|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 29, 2019 12:36:30 GMT -5
I think we need to make distinction between "realistic" and "internally consistent" when it comes to superhero stories and other genre fiction. The realism argument is a dead end, because you're talking about a medium that inherently requires some level of suspension of disbelief, so any argument based on realism is going draw an arbitrary line on what is realistic and what is not. I prefer to talk about a story as being internally consistent -- that is, given the established ground rules and baseline suspension of disbelief for the story's inherent fantastical elements, is the remainder of the story believable as an extension of this foundation? This debate isn't about whether Batman stories should be internally consistent or not; it's a given that any story should adhere to its own established rules. The question at hand is whether the rules of the Batman storyworld should adhere to the maxim that he can kill or that he can't kill.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Mar 29, 2019 13:05:03 GMT -5
I think we need to make distinction between "realistic" and "internally consistent" when it comes to superhero stories and other genre fiction. The realism argument is a dead end, because you're talking about a medium that inherently requires some level of suspension of disbelief, so any argument based on realism is going draw an arbitrary line on what is realistic and what is not. I prefer to talk about a story as being internally consistent -- that is, given the established ground rules and baseline suspension of disbelief for the story's inherent fantastical elements, is the remainder of the story believable as an extension of this foundation? The internal consistency is that superhero antagonists place innocent lives in danger and go all the way in killing . There's hardly been an era in comics when they did not, so suspending disbelief can only go so far when the so-called hero is the one with "powers and abilities far above..." the regular person, yet does absolutely nothing to stop what he has the skills, power and training to do. Remember, the people reading comics do live in the real world. The people creating comics also live in that real world, so reality becomes the frame of reference. Its not an episode of the Smurfs or Powerpuff Girls where its so far removed from being any kind a mirror of real life, that the expected rules of life can be tossed out of the window. I do wonder why some readers believe this "no kill" idea is even workable even beyond Batman; in the Golden Age, Superman--yes, Superman killed, or allowed criminals to die, while making "they deserved it" type judgements about their fate-- ..and its no secret World War Two heroes from Timely (Captain America, The Human Torch, Sub-Mariner, et al.) sent members of the Axis powers (and others) to their deaths, so its not as if the superhero sub-genre was ever some Saturday-morning TV-esque material where heroes did not eliminate enemies, or find themselves satisfied with their demise. The reason comics have superheroes occasionally taking life is about the characters living up to their responsibility of (when the situation demands it / no options) protecting the innocent from things or people they would fall to in an instant, It was never about being a blood-in-the-eyes vigilante out to slaughter all he deemed to be criminals. Handcuffing any hero to a "no kill" policy robs him of any kind of response to situations beyond clever tricks, reasoning or prison--much like an episode of the Super Friends.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Spaceman on Mar 29, 2019 13:21:21 GMT -5
I think we need to make distinction between "realistic" and "internally consistent" when it comes to superhero stories and other genre fiction. The realism argument is a dead end, because you're talking about a medium that inherently requires some level of suspension of disbelief, so any argument based on realism is going draw an arbitrary line on what is realistic and what is not. I prefer to talk about a story as being internally consistent -- that is, given the established ground rules and baseline suspension of disbelief for the story's inherent fantastical elements, is the remainder of the story believable as an extension of this foundation? The internal consistency is that superhero antagonists place innocent lives in danger and go all the way in killing . There's hardly been an era in comics when they did not, so suspending disbelief can only go so far when the so-called hero is the one with "powers and abilities far above..." the regular person, yet does absolutely nothing to stop what he has the skills, power and training to do. Remember, the people reading comics do live in the real world. The people creating comics also live in that real world, so reality becomes the frame of reference. Its not an episode of the Smurfs or Powerpuff Girls where its so far removed from being any kind a mirror of real life, that the expected rules of life can be tossed out of the window. I do wonder why some readers believe this "no kill" idea is even workable even beyond Batman; in the Golden Age, Superman--yes, Superman killed, or allowed criminals to die, while making "they deserved it" type judgements about their fate-- ..and its no secret World War Two heroes from Timely (Captain America, The Human Torch, Sub-Mariner, et al.) sent members of the Axis powers (and others) to their deaths, so its not as if the superhero sub-genre was ever some Saturday-morning TV-esque material where heroes did not eliminate enemies, or find themselves satisfied with their demise. The reason comics have superheroes occasionally taking life is about the characters living up to their responsibility of (when the situation demands it / no options) protecting the innocent from things or people they would fall to in an instant, It was never about being a blood-in-the-eyes vigilante out to slaughter all he deemed to be criminals. Handcuffing any hero to a "no kill" policy robs him of any kind of response to situations beyond clever tricks, reasoning or prison--much like an episode of the Super Friends. Feels like this discussion is starting to spin its wheels. Yes, I fully understand that from the Golden Age to the present superheroes have killed. It's simply not what I prefer to see in superhero comic books. As for the genre's perceived distance from or proximity to reality, that again is a matter of choice. There's absolutely nothing inherent to any fiction that compels an adherence to reality. It is always the choice of the writer. That seems to me to be a fairly obvious point. I like homicide-free superhero stories and I choose for my suspension of disbelief to go that far with absolutely no problem. If I can accept that an alien baby can be adopted by humans and grow up to be Superman or that a traumatized rich kid can grow up to be Batman or 4 astronauts can get weird elemental powers from cosmic rays and become the FF, then it's really no stretch at all to accept that these characters live in a world where heroes don't kill and always successfully stop the bad guys from killing. It's all make-believe and I prefer the fantasy of no killing while others prefer the fantasy of killing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 14:38:49 GMT -5
Batman's Parents in the Origin Story ... were murdered in cold blood and that's affected his him greatly.
