"Live Action Dragon Ball Z Movie"

[Anonymous Friend]

If the Joker continues to do what he does. That's not a fault of Batman or any vigilanty. The legal system should have handled it.

While other heroes also have a personal rule regarding not killing, Batman's is one where he will put himself in harms way to keep this rule. Whether it's because he knows that opening that gate slightly will lead him down a terrible path, or just because he doesn't feel he has the right to do so, which none of these heroes should.

Going back to the Joker, after all he's done, the authorities keep locking hi up in a hospital where he keeps breaking out of. You gotta ask, who is in charge of letting these killers live, and why do they do so? I get that Lex Luther is super rich and powerful and can bribe his way out of stuff.

[ABED]

While other heroes also have a personal rule regarding not killing, Batman's is one where he will put himself in harms way to keep this rule. Whether it's because he knows that opening that gate slightly will lead him down a terrible path, or just because he doesn't feel he has the right to do so, which none of these heroes should.

Putting themselves in danger to hold on to their principles is what typically defines superheroes. Batman's not special in this regard.

I agree with this. Inspiring positive growth through understanding and love is what Batman is all about.

That's true of most superheroes.

Anyway, this hypothetical DB live action movie sounds like crap, doesn't it?

[MyVisionity]

While other heroes also have a personal rule regarding not killing, Batman's is one where he will put himself in harms way to keep this rule. Whether it's because he knows that opening that gate slightly will lead him down a terrible path, or just because he doesn't feel he has the right to do so, which none of these heroes should.

Putting themselves in danger to hold on to their principles is what typically defines superheroes. Batman's not special in this regard.

He's referring to the principle of not killing, specifically.

I agree with this. Inspiring positive growth through understanding and love is what Batman is all about.

That's true of most superheroes.

I'm not so sure about that. But even so, Batman is the only one for which it is a defining characteristic.

Anyway, this hypothetical DB live action movie sounds like crap, doesn't it?

It does, but Hollywood makes a lot of crap, so that won't stop them from doing DB.

[ABED]

While other heroes also have a personal rule regarding not killing, Batman's is one where he will put himself in harms way to keep this rule. Whether it's because he knows that opening that gate slightly will lead him down a terrible path, or just because he doesn't feel he has the right to do so, which none of these heroes should.

Putting themselves in danger to hold on to their principles is what typically defines superheroes. Batman's not special in this regard.

He's referring to the principle of not killing, specifically.

I agree with this. Inspiring positive growth through understanding and love is what Batman is all about.

That's true of most superheroes.

I'm not so sure about that. But even so, Batman is the only one for which it is a defining characteristic.

Anyway, this hypothetical DB live action movie sounds like crap, doesn't it?

It does, but Hollywood makes a lot of crap, so that won't stop them from doing DB.

You are dead wrong about the first two. It's verifiable. Google is your friend. What is it with that character that people oversell him?

[WittyUsername]

Plenty of superheroes have the no-kill rule as an important part of their character, but Batman is arguably the most (in)famous example of that. His stories often place a huge emphasis on his refusal to take a life, to the point where it almost comes across as psychotic.

And yeah, I think another live action Hollywood Dragon Ball movie most likely would be crap. Dragon Ball is too far removed from the kinds of movies that are made for American audiences. Superhero movies still appear to be the name of the game and Dragon Ball is completely different from the Western idea of a superhero story. If there is another live action Dragon Ball movie, it might just be better off being made in Asia.

[Kaboom]

I've said it before, here and elsewhere, but there's nothing about Dragon Ball that somehow automatically disqualifies it from being adaptable into live-action film. A good adaptation is more about preserving the spirit of the source material, less so than all the superficial details. We could very well end up with something good if the right creative people were behind it, folks who understood and cared about Dragon Ball enough to condense and adapt things in a practical but respectable way.

...I very much doubt that Zack Snyder is such a person, though.

[Jackalope89]

Plenty of superheroes have the no-kill rule as an important part of their character, but Batman is arguably the most (in)famous example of that. His stories often place a huge emphasis on his refusal to take a life, to the point where it almost comes across as psychotic.

