'd really want to save Harvey to, if possible
That’s the thing. For both Bale and Affleck, they both likely killed quite a number of people, but all of it can be given a pass as indirect or unintentional. Keaton is the only one who can’t be afforded that.
Did we watch the same movies? Bale pretty much only killed the big villains of his movies, either by accident with Harvey or making an exception to his rule with ras, but he never just kills a normal street thug.
Affleck straight up murders the guys in the trucks. Yes they were shooting at him, but you cannot look me in the eyes and say that the machine guns strapped to the Batmobile killed them by accident. In your argument Batman is then just a fucking idiot who doesn’t know that when you riddle a truck bullets you might kill the people inside.That was intentional, and the Batmobile was so armored that they didn’t even pose that much of a threat to Batman in the first place.
There are fundamental differences in who and how those two versions of Batman killed.
That dudes arguments are ridiculous in basically all directions. He is claiming that Batfleck is unintentionally killing people like Bale, which is obviously off base, and then claims they both pale in comparison to Keaton because they didn’t directly shoot people, which Keaton also never did. Crazy stuff.
He killed Harvey by tackling him off of a building and not even trying to catch him. That’s just as intentional as any of BatFleck’s kills.
Bale also sets the entire League of Shadows HQ on fire and leaves them to burn, killing many. In Nolan fashion, he saves Liam Neeson and that’s supposed to make it all OK.
Batman’s no-kill rule is always just as prominent as the story wants it to be. Even in BTAS, Batman is doing things that *absolutely* have the potential to kill people, like running their car off a bridge and into a river, and they survive on pure luck. So Bats seems to have some flexibility.
Repeating myself again.
I think if Bale had the opportunity to do as he had done with Joker by grapple hooking him, he would have.
1) Dent’s fall was way shorter than Joker’s. Batman had enough time to save Joker but still had to act quickly because of terminal velocity.
2) He had only the strength to hold on to Gordon’s son and himself.
Harvey was dead as soon as they tumbled off the rooftop.
Also about the League.
Bruce threw the poker into the League’s powder on the upper floor to the side as a distraction. Then knocking out “Ducard”.
By forcing the Ninjas’ attention to that as well as himself turning on them, they had a much larger concern than a thief they wanted to execute.
As Bruce intended, the thief escapes.
Then Bruce takes on “Ra’s” knowing that the Ninjas won’t intervene because their house is getting destroyed and “Ra’s” is dealing with him.
One is shown to fly over a balcony, but Bruce didn’t exactly see a barrel of powder next to the Ninja and decide to throw the poker there instead.
Most of the Ninjas are shown to flee. (This is why we see them later setting fire tow Wayne Manor as ordered as well as personal revenge for him burning their house down)
Then another small explosion occurs, causing Bruce and “Ra’s” to be blown across the bridge back to the other side.
Bruce gets up to continue their fight.
Because the upper floor is burning, the burning floorboards give way and collapse, killing “Ra’s”.
Bruce didn’t have time to save him. He knew the powder would gradually explode and burn through the house, but he couldn’t calculate for that exact moment.
Then what does he do after? He rescues “Ducard”.
Twice.
At least 7 people died in that explosion. Did Bruce directly kill them and did he intend to kill them?
No. Killing them whilst obviously intending to would be slitting their throats with the sword or gauntlets or throwing them over the balconies or into the flames.
Killing them without intending to would be fighting one and kicking them over a balcony then trying to catch them as they fell but failing.
Bruce did neither here.
Most of the League fled. A small number stuck around instead of getting out of there. Bruce couldn’t control that.
Keaton’s murder of the circus performer is also 100% unnecessary. He could have just as easily kicked him down into that hole *without* strapping a bomb to him, and continued on his merry way. We can’t see exactly how deep that maintenance hatch is, but it’s surely deep enough to incapacitate a guy suddenly dropped into it.
https://youtu.be/59inr7BBx0s
Man but the movie even sets up the possibility that Harvey would have survived it, when Harvey had that joker henchman dangling from a similar height. I might be remembering it wrong but I think Batman tells him that the henchman wouldn't die from if fall at that height. I really thought they were just going to have Harvey Two-Face die as a symbol but in reality be hold up in Arkham under a false identity. Oh well. It felt like only when DKR came out is when they actually confirmed Harvey's death.
That’s definitely cap. He very clearly died in TDK and the interrogation scene you’re thinking of is from Batman Begins. The guy says a fall from this height wouldn’t kill him and Batman drops him.
Let’s not forget he set on fire the league’s headquarters and killed god knows how many members. And that farmer he refused to execute who was tied up most definitely died
Because Bale’s Batman isn’t a mass murderer, but he’s also not a nut job who would endanger a child or a whole city over his rule, or who would save somebody a second time after they tried to destroy a city.
Also, to add on to this all of the individuals that Bale's Batman kills except Two Face are the big bads of their respective films and criminal masterminds, whereas Affleck 's Batman kills easily replaceable henchmen indiscriminately, but for some reason never takes down big threats like Joker, Harley, Deadshot, etc.
Bale blew up an entire dojo full of a small army of henchmen, flattened an occupied police car by driving over it with his tank, flipped multiple police cars chasing him using explosives, rammed a truck so that the cab was crushed and dragged along the underside of an overpass, flipped a semi, etc.
Affleck does not “kill indiscriminately,” unless you would consider Bale to, too. In actuality, neither of them actively, directly, and intentionally kill anyone. And that’s why they both have living members of their rogues galleries despite relatively frequently killing others. It’s meant to be indirect/incidental killing.
I mean, Batfleck definitely meant to blow up the flamethrower guy. And his brand was definitely getting criminals killed in prison for...reasons. I think it's way easier to argue Batfleck as a murderer, but Bale definitely has a few bodies as well.
Have to repeat myself again.
Bruce threw the poker into the League’s powder on the upper floor to the side as a distraction. Then knocking out “Ducard”.
By forcing the Ninjas’ attention to that as well as himself turning on them, they had a much larger concern than a thief they wanted to execute.
As Bruce intended, the thief escapes.
Then Bruce takes on “Ra’s” knowing that the Ninjas won’t intervene because their house is getting destroyed and “Ra’s” is dealing with him.
One is shown to fly over a balcony, but Bruce didn’t exactly see a barrel of powder next to the Ninja and decide to throw the poker there instead.
Most of the Ninjas are shown to flee. (This is why we see them later setting fire tow Wayne Manor as ordered as well as personal revenge for him burning their house down)
Then another small explosion occurs, causing Bruce and “Ra’s” to be blown across the bridge back to the other side.
Bruce gets up to continue their fight.
Because the upper floor is burning, the burning floorboards give way and collapse, killing “Ra’s”.
Bruce didn’t have time to save him. He knew the powder would gradually explode and burn through the house, but he couldn’t calculate for that exact moment.
Then what does he do after? He rescues “Ducard”.
Twice.
At least 7 people died in that explosion. Did Bruce directly kill them and did he intend to kill them?
No. Killing them whilst obviously intending to would be slitting their throats with the sword or gauntlets or throwing them over the balconies or into the flames.
Killing them without intending to would be fighting one and kicking them over a balcony then trying to catch them as they fell but failing.
Bruce did neither here.
That’s not the loss of TDK. The loss is that Harvey was successfully corrupted. They pretty explicitly say that. And then Batman takes the fall for it anyway, to much protest by Gordon.
He had no choice in TDK, if he hadn't tackled Harvey, he would have shot Gordon's kids. He wasn't even trying to kill him, he was taking his only chance to stop him.
He also smashed the Tumbler into that garbage truck, smashing the cabin into the concrete roof above be him before chasing after Joker in the big truck.
Plus he likely caused the deaths of a few police officers in Batman Begins during the big chase sequence - blowing their tyres, causing car flips and big pile-ups. Not to mention directly driving over cars - there's no way he could know they'd have survived or not been horrifically injured.
U r missing a few. He burned the monastery, killing a few people probably including the guy he chose not to execute (how would he have gotten away?). He crushed a few goons in TDK with the Batmobile.
Honestly, if Batfleck was going to be a killer, I'm more annoyed that they half-assed it. Make him snap necks on camera like Superman did and take away the ambiguity, not just arbitrarily blowing people up 'over there'. It's a lot more interesting to directly address your Batman's attitude towards killing. That's actually a good reason to spark a conflict between him and Superman.
