...Red Hood had a point....


What is great is this was very well made and very gripping, yet I feel it was ruined by lack of a resolution...both characters had good points, about not going back after you murder someone but, in the end, I think Red Hood was right, and he has every right to feel betrayed this movie nearly had me in tears, I just wish there was a resolution.

Can you draw with your feet?
It hurts a lot.

reply

You feel murder is justified?

Unfortunately the only reason Red Hood can have any point is a result of naive and contrived mechanics that ensure death and murder have no resonance or meaning. This film undermines the very point it rests upon; Batman's argument should stand up, but the cynical marketing department simply wont allow a popular character to be locked away indefinitely. Murder and Death appear as a final 'solution' (whether right or wrong) but there is no resonance or consequence here to offer any reality, Red Hood is a literal expample of why his own 'alternate' solution is equally worthless. A fundamental lack of imagination results is an important and valuable point being squandered away to nothing in favour of a cheap character sell, it is difficult to imagine a more irresponsible and ignorant way to tackle the issue or mortality.

reply

[deleted]

What I wish happened was, when Batman grabbed Jason, Joker just died in the explosion, I mean, he was right next to the bomb how is he alive....

Can you draw with your feet?
It hurts a lot.

reply

[deleted]

I think this whole storyline actually doesn't support one viewpoint or another but opens up a debate which quiet frankly has already been ongoing for decades amongst Batman fans and even in-universe...the possibility that Batman's 'no-kill' rule makes him culpable for all the deaths the Joker is responsible for.

It's quiet an irresolvable dilemma...and a tragic one at that...because Batman is in some way guilty whichever way you look at it. If he kills Joker, he becomes just another murderer (if not in anyone else's eyes, then definetly in his own)...if he doesn't kill Joker, then the Joker goes on to kill hundreds more who wouldn't have died if Batman DID kill Joker, and thus their blood is on his hand.

So Bruce can either choose to directly murder one person, a deranged maniac...or indirectly have the blood of countless more innocent people on his hands...not a very pretty one.

reply

[deleted]

couldnt have said it better myself.

reply

But the argument isn't balanced or fairly presented because the workings of this universe are ruled by a greater power than either life or death...cynical commerce. Its soley the contrived and lazy nature of comicbook production that perpetuates the same characters ad infinitum, the resonance of their acts is downplayed or entirely absent, the resonsibility and consequences that should be considered in dealing with them are simply non existent in the environment presented.

They can't offer an alternative to death to keep this criminal down, why? because theres money to be made exploiting his name, Theres pretentiously talk of murder/death as if it has meaning but the 'money' again ensures it can never have any convincing impact for anyone that we really get to know. If they are going to raise this subject then have something to add or to say - this story has neither which in the context of the demographic is at best irresponsible and at worse wholly inept.

reply

I think he was right about not being able to stop crime, just control it. Living in the city Gotham is based on, I see it all the time.

An offer you can't refuse.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

So when he has a bunch of people trapped in a truck about to light them on fire the cops don't have a right to shoot him? Cops have shot people for less and killed them but they are justified.

Believe in yourself and create your own destiny, don't fear failure.

reply

You are artificially generating a scenario where his actions are about to perpetrate a murder, which changes everything becuase the avialble options and consequences are radically different. But more often than not someone catches up with a criminal sometime after they have done the crime...if the scenario allows for an arrest then he (as an established mutple offender) will be locked away probably forever in the real world. This is where this feature fails completely because the only reason Joker is capable of repeatedly escaping is the cynical and lazy conciet of commerce for an ongoing comicbook - to raise this subject in the absence of any valid or lasting forms of justice, without any true resonance accompanying the acts of death and murder is irresponsible in the extreme.

Murdering a criminal to save a life in a given situation is perhaps valid action, but murdering a murderer simply because you can only makes you a murderer yourself.

Civilisation is built by controlling the most base and impulsive of human reactions, it isn't always easy, we don't always feel personally satisfied by the outcome, but intellect should tell us we are progressing by dealing with the very root of the problem - the notion that anyone has a right to take the life of another. But given scenarios like you paint above can have unique and contradictory solutions we have to accept as 'right at the time'.

reply

that was the greatest post ive ever read!

