"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

[Ben Urich]

There's been a bit of contention about the validity of that line. Would the Batman of the comics have made the same move? Has he before? Or was he totally out of character when he said that in the film?

Another poster here had this to say in another thread:
Theres no justifying it. Sorry but Batman doesn't have the right to make that judgement call. At that point hes no longer a hero, hes just a vigilante seeking his own twisted sense of justice. What your saying is very logical, thats absolutely true, but if he compromises with ra's whats to stop him from compromising with everyone else??

"Hey joker, you've escaped from prison way too many times, the justice system is obviously not working here so I'm just going to let you die." What kind of batman is that??

If I can't hold him up to higher standards than the ninjas then what makes him any better than them? Apparently ra's didn't teach him about honor.

As much as I hate to say it, there's definitely validity to that point of view. How is Batman any better than Ra's if he lets him die?
Of course you could mention that Ra's didn't actually die - there's a GIF from the movie floating around the internet that spotlights Ra's falling to safety just before the monorail crash - but the question still lingers.

Your thoughts?

[JTIZZLEVILLE]

How is Batman any different from the ninjas and Ra's if he killed Ra's? That's very simple. He does good. Ra's is planning to destroy the city(killing millions) and Batman is saving the city(killing one). it isn't a hard concept and makes perfect sense.

Plus, do you really think that any jail Batman would have taken Ra's to would contain him? The man is a genious, not to mention a skilled warrior who knows how to become invisible and is a master at escaping.

In the situation that was at hand, batman didn't have a choice. he had to stop the train and he had to save himself. not using this as an excuse, but it seems that batman had to have both arms fully extended in order to make his cape rigid. there was no way he could escape while carrying Ra's. Plus, its hard to believe that a man with Ra's charater would even WANT batman to save him from the crash.

Batman had to do what was necessary at the time to accomplish his goal. Now, if batman had caught Ra's and then threw him off a building to his death then i can understand. but Batman simply stopped the train and escaped. Ra's had to die with the train.

[The Only Woj]

if I could change the scene, I'd have Batman attempt to grab Ducard and take him with him and have Ducard kick Batman so he gets booted out and leaves himself to die on the train

[El Payaso]

Your thoughts?

'I won't kill you but I don't have to save you' is just a cheap euphemism for 'Ok, I'll kill you and save myself more headaches what the hell.'

How is Batman any different from the ninjas and Ra's if he killed Ra's? That's very simple. He does good. Ra's is planning to destroy the city(killing millions) and Batman is saving the city(killing one). it isn't a hard concept and makes perfect sense.

In fact it's a way too simplistic concept.

This is our hero: all he does and say is good and right.
He's the bad guy; all he does and says is bad and evil.

Therefore: the good must win, the evil must be defeated bla bla bla.

In real life - and rescuing the good aspects of Nolan's work, I'd say the black and whote POV is not the way he works things out.

From an external Pov, Ra's would be as good as Batman since he's after destroying evil, just like Batman. They both operates outside the law and social rules.

The only difference is that Batman have decided not to kill. But for that matter some other guy can choose not to kill and still be a villiain.

Plus, do you really think that any jail Batman would have taken Ra's to would contain him? The man is a genious, not to mention a skilled warrior who knows how to become invisible and is a master at escaping.

So?

That sounds like you're providing the perfect excuse to kill. And therefore making Batman closer to Ra's and the ninjas. That's Ra's way of thinking: I can't change the evil man so I kill him. I can't keep Ra's in jail so I kill him.

For that matter, Batman should kill every villiain since all of them seem to escape most of times.

But that raises another aspect of Batman in Begins: he wants to destroy evil by taking villiains to jail but he knows perfectly that Gotham authorities are the most corrupt in the country, so how could he expect to fight crime through that way? Just with 2 allies?

In the situation that was at hand, batman didn't have a choice. he had to stop the train and he had to save himself. not using this as an excuse, but it seems that batman had to have both arms fully extended in order to make his cape rigid. there was no way he could escape while carrying Ra's. Plus, its hard to believe that a man with Ra's charater would even WANT batman to save him from the crash.


If Batman himself had the time and intention of stating "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you" then it's pretty clear what was his purpose and certainly what wasn't.

It wasn't a "Ra's! try to hang on of my belt or rope or something or you're gonna die." He was telling Ra's he won't save him. More like a 'So long, villkiain.' And I surely don't see how did Batman expect Ra's to save himself in any way.

Even when Ra's would have refused to be saved by Batman, that doesn't justify a thing. In that case, Batman should let every suicide person to kill hilmself since they are refusing to be saved. But even so, we don't know what Ra's would have wanted or done because Batman left him before we could know.

Batman had to do what was necessary at the time to accomplish his goal. Now, if batman had caught Ra's and then threw him off a building to his death then i can understand. but Batman simply stopped the train and escaped. Ra's had to die with the train.

