"Live Action Dragon Ball Z Movie"

[JulieYBM]

I personally find the no-killing rule ridiculous. A little bit of fictional protagonists killing never hurt anyone! :p

[FoolsGil]

I wouldn't want Zack Snyder to direct it because he is not about happiness or bright colors at all, but I wouldn't be against a live action movie from the US. I feel like Producers and Directors are now more than willing to actually take the time to make something to be proud of, and not see anything more than a cash cow franchise and look down on the fans, like the last movie.

[ABED]

Batman’s no-kill rule was initially conceived as a way of making the character more kid-friendly, but it’s since been made into a major part of the character and has served as a source of conflict in-universe on multiple occasions. It’s pretty far-fetched to believe that Batman is able to regularly give criminals beatings without killing any of them, but the character’s aversion to killing has come to define him, so any adaptation that has him casually killing bad guys is deviating from the source material.

In terms of realism vs. fantasy, even though Batman comics are inherently fantastical by virtue of taking place in a world where super powered aliens and gods exist, you can still make a relatively realistic adaptation of Batman, which is what Christopher Nolan did. The same can’t be said for Dragon Ball. The entire core of the series is rooted in fantasy and magic. You can tone down the fantasy elements by getting rid of characters like Oolong and Puar, but there’s no way of getting rid of the fantasy elements altogether.

It doesn't define him because nearly every superhero has that rule. It's not unique to him.

Batman is inherently fantastical because the idea that someone could dress up in a costume to fight crime and be even remotely successful at it instead of just being considered an urban terrorist, is the fantasy. It's a power fantasy. Batman is and will always be rooted in fantasy no matter how much Nolan fans want to believe it not to be the case. You can't get rid of those fantasy elements otherwise it becomes clearer and clearer that Batman is problematic. DB is simply more obviously over the top and colorful. If you are going to ground anything, ground the emotion.

So otherwise he would just kill everybody? I don't think so. There is no way to justify why Batman would go around killing villains and criminals.

The no kill rule is about characterization.

There's a distinction between murder and killing. There are situations where it's justifiable to take a life, like when Goku kills Freeza or Piccolo. There's much more nuance to this than your point would have us believe. My issue is that they take ANY instance of Batman killing as some sort of moral failing as "there is always another way" but that is of course nonsense.

[WittyUsername]

Batman’s no-kill rule was initially conceived as a way of making the character more kid-friendly, but it’s since been made into a major part of the character and has served as a source of conflict in-universe on multiple occasions. It’s pretty far-fetched to believe that Batman is able to regularly give criminals beatings without killing any of them, but the character’s aversion to killing has come to define him, so any adaptation that has him casually killing bad guys is deviating from the source material.

In terms of realism vs. fantasy, even though Batman comics are inherently fantastical by virtue of taking place in a world where super powered aliens and gods exist, you can still make a relatively realistic adaptation of Batman, which is what Christopher Nolan did. The same can’t be said for Dragon Ball. The entire core of the series is rooted in fantasy and magic. You can tone down the fantasy elements by getting rid of characters like Oolong and Puar, but there’s no way of getting rid of the fantasy elements altogether.

It doesn't define him because nearly every superhero has that rule. It's not unique to him.

Batman is inherently fantastical because the idea that someone could dress up in a costume to fight crime and be even remotely successful at it instead of just being considered an urban terrorist, is the fantasy. It's a power fantasy. Batman is and will always be rooted in fantasy no matter how much Nolan fans want to believe it not to be the case. You can't get rid of those fantasy elements otherwise it becomes clearer and clearer that Batman is problematic. DB is simply more obviously over the top and colorful. If you are going to ground anything, ground the emotion.

Batman stories make a bigger deal about his code against killing than pretty much any other superhero. It serves as the backbone for stories like the Red Hood and it pretty much defines Batman’s relationship with the Joker. It’s not just a footnote. It’s a major part of the character’s philosophy.

I never said Batman is completely realistic. I said that it’s easier to adapt the character into a more “realistic” setting than something like Dragon Ball. The Nolan trilogy isn’t even super realistic. It has things like a secret society of ninja terrorists who are able hold a major American city hostage with a nuke, a toxin that induces fear in people and a terrorist in clown makeup who’s able to pull off a bunch of elaborate plans that go off flawlessly. It’s realistic compared to the source material, but it still requires suspension of disbelief.

Let’s put it this way: Batman exists in a world that’s meant to resemble our own to an extent, while Dragon Ball exists in a world that’s about as far removed from our own as something like Middle Earth, or at least it did before it phased out things like the talking animals.