Let's say this ... let a writer (any writer) writes Batman as a murderer that was completely justifiable in every case that's he worked on. In other words ... it's all done in self-defense and done it in such a way that he had witnesses seeing it and told the Gotham City Police that it is justifiable and all that. Now, with that in mind ... any crook that comes into Gotham City will wind up DEAD in the hands of Batman and they can't do anything about it. I was thinking about it and that alone would make Batman the most feared Superhero of all time and that alone make him the Ultimate Vigilante period.
With that in mind, Superman and the rest of the Justice (And, he wouldn't be a founding member after all) League would had to think TWICE about putting him on the team. Nobody would not want to work with him. Not even, Robin and he'll be a lone wolf in the Superhero World of DC Comics.
Think about this a moment or two.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 29, 2019 15:33:41 GMT -5
Batman's Parents in the Origin Story ... were murdered in cold blood and that's affected his him greatly. Let's say this ... let a writer (any writer) writes Batman as a murderer that was completely justifiable in every case that's he worked on. In other words ... it's all done in self-defense and done it in such a way that he had witnesses seeing it and told the Gotham City Police that it is justifiable and all that. Now, with that in mind ... any crook that comes into Gotham City will wind up DEAD in the hands of Batman and they can't do anything about it. I was thinking about it and that alone would make Batman the most feared Superhero of all time and that alone make him the Ultimate Vigilante period. With that in mind, Superman and the rest of the Justice (And, he wouldn't be a founding member after all) League would had to think TWICE about putting him on the team. Nobody would not want to work with him. Not even, Robin and he'll be a lone wolf in the Superhero World of DC Comics. Think about this a moment or two.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 15:55:14 GMT -5
zaku ... I don't read any of the latest stuff from DC and Marvel Comics anymore and seeing that cover speaks volumes. Thanks for posting it.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Mar 29, 2019 19:02:30 GMT -5
zaku ... I don't read any of the latest stuff from DC and Marvel Comics anymore and seeing that cover speaks volumes. Thanks for posting it. You are welcome I want just to clarify a couple of points: - This is a Batman from an alternate Earth who believes that the best manner to deal with criminal is just to kill them. he's NOT depicted in a positive light
- Even his version of Alfred is disgusted by him. He abandons him to report him to the police (even if Batman had implanted an explosive charge in his neck to prevent him from betraying him.
- He tried multiple times to kill that world's version of Gordon, just because he wanted to stop him killing criminals.
- He has been recruited by the Batman who laughs (a very, very, very bad person) for his nefarious plans...
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Mar 29, 2019 19:04:28 GMT -5
zaku ... I don't read any of the latest stuff from DC and Marvel Comics anymore and seeing that cover speaks volumes. Thanks for posting it. You are welcome I want just to clarify a couple of points: - This is a Batman from an alternate Earth who believes that the best manner to deal with criminal is just to kill them. he's NOT depicted in a positive light
- Even his version of Alfred is disgusted by him. He abandons him to report him to the police (even if Batman had implanted an explosive charge in his neck to prevent him from betraying him.
- He tried multiple times to kill that world's version of Gordon, just because he wanted to stop him killing criminals.
- He has been recruited by the Batman who laughs (a very, very, very bad person) for his nefarious plans...
Sounds like Miller's Batman on steroids.
|
|
|
Post by sunofdarkchild on Mar 31, 2019 12:04:06 GMT -5
Without the no-killing rule Batman is basically the Punisher.
In order to be a hero there has to be some sort of line Batman won't cross. Ultimately it's the moral conflict that makes the character interesting and not just a sociopath fulfilling teenage power fantasies.