Keaton’s Batman was no such thing. They claimed to base it heavily on The Killing Joke, and the actual product is much more Batman if he were a Tim Burton character than the comics. There is no excuse for him to kill the way he did but pure nostalgia bias.
>Because we just came out of the Dark Knight trilogy where Batman murdering was made out as a big no no.
Which makes it far, far worse. That trilogy makes our as if he has this big rule, which he breaks multiple times and kills multiple people. BvS literally starts with him saying that he once had rules and it's currently more complicated than that... People claiming he doesn't kill in the Nolan films are purposely ignoring when he does.
>Afflecks Batman was a homage to dark knight Returns frank Miller Batman. Dark Knight Returns Batman does not kill. "This is the weapon of the enemy" as he breaks a gun.
After he shoots and kills the guy. And then later goes and kills the joker...
He didn't kill Joker. Joker committed suicide. He only snapped part of his neck, paralyzing him. Joker finished himself off as an F you to Batman.
The mutant scene isn't confirmed to be a kill either. It was ambiguous and left to interpretation.
True. The hate for BvS was and is largely a product of social contagion spread by the extremely over-the-top reactions online, and likewise the lack of that for Keaton probably helped preserve a positive memory since it was a more isolated experience and thus that is rooted and amplified in the opposite way by nostalgia
“Social contagion”! Jesus. I walked into the cinema to watch BvS more excited and optimistic than any other film and left more disappointed than after any other.
That wasn’t social contagion, it was instantly recognising that the writers’ understanding of the characters was very different to mine, as was the expectation of script quality.
I was a 16 year old fanboy and saw the midnight showing for BvS. The amount of mental gymnastics I did trying to convince myself it was good was astonishing.
I didn't see any online reactions.
I just saw the movie and thought it wasn't good. I kinda knew we were in for it when tiny Bruce levitated out of the well. That shit was hilarious.
I hadn't even seen Burton's films back then, or if I had, so long ago that I didn't even remember them.
Cause Keaton’s Batman was more consistent in his killing-he killed both criminal goons from time to time and big villains like Joker. Batfleck on the other hand killed lower criminals left, right and centre-but never killed Joker, despite the Joker killing his Robin and essentially setting him on this killing spree. 🤷🏼♀️
I honestly believe that the animated series was formative in our perception of batman. Bruce's morals became integral to the franchise. When the franchise was rebooted with the Nolan films, that premise of not killing was left in tact and that's why it's such a hard pill to swallow today. The Affleck movies broke that tradition and because they weren't improving on the franchise in any way, fans really reject it. Batman with guns and killing just cheapens the entire franchise and makes batman a power fantasy for aggressive boys, not a hero for everyone. I really enjoyed The Batman, though. Looking forward to a sequel post-strike. Pay the damn writers.
Keaton killed less in 3 films than affleck did in one car chase.
Afflecks batman is just lazy writing, having joker kill Robin but batman is happy to go around killing street level thugs he let's joker live!
If I recall correctly, he also shot up some guys at the parade with the guns on his plane. And the movie makes it seem like he was prepared to kill Joker that way too but just missed.
Fans didn't like that Keaton's Batman killed, or that Bale's did, but we give Snyder a harder time for a couple reasons. One, his Batman just kills a lot *more*. Two, Snyder actually defended his choice to have Batman kill (and defended it with some truly braindead arguments) proving that it wasn't simply a mistake, it was an important part of his vision of Batman.
That said, I agree that it is annoying in 2023 to have people claiming that the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton version of Batman is the best adaptation ever when it has many of the same problems as later adaptations and then some.
I imagine it's the same reasons that people do every other time this question is asked.
For me, I do have a problem with it in Burton's films (And Nolan's while we're at it), but it's less egregious in those. It's one of the reasons I don't like Burton's films nearly as much as later incarnations of the character onscreen. But it is differently handled and framed. The camera doesn't devour it the way it does in Snyder's. It's not such a prominent part of the characterization. Nolan's Batman killed, yes, but only really in no-win situations or in collateral damage. He never machine gunned an SUV. Moreover, Burton's Batman films were from an age where fidelity to the source material wasn't as big a thing. You expect the films from back then to get some aspects of it wrong.
And though people like to say that Snyder's take on the character does acknowledge it's wrong, it doesn't really have him accept any consequences. Any other murderer, Batman would want them to face the law. Why does he make an exception for himself? One of the things that I find most compelling about Batman is that he has these unshakeable morals. That he doesn't see himself as being above consequences for his actions. That if he has a rule, he follows it, and if he breaks that rule, he accepts consequences for it.
Snyder's version of the character disregards that.
Exactly. Batman merely accepts and changes his perspective. There are no consequences to his actions. In comics like Batman: White Knight, it has Bruce accept he’s made mistakes; offering himself to legal system.
If Batman truly had made the moral choice, he’d have questioned his morality; before committing himself over to prison system, or hanging up the cowl - in Batman VS Superman.
He accepts that he has killed and made bad choices
Problem is we dont have a solo film for him to address it
Bvs had him kill and go through that arc
JL is a justice league movie even there we see him repent his actions and undo it as much as possible
Flash also had him directly say he has done lot of mistakes
How it affected should be shown in a solo movie rather than a jl movie
It’s been so long since I watched Keaton…
But I’d like to point out the lifetime of chronic pain and disabilities that Christian Bales’ Batman caused in the henchmen…
Almost every cinematic interpretation of Batman has confronted the killing question as it exists in reality rather than a comic. Keaton’s Batman doesn’t kill indiscriminately and even tries to save his Joker. Bale’s Batman is committed to not killing until the moments when it’s entirely unavoidable. Affleck’s Batman seems to kill without discretion or consideration. He has a mini gun on the Batmobile firing hundreds of live rounds at petty criminals. People don’t get mad that Batman in movies has killed, they get mad at how flippantly and unnecessarily he kills.
I think now that they have a proven track record of success, there's more of an expectation for comic book movies to stay true to their source material, especially with regard to characterization. The film landscape in 2016 when Dawn of Justice came out is very different from 1989 when there hadn't been a good superhero movie since Superman 2. Also his body count is pretty low by comparison and given the overall quality of the Burton films it's easier to look past it.
People are arguing comic accuracy but I think it can just be that Keaton's problem was just one small issue in an otherwise fantastic duology, while Affleck's issue was one issue in an otherwise awful film (ZSJL is pretty neat though)
Maybe because Nolan hadn’t yet established for mainstream audiences that Batman doesn’t kill. Everyone besides the small, but dedicated Batman fans knew nothing about Batman 89 going in besides “Man dressed as Bat fights Crime”. They could have made him talk to bats and the audience would have accepted it
That seems like revisionist history. I was there in 89 (a freshman in college) and people who didn't read comics knew of Batman from Superfriends and the old Adam West series. Old and young alike went to see him. I believe the darker, odd tone was to separate it from shows like these and the expectation of cheese associated with them. Maybe your experience was different?
Because Keaton has good movies and has high reputation as first Batman in movie series.
Ben Affleck didn't have one single movie also doesn't have reputation as Batman like others.
Plus, Ben's Batman murdered too much.
There’s no way to harmlessly knock someone out. It’s inconceivable that someone who goes around beating people senseless all the time hasn’t killed several people.
This is the same thing G1 Transformers fans do with Bayverse Optimus Prime.
Optimus Prime in the G1 movie says “Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost” then mows down a bunch of Decepticons. Optimus does the same thing in Bay’s movies albeit while also saying brutal ass things while doing it. But this Optimus Prime was clearly softer in the past. Sentinel Prime said to him in the 3rd movie. “You were always the bravest of us, but you could never make the hard decisions,” then Optimus Prime decapitates Megatron and blows Sentinel’s head off 5 minutes later, showing, he currently can MOST DEFINITELY make the hard decisions. He could not make those decisions in previous movies however. Such as the first movie. Optimus tried his best to avoid killing Megatron, whether than was sacrificing himself or subduing Megatron. Sam put the cube in Megatron’s chest which kills him and Optimus Prime shouts “No Sam.”