Anyway, I think I’m just about done talking about Batman.

[JulieYBM]

I mean, damn, they're jist some fun, nutty films.

Anyway, bring back the smoking Pu-erh plushie!

[MasenkoHA]

The no-kill rule is essential to the character and his commitment to justice.

The actual ludicrous pretzel logic Batman will come up with to just not kill the Joker is insane.

It’s not essential to his character it’s just a useful contrivance to keep popular villains like the Joker alive. His commitment to justice really doesn’t hold much water in practice.


Not helping is when certain movies just make Batman look like a complete hypocrite .


No Dick! You can’t kill Two Face for revenge! Let me kill him instead!

I won’t kill you I’ll just orchestrate the events that will lead to your death. Which totally isn’t the same thing haha!

[MyVisionity]

It doesn't define him because nearly every superhero has that rule. It's not unique to him.

Yes, it is unique to Batman. The others may not kill, but they do not hold it up as a specific line of morality that they will not cross. Batman does. It defines him because Batman himself is all about morality. And as I said before, he is defined by life, love, compassion, and justice. His enemies are all about death, hate, greed, and evil. Killing goes against everything the character stands for.

Batman is inherently fantastical because the idea that someone could dress up in a costume to fight crime and be even remotely successful at it instead of just being considered an urban terrorist, is the fantasy. It's a power fantasy.

That's the comic book genre. You just described all superhero fiction.

Batman is and will always be rooted in fantasy no matter how much Nolan fans want to believe it not to be the case. You can't get rid of those fantasy elements otherwise it becomes clearer and clearer that Batman is problematic. DB is simply more obviously over the top and colorful. If you are going to ground anything, ground the emotion.

No one ever said that Batman was not rooted in fantasy. The Nolan films certainly are fantasy. What is being said is the same thing that Batman writers and artists knew for decades, which is that just because something has fantasy elements does not mean that its entire world and setting has to be fantastical. If Batman is inherently fantastical, then it is also inherently grounded. That can't be taken away from it either.

There's a distinction between murder and killing. There are situations where it's justifiable to take a life, like when Goku kills Freeza or Piccolo. There's much more nuance to this than your point would have us believe. My issue is that they take ANY instance of Batman killing as some sort of moral failing as "there is always another way" but that is of course nonsense.

I'm not sure how those situations would apply to any of Batman's cases.

It's not so much about Batman absolutely never killing as it is about Batman having a rule about killing in place.

The no-kill rule is essential to the character and his commitment to justice.

The actual ludicrous pretzel logic Batman will come up with to just not kill the Joker is insane.

His commitment to justice really doesn’t hold much water in practice.

There is absolutely nothing ludicrous about Batman not killing the Joker. Joker is a criminal, the Batman does not kill criminals. It's that simple.

His commitment to justice is everything. *That* is truly the number one defining aspect of the character since the beginning. Even moreso than his rule of no killing.

[ABED]

But that's not justice. It's dogma.

... inherently fantastical, then it is also inherently grounded. That can't be taken away from it either.

Care to explain this point? I'm trying to keep this about DB or just the general rule so as to not turn this into a Batman thread. Being fantastical doesn't make something inherently grounded. It takes an effort to ground fantasy. It's a aesthetic choice. I doubt most people would react to Vegeta and allow him to be part of their group after what he did. It doesn't feel emotionally grounded. It works within the confines of DB, but it's not emotionally grounded.

Yes, it is unique to Batman. The others may not kill, but they do not hold it up as a specific line of morality that they will not cross. Batman does. It defines him because Batman himself is all about morality. And as I said before, he is defined by life, love, compassion, and justice. His enemies are all about death, hate, greed, and evil. Killing goes against everything the character stands for.

This is objectively untrue and verifiably so. Plenty of superheroes have no kill rules. Daredevil's Catholicism and belief in the sanctity of life has been a fixture of his character for decades. "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way" is specifically about this issue for Superman.

[MyVisionity]

... inherently fantastical, then it is also inherently grounded. That can't be taken away from it either.

Being fantastical doesn't make something inherently grounded. It takes an effort to ground fantasy. It's a aesthetic choice.

I meant that it's both inherently fantastical and inherently grounded. It was grounded in terms of its world and setting. There was nothing extraordinary or unusual about Gotham. Batman's methods were still that of a detective. The police were still the police. Criminals were still criminals. Those aspects were already grounded. There was no effort necessary to ground any of it. Unlike with the Dragon World which is mostly fantastical, Batman's world is grounded with certain fantastical elements working within it.

