MovieChat Forums > The Death of Batman Discussion > How it all went down...

How it all went down...

posted 19 years ago by MacFlux
21 replies | jump to latest

I have not only seen this film, but I have spoken to (and have become good friends with) Donald Lawrence Flaherty, the director and writer of the film. He explained the details to me, and they are indeed believeable. Armed with my knowledge, perhaps I can help shed some light on what happened and why.

Warning: Spoilers below

The Death of Batman is a film that focuses on the fact that, despite being one of the greatest heroes of all-time, Batman is only human and he too can make mistakes. It just so happens one these mistakes had a huge consequence.

Enter the Thief, whom Batman spots stealing from a car parked in an alley. He then enters his "home", which is an abandoned building where mostly he does heroin. While preparing to get high, the Thief is confronted by Batman, and a little dialogue is spoken between the two. The Thief then pulls a gun on Batman, who knocks it away with a batarang, remarking "Only cowards use guns." The Thief replies to that, "That's right! I'm the coward, you're the hero!" and runs off.

Batman cuts him off at an exit and a fight ensues, in which Batman kicks the Thief's ass with ease. It's only until the Thief feigns an overdose, that Batman loses the advantage. The Thief pulls out the object of his jacket that he stole from the car in the alley earlier: a stun gun. He stuns Batman on the codpiece (or groin), kicks him there and Batman loses conciousness.

After awakening from a nightmare, Batman finds himself chained up by the Thief, who confronts him. From here on, we are given the impression that the Thief wants revenge for something that was done to him. He drugs Batman with heroin, beats him, tortures him, and as for the rape everyone bitches about...well, the Thief really just dry humps Batman (His pants, codpiece and utility belt are still on during the humping. The director also verified this.)

Through out the whole time, despite what's been done to him, Batman refuses to break for his enemy. It's not until the climax, in which we find out why the Thief has done what he had done to Batman.

7 years ago, Batman busted a meth lab, and the Thief was arrested since he was thought to be part of the gang. But, it turns out the Thief was just a college bound young man whose car had broken down in front of that lab. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. His public defender slept through his trial, and he was sent to prison for 5 years, where he was beaten, drugged up, and raped. He spent the next two years following his release living as a petty thief to survive because no one would hire an ex-convict. The heroin had been forced on him in prison, and to him it was a prison he could never escape.

He was innocent the whole time. But, not innocent enough. "Gotham was more than willing to lock me up because the Bat said I needed to be put away!" as he put it.

The Thief sees Batman's broken expression upon the realization that he had sent an innocent man to prison. He tells Batman to sleep with that on his concious, and he shoots himself. Batman is completely wrecked at this point. Actions couldn't break him, but words did. After a while, he looks at the heroin needle and takes it.

When we see Batman again, he is dead from the overdose. Police discovered his body in the river, and a newscaster tells the city of Gotham what the police have concluded. They believe that over 200 criminals were involved, the ringleader being the Joker. It was alleged that they had a well-orchestrated plan to capture, and kill Batman. Ironically, it was just by chance some wimpy thief was able to capture Batman.

In the end, Batman is in a church, laid to rest in a coffin, his identity never to be revealed out of respect for him. After his wake, he will be cremated and his ashes will be spread. The End.

For those of you complaining on how "Oh, that could never happen to Batman!" or "There's no way Batman would ever do this!", it's because you have not deeply considered it would be possible. I admit at first, I didn't think any of this was possible.

However, since becoming friends with Donald Lawrence Flaherty, I have come to understand what he had in mind when he made this film. All of Batman's greatest foes have have been considered the villains(such as Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman) that he fought. But what about the common criminals? Just what ever happens to them?

Another thing, Batman is only human. He has no powers like Superman, just his intelligence and athleticism. Being human, Batman is bound to make a few mistakes. What happens when his quest for justice and repentence hurts an innocent person, and creates a criminal? What price does he have to pay for that?

For the technical part, the stun gun to the groin could actually hurt Batman because the groin part of an armor is actually the weakest part since all the seams meet there. So it is somewhat believeable to be taken down like that.

As for the reason Batman was not able to escape a simple trap, it's quite simple. There wasn't a moment in which the Thief didn't have Batman drugged up. Everytime Batman was awake, the Thief would torture him, then drug him. In this case he wasn't able to focus straight.