Comic book version? Certainly (disregarding early version and certain Elseworld versions). Film version? It really depends. You have the 1966 Batman where no one died (light-hearted family show), 1989 and 1992 version killed here and there, and sometimes spared some no-name mook, the non-Burton directed 90s films didn't kill, throat cancer Batman wouldn't do it "directly" (not save someone), Batfleck was open season on just about everyone, and the upcoming one, seems to stick to non-killing, but being brutal about non-killing anyway (very comic book-esque, really).

[Majin Buu]

But Nolan's is the only one with a no-kill rule. That's the most important thing, not whether he may actually kill or not.

It throws the whole point of him having a no-kill rule out the window if he's killing/causing people's deaths anyway. It would work if the films had been building to a point about it being unrealistic that he could do this without ever taking a life; but they weren't, so it comes off as a massive contradiction that makes him look like a hypocrite.

Which he mostly doesn't in the Nolan films anyway, but many will point to one moment and call it "hypocrisy". It's nonsense and Nolan's Batman is incomparable to Burton/Schumacher's Batman in that aspect.

One moment?

1. Setting fire to Ra's al Ghul's headquarters for his escape, which we know lead to the fake Ra's getting killed and likely killed a bunch of those ninja henchmen as well.

2. Orchestrating the real Ra's' death as previously mentioned (and then refusing to save him when he damn well could. He's not killing in that moment, but he's not preserving life either).

3. Tackling Two-Face off a ledge, causing him to fall to his death.

4. Getting Talia al Ghul killed by causing her to crash her vehicle.

[MasenkoHA]

1. Setting fire to Ra's al Ghul's headquarters for his escape, which we know lead to the fake Ra's getting killed and likely killed a bunch of those ninja henchmen as well.

It also would have definitely killed the prisoner…the one Bruce was refusing to kill….which is fucking hysterical.


Bruce: I won’t kill this man! He should be tried by the court system….however if he dies when I burn this complex down that aint my problem!

[MyVisionity]

1. Setting fire to Ra's al Ghul's headquarters for his escape, which we know lead to the fake Ra's getting killed and likely killed a bunch of those ninja henchmen as well.

2. Orchestrating the real Ra's' death as previously mentioned (and then refusing to save him when he damn well could. He's not killing in that moment, but he's not preserving life either).

3. Tackling Two-Face off a ledge, causing him to fall to his death.

4. Getting Talia al Ghul killed by causing her to crash her vehicle.

Nope.

1. He didn't set that fire to kill anybody, it was a distraction. We can assume everyone escaped. The fake Ras was killed by a falling ceiling, not Bruce.

2. He didn't orchestrate Ras's death on the train, he orchestrated the train crash. He never intended for Ras to die. The only questionable thing there is the "not saving" moment.

3. He wasn't trying to kill Two-Face, he tackled him to stop him from killing the boy. It's just that there was an open window behind him. If he could have, he probably would have saved Harvey.

4. He was trying to stop the vehicle, not kill Talia.

I get that Nolan Batman causes some accidental deaths, and is a bit careless, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite. About the only moment where he could be called a hypocrite is with Ras on the train, but even then it's not the worst thing in the world. It doesn't change the most important thing, which is that he has a no-kill rule in place.

[MasenkoHA]

.

1. He didn't set that fire to kill anybody, it was a distraction. We can assume everyone escaped. The fake Ras was killed by a falling ceiling, not Bruce.

The fire would have still killed most of them. Including the prisoner who was tied up. And yes Fake Ras was killed by the falling ceiling….the ceiling that collapsed because of the fire Bruce started.


Making Bruce look like a goddamn moron doesn’t help his case.

2. He didn't orchestrate Ras's death on the train, he orchestrated the train crash. He never intended for Ras to die. The only questionable thing there is the "not saving" moment.

He orchestrated the train crash which he knew was going to kill Ras .

It doesn't change the most important thing, which is that he has a no-kill rule in place.

So all you needed is for Burton’s Batman to do is say he had a no kill rule? Then he could have blown up axis chemicals and toss the henchman down the bell tower because at least he SAID he has a no kill rule? Because that appears to be your logic here.

[MyVisionity]

Including the prisoner who was tied up.

I recall that Bruce untied the guy before he started fighting.

It doesn't change the most important thing, which is that he has a no-kill rule in place.