Yes, it is unique to Batman. The others may not kill, but they do not hold it up as a specific line of morality that they will not cross. Batman does. It defines him because Batman himself is all about morality. And as I said before, he is defined by life, love, compassion, and justice. His enemies are all about death, hate, greed, and evil. Killing goes against everything the character stands for.

This is objectively untrue and verifiably so. Plenty of superheroes have no kill rules. Daredevil's Catholicism and belief in the sanctity of life has been a fixture of his character for decades. "What's So Funny About Truth, Justice, and the American Way" is specifically about this issue for Superman.

I don't buy that Superman truly has a no kill rule. Not like Batman. And Daredevil is one, but are there really that many others who do? Regardless, it can still be said to define Batman whether it's 100% unique to him or not. It's all about how it factors into characterization. It's just one aspect out of many that contributes to defining Batman's overall character. An important aspect.

[MasenkoHA]

I meant that it's both inherently fantastical and inherently grounded. It was grounded in terms of its world and setting. There was nothing extraordinary or unusual about Gotham. Batman's methods were still that of a detective. The police were still the police. Criminals were still criminals. Those aspects were already grounded. There was no effort necessary to ground any of it.

Okay and? Batman still regularly fights fantastical foes. Like a plant lady, a mutant made of clay that can shapeshift into anyone, an immortal eco terrorist, a scientist living forever in subzero degree temperature.You’ll accept all that plus the entire concept stuff like a vigilante existing successfully in the first place , said vigilante hiring a 9-12 year old boy, etc etc. But Gotham having a unique design? That’s what crosses the line for you?

I don't buy that Superman truly has a no kill rule.

He does.

. It's just one aspect out of many that contributes to defining Batman's overall character. An important aspect.

In the early comics Batman killed criminals all the time. It stopped because of outside of universe morality reasons (children read our comics, parents don’t like the violence blah blah) and it became a useful rule to have to keep characters like the Joker around.

And Batman not killing THE JOKER a guy whose body count is in the thousands and has murdered small children is just really dumb. It doesn’t make Batman look noble or just. It makes him look like an idiot who is complacent in the murder of thousands of innocent lives. He’s already working outside the law.
It’s just a stupid thing we as an audience accept because the Joker needs to be kept alive to entertain us. So Batman will never cross some arbitrary line, the Joker will continue to be declared legally insane despite that being questionable at best just so he can’t be executed by the state, and Arkham will continue to have the worst security in the world (if only a wealth billionaire of some sort could donate money to increase security measures in Arkham Asylum oh well)


So yeah I’m not going to be bothered by Batman killing in a film adaptation where the Joker doesn’t need to be kept around indefinitely. I am going to be bothered by a film saying Batman doesn’t kill but then has him do exactly that.

[MyVisionity]

Okay and? Batman still regularly fights fantastical foes. Like a plant lady, a mutant made of clay that can shapeshift into anyone, an immortal eco terrorist, a scientist living forever in subzero degree temperature.You’ll accept all that plus the entire concept stuff like a vigilante existing successfully in the first place , said vigilante hiring a 9-12 year old boy, etc etc. But Gotham having a unique design? That’s what crosses the line for you?

Well I'm not too big on Clayface, Freeze, or that interpretation of Ivy either. And Robin was an exceptional 12/13 year old from a family of acrobats, not just some kid.

Burton's Gotham was more than just "unique". It looked like something out of an alternate reality or fairy tale. And then the silly 1940s mixed with modern times etc. Again, you can do fantasy in non-fantasy worlds. You can have Toriyama's Dragon World but then you can also have the grounded Tokyo of Hakusho and Sailor Moon.

I'm also not a fan of the villains all becoming crazy and the whole Arkham Asylum mythology, but whatever.

In the early comics Batman killed criminals all the time. It stopped because of outside of universe morality reasons (children read our comics, parents don’t like the violence blah blah) and it became a useful rule to have to keep characters like the Joker around.

That was a brief period before Batman's character was established. Of course things like that will change. The not killing thing went on to become a defining character trait. It's not just to keep the villains around, and it's not something that can be tossed aside like it's nothing in adaptations.

And Batman not killing THE JOKER a guy whose body count is in the thousands and has murdered small children is just really dumb. It doesn’t make Batman look noble or just. It makes him look like an idiot who is complacent in the murder of thousands of innocent lives. He’s already working outside the law.