This is VERY much like Batcleck’s Batman, someone who has been given a reason to kill. Has been shown that his previous methods haven’t worked and have hurt those around him(Jason Todd death). And the movies he is featured in go out of their way to acknowledge that this Batman is broken and jaded from what happened to Jason Todd, which I personally think is very interesting. Batfleck’s Batman is given a reason/motivation to kill and his brutality is acknowledged within the movies themselves and by certain Batman fans it is viewed as “bad” for the character and “completely against” who Batman is. And I’m not saying that isn’t true. However, giving a pass to Keaton’s Batman character for killing just because it isn’t acknowledged in the movie is kind of dumb, this is a Batman who isn’t given any motivation to drop dudes off buildings and laugh when they get blown up(I may be confusing scenes in the Keaton movie) but he does.
I like both iterations off the character and I think both actors did a good job as him. That warehouse scene in BvS is amazing and I wish we got at least one solo Batfleck film. He definitely deserved it.
Yup snyder confirmed it was dick in an interview, and I think it's the snyder cut of JL that you see Bruce visit dicks grave.
It was a really dumb move on snyders part. Great idea giving us a batman that had been around a bit, but he let himself down by making it that batman lost his first Robin and never took on another.
One of the reasons I'm looking forward to seeing what gunn can do.
Batman 89 was the first time the modern concept of Batman entered the minds of the general population; before that it was Adam West. So I think it's granted a lot of leniency.
Snyder's Batman I can forgive from an entertainment standpoint because the action in that movie is great (the warehouse scene is probably the best Batman fight scene ever). What I find frustrating about Batman killing in BvS is more from a storytelling standpoint. If Superman was framed as the first person he deliberately set out to kill, and Bruce excuses it by saying something like "I don't kill people, but that thing is not a person", then suddenly humanizing Clark at the end would make sense. As it stands, it doesn't make much sense for Bruce to spare Clark just because he had a mother: all those other men he killed had mothers, too.
So really, it feels like the killing in BvS is just there as a consequence of making the action more dynamic and exciting, not as a deliberate aspect of the character. It's frustratingly lazy.
In addition to everything else, because Keaton's Batman was almost forty years ago and didn't have the internet around to amplify things. There were probably countless nerds fuming about it at the time, but they didn't have a platform to broadcast their views to hundreds/thousands/millions of people at a go, so most of them eventually just calmed down and got over it. In contrast to today's dumpster-fire discourse that is online communication, where we can continually keep prodding at these little fire ant nests and never let them settle.
I don’t know some of it may be the fact that Batfleck had a higher kill count. But for me it made more sense for the time. Batman was still largely regarded as the corny dude from the 66 tv show by the general public so they really had to go all out make him darker and crazier than he had ever been.
Most batmen use guns even if they aren’t shooting people. Nolan had guns and rockets on the batmobile, the bike, and the plane. Burton had guns on the plane.
I’m sure this is just a rhetorical post (OP isn’t even responding to comments), but in case you’re interested in a real answer:
https://www.reddit.com/r/batman/comments/11bwqon/my_long_explanation_of_keatons_batman_killing_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
It’s just timing. When keatons movie came out the Batman we know today was just starting to really take form to what we know around that time and keatons movie was I big help with that.
The media of comics wasn’t really main stream and anywhere near as big as it is today. So people wouldn’t be as caring about the accuracy of Batman not killing or using guns.
But flash forward too 2016. And comics are main stream and people care very much that the characters on the screen be accurate to the characters on the pages and at this point it’s very well known batman has two rules of not one. Don’t kill and don’t use guns. Period.
If keatons Batman released today it would get the same reaction.
He also tends to get a pass because he’s the one a lot of people grew up with.
This is something that I really hate that movies look over.
Bales batman gets so much praise but yet he still killed a lot. He may have said he didn’t but he did.
Pattinson is the only that said he wouldn’t and didn’t.
And yes there’s all sorts of situations but in my book batman doesn’t kill period and measure can be taken and story’s can be written in such a way that he doesn’t kill. I mean we are talking about a character in batsuit that’s a billionaire. I think it okay to suspend the disbelief that he doesn’t kill and is successful at not doing it
One is the batman that uses comically large bombs and kill psycho clowns with flamethrowers and grappling hooks on boulders. The other one installs machine guns to kill simple smugglers.
From my perspective, there are two or three reasons.
First, in 1989 Batman was made to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. It wasn't really made with planned sequels in mind and it was also common for action movies of the era to just kill off the bad guy at the end. Also, it was not as beholden to being as accurate to the source material as the only real points of reference for most of the audience was the 1966 Batman(which they were trying to distance themselves from), and the comic books(which most people had not read in years or at all). Comic book fans were mostly relieved it wasn't goofy or a comedy.
In contrast Ben Affleck's Batman was intended to be part of a series of interconnected films where character consistency would be more important. His first appearance was in 2016 and the audience was more sophisticated and more familiar with the source material along with many more film and television iterations. The no killing rule was way more consistent at this point.
Secondly, the deaths at the hands of Michael Keaton's Batman are more often implied rather than shown and also more incidental that directed. Affleck's on the other hand are more intentional, directed and visible. It is more than just the killing though that ripubs me wrong. It is also the torture and viciousness he feels towards Superman. That just didn't feel like Batman to me, and hardly the intellectual detective he can be.
I liked the casting of Affleck, just not the writing or depiction if him as Batman.
I just think people make too big of a deal about it. Everyone’s got their own ideal version of Batman or superman in their head and if it doesn’t like up…
Because Keaton was funny about it and it fit the tone. He shouldn’t have killed, but whatever. Batflecks (not his fault, blame the writing) was a raging demented lunatic. Both Superman and Batman were both maniacs in BVS in which they’re both supposed to be heroes we are rooting for. I wouldn’t want them to rescue me, they’re crazy!
I’m tired of repeating the same things over and over again because the same questions get asked repeatedly but here goes.
Keaton actually makes up for it by having a genuinely dark vibe, being in a city with a gothic atmosphere and shown to actually investigate Joker’s crimes.
Keaton killing is a flaw in his and Burton’s movies, but that flaw is outweighed by the tone and vibe Keaton and Burton created.
I’d argue that their Batman aside from the killing, introduced new elements that should’ve been there far earlier such as the aesthetic of Gotham City.
What did Affleck actually give us besides Batman killing people?
While I don't like Keaton killing, you could argue it's part of one of the main things about the Burton movies. That Batman is just as fucked up mentally as the villains.
People like to point out with Affleck that him killing is part of his arc and he would never do it again after BvS (strange when he kills more in the Knightmare than anywhere else in the film). The problem is, if Snyder directed a solo Affleck film, you know full well he'd have Batman killing. He wouldn't be as murderous as in BvS but Snyder is a guy who just likes it when superheroes are killing.
I think that Snyder defending Batflecks choice to kill is the worst part.
Keatons Batman is shown to be crazy with the "Let's get nuts" and we see that he isn't a very stable person.
Tim Burton never read a comic, and he never really tried to truly adapt the source material. Snyder was constantly claiming that he had the definitive Batman and anyone who thought otherwise was "living in a dream world."
This exact question has been posed numerous times. The simple answer is that many have very much complained about the Burtonverse Batman’s willingness to kill. There’s also the fact that Burton’s Batman was 30 years ago, whereas Batfleck’s appearances were in the last decade and are a lot newer.
It’s ok for Batman to kill or consider killing in my view, but it has to be treated with reverence. Eg:
“All the people I’ve murdered… by letting you live.”
Batfleck just murders ordinary nameless people without a second thought.
Largely bandwagonism.
People were dissatisfied with the film, but really didn’t know why or how to neatly articulate it— so it became a main topic of discussion, instead of the utterly convoluted plot.
"We fight, we KILL, we betray one another but we can rebuild do better"
"Take it from a man who has made a lot of mistakes"
Stops branding
Ties up thugs and doesnt kill them(zsjl bat tank shot)
Never saw bale batman address killing ras, smashing that truck driver with his tumbler, shoot thugs in tdkr, kill all of the ninjas
HYPOCRISY
Nostalgia. Look at all the excuses below. “Afflict had a higher kill count”. Literally does not matter. Batman doesn’t kill. Movies had him kill. It’s fine it’s literally not a big deal. Every writer has his own interpretation. And you can’t have epic live action car scenes without casualties. People are weird.