Batman killing himself as a result of finding out what he had done has really pissed a lot of people off. They're pretty much like "Why would he?" But they have failed to ask themselves "Why wouldn't he?" The Thief was an innocent man sent to prison because of Batman's vigilantism. Batman felt responsible for putting away a person he was supposed to protect. Although in my opinion, the Thief should have just blamed the justice system that failed him. He justifies his blame on Batman on the knowledge that he didn't even care to look into his profile, since he was too busy sending more bad guys to prison.

I hope this post has provided some with enlightment and that all who read this review will finally realize why what was done in this film, was done. Feel free to reply and challenge.

-Serpent

[–] psyko5616 19 years ago

Most things in this are artistic interpretation and I'll take em with a grain of salt, but the one point that I can't stand not shooting down would be the codpiece being a weak point. What fool would create a battle ready costume leaving what is argueable the most vulnerable part of the male body to the weakest part of the armor? So as far as that goes I call shenanigans on your explination.
As far as the suicide goes I chalk this up to the drug influence. Batman wasn't in his right mind even for him. Bruce Wayne never did any kind of drugs, he didn't even drink alcohol. So to go from nothing to a month of heroin, torture, and then watch a suicide with a sob story, I'm putting my money on all these factors being just too much for a drugged out Batman. I think that had he been sober he could've handled it, but thats just my opinion.

"So I rapped on the bucket made it *beep* rain pork rinds!"

[–] MacFlux 19 years ago

The codpiece being the weakest part of the armor was actually NOT the idea of DLF(the director), it was a fact told to him by a very reliable source. When we became friends, I asked DLF about the whole film and everything that happened, and the codpiece being the weak point was NOT his idea, but a fact told to him by actual police officers that stated the groin part of ANY armor is the weakest, since all the seams would meet there. Sure, it's kinda odd, but it's true.

For the suicide part, of course drugs had a major part to do with Batman killing himself. I'd say it was only HALF of the reason he killed himself. The other half that came into play would have to be the guilt he felt over ruining the Thief's future and sending him to prison when he was really innocent. Combine that with a drug dependency, and the fact that Batman has been weakened through out the month he was tortured, suicide is inevitable.

Oh, and about Batman getting raped up the arse, I recently spoke to DLF(the director. I call him DLF since we're friends.) and he reminded me that in the scene Batman's pants and utility belt are still up and on. Depending on how you look at it, he said Batman was just getting dry humped. So, that's one less thing to mad about.

-Serpent

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MacFlux 19 years ago

Nice post and very good arguments.

I don't really have an explanation for the Thief's public defender sleeping through his case and everything.

For the last three I do:
1. The tazer being found in the car was probably because the person just bought it, or was just an idiot.
2. The Thief tazered Batman's groin because that was probably more of a desperation move on his part. The groin is the most sensitive part of a man's body, so maybe he thought it was enough to bring Batman down. Coincidence.
3. The "ugly" scene was something the thief actually went through in prison, and he wanted Batman to know how it was. But, maybe since he was so drugged up and couldn't get Batman's pants or belt off, he decided to just dry hump him to give him an idea (at least that's how I see it).

Who else is up?

-Serpent

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MonkeyVooDoo 19 years ago

Hmmm... prolly not, Batman probably wouldnt murder the guy... he normally just beats them enough to where they can't really move. Nice try though.

