jhlipton February 4, 2017 Share February 4, 2017 Just now, Danielg342 said: In practice, the question becomes- where do you draw the line? When is killing justified? No two people are ever going to agree on where that line is, making implementing any "justifiable killing policy" an extreme difficulty. Just look how difficult real life police have in establishing that policy themselves. Which is why when it's done right, "I will not kill" can be so fascinating, because it allows you to examine where, exactly, is the point of no return in regards to violence. I don't believe it's really all that straightforward. The moral quandaries around "justified killing" are indeed complex. But to me, that's why "I will not kill" for as superhero is too simplistic (there's a wonderful essay by Joan Baez on non-violence for the average person). If Batman is going to act like a cop, he's going to need rules as more complex as they have, and even more so. And he's going to have to think long and hard about what those rules are. Link to comment
paigow February 4, 2017 Share February 4, 2017 Raylan Givens was generally effective in coercing many criminals into co-operating because his "I will kill" rule was established. In The Dark Knight Rises Batman displays a contradictory opinion on guns...he stops Catwoman from shooting one of Bane's minions...but his Batplane and Batcycle are chock full o guns...So is it just handguns that disturb Bruce Wayne??? Link to comment
Danielg342 February 5, 2017 Share February 5, 2017 If Batman is setting his own rules he is a criminal- there is no other way to describe him. He may believe he has the people's best interests at heart, but in truth, one who sets his own rules does so in order to only serve themselves. There will inevitably be that one point where he strikes out against someone he merely disagrees with, at which point we will wonder if he really is "good". In this case, "I will not kill" at least puts Batman at less odds than with the rest of wider society, one we presume has a better handle of the rules and structure that Gotham does not have. Thus, I'll maintain a setting where "I will not kill" is ineffective falls on the writers, nowhere else. Link to comment
paigow February 5, 2017 Share February 5, 2017 48 minutes ago, Danielg342 said: In this case, "I will not kill" at least puts Batman at less odds than with the rest of wider society, one we presume has a better handle of the rules and structure that Gotham does not have. Even movie Superman could not enforce his own no killing rule in Metropolis - e.g. Zod!Van Alden - so wider society in the DC Universe has a lot of wiggle room for superhero exemption clauses.... Link to comment
jhlipton February 5, 2017 Share February 5, 2017 Just now, Danielg342 said: If Batman is setting his own rules he is a criminal- there is no other way to describe him. We all set our own rules. Every one of us has lines that we will and will not cross. These rules may be influenced by church, police and especially parents, but I'm sure there are things that someone might do that their parents might not, and vice versa. Moreover, a strict "I will not kill no matter what the circumstances" puts him at odds with a majority of the populace (how many Quakers or other followers of non-violence are there?). If someone was threatening Alfred, Selina or Jim and the only way to stop them was to kill them, would he just let his friends die? Link to comment
paigow February 5, 2017 Share February 5, 2017 Is Jerome going to get an antibiotic buffet at Arkham? Is it possible to sterilize the face after it fell in that dirty puddle? 2 Link to comment
Danielg342 February 5, 2017 Share February 5, 2017 5 hours ago, paigow said: Is Jerome going to get an antibiotic buffet at Arkham? Is it possible to sterilize the face after it fell in that dirty puddle? Well, he's already sick, so... Link to comment
srpturtle80 February 6, 2017 Share February 6, 2017 I just caught up on this episode, and I have to say that the whole to do with Jerome's face was one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed. I mean, I've already learned many episodes ago that eating and watching this show are not a good combination, but that was just over the top. Yuck! 2 Link to comment
Kathemy February 6, 2017 Share February 6, 2017 While it is obvious that Bruce Wayne's "no-kill" thingie is a plot device, I can only try to make sense of it as follows. If the Joker stood above an unconscious Selina Kyle about to plunge a knife into her heart and Bruce Wayne had a gun, he would fire. Same with any defenseless, innocent person, really. We've never, in any incarnation of Batman I can think of, seen him allow a criminal murder anyone when his only resort was to kill him. I recognize that the fact he's never been put in that position is a contrivance. What I think of it - especially when it comes to Bruce Wayne at age 16, but otherwise as well - is that he will not take it upon himself to punish a criminal by killing him. He does, ultimately, believe in the "rule of law" when it comes to that extreme. He is not thoroughly disillusioned about society's capability to hand down a sentence. For all he knew Alfred was dead. Killing Jerome wouldn't have brought him back. His parents were dead. Killing Malone wouldn't have brought them back. That's all the sense I can make of it. 2 Link to comment