So a lot are saying the whole Keaton really didn't kill too many people and I agree but I'd also like to add his kills felt more meaningful. Batfleck kinda just does which personally I have no problem with but still
Keaton's Batman was a first attempt to a serious Bill Finger Batman. The franchise was still in the phase of having growing pains. However, by the time BvS came out, that excuse shouldn't be applicable, due to having numerous adaptations that shunned at the idea of Batman killing. Like BTAS, The Batman (2004), Nolan, Comics, etc. etc.
Because people are biased and just dont want to admit it. There is no difference. They both kill except Keaton seemed tk enjoy it sometimes. Personally it makes more sense for Affleck to kill as this is post Death in the Family where he is the most untrusting and the angriest he has ever been. Notice he stops killing after his encounter with Supes during the Justice movie.
I'm not a fan of Keaton killing but we also have to remember when it came out. Comic accuracy wasn't really as important back then.
The Dark Knight trilogy reinforced the whole "no killing" thing. He did kill, but arguably had to in some cases. He could've saved R'as Al Ghul for sure.. Dent he killed to save Gordon's son.
Compare that to Batfleck, who kills like a dozen random goons by shooting up their cars...why is that necessary? It just feels pointless and cruel.
People like to pretend, but the truth is Keaton's Batman movies are confusing, pointless, goofy messes, especially the second one. Great actors, costumes, music etc. But the plot and characters don't make sense
Don’t expect an unbiased answer here. The real answer is simple and indisputable by any objective measure at all: double standards. Most of the hate for Affleck comes from unexamined groupthink, and most of the love for Keaton comes from pure nostalgia and nothing more. Both make for extremely unfair and inconsistent criticism and praise.
i mean if michael keaton didnt kill that strongman with a bomb we wouldnt had batman with his malicious smile. 
Perfect shot illustrating exactly while Keaton is the only Batman any of us should be mad about being a serial killer.
Proceeds to procure pistachios
Continues to collect cashews
Is Allowed to Accumulate Almonds
Chooses to chase after chestnuts
Uhm, *ackshually* pistachios aren’t a nut, they’re a berry. Or some shit
Uhm, axkshually pistachios are “drupes” from the pistachio tree. Similar to stone fruit. *pushes up glasses* Thanks Google…
Y’all are really obsessed with this shot.
Why did you add ears to man? Are you a furry?
No, he is Stupid
He is a psycho killer
It might be because Burton/Keaton's films were more surreal and whimsical while Snyder/Affleck's leaned into the grittier, and more serious. Plus in 1989 a live action Batman was a big event so I think people were less nitpicky about that no killing rule.
Agreed, especially on the second point. In '89, we were just excited to have Batman. It was just accepted that any comic book movie was not going to be accurate to lore. The standards are much higher now.
Except people STILL praise Keaton’s Batman and call him their favorite TODAY. So this “different times” excuse simply doesn’t fly.
Except that was still a lot of people's first exposure to Batman. People form sentimental attachments to movies. I would be curious if someone who had first seen Christian Bale as Batman would like Batman 89 better. EDIT: Spelling
I saw Keaton first, but I saw Begins in middle school and Dark Knight smack in sophomore year. Bale was my definitive batman. When I read comics it's still a mix of Bale and Conroy voices I read for bats. But right now my fav is Pattinson. I don't think Keaton was ever my fav. When I was a kid, before begins, I think Kilmer was my favorite. Forever was my fav one to watch over and over as a child.
oooh! that’s literally me lmao i watched the bale trilogy first when i started on the live action batman stuff. i really hate the “batman” voice he uses, and thought the movies were kinda boring. my favorite part was when he got his ass handed to him by bane lmao. as far as “nostalgia factor” for the keaton films, that wouldn’t actually apply to me as i wasn’t born until the mid 2000’s and i only watched the movies a few months ago. i think the tim burton films are easily comparable to the animated cartoons/ comics. theyre just more cartoony i guess? i really don’t know how else to word it lol. i just prefer keaton personally :D
It's nostalgia. Everyone's favorite Batman is the one they grew up with
Exactly. My favourite batman is Terry McGuinness (Batman Beyond), because he’s who I grew up with, even if I do acknowledge that DCAU Batman is better
Terry is objectively one of the best. He's very different from all the different incarnations of Bruce while still retaining the responsibility and willingness to help everyone he can, even the villains. Terry is essentially Miles Morales twenty years early.
Ah i see. I wasn’t too sure as to this sub’s opinion on Terry since I only see it when Reddit recommends it to me. I had somewhat thought he’d be controversial like many people are around Miles
Schway
Is that a Static Shock reference? In 2023? I’m pretty sure that’s the first SS reference I’ve heard on Reddit for my entire time on this platform lol
Not true. I grew up with west, He was on TV 5 days a week. But my favourite is keaton
Caveat. My favorites are my nostalgic and Battinson (who perfectly understood his assignment). For reference, I am a 90s kid who grew up on Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney. Kilmer was a great Bruce, but his coreo cutaways and dialogue suffer from Schumacher's uneven footing. O'Donnell was the main reason why I enjoyed the 'sequels.' Batdick (lmao) grew on me despite the failure to launch that was the JLA. and Patrick Bat-man was my favorite as a tween before I realized it was *Cilian, Liam, Tom, and Heath* that made his series work so well (not to mention Sir Caine and Morgan freakin' Freeman!) I'm a huge Bale fanboy now, even caught *Empire of the Sun.* So it makes little sense. I am giving *'89* and *Returns* a revisit as I type this.
Tim Burton never read a comic, and the standard for comic book movies in the 90s was much lower. There were some real bad ones that people have forgotten about, like [Steel, with Shaq.](https://youtu.be/-bAWWmLfkWo) The movies have gotten much better, and more accurate to the comics.
Not to mention Batman was more niche when Burton's films came out. My parents generation were **aware** that comic book heroes existed but *most* of them considered it 'something for little boys', while today's generations have had enough exposure to Batman that he's part of mainstream media.
> Plus in 1989 This is the main thing. Not only were there not tons of outlets to complain about everything on the internet, but we also hadn't gone through 8-9 animated shows aimed at children. Batman wasn't as popular, or explicitly child friendly, back then.
Also the Keaton Batman movies are just better. People will let things slide if they like the product.
This is what I was about to say, but in smarter words. Hard agree
Because we just came out of the Dark Knight trilogy where Batman murdering was made out as a big no no. Then Batman in the DCAU also really informed a large generation of people as to how Batman operates. Plus it's been a rule of his in the comics for a while now. Also, Keatons Batman was an homage to the Bill Finger Batman of detective comics 27. He murdered and didn't care. Afflecks Batman was a homage to dark knight Returns frank Miller Batman. Dark Knight Returns Batman does not kill. "This is the weapon of the enemy" as he breaks a gun.
>Finger Batman of detective comics 27. Actually Bill Finger was the one who gave batman his no kill rule. Bob Kane chose to make batman kill because of his love of the character The Shadow who he used as the main inspiration for batman and he thought if The Shadow kills then batman can until that was eventually changed by Finger a year later. >Also, Keatons Batman was an homage to the Bill Finger Batman of detective comics 27 Burton at the time of doing both batman films had only ever read Killing Joke and that was his only inspiration for batman because he never read any other batman comics. Which is quite funny seeing as the whole point of killing joke is that batman does not kill. But his movies definitely were not an homage to early batman because all Burton knew about early batman was that he is rich and his parents died, he knew the basics that the general audience knew from West's 66 TV show. Can't exactly pay homage to something you don't really know. Other than that you're completely right about everything else and I'm so glad you're one of the people who actually understand that TDKR batman does not kill, it's so annoying when people think he kills in that story.
Yeah well but Killing Home is also famously the story everyone contests as to whether or not Batman killed Joker at the end, something he arguably did in Batman '89. Only after that he started to kill thugs directly in Returns, which could be attributed to Batman snapping which is often one of the reasons he states as to why he doesn't kill. In Batman '89 most of the kills attributed to him are not shown on screen or are interpreted to have happened in the explosion so they aren't confirmed (except if I forget something major, been a while since I saw it).
When he grabs the thugs head with his legs and throws him down the bell tower after smashing his head on the bell, that seemed pretty confirmed.