No, Ra's didn't have to die necessarily.

Batman in fact put many life in risk when he tried to save Rachel, so is that he just do what he can just to save people he care for?

[El Payaso]

[EDITED by Billy Bob Thornton]

...

[El Payaso]

[EDITED by Carrottop]


...

[drunkhomer]

yeah,i kinda agree, but wutever, that scene where batman flies off the train was just awsome....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/drunkhomer/batmantrain1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/drunkhomer/batmantrain.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/drunkhomer/batmantrain3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v219/drunkhomer/batmantrain5.jpg

:up: :up:

[Beelze]

Some good things have been said, and I'd just like to add the "rookie Batman" argument. In his emotional high, he made a decision, and it might not have been what he really stood for, or wanted to stand for, but it seemed right at the moment. And yes, that part where he flies out of the train was great. Had it been in slow-motion it is likely that I would had an orgasm the first time I saw it.

[Ben Urich]

How is Batman any different from the ninjas and Ra's if he killed Ra's? That's very simple. He does good.

That's subjective. Don't you think that, had Ra's succeeded, there would have been some celebrating? The 9/11 bombers were lauded by some as heroes. Granted, it's an extreme point of view, but still. I don't think saying "Batman's good, Ra's is evil, justice is done" really covers it because life isn't black and white like that.

Some good things have been said, and I'd just like to add the "rookie Batman" argument. In his emotional high, he made a decision, and it might not have been what he really stood for, or wanted to stand for, but it seemed right at the moment.

I can deal with that. :up:
Had this movie been set, oh, 5 years into Batman's career (instead of, you know, a week), he might have acted differently.

[Mr_Mortis]

I think Batman just lost control of himself for a second. I mean, it's the end of the film, everyone wants Ducard to die, Batman is so angry at Ducard because of the taunting. He just snapped.

Thats what I reckon any way.

[JTIZZLEVILLE]

I think people are making way too big of a deal out of this. People are up in arms because they believe this to be way out of Batman's character. Let's not forget that he had 2 chances to kill Ra's. First, he saved him from the mountain when he could of simply let him fall. Two, after knocking Ra's down on the train he pulled the "Bat-Knives" (or whatever they were) on him, only to thrown them through the window. I think this is very much in Batman's character.

You can also argue the point that Batman knew Ra's ability to save himself (which some believe you can see him leaping from the train -- I do not). This was Batman saying, "I not going to be responsible for your death, but I'm not going to be responsible for you life either." Ra's has a demented way at looking at life. He feels the only way to combat the evil in Gotham is to distroy it and start over. He is not going to stop. Narrowly dieing in a train crash is not going to change is point of view. Batman, on the other hand, feels that their is good in Gotham and it just needs a force to rally behind.

Knowing this, Batman still didn't kill Ra's. If you ask me, I think this is more in Batman's character than anything else in the movie.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

There's been a bit of contention about the validity of that line. Would the Batman of the comics have made the same move? Has he before? Or was he totally out of character when he said that in the film?

Another poster here had this to say in another thread:


Yeah, he did it at the end of Gotham Knights.......but we all choose to forget it cuz that entire arc sucked ne ways.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I would ask this though:

In today's world.......around us, how do WE deal with terrorists?

Ra's was a terrorist. And, I think this is a sign of the world we live in today. Batman bends with the times, and I think is one sign of how he does.

[Ronny Shade]

This is one of the few problems I have with this movie. He "kills" Ra's...basically negligent homicide. He also killed how many people in the fire in Tibet? I mean come on.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He didn't kill anyone in the monerstary. Things like that have happened before in the comics.

Again, he didn't kill Ra's.

Negligent homicide is the craziest thing I've heard in years.........I mean, WTF?

Again,.....we live in a world where people don't want to see Terrorists.....TERRORISTS......treated like human beings.........and they sure has hell don't want to see them survive by a hero saving them.

[blind_fury]

Nobody dies under Batman's watch. He cherishes life more than most people.

[Beelze]

This is one of the few problems I have with this movie. He "kills" Ra's...basically negligent homicide. He also killed how many people in the fire in Tibet? I mean come on.
If what Batman did was "negligent homicide," then Ra's committed "negligent suicide."

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nobody dies under Batman's watch. He cherishes life more than most people.

Okay.....do you know why he does?

If what Batman did was "negligent homicide," then Ra's comitted "negligent suicide."

Yeah, he's the one that ****ed up the controls.....he's the one that put the device on the train......he solidfied his death.

Btw......This stuff happens ALL THE TIME IN COMICS AND CARTOONS. The villians "die"...only to return next time out. It's happened to the Joker like 500 times.