Good luck with that

[–] jayreyd 19 years ago

The exact words of the thief was that his public defender slept through his entire case. That's a phrase I've heard a lot when I temporarily tried for law school. It doesn't literally mean he was asleep, it means that his lawyer was not even doing a half-assed job. His lawyer wasn't even trying to defend him in court. He also thought the guy was guilty and just sat there and let him be convicted. I liked this movie. This would have been a good basis for a graphic novel. I know that when they did the death of Superman they wanted Batman to go through a similar traumatic experience but having his back broken and then coming back is almost like they were plagarizing Superman's death. If you summarize it, it's basically the same. Both men are defeated and at their lowest but they defy their physical limitations and come back better than before. Yes, that's a hero but what about emotional limitations? A hero is not only defined by his/her physical power but mainly by the power of their heart. I liked that he didn't know what to say to the thief when he realized how much he wronged him. Even through the mask you could tell that Batman was now lost. If you look closely you could see him try to say "I didn't know" but it was barely audible. I don't know if that was a sound error or if it was done on purpose. If it was an error it still worked for the scene. If it was on purpose then it was a genius move. How many times have we heard that in a movie where the hero makes a mistake and he says I didn't know? In this case, you can even see it in his eyes, he knows that saying those words would never make up for irrepairably destroying this man's life. The only problem I have with this film is that there is no mention of Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl/Oracle, or even Alfred mounting a search/rescue attempt. Aside from that, this movie took the Batman mythos into a darker, grimmer, grittier, and more realistic tone. I'm hoping that Batman Begins or it's inevitable sequels follow suit and take the story of Batman in the same direction, not just making better action sequences and cooler gadgets but better, original, and more thought-provoking storylines.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cool_splash1 19 years ago

Exploitation means there is money being made. It's a fan film so duh, that means the filmmaker's not making money. If you didn't like it move on, but don't peronally attack those who did, just because they did. That's just childish.

[–] someotherguy 19 years ago

Is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling the original poster on this thread, the "friend" of the director, is actually just the director or someone else involved on the production of the short, attempting to make an attempt to defend their work.

It just seems convenient, that a "friend" who knew such intimate details of the plot of the movie would just come on a board to defend another person's work (especially something as obscure as this).

I'm not trying to insult the director or anybody. I was a little miffed about the whole way the character of Batman was treated (not what actually happened to him but I mean story-wise), but I respect the director for at least trying to do something new. Just kinda bothers me that a "friend" has to come on a board to defend somebody's work for them.

And who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but whatever. Thats my two sense, whether you wanted it or not.

[–] MacFlux 19 years ago

someotherguy, I'm sure you have friends. Have you ever experienced a moment where you felt you just had to defend your friend? This thread is an excellent example of those moments.

I had nothing to do with the project, nor had I ever met DLF prior to the filming. It wasn't until a few months ago when I asked if there was another way to see the film that I became aquainted with him. He sent me a copy of the DVD, I sent him a positive review, we ended up chatting online and becoming friends.

As for knowing the intimate details of the plot...well just by WATCHING the film, you can know those intimate details. They're not so hard to find if you just pay attention.

Maybe to you, it was convienent that a "friend" would come on a board and defend someone's work. But, that's what friends do: Stick up and defend another friend. As far as I'm aware, that isn't a crime. I'm not accusing you of being on the attack, nor am I attacking you.

Just try not to assume so much. You do know what happens when you assume right?

-Serpent

[–] ParadoxPortal 18 years ago

Hmm...the plot sounds ridiculous to me. I can understand the resentment of the thief. But Batman killing himself after he just commented about cowards? Bruce could have killed himself after his parents were murdered, out of guilt, but he didn't. Batman just doesn't KILL himself. It seems to me that he would frown upon suicide, seeing it as the "easy way out". I mean, Batman takes on the role of the crimefighter not only to fight crime, but as a way to atone for his guilt from his parents' deaths. It seems to me that Batman would fight crime harder and avoid injustice more adamantly, rather than committing suicide.

"I'll wear the same thing five years in a row, until it falls apart. ~Christian Bale

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] flint_fireballs 17 years ago

Don't even try to justify this garbage.
It was shock value, plain and simple. You make a fan film about an extremely popular character that features shocking scenes, and it will be seen and commented on. None of this makes it a good film.
So, evidently the director thought it would be great to show that "Batman is only human and he too can make mistakes."? This also is NOT a new idea. One of the reasons Batman became so popular when he was introduced was that he was different from seemingly invulnerable characters like Superman. Readers knew he was "only human" and could be hurt. This film shows us nothing new.
One of the coolest things we see in Batman comics is that he makes plenty of mistakes, but he gets out of them. Even without the belt and gadgets, he finds some cool way to escape. Obviously the director of this garbage forgot that part. Or maybe he was just in a hurry to get to the crotch shots and humping scenes.