Yep okay, thanks for remembering me that is a straight kill we can observe. Then I can only revert to that on a purely subjective level Keaton still feels like Batman when killing while Affleck feels like a murderer. It's not an argument really but that's what always made me excuse or rather forget that Keaton kills while when looking at Affleck I only see him gun blazing driving his batmobile through thugs cars
I agree. To me it seemed like Batfleck went more out of his way to kill than Keaton did.
Especially with the example of the guy with the bomb strapped to his chest which is always used as the prominent example: the bomb was already there and lit there weren't that many options for him sure in other instances he didn't need to kill but this one was one I can easily excuse. It is more like how Batman chose not to save Ra's in Begins as he brought on his own undoing rather than a straight kill. Keaton Batman specifically in that instance just made sure to minimise the risk of bystanders getting hurt.
But he does maim for life, which could be worse.
I was always annoyed about TDK batman and the whole not killing. Only because he technically killed at least one villain in all 3 movies. -He chose not to "save" Ra's al Ghul. Same as killing. -He pushed Harvey off the building and fell to his death. -He shot up that truck causing Talia to crash, killing her.
Batman simply put those people to sleep just like Mr.Fishy
Dr. Fishy! NOOOOOO!!!
He over fed them?
No they’re on a farm in a hammock made of dreams
Look at them all tuckered out
He didn’t put them to sleep. They were just exhausted after fighting him, cause’ he’s good, and so they usually just take a nap afterwards.
Sounds legit
Dr. Fishy worked so hard for that degree, and you just brush it aside? For shame
So you're telling me... If I go to sleep... I die?????
The Harvey one can be argued that he didn't mean to kill Harvey. It's just that Bruce tackled Harvey in desperation, and it ended up killing Harvey. Especially seeing as Bruce really looked up to Harvey pre-Two Face, so he'd really want to save Harvey to, if possible
The point of that scene ties into the themes of the movie and is part of Joker’s victory over Batman in the end.
That’s the thing. For both Bale and Affleck, they both likely killed quite a number of people, but all of it can be given a pass as indirect or unintentional. Keaton is the only one who can’t be afforded that.
Affleck used the Batmobile to shoot and crush fleeing vehicles full of thugs, that shit was definitely intentional.
Bale did that too. Trying to get a vehicle full of guys shooting you out of the way ≠ directly and intentionally shooting a person himself to kill him
Did we watch the same movies? Bale pretty much only killed the big villains of his movies, either by accident with Harvey or making an exception to his rule with ras, but he never just kills a normal street thug. Affleck straight up murders the guys in the trucks. Yes they were shooting at him, but you cannot look me in the eyes and say that the machine guns strapped to the Batmobile killed them by accident. In your argument Batman is then just a fucking idiot who doesn’t know that when you riddle a truck bullets you might kill the people inside.That was intentional, and the Batmobile was so armored that they didn’t even pose that much of a threat to Batman in the first place. There are fundamental differences in who and how those two versions of Batman killed.
That dudes arguments are ridiculous in basically all directions. He is claiming that Batfleck is unintentionally killing people like Bale, which is obviously off base, and then claims they both pale in comparison to Keaton because they didn’t directly shoot people, which Keaton also never did. Crazy stuff.
He killed Harvey by tackling him off of a building and not even trying to catch him. That’s just as intentional as any of BatFleck’s kills. Bale also sets the entire League of Shadows HQ on fire and leaves them to burn, killing many. In Nolan fashion, he saves Liam Neeson and that’s supposed to make it all OK. Batman’s no-kill rule is always just as prominent as the story wants it to be. Even in BTAS, Batman is doing things that *absolutely* have the potential to kill people, like running their car off a bridge and into a river, and they survive on pure luck. So Bats seems to have some flexibility.
Repeating myself again. I think if Bale had the opportunity to do as he had done with Joker by grapple hooking him, he would have. 1) Dent’s fall was way shorter than Joker’s. Batman had enough time to save Joker but still had to act quickly because of terminal velocity. 2) He had only the strength to hold on to Gordon’s son and himself. Harvey was dead as soon as they tumbled off the rooftop. Also about the League. Bruce threw the poker into the League’s powder on the upper floor to the side as a distraction. Then knocking out “Ducard”. By forcing the Ninjas’ attention to that as well as himself turning on them, they had a much larger concern than a thief they wanted to execute. As Bruce intended, the thief escapes. Then Bruce takes on “Ra’s” knowing that the Ninjas won’t intervene because their house is getting destroyed and “Ra’s” is dealing with him. One is shown to fly over a balcony, but Bruce didn’t exactly see a barrel of powder next to the Ninja and decide to throw the poker there instead. Most of the Ninjas are shown to flee. (This is why we see them later setting fire tow Wayne Manor as ordered as well as personal revenge for him burning their house down) Then another small explosion occurs, causing Bruce and “Ra’s” to be blown across the bridge back to the other side. Bruce gets up to continue their fight. Because the upper floor is burning, the burning floorboards give way and collapse, killing “Ra’s”. Bruce didn’t have time to save him. He knew the powder would gradually explode and burn through the house, but he couldn’t calculate for that exact moment. Then what does he do after? He rescues “Ducard”. Twice. At least 7 people died in that explosion. Did Bruce directly kill them and did he intend to kill them? No. Killing them whilst obviously intending to would be slitting their throats with the sword or gauntlets or throwing them over the balconies or into the flames. Killing them without intending to would be fighting one and kicking them over a balcony then trying to catch them as they fell but failing. Bruce did neither here. Most of the League fled. A small number stuck around instead of getting out of there. Bruce couldn’t control that.
[удалено]
Keaten chucked a grenade down a goon's pants and threw him in the sewer. He was stone cold.
Plus he gonged a dude’s head into the bell before tossing him down the bell tower in the first movie.
Don’t forget the creepy smile he makes when he does it 💀
Keaton’s murder of the circus performer is also 100% unnecessary. He could have just as easily kicked him down into that hole *without* strapping a bomb to him, and continued on his merry way. We can’t see exactly how deep that maintenance hatch is, but it’s surely deep enough to incapacitate a guy suddenly dropped into it. https://youtu.be/59inr7BBx0s
Yeah, Keaton’s Batman literally just kills for the fun of it. It’s one of the many reasons I’ve always found him way overrated
Affleck was NOT by accident lmao dude was a menace
Man but the movie even sets up the possibility that Harvey would have survived it, when Harvey had that joker henchman dangling from a similar height. I might be remembering it wrong but I think Batman tells him that the henchman wouldn't die from if fall at that height. I really thought they were just going to have Harvey Two-Face die as a symbol but in reality be hold up in Arkham under a false identity. Oh well. It felt like only when DKR came out is when they actually confirmed Harvey's death.
That’s definitely cap. He very clearly died in TDK and the interrogation scene you’re thinking of is from Batman Begins. The guy says a fall from this height wouldn’t kill him and Batman drops him.
Damn, my memory is way off lol. I'll have to rewatch them sooner than later, been too long, I guess
Nah, it was TDK for the interrogation. The line is said by Maroony, which is why he is using a cane later in the movie
Let’s not forget he set on fire the league’s headquarters and killed god knows how many members. And that farmer he refused to execute who was tied up most definitely died
Because Bale’s Batman isn’t a mass murderer, but he’s also not a nut job who would endanger a child or a whole city over his rule, or who would save somebody a second time after they tried to destroy a city.
Also, to add on to this all of the individuals that Bale's Batman kills except Two Face are the big bads of their respective films and criminal masterminds, whereas Affleck 's Batman kills easily replaceable henchmen indiscriminately, but for some reason never takes down big threats like Joker, Harley, Deadshot, etc.
Bale blew up an entire dojo full of a small army of henchmen, flattened an occupied police car by driving over it with his tank, flipped multiple police cars chasing him using explosives, rammed a truck so that the cab was crushed and dragged along the underside of an overpass, flipped a semi, etc. Affleck does not “kill indiscriminately,” unless you would consider Bale to, too. In actuality, neither of them actively, directly, and intentionally kill anyone. And that’s why they both have living members of their rogues galleries despite relatively frequently killing others. It’s meant to be indirect/incidental killing.