[Everyman]

I think people are making way too big of a deal out of this. People are up in arms because they believe this to be way out of Batman's character. Let's not forget that he had 2 chances to kill Ra's. First, he saved him from the mountain when he could of simply let him fall. Two, after knocking Ra's down on the train he pulled the "Bat-Knives" (or whatever they were) on him, only to thrown them through the window. I think this is very much in Batman's character.

You can also argue the point that Batman knew Ra's ability to save himself (which some believe you can see him leaping from the train -- I do not). This was Batman saying, "I not going to be responsible for your death, but I'm not going to be responsible for you life either." Ra's has a demented way at looking at life. He feels the only way to combat the evil in Gotham is to distroy it and start over. He is not going to stop. Narrowly dieing in a train crash is not going to change is point of view. Batman, on the other hand, feels that their is good in Gotham and it just needs a force to rally behind.

Knowing this, Batman still didn't kill Ra's. If you ask me, I think this is more in Batman's character than anything else in the movie.


Agreed. And let's not forget that batman did not kill, or even tried to kill, Rha's Al Ghul. Batman left his ennemy in a dangerous situation while he was trying to stop the train. There was many more lives at stake than simply Rha's.

[El Payaso]

I think people are making way too big of a deal out of this. People are up in arms because they believe this to be way out of Batman's character.

In fact what's odd is all the fuzz the movie makes about Batman not taking a life and then it contradicts that core point at the end.

I saw a violent semi-killer Batman in B89 and B Returns and I couldn't care less about it.

Let's not forget that he had 2 chances to kill Ra's. First, he saved him from the mountain when he could of simply let him fall.

Why?

He didn't know he was Ra's.

And for the guy who was supposed to be... well, Bruce left him pretty much to die too.

Two, after knocking Ra's down on the train he pulled the "Bat-Knives" (or whatever they were) on him, only to thrown them through the window. I think this is very much in Batman's character.


Yes, but what he does next is not. Or at least is debatable.

You can also argue the point that Batman knew Ra's ability to save himself (which some believe you can see him leaping from the train -- I do not). This was Batman saying, "I not going to be responsible for your death, but I'm not going to be responsible for you life either."

Batman saying 'I'm not responsible for your life'?

That would imply that Batman doesn not care any longer for what Ra's do with his life, like destroying Gotham. I doubt he meant that.

Now, if you mean that Batman said he wasn't responsible for saving his life, when Bruce refused to kill the thief in Ra's monastery it was because he thought the evildoers must be judged by justice, then he would be contradicting himself by not taking Ra's to justice.

Ra's has a demented way at looking at life. He feels the only way to combat the evil in Gotham is to distroy it and start over.

And Batman thinks the only way to fight evil is to dress as a bat.

Both are weird characters.

Knowing this, Batman still didn't kill Ra's. If you ask me, I think this is more in Batman's character than anything else in the movie.

What? Letting the villiain die? How is this more in Batman character than anything else - like taking the villiain to justice?

[El Payaso]

He didn't kill anyone in the monerstary. Things like that have happened before in the comics.

He didn't kill anyone, he just didn't save them.

I doubt Batman (or Spiderman) would pass in front of a building on fire and doesn't do a thing to save people inside, whether they're innocent mommas with their little children or ninjas.

Again, he didn't kill Ra's.

No, he let him die.

Negligent homicide is the craziest thing I've heard in years.........I mean, WTF?

Isn't it?

Not killing a guy but not doing a thing to save him being conscient that you could.

it would be like looking a man drowning and you're right there and you're an Olympic swimmer and you just watch him die. Batman would be not only an Olympic swimmer but one that wants to preserve human life as a highest value.

Again,.....we live in a world where people don't want to see Terrorists.....TERRORISTS......treated like human beings.........and they sure has hell don't want to see them survive by a hero saving them.

Terrorist are human beings. Your vengeful feelings are 100% understandable but even so, that doesn't make them right and even if they are, it is not what Batman is supposed to think in Batman begins. He's not for revenge but for justice. An eye for an eye is not justice. If for that, Bruce would have killed that guy in Ra's house as an act of justice as you envision it.

What you want to see Batman do or don't do doesn't match with what the movie states that Batman acts like.

Okay.....do you know why he does?

What's the difference? Or are you implying he has little clauses and excpetions in his personal rules? "To preserve human life*









*except if he's Ra's"

Yeah, he's the one that ****ed up the controls.....he's the one that put the device on the train......he solidfied his death.

For that matter if a guy prepares a rope to hang himself, Batman shouldn't do a thing to prevent it?

Btw......This stuff happens ALL THE TIME IN COMICS AND CARTOONS. The villians "die"...only to return next time out. It's happened to the Joker like 500 times.

We're discussing Batman's inolvment in the villiain's death, not even if Ra's is really dead.