Oh, and then there's this nonsense:

"Batman killing himself as a result of finding out what he had done has really pissed a lot of people off. They're pretty much like "Why would he?" But they have failed to ask themselves "Why wouldn't he?" The Thief was an innocent man sent to prison because of Batman's vigilantism. Batman felt responsible for putting away a person he was supposed to protect. Although in my opinion, the Thief should have just blamed the justice system that failed him. He justifies his blame on Batman on the knowledge that he didn't even care to look into his profile, since he was too busy sending more bad guys to prison"

Give me a break. The thief may have been an innocent man, but plenty of innocent men don't turn to crime and drugs because the "justice system failed them". I'm pretty sure Batman can tell the differnce between the two. Why would Batman be able to withstand all his previous grief and torment(parent's deaf, robin's death, etc.) just to lose it on account of one criminal? Yeah, Batman would maybe feel some guilt, but everyone who is a fan would agree that he has too much character to kill himself because of guilt. The director took it upon himself to add a huge character flaw to Batman. It just doesn't work.
This film was really quite terrible. It introduces nothing new to the idea of Batman. It actually offers nothing to fans of Batman or good film. However if you are a fan of shock value and poorly adapted characters, this film is for you.

[–] MacFlux 17 years ago

flint_fireballs, everything I have said is a matter of my own opinion and looking at it from my point of view. I'm not trying to justify the Thief's actions, but rather I'm trying to explain the reasons as to why he is so pissed. As for Batman killing himself, you have to understand that this is one person's interpretation. Many comic artists (from Bob Kane to Frank Miller) have their own interpretation of the Dark Knight. Some have him kill, others don't. Some have him possess certain personality traits that the others either alter or choose to leave out altogether.

Think what you want about The Death of Batman. Personally, I enjoyed it because it was different from most fanfilms on account it took a vastly different perspective on Batman and the people he brings to justice. Even though I'm a big Batman fan, I wanted to see this film from all sides to understand what the director was aiming for. I'd like to say I understood it well.

BTW, who is to say they know Batman's character the best? No one! Why? Because, like I already stated, there have been so many interpretations of Batman over the years it's almost impossible to pin down what he would really do in a certain situation. Yes, there are the basics to his personality that he fights crime because of the guilt he feels over his parents death, he's angry that the justice system fails to put certain criminals away, and he wants revenge by capturing them himself. This fanfilm is just one of many interpretations. You don't have to like it, that's fine. But, don't tell others that they have bad taste just because they saw it from another perspective and liked it.

"Give me a break. The thief may have been an innocent man, but plenty of innocent men don't turn to crime and drugs because the "justice system failed them"."

Hate to burst your bubble, but hasn't Bruce Wayne done just that? The justice system didn't put his parents' murderer in jail (depending on whose interpretation you read), so Bruce Wayne became a vigilante. Vigilantism is, by law, a crime. So, techinically speaking, Batman is a criminal. Before you jump on me, I am NOT trying to compare Batman to a common criminal, because he isn't. I am aware that he is a vigilante because he wants to help the innocent and punish the guilty. And for the most part, he does not kill to uphold his code of justice. Those are some of the reasons why Commissioner Gordon and most of Gotham Police tolerate (and of course, respect) Batman.

Now, this is just my way of looking at this whole thing. I'm a Bat-fan, but I'm not an expert. I won't lie to you, flint_fireballs, you do make very valid points on the whole (especially on how most people wronged by the system do not become criminals). I do respect your "tell it like it is" attitude, but only to an extent. You have your opinions, I have mine and I'm not going to try to change your perspective. You don't like this fanfilm, that's fine, but not insulting others just because they enjoyed it.

In all fairness, even though I liked The Death of Batman, I know it is very far from being the perfect representation of Batman. Reasons being:
1. A stun-gun should not have hurt Batman because of the suit.
2. Those chains should not have held Batman for as long as they ultimately did, even when he was drugged. Batman has a fierce tenacity, and I'll admit it, the chains didn't look very secure. Who knows? He might have been able to snap them off if he was at a 100%.
3. It is true that Batman has survived so much over the years, that the death of the Thief should have only made him more resolute to fight crime if anything. Then again, that's all up the viewer to decide whether or not that one death pushed him over the edge after all of the other things Batman has been through.

The honor of the best interpretation, I feel, should go to Christopher Nolan for Batman Begins. That movie was the Bat-film I had been waiting for.