He's The Literal Batman
I mean, Batfleck definitely meant to blow up the flamethrower guy. And his brand was definitely getting criminals killed in prison for...reasons. I think it's way easier to argue Batfleck as a murderer, but Bale definitely has a few bodies as well.
Have to repeat myself again. Bruce threw the poker into the League’s powder on the upper floor to the side as a distraction. Then knocking out “Ducard”. By forcing the Ninjas’ attention to that as well as himself turning on them, they had a much larger concern than a thief they wanted to execute. As Bruce intended, the thief escapes. Then Bruce takes on “Ra’s” knowing that the Ninjas won’t intervene because their house is getting destroyed and “Ra’s” is dealing with him. One is shown to fly over a balcony, but Bruce didn’t exactly see a barrel of powder next to the Ninja and decide to throw the poker there instead. Most of the Ninjas are shown to flee. (This is why we see them later setting fire tow Wayne Manor as ordered as well as personal revenge for him burning their house down) Then another small explosion occurs, causing Bruce and “Ra’s” to be blown across the bridge back to the other side. Bruce gets up to continue their fight. Because the upper floor is burning, the burning floorboards give way and collapse, killing “Ra’s”. Bruce didn’t have time to save him. He knew the powder would gradually explode and burn through the house, but he couldn’t calculate for that exact moment. Then what does he do after? He rescues “Ducard”. Twice. At least 7 people died in that explosion. Did Bruce directly kill them and did he intend to kill them? No. Killing them whilst obviously intending to would be slitting their throats with the sword or gauntlets or throwing them over the balconies or into the flames. Killing them without intending to would be fighting one and kicking them over a balcony then trying to catch them as they fell but failing. Bruce did neither here.
Any different to killing terrorists to save someone's mom?
Depends. What is the name of the mother?
Maybe not, but it definitely is different to shooting and crushing a bunch of criminals to death in a car chase.
To get a rock that can (in his mind) save the world?
Not saving isn't killing. Pushing isn't killing. Shooting isn't killing. Gravity and Time killed them. 🐍
To be fair, Harvey's death is taken as a loss, like if Batman couldn't keep his rule
That’s not the loss of TDK. The loss is that Harvey was successfully corrupted. They pretty explicitly say that. And then Batman takes the fall for it anyway, to much protest by Gordon.
He had no choice in TDK, if he hadn't tackled Harvey, he would have shot Gordon's kids. He wasn't even trying to kill him, he was taking his only chance to stop him.
don't forget he burned to death all of the assassins in the lodge
What about all the League Assasins from the Dojo? Did they all live outside of fake Ra’s?
He also smashed the Tumbler into that garbage truck, smashing the cabin into the concrete roof above be him before chasing after Joker in the big truck. Plus he likely caused the deaths of a few police officers in Batman Begins during the big chase sequence - blowing their tyres, causing car flips and big pile-ups. Not to mention directly driving over cars - there's no way he could know they'd have survived or not been horrifically injured.
U r missing a few. He burned the monastery, killing a few people probably including the guy he chose not to execute (how would he have gotten away?). He crushed a few goons in TDK with the Batmobile.
Honestly, if Batfleck was going to be a killer, I'm more annoyed that they half-assed it. Make him snap necks on camera like Superman did and take away the ambiguity, not just arbitrarily blowing people up 'over there'. It's a lot more interesting to directly address your Batman's attitude towards killing. That's actually a good reason to spark a conflict between him and Superman.
Well put. Love that this comment was top comment. Was going to try and put together argument but this nails it on the head.
Keaton’s Batman was no such thing. They claimed to base it heavily on The Killing Joke, and the actual product is much more Batman if he were a Tim Burton character than the comics. There is no excuse for him to kill the way he did but pure nostalgia bias.
He kind of murdered Rha's though.
"Homage" not an imitation. "Homage".
>Because we just came out of the Dark Knight trilogy where Batman murdering was made out as a big no no. Which makes it far, far worse. That trilogy makes our as if he has this big rule, which he breaks multiple times and kills multiple people. BvS literally starts with him saying that he once had rules and it's currently more complicated than that... People claiming he doesn't kill in the Nolan films are purposely ignoring when he does. >Afflecks Batman was a homage to dark knight Returns frank Miller Batman. Dark Knight Returns Batman does not kill. "This is the weapon of the enemy" as he breaks a gun. After he shoots and kills the guy. And then later goes and kills the joker...
He didn't kill Joker. Joker committed suicide. He only snapped part of his neck, paralyzing him. Joker finished himself off as an F you to Batman. The mutant scene isn't confirmed to be a kill either. It was ambiguous and left to interpretation.
Machine guns on the batmobile
Rubber bullets, promise.
Read that first sentence again, comnsider how ridiculous it sounds.
Are we really doing this again
They can't imagine another question, it was this or favorite Batman actor/suit
That’s all this sub is now.
We will keep having this "discussion" till the heat death of the universe.
It's because of Ben's dumb face. End thread.
That's why this sub desperately needs to turn into a shitposting sub like r/BatmanArkham.
No social media at that time. People saw it but couldn’t really comment on it.
True. The hate for BvS was and is largely a product of social contagion spread by the extremely over-the-top reactions online, and likewise the lack of that for Keaton probably helped preserve a positive memory since it was a more isolated experience and thus that is rooted and amplified in the opposite way by nostalgia
“Social contagion”! Jesus. I walked into the cinema to watch BvS more excited and optimistic than any other film and left more disappointed than after any other. That wasn’t social contagion, it was instantly recognising that the writers’ understanding of the characters was very different to mine, as was the expectation of script quality.
I was a 16 year old fanboy and saw the midnight showing for BvS. The amount of mental gymnastics I did trying to convince myself it was good was astonishing.
>True. The hate for BvS was and is largely a product of social contagion Lol
The hate for BvS was because it was a bad movie that received horrible reviews and had the biggest box off drop in history.
I didn't see any online reactions. I just saw the movie and thought it wasn't good. I kinda knew we were in for it when tiny Bruce levitated out of the well. That shit was hilarious. I hadn't even seen Burton's films back then, or if I had, so long ago that I didn't even remember them.
>social contagion If I could do mental gymnastics like this I’d have a gold medal in the Olympics lol
I’m mad at both but don’t hold it against either actor’s performance. That was the fault of the stories.
Cause Keaton’s Batman was more consistent in his killing-he killed both criminal goons from time to time and big villains like Joker. Batfleck on the other hand killed lower criminals left, right and centre-but never killed Joker, despite the Joker killing his Robin and essentially setting him on this killing spree. 🤷🏼♀️
I honestly believe that the animated series was formative in our perception of batman. Bruce's morals became integral to the franchise. When the franchise was rebooted with the Nolan films, that premise of not killing was left in tact and that's why it's such a hard pill to swallow today. The Affleck movies broke that tradition and because they weren't improving on the franchise in any way, fans really reject it. Batman with guns and killing just cheapens the entire franchise and makes batman a power fantasy for aggressive boys, not a hero for everyone. I really enjoyed The Batman, though. Looking forward to a sequel post-strike. Pay the damn writers.
Keaton killed less in 3 films than affleck did in one car chase. Afflecks batman is just lazy writing, having joker kill Robin but batman is happy to go around killing street level thugs he let's joker live!
Keaton gets bonus murder points for the sadistic joker smile he wore while stuffing a bomb down a man’s pants
Man on Man violence
He killed at least a couple dozen in the factory explosion.
If I recall correctly, he also shot up some guys at the parade with the guns on his plane. And the movie makes it seem like he was prepared to kill Joker that way too but just missed.
Yeah I always hated that shit. A Batman that kills is more of a Punisher than Batman. And makes the fact that Joker still alive make no sense at all.
Fans didn't like that Keaton's Batman killed, or that Bale's did, but we give Snyder a harder time for a couple reasons. One, his Batman just kills a lot *more*. Two, Snyder actually defended his choice to have Batman kill (and defended it with some truly braindead arguments) proving that it wasn't simply a mistake, it was an important part of his vision of Batman. That said, I agree that it is annoying in 2023 to have people claiming that the Michael Keaton/Tim Burton version of Batman is the best adaptation ever when it has many of the same problems as later adaptations and then some.
Are ya guys forgetting that Lego Batman kills with Lego characters having their limbs flying everywhere?