Whether this happens in comics or not, it is cristal clear in B Begins that Batman wouldn't allow a preventable death.

[Doc Holliday]

there's a GIF from the movie floating around the internet that spotlights Ra's falling to safety just before the monorail crash

Where could I find this GIF? I'm interested.

But yes, I've always wondered about this myself. I did sort of a double take when I heard it. I think I've decided it was for the mere purpose of poetic justice.

[Jack Napier]

He saved R'as before, look how that worked out. Death was the only way to stop him from doing what he felt had to be done to Gotham.

[iceberg325]

First off, Batman did not kill Ras. Think about it, did Batman have to save him? Does bruce even have to wear the suit and help the city? No, he doesnt. Its his choice. The city should be happy that he is around to do what he does. Why would he even consider helping ras. He did once and what happened. He threatened to destory gotham and burned down the wayne mansion. Say batman did save him what would have happened? He would have been put in Jail. Come on now, hes the leader of the league of shadows. Even Falcone was scared of him. Dont you think he would have been resuced? Of course. Then what? Hed try to destroy Batman, and gotham again. Would you guys like for a guy like that to be around? Batman did the right thing. No question about it.

[El Payaso]

He saved R'as before, look how that worked out. Death was the only way to stop him from doing what he felt had to be done to Gotham.

If that's true then we have a killer Batman. 'Killer' being in a good way - if that's possible - since that way he would be 'liberating' Ra's from his mission.

From that POV Batman should 'liberate' every criminal from being a criminal by killing them. Then I don't get why he refused to save that thief at ra's monastery. He could have "stop him from doing what he felt had to be done."

And from that very perspective too, Ra's is totally justified as wanting to destroy both Batman and Gotham since from his point of view, they're doing terrible things; being corrupt and defending the city that is being corrupt respectively.

First off, Batman did not kill Ras. Think about it, did Batman have to save him? Does bruce even have to wear the suit and help the city? No, he doesnt. Its his choice.

Yes, Batman had to save him according to what B Begins ells us about Batman and his will of not taking human lives. And no, I don't think being Batman is a choice anymore.

it's not like he can quit any night. Just say, 'meh, I don't feel like being Batman anymore.' He's obssessed with his mission, it's not something he chose to do but a necessity that he can't avoid.

The city should be happy that he is around to do what he does.

Certainly.

Why would he even consider helping ras.

Because it is one of his main morals according to the movie.

He did once and what happened.

Funny because Ra's himself told that same thing to Bruce.

So you're saying he should learn Ra's philosophies about compasion. By thinking the way you do, Batman is a little more Ra's at the end of the movie since he learnt Ra's morals.

He threatened to destory gotham and burned down the wayne mansion.

Certainly.

Some other villiians kill people or steal, etc. Where is supposed to be the line where Batman can allow himself to let people die?

Say batman did save him what would have happened? He would have been put in Jail. Come on now, hes the leader of the league of shadows. Even Falcone was scared of him. Dont you think he would have been resuced? Of course. Then what? Hed try to destroy Batman, and gotham again. Would you guys like for a guy like that to be around? Batman did the right thing. No question about it.

Under that perspective he shopuld kill every villiain since every one of them can escape (and we know that happens a lot).

Right thing or not, Batman did what he said he wouldn't do.

Would you guys like for a guy like that to be around? Batman did the right thing. No question about it.

What we - guys - would do or not do it's irrelevant since we're not Batman.

[Ronny Shade]

Nobody dies under Batman's watch. He cherishes life more than most people.
Well said.

In my experience, Batman always saves the villain. The villain could have a shattered jaw and two broken legs and then go to jail after that, but Batman doesn't like people dying.

He suffered through the deaths of people close to him. He doesn't want anybody else to have to do that. And no matter what or who you are, everybody has loved ones.

[iceberg325]

If that's true then we have a killer Batman. 'Killer' being in a good way - if that's possible - since that way he would be 'liberating' Ra's from his mission.

From that POV Batman should 'liberate' every criminal from being a criminal by killing them. Then I don't get why he refused to save that thief at ra's monastery. He could have "stop him from doing what he felt had to be done."

And from that very perspective too, Ra's is totally justified as wanting to destroy both Batman and Gotham since from his point of view, they're doing terrible things; being corrupt and defending the city that is being corrupt respectively.



Yes, Batman had to save him according to what B Begins ells us about Batman and his will of not taking human lives. And no, I don't think being Batman is a choice anymore.

it's not like he can quit any night. Just say, 'meh, I don't feel like being Batman anymore.' He's obssessed with his mission, it's not something he chose to do but a necessity that he can't avoid.



Certainly.



Because it is one of his main morals according to the movie.



Funny because Ra's himself told that same thing to Bruce.

So you're saying he should learn Ra's philosophies about compasion. By thinking the way you do, Batman is a little more Ra's at the end of the movie since he learnt Ra's morals.