So all you needed is for Burton’s Batman to do is say he had a no kill rule? Then he could have blown up axis chemicals and toss the henchman down the bell tower because at least he SAID he has a no kill rule? Because that appears to be your logic here.

The difference is Burton's Batman killed blatantly and unequivocally. He clearly doesn't care too much about killing. The Nolan deaths do not compare to the Burton deaths.

[Majin Buu]

Nope.

1. He didn't set that fire to kill anybody, it was a distraction. We can assume everyone escaped. The fake Ras was killed by a falling ceiling, not Bruce.

2. He didn't orchestrate Ras's death on the train, he orchestrated the train crash. He never intended for Ras to die. The only questionable thing there is the "not saving" moment.

3. He wasn't trying to kill Two-Face, he tackled him to stop him from killing the boy. It's just that there was an open window behind him. If he could have, he probably would have saved Harvey.

4. He was trying to stop the vehicle, not kill Talia.

I get that Nolan Batman causes some accidental deaths, and is a bit careless, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite. About the only moment where he could be called a hypocrite is with Ras on the train, but even then it's not the worst thing in the world. It doesn't change the most important thing, which is that he has a no-kill rule in place.

Nice to see Nolan fans have not changed since the days years ago where I would debate them on IMDB: Make excuses for Nolan Batman while writing off Burton Batman as just a killer.

It doesn't matter that he didn't intend to kill anyone in any of those situations, he still did things that directly/indirectly resulted in people's deaths. "He didn't intend to kill anyone" is just a weak excuse to not hold him accountable.

BTAS Batman, an animated incarnation that predates Nolan Batman by over a decade, is far better at not killing people/causing people's deaths while having a no-kill rule. What's Nolan Batman's excuse?

[WittyUsername]

Nope.

1. He didn't set that fire to kill anybody, it was a distraction. We can assume everyone escaped. The fake Ras was killed by a falling ceiling, not Bruce.

2. He didn't orchestrate Ras's death on the train, he orchestrated the train crash. He never intended for Ras to die. The only questionable thing there is the "not saving" moment.

3. He wasn't trying to kill Two-Face, he tackled him to stop him from killing the boy. It's just that there was an open window behind him. If he could have, he probably would have saved Harvey.

4. He was trying to stop the vehicle, not kill Talia.

I get that Nolan Batman causes some accidental deaths, and is a bit careless, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite. About the only moment where he could be called a hypocrite is with Ras on the train, but even then it's not the worst thing in the world. It doesn't change the most important thing, which is that he has a no-kill rule in place.

Nice to see Nolan fans have not changed since the days years ago where I would debate them on IMDB: Make excuses for Nolan Batman while writing off Burton Batman as just a killer.

It doesn't matter that he didn't intend to kill anyone in any of those situations, he still did things that directly/indirectly resulted in people's deaths. "He didn't intend to kill anyone" is just a weak excuse to not hold him accountable.

BTAS Batman, an animated incarnation that predates Nolan Batman by over a decade, is far better at not killing people/causing people's deaths while having a no-kill rule. What's Nolan Batman's excuse?

I’m not sure why this has not only turned into a debate about Batman, but is also apparently becoming an argument about which version of Batman is better, but I will say that I think Batman Begins is rather clumsy when it comes to Batman’s no-kill rule. Having him set fire to Ra’s Al Ghul’s base is a weird thing to do right after he says that he doesn’t want to be an executioner and him refusing to save Ra’s Al Ghul comes across as a weak loophole. The scene would’ve worked better if Batman offered to save Ra’s, only for Ra’s to refuse, thus forcing Bats to leave him to his fate. Also, he’s pretty careless during the police chase sequence, but the movie does at least claim that no one died during that.

With that said, I don’t think the deaths of Harvey Dent or Talia in the sequels are much of a problem, because those are clearly unintended consequences of Batman trying to stop them from killing innocents. In Dent’s case, Batman’s priority is saving Gordon’s son, thus making Dent’s death collateral damage, and in Talia’s case, Batman’s priority is to stop the truck from getting away with the nuke. Talia and her driver die as a consequence of that, but killing them wasn’t his intention. He simply prioritized saving Gotham, so he didn’t have time to be concerned about the lives of those two people specifically. It was either that or allowing everyone in Gotham to die.