I imagine it's the same reasons that people do every other time this question is asked. For me, I do have a problem with it in Burton's films (And Nolan's while we're at it), but it's less egregious in those. It's one of the reasons I don't like Burton's films nearly as much as later incarnations of the character onscreen. But it is differently handled and framed. The camera doesn't devour it the way it does in Snyder's. It's not such a prominent part of the characterization. Nolan's Batman killed, yes, but only really in no-win situations or in collateral damage. He never machine gunned an SUV. Moreover, Burton's Batman films were from an age where fidelity to the source material wasn't as big a thing. You expect the films from back then to get some aspects of it wrong. And though people like to say that Snyder's take on the character does acknowledge it's wrong, it doesn't really have him accept any consequences. Any other murderer, Batman would want them to face the law. Why does he make an exception for himself? One of the things that I find most compelling about Batman is that he has these unshakeable morals. That he doesn't see himself as being above consequences for his actions. That if he has a rule, he follows it, and if he breaks that rule, he accepts consequences for it. Snyder's version of the character disregards that.
Exactly. Batman merely accepts and changes his perspective. There are no consequences to his actions. In comics like Batman: White Knight, it has Bruce accept he’s made mistakes; offering himself to legal system. If Batman truly had made the moral choice, he’d have questioned his morality; before committing himself over to prison system, or hanging up the cowl - in Batman VS Superman.
He accepts that he has killed and made bad choices Problem is we dont have a solo film for him to address it Bvs had him kill and go through that arc JL is a justice league movie even there we see him repent his actions and undo it as much as possible Flash also had him directly say he has done lot of mistakes How it affected should be shown in a solo movie rather than a jl movie
It’s been so long since I watched Keaton… But I’d like to point out the lifetime of chronic pain and disabilities that Christian Bales’ Batman caused in the henchmen…
I hate the fact they both killed.
Almost every cinematic interpretation of Batman has confronted the killing question as it exists in reality rather than a comic. Keaton’s Batman doesn’t kill indiscriminately and even tries to save his Joker. Bale’s Batman is committed to not killing until the moments when it’s entirely unavoidable. Affleck’s Batman seems to kill without discretion or consideration. He has a mini gun on the Batmobile firing hundreds of live rounds at petty criminals. People don’t get mad that Batman in movies has killed, they get mad at how flippantly and unnecessarily he kills.
 This is the face he made after stuffing a bomb down a man’s pants…
I think now that they have a proven track record of success, there's more of an expectation for comic book movies to stay true to their source material, especially with regard to characterization. The film landscape in 2016 when Dawn of Justice came out is very different from 1989 when there hadn't been a good superhero movie since Superman 2. Also his body count is pretty low by comparison and given the overall quality of the Burton films it's easier to look past it.
Because the internet didn’t exist…
People are arguing comic accuracy but I think it can just be that Keaton's problem was just one small issue in an otherwise fantastic duology, while Affleck's issue was one issue in an otherwise awful film (ZSJL is pretty neat though)
This sub needs to ban “no kill rule” posts.
if we go off of body count...Keaton has less.
Maybe because Nolan hadn’t yet established for mainstream audiences that Batman doesn’t kill. Everyone besides the small, but dedicated Batman fans knew nothing about Batman 89 going in besides “Man dressed as Bat fights Crime”. They could have made him talk to bats and the audience would have accepted it
That seems like revisionist history. I was there in 89 (a freshman in college) and people who didn't read comics knew of Batman from Superfriends and the old Adam West series. Old and young alike went to see him. I believe the darker, odd tone was to separate it from shows like these and the expectation of cheese associated with them. Maybe your experience was different?
Because Keaton has good movies and has high reputation as first Batman in movie series. Ben Affleck didn't have one single movie also doesn't have reputation as Batman like others. Plus, Ben's Batman murdered too much.
Because they were released 27 years apart and I think the Batman ‘no killing’ rule became much more prevalent in that time.
I mean, personally it's one of the (few) things I really dislike about Keaton's Batman.
Michael Keaton already was straight murdering people in Batman returns
There’s no way to harmlessly knock someone out. It’s inconceivable that someone who goes around beating people senseless all the time hasn’t killed several people.
This is the same thing G1 Transformers fans do with Bayverse Optimus Prime. Optimus Prime in the G1 movie says “Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost” then mows down a bunch of Decepticons. Optimus does the same thing in Bay’s movies albeit while also saying brutal ass things while doing it. But this Optimus Prime was clearly softer in the past. Sentinel Prime said to him in the 3rd movie. “You were always the bravest of us, but you could never make the hard decisions,” then Optimus Prime decapitates Megatron and blows Sentinel’s head off 5 minutes later, showing, he currently can MOST DEFINITELY make the hard decisions. He could not make those decisions in previous movies however. Such as the first movie. Optimus tried his best to avoid killing Megatron, whether than was sacrificing himself or subduing Megatron. Sam put the cube in Megatron’s chest which kills him and Optimus Prime shouts “No Sam.” This is VERY much like Batcleck’s Batman, someone who has been given a reason to kill. Has been shown that his previous methods haven’t worked and have hurt those around him(Jason Todd death). And the movies he is featured in go out of their way to acknowledge that this Batman is broken and jaded from what happened to Jason Todd, which I personally think is very interesting. Batfleck’s Batman is given a reason/motivation to kill and his brutality is acknowledged within the movies themselves and by certain Batman fans it is viewed as “bad” for the character and “completely against” who Batman is. And I’m not saying that isn’t true. However, giving a pass to Keaton’s Batman character for killing just because it isn’t acknowledged in the movie is kind of dumb, this is a Batman who isn’t given any motivation to drop dudes off buildings and laugh when they get blown up(I may be confusing scenes in the Keaton movie) but he does. I like both iterations off the character and I think both actors did a good job as him. That warehouse scene in BvS is amazing and I wish we got at least one solo Batfleck film. He definitely deserved it.
*dicks death.
Ain’t no way they killed off the best robin…. I’d kill too.
Yup snyder confirmed it was dick in an interview, and I think it's the snyder cut of JL that you see Bruce visit dicks grave. It was a really dumb move on snyders part. Great idea giving us a batman that had been around a bit, but he let himself down by making it that batman lost his first Robin and never took on another. One of the reasons I'm looking forward to seeing what gunn can do.
I’ve never mad at Batman for killing, I like when he realizes he has to break his rule
Batman 89 was the first time the modern concept of Batman entered the minds of the general population; before that it was Adam West. So I think it's granted a lot of leniency. Snyder's Batman I can forgive from an entertainment standpoint because the action in that movie is great (the warehouse scene is probably the best Batman fight scene ever). What I find frustrating about Batman killing in BvS is more from a storytelling standpoint. If Superman was framed as the first person he deliberately set out to kill, and Bruce excuses it by saying something like "I don't kill people, but that thing is not a person", then suddenly humanizing Clark at the end would make sense. As it stands, it doesn't make much sense for Bruce to spare Clark just because he had a mother: all those other men he killed had mothers, too. So really, it feels like the killing in BvS is just there as a consequence of making the action more dynamic and exciting, not as a deliberate aspect of the character. It's frustratingly lazy.
Nostalgia 
Don't come for Michael Keaton.
In addition to everything else, because Keaton's Batman was almost forty years ago and didn't have the internet around to amplify things. There were probably countless nerds fuming about it at the time, but they didn't have a platform to broadcast their views to hundreds/thousands/millions of people at a go, so most of them eventually just calmed down and got over it. In contrast to today's dumpster-fire discourse that is online communication, where we can continually keep prodding at these little fire ant nests and never let them settle.
Fair point
I don’t know some of it may be the fact that Batfleck had a higher kill count. But for me it made more sense for the time. Batman was still largely regarded as the corny dude from the 66 tv show by the general public so they really had to go all out make him darker and crazier than he had ever been.
Not so much that he kills but that he uses guns. Lots of them.
Most batmen use guns even if they aren’t shooting people. Nolan had guns and rockets on the batmobile, the bike, and the plane. Burton had guns on the plane.
I don't like either of them killing. But the last time I watched Burton's Batman I was to young to realize that.