Danielg342 February 7, 2017 Share February 7, 2017 I also think it bears mentioning in this version of Gotham even the police are a bit too trigger happy. The only character who doesn't have blood on his hands is Bruce, so I can see him adopting an "I will not kill" philosophy as a means to set himself apart from everyone else. This city has plunged so far into darkness that too many people feel that "death is the only answer". Bruce seeks to change that. So, while I'm certain that Bruce would likely only kill if he absolutely had to (such as to protect a vulnerable innocent), I'm going to hedge my bet that before this season is over, Bruce's "I will not kill" philosophy will be tested. Which I'll be looking forward to. 1 Link to comment
Perfect Xero February 8, 2017 Share February 8, 2017 I liked how the Oswald/Nygma "death" scene kind of mirrored the scene from the first episode where Gordon "killed" Penguin. Link to comment
jhlipton February 9, 2017 Share February 9, 2017 Let's continue the "I will not kill" discussion in Small Talk... Link to comment
Amerilla February 12, 2017 Share February 12, 2017 Finally got around to watching this (figured the two-month wait = no big hurry) and it really encapsulated the best and worst of the show. On the bad side: it's unremittingly gory and terribly rushed. On the good side, there are a whole bunch of stand-out performances. David/Sean and RLT/Erin were the MPVs, as they so often are. It's always great to see the slowed-down version of Oswald - Robin really brings all Oswald's fragility to the forefront in those quieter scenes. I understand from a narrative sense why they wanted to keep the focus on Bruce's evolution and the Bruce-Alfred relationship, but I wish they had found a way to shoehorn in a little Selena scene or reference somewhere. She didn't necessarily have to be in the carnival scene, for instance, but they could have had her in a crowd shot in the middle of the chaos or had Bruce mention her in the aftermath. In past seasons, I maybe wouldn't have noticed. but she's central enough as a character now that it is notable when she's not around. Link to comment
Camera One February 13, 2017 Share February 13, 2017 Had nothing to watch, so this was pretty much the last resort. Does anyone actually think Penguin is dead? Um, I think we've seen him fall to his watery "grave" once before. Link to comment
Danielg342 February 13, 2017 Share February 13, 2017 9 hours ago, Camera One said: Had nothing to watch, so this was pretty much the last resort. Does anyone actually think Penguin is dead? Um, I think we've seen him fall to his watery "grave" once before. Wasn't shot in the head either. Spoiler Also, the Penguin figures to have a big role in E16, so safe to say he makes it back by then. Link to comment
Dame sans merci February 13, 2017 Share February 13, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Danielg342 said: Wasn't shot in the head either. Reveal hidden contents Also, the Penguin figures to have a big role in E16, so safe to say he makes it back by then. According to... Spoiler Cory Michael Smith, the material he has with Robin Lord Taylor in the upcoming Riddler episode is some of his favourite they've worked on together. They're not really even pretending he's dead. I wonder if we'll get hallucination Oswald for episode 15, and then maybe pick up with the real one at the very end of the episode? Edited February 13, 2017 by Blackcanary 1 Link to comment
Danielg342 February 13, 2017 Share February 13, 2017 43 minutes ago, Blackcanary said: According to... Hide contents Cory Michael Smith, the material he has with Robin Lord Taylor in the upcoming Riddler episode is some of his favourite they've worked on together. They're not really even pretending he's dead. I wonder if we'll get hallucination Oswald for episode 15, and then maybe pick up with the real one at the very end of the episode? Spoiler I hope for a lampshade hanging, in that case. 1 Link to comment
ratgirlagogo April 29, 2017 Share April 29, 2017 (edited) On 2/6/2017 at 11:43 AM, srpturtle80 said: I just caught up on this episode, and I have to say that the whole to do with Jerome's face was one of the most disgusting things I've ever witnessed. Yes it was - and I loved that it seemed like a clear reference to the classic French horror film Eyes Without a Face and its famous face transplant scene. Edited April 29, 2017 by ratgirlagogo 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.