This is really more the fault of writers inflating the Joker's character into some kind of super-killer with all of the ridiculous body count nonsense. But even so, it's a comic book so I can buy Batman sticking to his code even for extreme circumstances.

[Super Sonic]

Folks may disagree with me, but anyone else think Cynthia Rothrock in her prime, or Asuka would be a good Android 18? Yeah, would be a bit, but could see them.

[JulieYBM]

Rothrock would be awesome for any role. Her fights are unmatched!

[Majin Buu]

Not helping is when certain movies just make Batman look like a complete hypocrite .


No Dick! You can’t kill Two Face for revenge! Let me kill him instead!

I won’t kill you I’ll just orchestrate the events that will lead to your death. Which totally isn’t the same thing haha!

This is why I always roll my eyes whenever Nolan fans insist that Nolan Batman is the best Batman because he doesn't kill. Most of the movies have him directly/indirectly kill to varying degrees.

[MyVisionity]

This is why I always roll my eyes whenever Nolan fans insist that Nolan Batman is the best Batman because he doesn't kill. Most of the movies have him directly/indirectly kill to varying degrees.

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. 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.

[MasenkoHA]

This is why I always roll my eyes whenever Nolan fans insist that Nolan Batman is the best Batman because he doesn't kill. Most of the movies have him directly/indirectly kill to varying degrees.

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. 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.

I’m sorry what? Your argument is literally “It’s more important for Batman to say he has a No Kill Rule than to actually stick to it”

It is absolutely hypocrisy for him to say he doesn’t kill then have Gordon use the Tumbler to blow up the monorail that White Ras Ah Ghul is on. Orchestrating the events that lead to someone’s death is still murder. No different than when he used his grappling hook to tie Joker’s ankle to the gargoyle on the cathedral in Batman 89 leading Joker to lose his grip on his escape copter.

And Schumacher Batman had a No Kill Rule as well (which was lightly implied to be Batman realizing killing people is wrong from the Burton movies). And Forever also had a hypocritical moment where he causes Two-Faces death and I’ll gladly rip into that as much as I do Begins.

If Batman is going to kill don’t have him be a raging hypocrite is all I’m saying

[MyVisionity]

Yes, it's more important to have a no-kill rule than whether he sticks to it. Batman is not perfect.

He didn't orchestrate Ras's death. He was trying to stop the weapon from reaching the station and activating.

Not to defend Burton's Batman but it looks like he was just trying to stop Joker from escaping. But the gargoyle broke off.

I don't recall Schumacher Batman having a no-kill rule. But even so he wasn't trying to kill Two-Face, just confuse him. But he slipped and fell.

It's more the movies' faults for trying to come up with ways to kill off the villains so poorly.

[MasenkoHA]

Yes, it's more important to have a no-kill rule than whether he sticks to it.

That makes no sense. Either have the rule or don’t.

He didn't orchestrate Ras's death.

He undeniably did. He died when the monorail crashed…ya know because Batman had Gordon blow up the tracks

I don't recall Schumacher Batman having a no-kill rule. But even so he wasn't trying to kill Two-Face, just confuse him. But he slipped and fell.

It was an entire ass plot point that he was trying to convince Dick that killing isn’t going to make the pain go away

And throwing a bunch of coins in the air when Two Face is on a high ledge is definitely causing his death. Either that or Batman is a fucking idiot.

[JulieYBM]

To be fair, the killing probably won't make the pain go away but I still believe from a storytelling point of view limiting a character's options like that is ultimately not going to get anyone anywhere. I personally would write stories where Batman does kill, but only in defense of life. I'm mostly bored by his enemies being unredeemable, though, so I'd also want to emphasize on Bruce's successes being beyond stopping an enemy and going into inspiring a positive growth in them. Give me a film where Bruce gets through to Harvey Dent, Matt Hagan, Victor Fries and Jack Napier through understanding and love.

[MyVisionity]

It was an entire ass plot point that he was trying to convince Dick that killing isn’t going to make the pain go away

That was for the sake of Dick and his pain. Not about any sort of rule against killing.

I'm mostly bored by his enemies being unredeemable, though, so I'd also want to emphasize on Bruce's successes being beyond stopping an enemy and going into inspiring a positive growth in them. Give me a film where Bruce gets through to Harvey Dent, Matt Hagan, Victor Fries and Jack Napier through understanding and love.

I agree with this. Inspiring positive growth through understanding and love is what Batman is all about. Say what you will about Batman & Robin, but that movie at least has Batman showing compassion towards Freeze by appealing to his sense of science/knowledge, which is a means of justice.