Also, when it comes to TAS, keep in mind that Mad Love ends with Batman punching the Joker off a train, with him being presumed dead as a result. Sure, the ending shows that the Joker did in fact survive, but how could Batman have known that?

[MyVisionity]

BTAS Batman, an animated incarnation that predates Nolan Batman by over a decade, is far better at not killing people/causing people's deaths while having a no-kill rule. What's Nolan Batman's excuse?

Different medium for one. Live action films have the tradition of killing off the villains at the end of the movies. Television will keep them alive so they can come back.

BTAS was a children's cartoon. I doubt they would ever allow accidental deaths under those circumstances to begin with.

Nolan is a bit sloppy and doesn't pay much attention to collateral damage. But his films still go to great lengths to make it clear that Batman is no killer. Not only that, but it even shows how far he goes to save people, like with Ras on the mountain and Joker on the building.

It's incomparable to Burton.

[MasenkoHA]

I’m not sure why this has not only turned into a debate about Batman,

To be fair, this is like the 3,565th “Omg is a live action Dragon Ball film even possible?!?!?” thread so it’s practically begging to go off the rails

[JulieYBM]

BTAS Batman, an animated incarnation that predates Nolan Batman by over a decade, is far better at not killing people/causing people's deaths while having a no-kill rule. What's Nolan Batman's excuse?

Different medium for one. Live action films have the tradition of killing off the villains at the end of the movies. Television will keep them alive so they can come back.

BTAS was a children's cartoon. I doubt they would ever allow accidental deaths under those circumstances to begin with.

Nolan is a bit sloppy and doesn't pay much attention to collateral damage. But his films still go to great lengths to make it clear that Batman is no killer. Not only that, but it even shows how far he goes to save people, like with Ras on the mountain and Joker on the building.

It's incomparable to Burton.

It's not hard to just...nkt have Batman intentionally not save people or not kill people. The decision is being made to have him kill while also ignoring the contradiction.

[Majin Buu]

Different medium for one. Live action films have the tradition of killing off the villains at the end of the movies. Television will keep them alive so they can come back.

BTAS was a children's cartoon. I doubt they would ever allow accidental deaths under those circumstances to begin with.

It's not hard to just...nkt have Batman intentionally not save people or not kill people. The decision is being made to have him kill while also ignoring the contradiction.

Julie's point is what I'm getting at. It's not that hard to write Batman not killing people/causing people's deaths. Yeah, BTAS was under strict BSAP that wouldn't have allowed it even if they wanted to, but even when they weren't under those conditions (like Mask of the Phantasm, where for example, the BTAS Joker actually gets to kill people for the first time), they still emphasize that Batman doesn't kill and they actually stick with it. That the Nolan films couldn't do this while having the gall to have their Batman state that he doesn't kill is just plain old sloppy writing that makes him look like a hypocrite as a result.

[90sDBZ]

To be fair the Nolan films sort of address the hypocrisy of Batman. There's a moment where Alfred says "It can't be personal, otherwise you're just a vigilante". And there's the line "Either die a hero, or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". Doing what he does it's almost inevitable people will die.

The Nolan films are interesting in that Bruce doesn't intend to have a long career as Batman. He tries to retire multiple times, and even does for 8 years. It actually makes sense when you consider those films were specifically going for realism. Most incarnations have him be Batman for his entire adult life, or until age forces him to retire. Realistically he'd have caused someones death in all that time, at least indirectly.

The first episode of Batman Beyond had him nearly shoot a guy in desperation, which is the final straw that makes him retire. It's a sad but powerful moment in how real it feels.

[Majin Buu]

The first episode of Batman Beyond had him nearly shoot a guy in desperation, which is the final straw that makes him retire. It's a sad but powerful moment in how real it feels.

Speaking of Batman Beyond, the fact that Bruce makes it to old age but prior to meeting Terry is completely alone (aside from his dog) due to alienating all of his friends, allies, and potential love interests because of his strong dedication to fighting crime feels like a more realistic outcome for him than how Nolan Batman ended (living it up abroad with Catwoman), because it drives home just how much being Batman has cost him personally in spite of all the good he's done.