Certainly.

Some other villiians kill people or steal, etc. Where is supposed to be the line where Batman can allow himself to let people die?



Under that perspective he shopuld kill every villiain since every one of them can escape (and we know that happens a lot).

Right thing or not, Batman did what he said he wouldn't do.



What we - guys - would do or not do it's irrelevant since we're not Batman.

In ras case, it was differnet. They were on a speeding train. Maybe it wasnt even possible for Batman to save him. Whos knows. Im not saying he should let every villian die. If he fights one, detains him, take him to jail for sure. In the case of a speeding train headed for Wayne tower, he should risk his life for someone who will only try to kill him again and again? Honestly, I wouldnt save someone like that. If Ras were hanging off of a building, pull him up, save his life then. On a speeding train, I dont think it would be smart for batman to save someone like Ras.

[Mister J]

Ra's has already committed his life toward his endeavor on the train. When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

It's a sticking point, but I didn't view Batman as being responsible for Ra's (apparant) death. Ra's didn't plan on surviving and Batman left him to the peril that he created. If Batman helped to create the danger that claimed a life (which is how negligent [or even reckless] homicide results) then he'd be obligated to save him. Batman chose to not substitute his own judgment for Ra's choice of what to do with his life, while eliminating (or minimizing) the effect on anyone else.

[iceberg325]

Ra's has already committed his life toward his endeavor on the train. When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

It's a sticking point, but I didn't view Batman as being responsible for Ra's (apparant) death. Ra's didn't plan on surviving and Batman left him to the peril that he created. If Batman helped to create the danger that claimed a life (which is how negligent [or even reckless] homicide results) then he'd be obligated to save him. Batman chose to not substitute his own judgment for Ra's choice of what to do with his life, while eliminating (or minimizing) the effect on anyone else.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, good point. Oh by the way, GO MIAMI!!! The game was great last night.

[El Payaso]

In ras case, it was differnet. They were on a speeding train. Maybe it wasnt even possible for Batman to save him.

Batman could have saved him in the same amount of time he used to say 'I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.'

Whos knows.

The mere fact he said that reveals he didn't have the intemntion of saving him. that how we can know.

In the case of a speeding train headed for Wayne tower, he should risk his life for someone who will only try to kill him again and again?

Yes, because according to the movie he thinks justice is more than death.

Honestly, I wouldnt save someone like that.

You're not Batman.

Most of us if we have lost our parents in a street assault wouldn't become Batman for a starter.

If Ras were hanging off of a building, pull him up, save his life then. On a speeding train, I dont think it would be smart for batman to save someone like Ras.

Batman doesn't do what he do and doesn't decide what he decides in order to be smart.

[El Payaso]

Ra's has already committed his life toward his endeavor on the train. When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

It's a sticking point, but I didn't view Batman as being responsible for Ra's (apparant) death. Ra's didn't plan on surviving and Batman left him to the peril that he created. If Batman helped to create the danger that claimed a life (which is how negligent [or even reckless] homicide results) then he'd be obligated to save him. Batman chose to not substitute his own judgment for Ra's choice of what to do with his life, while eliminating (or minimizing) the effect on anyone else.

What you say makes Ra's a suicide.

For the third time in this thread I ask, does that mean that Batman shouldn't help a suicide?

If I'm trying to throw myself off a building and Batman is there he just let me go because it is my decision?

[Ronny Shade]

Ra's has already committed his life toward his endeavor on the train. When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

It's a sticking point, but I didn't view Batman as being responsible for Ra's (apparant) death. Ra's didn't plan on surviving and Batman left him to the peril that he created. If Batman helped to create the danger that claimed a life (which is how negligent [or even reckless] homicide results) then he'd be obligated to save him. Batman chose to not substitute his own judgment for Ra's choice of what to do with his life, while eliminating (or minimizing) the effect on anyone else.
I like the qualifier.

I didn't understand why Ra's had the whole "My fate lies with the rest of Gotham" philosophy. It didn't seem like him. He seems like the kind of guy to want to stay alive to continue his war on crime/corruption. That makes me think he wasn't planing on dying. Either he was planning on faking his death, or he was planning on dying temporarily, or he was planning on getting off the train.

[Mister J]

What you say makes Ra's a suicide.

For the third time in this thread I ask, does that mean that Batman shouldn't help a suicide?

If I'm trying to throw myself off a building and Batman is there he just let me go because it is my decision?
The random suicide case may be some distressed person who doesn't realize the full extent of their actions. There are a number of variables there. Batman already knows Ra's to be a more than competent individual, who is quite capable of making his own decisions and who has a strong resolve. It's not remotely the same situation.

Batman is about ensuring that the senseless and random violence that took the life of his parents doesn't extend to anyone else. I've never interpreted his role as telling people what to do with their lives, unless it relates to some criminal activity.