I do think that an exception can be made in times of war - specifically alien invasions. War and crime-fighting are different things with different stakes. Killing Parademons is not the same as killing crooks or supervillains. But that is the only time I think Batman should be allowed to kill.
Nolan's movies had an in-between take. In that version Batman was specifically against being an 'executioner,' not killing. He'd avoid killing as much as possible, but wasn't absolutely above indirectly killing terrorists. With the exception of Ra's al Ghoul, he would never knowingly take an action that would result in someone's death, but there were a couple of times where he would indirectly kill someone like Harvey Dent in the process of saving someone else. It was a slightly happier medium between Snyder and Burton's 'kill em all' take and the comic's extreme 'no killing at all' rule.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Apr 1, 2019 22:57:10 GMT -5
And, no, of course not.
Superhero comics are moral fables first and foremost. Realism and even verisimilitude should - and in all but the most ignorantly wrong-headed of storylines do - come in a distant second to theme and function.
|
|
|
Post by Duragizer on Apr 2, 2019 1:08:53 GMT -5
Have to admit, I like the idea of Batman starting off as a grimdark, humourless, merciless killer, then experiencing a redemption arc which transforms him into a non-lethal-but-still-kickass Bronze Age-style Batman.
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Apr 2, 2019 8:32:43 GMT -5
Have to admit, I like the idea of Batman starting off as a grimdark, humourless, merciless killer, then experiencing a redemption arc which transforms him into a non-lethal-but-still-kickass Bronze Age-style Batman. I like this idea, given how it takes into account his earliest Golden Age persona. I prefer my Batman to not kill and to not be the Punisher like most fans, but I think our view on killing in general, even in the fantastic world of superhero comics, is still a bit infantile. I don't want to make this too much of a philosophical debate, but the problem starts for me with the origin of "good men don't kill"--being derived from The Ten Commandments, at the very least in our Western World. It's a hypocritical and mixed message, given the Old Testament God's penchant for being bloodthirsty, not only in commanding the Jews to commit genocides during wartime, but in his bizarre and violent behavior against his loyal followers (Moses being attacked by an angel for no reason, Abraham and Issac Jonah, etc.). Of course our big problem as a society is that our governments justify killing in the name of expansion, and still do, so we're to believe killing is only okay on the macro level? That still doesn't feel right, does it? Certainly nobody in any public position would come out and admit that, at least. The reality is that just as with all the other "thou shalt not's..." they're all contextual. Stealing from a corrupt official to survive can be justified ethically, seducing an abusive man's wife can be justified ethically, and yes, even killing can be justified in the context of self-defense and the strong selflessly protecting the weak. I like the idea of most heroes doing everything possible within their power to avoid the loss of life. It's not just about maintaining the idea that they're good people, seeing as how people can and have been rehabilitated. But when they seemingly care more about maintaining their halo when pushed to the edge, that's when I chafe a bit. The ideology (of the writers of course) is overwhelming the necessity of the situation. Not to mention that most of us (certainly most comic pro's) have never been in a situation where we had to make a snap judgement on how to handle a violent situation against an aggressor when more than just our own life was at stake. It's also slightly disturbing that so many left-leaning creators seem fine with all the violence up and to the point of the good-guy killing. I suppose all those head traumas and compound fractures don't factor in?
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Apr 2, 2019 9:54:37 GMT -5
Have to admit, I like the idea of Batman starting off as a grimdark, humourless, merciless killer, then experiencing a redemption arc which transforms him into a non-lethal-but-still-kickass Bronze Age-style Batman. Or a non-lethal but kickass Sprang-era Batman, but yeah. Of course Batman sprang (no pun) from The Shadow who didn't have any qualms about shooting bad guys. On the other hand, Doc Savage would operate on their brains to remove criminal tendencies.
|
|
|
Post by zaku on Apr 2, 2019 11:30:14 GMT -5
Have to admit, I like the idea of Batman starting off as a grimdark, humourless, merciless killer, then experiencing a redemption arc which transforms him into a non-lethal-but-still-kickass Bronze Age-style Batman.
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Apr 2, 2019 14:08:30 GMT -5
I don't want to make this too much of a philosophical debate, but the problem starts for me with the origin of "good men don't kill"--being derived from The Ten Commandments, at the very least in our Western World. It's a hypocritical and mixed message, given the Old Testament God's penchant for being bloodthirsty, not only in commanding the Jews to commit genocides during wartime, but in his bizarre and violent behavior against his loyal followers (Moses being attacked by an angel for no reason, Abraham and Issac Jonah, etc.). From what I understand, that "thou shalt not kill" really meant "thou shalt not kill one of your own people."
|
|