An offer you can't refuse.

reply

[deleted]

But see this is were your view and Batman´s differ. To him, murder is murder, regardless of how justified it may sound. The best way i can explain this is with the ferry scene from The Dark Knight. people vote on whether or to blow up the ferry filled with criminals (considering the fact that the ferry filled with criminals had the denotator for the other ferry too) so the vote becomes unanimous in favor on blowing it up. But while people say the criminals on the opposite boat didnt deserve a chance (compared to them) no one steps up to push the button, one man does, and just as his is about to push it, he has a change of heart and puts it down. The truth is, we all want someone dead for the horrendous things they may have done and may continue to do, but how many of us are ready to live with the idea of murder? how many of us are willing to live with blood on our, regardless of whether or not they deserved it?

reply

[deleted]

Its not batman fault anyway.. its the stupid Gotham law system that haven't give the joker the death Sentence... If I was a judge and Joker came at me with a Instantly Plea.. I'll tell him to shove that instantly plea up his ass..

reply

[deleted]

What is this has no right to kill someone *beep*

You do realise that people have killed people which did "wrong" for thousands of years, and still do to this very day in messed up places. Just because you live in a country where everyone is mostly civilized, does not mean it is like that everywhere.

Imagine they killed crazy criminals in Gotham, that would only make it a safer place. Less insane people like Joker, less deaths, less violence which means kids will grow up in a nicer place thus leading to a nicer city... but no... You can't murder people... this pseudo-christian made up ideal is frankly a bit sickening, and not logical at all...


BAM!


But to be honest, in this world, there is no right and wrong, just it does not mean this argument is wrong just because you "higher, intellectual, being"
tells you it is wrong to kill someone. What self-gratifying *beep*

reply

[deleted]

I have always viewed Batman as a kind of recovering addict when it comes to "permanent justice". Like he said he's afraid to cross that line; because he knows himself and what it would lead to.

If he was to kill the Joker I doubt he would be sad or tormented by it but rather relieved or even happy and he knows that. It's that feeling that would spur him on; his next righteous kill may take time (weeks, months, years) but would become easier each time.

In time he would probably devote himself to world peace by any means; similar to one of my favorite references about this topic: Justice League episode "A Better World P1/2" (except with more bloodshed).

For me the ending was a user (Red Hood) trying to talk an addict (Batman) to simply use once "for the greater good". The addict knew that if he did it he wouldn't be able stop after one use and the user couldn't understand this because he lacks that all-consuming desire the addict has.

That's what I got out of the ending and why I liked it as is. But again just my own thoughts and musing about this movie and Batman in general; by no means solid facts.


-Warning living may cause death-

reply

You missed the point. There was a resolution.
Red Hood is right, but the problem is. The moment you kill a villain, you can justify killing others. Then its batman as red hood.
Batman didn't cross the line because murder isn't justified. He can't cross it because he wouldn't be able to go back

reply

Why do people act like Batman is the only one who should hold Joker's life in his hands? ANYONE could step up and shoot the guy (especially after he's apprehended and being moved around).

Batman's in no special position; if he killed the Joker he's simply another murderer, regardless of Joker's previous crimes.

reply

[deleted]

If he was to kill the Joker I doubt he would be sad or tormented by it but rather relieved or even happy and he knows that.

No. The opposite. He'd betray Batman, he'd betray himself and that would destroy him. And he knows that! That's why he was keeping himself in check even when he wanted the Joker dead after he killed Jason.

He wouldn't be happy or relieved.
I think happiness is something that's not part of his life and something that he doesn't look for either.

He has formed his own morals and ethics from a boy's age on and trained and lived all those years by that. It has become a major trait of him. He can't let go of that.

When he gives in he'd just feel like everybody else of us who gives in to something you know it's bad. What's left is guilt, regret and anger/hate at yourself.
He wouldn't have killed Joker to prevent future crimes. He'd have killed him out of revenge. And that's low. An understandable emotion and action, but too low for Batman. Batman is better than that and Bruce has formed that symbol because it is who he is.

What would Bruce Wayne do afterwards? His own moral would keep him away from ever using the cape again.



---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

Considering the Joker killed Jason Todd, I think Red Hood/JT was fully justified to kill him.

Batman's not because like he said, once he makes that exception he'll be making it more for whatever reason and before long he's the Punisher killing people over trivial things.

Not to mention all of Batman's issues stem from his parents being murdered. that's why he's anti-gun and that's why he won't kill. He knows the damage doesn't just stop with the one killed.

With that being said though, It'd be nice if Batman would stop SAVING him from his own stupid plans that always blow up in his face and end up almost killing him. just.. walk away.. Batman begins nailed it with the line "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you either."

You know Batman's got to be sick of the revolving door Arkham installed in the back of Joker's cell, and he's seen the guy just wants a body count... so why freakin save him??

Thank the Gods for NETFLIX!!

reply

Ackles is just great. I've replayed his line "why don't you kill that death worshipping ... garbage"you know in my mind a lot. It's moving and his voice acting was great.

reply