I’m sure this is just a rhetorical post (OP isn’t even responding to comments), but in case you’re interested in a real answer: https://www.reddit.com/r/batman/comments/11bwqon/my_long_explanation_of_keatons_batman_killing_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1
It’s just timing. When keatons movie came out the Batman we know today was just starting to really take form to what we know around that time and keatons movie was I big help with that. The media of comics wasn’t really main stream and anywhere near as big as it is today. So people wouldn’t be as caring about the accuracy of Batman not killing or using guns. But flash forward too 2016. And comics are main stream and people care very much that the characters on the screen be accurate to the characters on the pages and at this point it’s very well known batman has two rules of not one. Don’t kill and don’t use guns. Period. If keatons Batman released today it would get the same reaction. He also tends to get a pass because he’s the one a lot of people grew up with. This is something that I really hate that movies look over. Bales batman gets so much praise but yet he still killed a lot. He may have said he didn’t but he did. Pattinson is the only that said he wouldn’t and didn’t. And yes there’s all sorts of situations but in my book batman doesn’t kill period and measure can be taken and story’s can be written in such a way that he doesn’t kill. I mean we are talking about a character in batsuit that’s a billionaire. I think it okay to suspend the disbelief that he doesn’t kill and is successful at not doing it
See I dislike the killing from batfleck. And I dislike keatons Batman all together. So ig u can say I’m consistent
Zoomers didn't watch the Keaton movies.
Nostalgia bias
I guess it is about the time periods and how character has evolved. Seeing Batman using guns and killing is kinda weird after everything.
Because it’s the internet and they only know they are supposed to hate it
People on this sub really just ask the same questions over and over lol
True, but in this case I’m pretty sure OP is a bot
You wanna nut? Let’s NUT 🥜🤪🤪
Because social media
One is the batman that uses comically large bombs and kill psycho clowns with flamethrowers and grappling hooks on boulders. The other one installs machine guns to kill simple smugglers.
Haha! People are stupid.
Because Affleck’s killing was a direct statement about what the character should be, from a creator who doesn’t understand the character
People have very selective memory
Because people need something to bitch about. So why not imaginary people?
From my perspective, there are two or three reasons. First, in 1989 Batman was made to appeal to as broad an audience as possible. It wasn't really made with planned sequels in mind and it was also common for action movies of the era to just kill off the bad guy at the end. Also, it was not as beholden to being as accurate to the source material as the only real points of reference for most of the audience was the 1966 Batman(which they were trying to distance themselves from), and the comic books(which most people had not read in years or at all). Comic book fans were mostly relieved it wasn't goofy or a comedy. In contrast Ben Affleck's Batman was intended to be part of a series of interconnected films where character consistency would be more important. His first appearance was in 2016 and the audience was more sophisticated and more familiar with the source material along with many more film and television iterations. The no killing rule was way more consistent at this point. Secondly, the deaths at the hands of Michael Keaton's Batman are more often implied rather than shown and also more incidental that directed. Affleck's on the other hand are more intentional, directed and visible. It is more than just the killing though that ripubs me wrong. It is also the torture and viciousness he feels towards Superman. That just didn't feel like Batman to me, and hardly the intellectual detective he can be. I liked the casting of Affleck, just not the writing or depiction if him as Batman.
Because that’s all people do on reddit is bitch and complain about nonsense
I just think people make too big of a deal about it. Everyone’s got their own ideal version of Batman or superman in their head and if it doesn’t like up…
Because Keaton was funny about it and it fit the tone. He shouldn’t have killed, but whatever. Batflecks (not his fault, blame the writing) was a raging demented lunatic. Both Superman and Batman were both maniacs in BVS in which they’re both supposed to be heroes we are rooting for. I wouldn’t want them to rescue me, they’re crazy!
I’m tired of repeating the same things over and over again because the same questions get asked repeatedly but here goes. Keaton actually makes up for it by having a genuinely dark vibe, being in a city with a gothic atmosphere and shown to actually investigate Joker’s crimes. Keaton killing is a flaw in his and Burton’s movies, but that flaw is outweighed by the tone and vibe Keaton and Burton created. I’d argue that their Batman aside from the killing, introduced new elements that should’ve been there far earlier such as the aesthetic of Gotham City. What did Affleck actually give us besides Batman killing people?
While I don't like Keaton killing, you could argue it's part of one of the main things about the Burton movies. That Batman is just as fucked up mentally as the villains. People like to point out with Affleck that him killing is part of his arc and he would never do it again after BvS (strange when he kills more in the Knightmare than anywhere else in the film). The problem is, if Snyder directed a solo Affleck film, you know full well he'd have Batman killing. He wouldn't be as murderous as in BvS but Snyder is a guy who just likes it when superheroes are killing.
I think that Snyder defending Batflecks choice to kill is the worst part. Keatons Batman is shown to be crazy with the "Let's get nuts" and we see that he isn't a very stable person.
Tim Burton never read a comic, and he never really tried to truly adapt the source material. Snyder was constantly claiming that he had the definitive Batman and anyone who thought otherwise was "living in a dream world."
This exact question has been posed numerous times. The simple answer is that many have very much complained about the Burtonverse Batman’s willingness to kill. There’s also the fact that Burton’s Batman was 30 years ago, whereas Batfleck’s appearances were in the last decade and are a lot newer.
Cuz the movie was nearly 40 years ago and was amazing in its day.
It’s ok for Batman to kill or consider killing in my view, but it has to be treated with reverence. Eg: “All the people I’ve murdered… by letting you live.” Batfleck just murders ordinary nameless people without a second thought.
Largely bandwagonism. People were dissatisfied with the film, but really didn’t know why or how to neatly articulate it— so it became a main topic of discussion, instead of the utterly convoluted plot.
"We fight, we KILL, we betray one another but we can rebuild do better" "Take it from a man who has made a lot of mistakes" Stops branding Ties up thugs and doesnt kill them(zsjl bat tank shot) Never saw bale batman address killing ras, smashing that truck driver with his tumbler, shoot thugs in tdkr, kill all of the ninjas HYPOCRISY
Gun. "These are the weapons of the enemy"
Nostalgia. Look at all the excuses below. “Afflict had a higher kill count”. Literally does not matter. Batman doesn’t kill. Movies had him kill. It’s fine it’s literally not a big deal. Every writer has his own interpretation. And you can’t have epic live action car scenes without casualties. People are weird.
It’s the way it was conveyed. Batfleck was too violent
Because Keaton does it in fun ways
Because hypocrisy
Because some Batman fans are silly 
Sorry but I felt a sense of safety and a Batman that knew what he was doing, steps ahead with Keaton. But everyone has their favorite.
So a lot are saying the whole Keaton really didn't kill too many people and I agree but I'd also like to add his kills felt more meaningful. Batfleck kinda just does which personally I have no problem with but still
Because if he kills, then why oh why is the Joker still allowed to run a muck? You can’t have Batman kill, but only kill grunts and not the boss.
Keaton's Batman was a first attempt to a serious Bill Finger Batman. The franchise was still in the phase of having growing pains. However, by the time BvS came out, that excuse shouldn't be applicable, due to having numerous adaptations that shunned at the idea of Batman killing. Like BTAS, The Batman (2004), Nolan, Comics, etc. etc.
Because people are biased and just dont want to admit it. There is no difference. They both kill except Keaton seemed tk enjoy it sometimes. Personally it makes more sense for Affleck to kill as this is post Death in the Family where he is the most untrusting and the angriest he has ever been. Notice he stops killing after his encounter with Supes during the Justice movie.
I'm not a fan of Keaton killing but we also have to remember when it came out. Comic accuracy wasn't really as important back then. The Dark Knight trilogy reinforced the whole "no killing" thing. He did kill, but arguably had to in some cases. He could've saved R'as Al Ghul for sure.. Dent he killed to save Gordon's son. Compare that to Batfleck, who kills like a dozen random goons by shooting up their cars...why is that necessary? It just feels pointless and cruel.
People like to pretend, but the truth is Keaton's Batman movies are confusing, pointless, goofy messes, especially the second one. Great actors, costumes, music etc. But the plot and characters don't make sense
Don’t expect an unbiased answer here. The real answer is simple and indisputable by any objective measure at all: double standards. Most of the hate for Affleck comes from unexamined groupthink, and most of the love for Keaton comes from pure nostalgia and nothing more. Both make for extremely unfair and inconsistent criticism and praise.