Would he attempt to save a random stranger from throwing themselves off a building. Yes? Even that's a dicey scenario (interfering with one's self-determination), but I imagine Batman would harbor an optimistic view and choose to believe that the stranger was capable of valuing life and making some sort of new committment to living. He already knew Ra's to be above that approach.

[Mister J]

I like the qualifier.

I didn't understand why Ra's had the whole "My fate lies with the rest of Gotham" philosophy. It didn't seem like him. He seems like the kind of guy to want to stay alive to continue his war on crime/corruption. That makes me think he wasn't planing on dying. Either he was planning on faking his death, or he was planning on dying temporarily, or he was planning on getting off the train.
It does seem like a guy as smart as Ra's would be able to ensure that the train collided with Wayne Tower without remaining on it to the end. Even if he wanted to see it through himself, you figure he'd have an escape route so he could continue his own efforts to "save the world".

[Ronny Shade]

right. It's not like Gotham was the only evil that needed to be destroyed

[Image]

Actually, I was watching the movie yesterday and I thought about that scene. Batman doesn't kill, but he would allow him to die, when he could have saved him. In a way it is killing him when you have the opportunity to save someone and your choice is the result of what decision was made. Then again is it? If Ra's didn't do what he wanted, he wouldn't haven't been this predicament. So did he kill himself? Also is he really dead? You know how villains are thought to be dead do to an occurance, but then they're not.

[Ronny Shade]

The fact that Ra's isn't actually dead doesn't change the impact of Batman's decision not to save him.

[El Payaso]

The fact that Ra's isn't actually dead doesn't change the impact of Batman's decision not to save him.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[iceberg325]

Batman could have saved him in the same amount of time he used to say 'I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.'



The mere fact he said that reveals he didn't have the intemntion of saving him. that how we can know.



Yes, because according to the movie he thinks justice is more than death.



You're not Batman.

Most of us if we have lost our parents in a street assault wouldn't become Batman for a starter.



Batman doesn't do what he do and doesn't decide what he decides in order to be smart.

Yes according to the movie he thinks justice is more than death, but according to the movie he felt it was right to let Ras die.

[Image]

The fact that Ra's isn't actually dead doesn't change the impact of Batman's decision not to save him.

Was that directed towards my post. I agree with what you say, but I was asking do you(everyone)think Ra's is actually dead? To possibly be in future Bat films if ever made. It was an off topic question.

[Ronny Shade]

I think Ra's will return, yes.

[El Payaso]

Yes according to the movie he thinks justice is more than death, but according to the movie he felt it was right to let Ras die.

And thus, the contradiction ad the statement that it was out of the character.

[Ronny Shade]

I'm with Payaso on this one.


We're also the only two people alive who like DK2

[Bat Attack]

I'm with Payaso on this one.
Same here. :up:

[Everyman]

What? Letting the villiain die? How is this more in Batman character than anything else - like taking the villiain to justice?

Letting the villain ina dangerous situation (but not a situation in which the resourceful Rha's couldn't get through) while he was busy saving the whole city is very in character I think, since Batman couldn't do two things at once. In medieval literature (Hell, in any kinds of fiction), it is a usual dilemma for the hero: having to follow two oaths that contradict each other in a precise situation. The hero has then to choose the most important of these oaths, and compromise on the other, while trying to keep it as much as it is humanly possible. Batman swore to protect the people of Gotham City, and he swore not to take any life, even the lives of worthless criminals. To save the people of Gotham and keep his word, he had to leave Rha's Al Ghul in a very difficult situation, because the most important of his duty was to save the lives of many, who were defenseless, something his former mentor was not. I said it and I will say it again, Batman did not actively try to kill Rha's Al Ghul and he did not even left him in a situation where he was doomed. And taking him to justice was impossible if Batman wanted to save his city.

Anyway, all your argument stands on the presumption that Batman could have saved Rha's al Ghul, but I think they meant the situation to be Cornelian. Wether they succeeded or not is debatable, but to assume that Batman had malicious intends is presumptuous.

[Everyman]

Batman could have saved him in the same amount of time he used to say 'I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you.'

The mere fact he said that reveals he didn't have the intemntion of saving him. that how we can know.


No, that's simply dramatic licence, it happens all the time in fiction. It was also a quick explanation to Rha's Al Ghul that he was not betraying his beliefs. It doesn't change the fact that Batman, to save the people of Gotham, had to let Rha's Al Ghul to his possible but not unavoidable death.

[Ronny Shade]

yeah, but he didn't leave the train because he needed to rescue everyone, he left the train because he didn't want to die in a giant firey explosion.

[Everyman]

yeah, but he didn't leave the train because he needed to rescue everyone, he left the train because he didn't want to die in a giant firey explosion.

