Why 'The Batman' Sequel Should Explore Batman's “No Kill” Rule
Image Source: CNET
One of the most interesting things about Batman is that he has a very clear “no kill” rule. While most fans of the Caped Crusader have only known this version of Batman, this “rule” was not actually created until 1940. Before this Batman routinely killed his adversaries or left them to die in situations he knew they could not escape. After the introduction of Robin parents began to complain about a hero killing his villains so it was decided that no published hero would kill another villain.
Now, we have seen plenty of times in modern Batman films and especially in the animated series where it isn’t clear if a villain survived, but this “no kill” rule has never been explored. With the introduction of arguably the darkest live-action Batman yet with Matt Reeves’ 2022 The Batman I think that the upcoming sequel is the perfect time to finally explore this rule and why it is so important to Batman’s character. WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE BATMAN!!
RELATED:
The Villains Could Team Up
Image Source: CultureSlate
Something that isn’t typically explored is the downside to this “no kill” rule. While morally speaking choosing to incarcerate your foes rather than kill them seems like the right thing to do the reality is that it could lead to significantly more deaths. We know that by the end of The Batman Riddler, Joker, and Penguin were alive and if they were to team up and be released on Gotham while it is attempting to rebuild it could mean more deaths than we have ever seen in the DCU. A great way to explore this “rule” would be for Batman to be forced to decide if this rule has limits or exceptions. If Batman is faced with the reality of thousands of deaths or the death of one villain, what will he choose?
It’s Time
Image Source: Polygon
While fans of the Batman comic books were most likely aware of this “rule” many fans that have not read them were probably surprised to learn in The Batman that he doesn’t kill because he has a “rule” that he lived by. With a character as well-loved as Batman, it doesn’t make any sense for there to be such an important aspect of his character that most fans aren’t aware of. It is also time that this “rule” be explained as to why it exists. While we know that it was a decision by the comic book creators after outcry from parents in the 40s it is time that a reason be given for why the character made this choice. Did it have to do with parents? Did he accidentally kill the wrong person? Did he kill someone in front of their child? This is going to become a massive plot hole if it is not further explored.
Is The Idea Outdated?
Image Source: DC
While I have already mentioned that returning villains could team up and cause more damage if they are left alive it is also worth exploring whether or not this rule is outdated. There are plenty of villains that could be captured and imprisoned for life, but as we have seen with other franchises such as Star Wars and the MCU sometimes it is best to kill a villain. I think these other franchises have also shown that while murder is considered the trait of a villain it doesn’t always have to be done with malice and can instead be simply a necessary evil. Since Batman is seen as the “Dark Knight” and a “vigilante” it is confusing for him to have such a strong conviction to avoid killing. At face value, the rule feels outdated and possibly the reason we continue to get DCU content with the same villains over and over again. If Batman were to only kill his most threatening adversaries that would open up the future of the DCU to feature villains that to date have only been featured in comics.
READ NEXT:
Source(s): DC
Latest News
Featured