-Serpent

[–] flint_fireballs 17 years ago

Good point. This film is just one man's take on Batman. I honestly don't have a problem with that.

I don't consider myself a film expert in the least, but I just hated this film. And not for the reasons that most folks hated it. Most of the Batman fans hated it because Batman died and got tortured. Yes, this sucks, but if this film had been well done I really wouldn't had cared if Batman had died.
I just didn't think it was a good film.

One of my biggest issues with it was the fact that The director wants you to sympathize with the thief. He wants you to forget the fact that Batman has saved tons of good people, and put tons of criminals in jail. In this film, we focus on the ruined life of this one guy. His story is sad, and anyone can see why he'd be pissed, but he focuses his energy on the negative. We are supposed to feel sorry for the thief and hatred for Batman. Nothing else. I just don't agree with the director's overall view. It was more of a "look at my pitiful life, it's all your fault" shockfest guilt-trip than anything resembling a Batman fan-film. The director was anything but a Batman fan.

My second biggest problem, is when Batman kills himself on account of some pathetic jerkoff. Again, I felt bad for the guy's problems, but not bad enough to where I saw what he did as justified. Batman killing himself for "ruining this man's life", is yet another example of the director wanting you to feel sorry for the thief. It's absolute crap. If Batman's character was that weak, I doubt he would be as popular as he his. If he didn't commit suicide when Robin died, Barbara Gordan was paralyzed, or any of the other tragedies he holds himself responsible for, why would he do it now? Because the director obviously dislikes the character and wanted to show a negative view. It just makes for a depressing unaccurate take of the character.

Like I said, if it was a well done film I wouldn't have cared if the director had Batman die. It's his call and it's a fan-film, so have at it with your own take. But, this seemed like less of a "fan-film", and more of a trendy-depressing "real life" take on the evil that superheroes do. Lets all feel bad for this weakling, who resorts to drugs and torture when life gets rough. Life really isn't worth living when it doesn't go your way, right? According to the director, apparently.

I appreciate your mature response to my post. Most of the time on these boards, a differing opinion means an all-out cussword war with some retard teenager. You liked the film because it was a different take on Batman. That's great and all, but this different take was a bad one in my opinion. It featured an extremely poor interpretation of the character, and begged for misdirected sympathy all the way through. "The Death of Batman" was an interresting idea, but the reality was one poorly thought out, depression/guilt filled shock feature.

[–] MacFlux 17 years ago

Very good points. I like that you gave legitimate reasons for not liking this fanfilm other than the same ol' "it just sucks!" or "budget was too low!".

Despite the sympathy that I did feel for the Thief, I couldn't find it in myself to hate Batman. It's not like he intentionally sent the guy to prison. Also, on the technical side, I still don't understand how the Thief was convicted just because he was at the drug bust. The cops should have been able to spot his broken down car, screened him for any drugs, and he should have gotten off.

I'm actually good friends with the director, and he actually is a Bat-fan. What he was trying to do was answer the question of what happens to the common criminals Batman puts away? We all know that Joker, Two-Face, Poison Ivy, Penguin, Freeze and the rest of the rogues gallery are put away in Arkham Asylum, but what about the others? What happens to them?

Likewise, I appreciate your own mature response. I try not to get into a war of cussing unless I'm being insulted for no reason and without provocation. And, I understand you didn't like this one, and you have very valid reasons not to. I just have a question: What was your argument with that user Rubberdude-something or whatever all about? What was he saying that angered you? I couldn't read any of his posts since they were deleted.

-Serpent

[–] flint_fireballs 17 years ago

Some idiotic argument that I got suckered into.

He replied to my reasons for not liking the film with the same old: "You don't know anything. Your taste in movies blows. My life is terrible. etc..."
Then he started posting up a bunch of his goth poetry. Not really sure where he was going with that. And I don't know why his posts were taken down, because I don't remember them having cusswords.

[–] MacFlux 17 years ago

Ahh. Is that why you started posting rhymes of your own? Just to piss him off?

-Serpent

[–] flint_fireballs 17 years ago

I posted lyrics to Vanilla Ice. I don't know if it pissed him off, I just thought it would be funny to counteract some dorky goth poetry with "Ice Ice baby".

[–] MacFlux 17 years ago

LOL, nice touch, I must say.