Well, I will have to watch that scene again, but I always thought that Rha's had to be left powerless in order to stop the train. As I said, wether they succeeded or not into making Batman's dilemma a real one is debatable, but I think the intend was there.

[Ronny Shade]

not sure what you're saying. Batman boarded the train to make sure it kept going so it would crash and destroy the microwave emitter when Gordon blew the supports of the bridge. He leaves the train so he doesn't crash with it.

[Everyman]

not sure what you're saying. Batman boarded the train to make sure it kept going so it would crash and destroy the microwave emitter when Gordon blew the supports of the bridge. He leaves the train so he doesn't crash with it.

I haven't watch that scene in ages, my memory is imperfect. Maybe there was a risk of letting Rha's in the train, that it might reach it's target after all. Or maybe Batman didn't want to die in the train fighting a man like Rha's, whio could escape the crash by himself. By saying "I won,t kill you", etc., maybe Batman is saying "I am leaving, your plan failed, you get out of your own mess". In which case, the scene isn't as intelligent as I remembered (I hope you can still explain it with a Cornelian choice, because it's such a great plot device), but it is certainly useful. Rha's al Ghul I think survived, he had to apparently die an ambiguous enough death to leave Batman for a while and come back in a sequel.

[Ronny Shade]

Assuming Batman knew Ra's could get out if he wanted to, fits with my characterization of Batman, yeah, but I didn't get that impression from that scene.

[iceberg325]

Assuming Batman knew Ra's could get out if he wanted to, fits with my characterization of Batman, yeah, but I didn't get that impression from that scene.

I really dont see how Ras could get out of that.

[Image]

I'm sure he survived. I always thought he wasn't dead when I first saw the movie.

[Beelze]

El Payaso is right - Batman's decision wasn't fully in line with the morals he had seemingly established... his code, so to speak. Sure, it was a tough call (myself, I would've been torn about what to do, assuming I could've saved Ra's), but that doesn't excuse him. If it's a flaw in the movie or part of character development, or "anti-development" - can't say, but I, myself, will attribute the "flaw" to the fact that this was a rookie Batman.

Imagine that, instead of Batman saying what he said and doing what he did in the movie, our crimefighter had extended his hand, as if inviting Ra's to grab it, and said something along the lines of, "forget what you said about compassion."

That would have been the Batman thing to do... and Hell, it could still have ended up the way it did in the movie, seeing as Ra's could've refused, and that Batman would've felt the need to escape, with or without Ra's. Anyway, it's too late for that now, but perhaps they'll show a more compassionate Batman when The Joker enters the picture.

[El Payaso]

Letting the villain ina dangerous situation (but not a situation in which the resourceful Rha's couldn't get through) while he was busy saving the whole city is very in character I think, since Batman couldn't do two things at once. In medieval literature (Hell, in any kinds of fiction), it is a usual dilemma for the hero: having to follow two oaths that contradict each other in a precise situation. The hero has then to choose the most important of these oaths,

Your argument falls apart since Batman counted on Gordon to stop the train anyway, so he wasn't in any conflict between saving the city or saving Ra's. Batman was basically in the train to prevent Ra's to escape but now I think that if gordon was supposed to stop the train, Batman was there basically to save Ra's from the catastrophe he told gordon to make in order to stop the train.

Anyway, all your argument stands on the presumption that Batman could have saved Rha's al Ghul, but I think they meant the situation to be Cornelian. Wether they succeeded or not is debatable, but to assume that Batman had malicious intends is presumptuous.

It's not a presumption, is what Batman said. I didn't state it was malicious, but Batman stated that he wasn't going to save Ra's.

[Everyman]

Assuming Batman knew Ra's could get out if he wanted to, fits with my characterization of Batman, yeah, but I didn't get that impression from that scene.

I might have read too many comic books, but I thought his "death" was quite ambiguous, and I presumed he survived.

[Spawn187]

What Batman did was Fine. Cus the end justified the means. He let him live before and look what happen the kids had to see people in the city freaking out. And people started going crazy Ra's Had an evil intent he wanted death, distruction, and Mayhem. If I was batman I would have shot Ra's in the chest twice took the cigar out my mouth looked at camera 2 and said "Now your Ra's al fool" and jumped out of the train.



(the joke is for any Conan O'brien fans)


Eat Snacky Smores.....

[Image]

Aha! That's funny.

[iceberg325]

What Batman did was Fine. Cus the end justified the means. He let him live before and look what happen the kids had to see people in the city freaking out. And people started going crazy Ra's Had an evil intent he wanted death, distruction, and Mayhem. If I was batman I would have shot Ra's in the chest twice took the cigar out my mouth looked at camera 2 and said "Now your Ra's al fool" and jumped out of the train.



(the joke is for any Conan O'brien fans)


Eat Snacky Smores.....

aha.....AHA!!!!!! Thats pretty funny.

[Spawn187]

What If it wasnt batman who was in the train at all but some one else........ Some one familiar with terriost............some one who knows a lot about death, insanity, and rape........some one like..........wait for it...............a litlle more...........................................BOR ATMAN..

[iceberg325]

What If it wasnt batman who was in the train at all but some one else........ Some one familiar with terriost............some one who knows a lot about death, insanity, and rape........some one like..........wait for it...............a litlle more...........................................BOR ATMAN..

That would have been the best movie ever. LONG LIVE BORAT!!!!!

[Spawn187]

Anyway the film was done in a real life tone and if it was anyone else they would have done the same thing.....



EAT SNACKY SMORES....



.

[Everyman]

Your argument falls apart since Batman counted on Gordon to stop the train anyway, so he wasn't in any conflict between saving the city or saving Ra's. Batman was basically in the train to prevent Ra's to escape but now I think that if gordon was supposed to stop the train, Batman was there basically to save Ra's from the catastrophe he told gordon to make in order to stop the train.



It's not a presumption, is what Batman said. I didn't state it was malicious, but Batman stated that he wasn't going to save Ra's.

Didn't Batman have something to do with the mechanics of the train? I don,t remember much, but I thought he neutralised Ra's to abort his former mentor's operation. I doubt he went in the train just for a fight, he could have stayed out to get the same results. And I don't think Ra's wanted to be a kamikaze, he must have had ane scape plan from the beginning.

As for what Batman said, I think it only meant "why don't you get out of this one if you are so smart?". And I doubt Ra's died, and I think Batman knew he survived the moment he left the train.

[Ben Urich]

When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

That's an excellent point. :up:

I've gotta wonder how the general public would react if Batman had saved Ra's (or at least made an effort.) Ra's is a terrorist. Is America ready to see a figure of justice (vigilante or otherwise) be sympathetic towards a terrorist? I have to say yes; if we can watch a movie that dramatizes one of the hijackings on 9/11, I think we could have tolerated Batman at least trying to save Ra's.

If Batman had saved Ra's, and somehow induced sleep, I wonder how Ra's would react. Certainly he wouldn't remain captive for long, but it's still interesting. He would have lost some of his honor, no? It'd make for an interesting character point to touch on in a sequel.

This is a great discussion :up:

[Borat]

if I could change the scene, I'd have Batman attempt to grab Ducard and take him with him and have Ducard kick Batman so he gets booted out and leaves himself to die on the trainYa I like the sounds of that. :up:

[El Payaso]

I think Batman knew he survived the moment he left the train.

If that's true I doubt Batman would be so relaxed about him. Bats and Gordon would be talking about that at the end, 'Cripes, I think Ra's is alive and he's somewhere in the middle of Gotham planning something, we must catch him right now'.

[Katsuro]

I'm still wondering whether or not he could have saved Ra's. Both arms needed to be fully extended to operate the cape, they had only a few seconds, and honestly, I doubt Ra's would've even accepted help. I'm having trouble even imagining what a scene with Batman saving Ra's would look like or how it would work out.

[El Payaso]

I'm still wondering whether or not he could have saved Ra's. Both arms needed to be fully extended to operate the cape, they had only a few seconds, and honestly, I doubt Ra's would've even accepted help. I'm having trouble even imagining what a scene with Batman saving Ra's would look like or how it would work out.

I wonder if Batman would have had any problem at that if the person in the train was Rachel.

[Ronny Shade]

What Batman did was Fine. Cus the end justified the means. He let him live before and look what happen the kids had to see people in the city freaking out. And people started going crazy Ra's Had an evil intent he wanted death, distruction, and Mayhem. If I was batman I would have shot Ra's in the chest twice took the cigar out my mouth looked at camera 2 and said "Now your Ra's al fool" and jumped out of the train.



(the joke is for any Conan O'brien fans)


Eat Snacky Smores.....
You obviously don't understand the character

[iceberg325]

We have to remember, Batman is human. People are filled with contradicitions in life. If we can do it, why can't Batman. He made a decision that would benefit the entire city. Ras wasnt an ordinary villian. Falcone was the guy who had all the power in Gotham, he had the city in his pocket. He was untouchable. Even he was affraid of Ras. Did Batman step out of character, maybe. But he didnt kill the man. He is totally right, he didnt have to save him though. This scene makes Batman seem more realistic, and I think that is what Nolan was shooting for. It gives his character more depth. Its not just "hey Im batman, im going to save the city and throw all the bad guys in jail".

[Ronny Shade]

I understand the dilemma. It makes sense that'd he be in that position, "the only wayt o ensure the safety of the city and innocent lives is for Ra's Al Ghul to die" and he can further justify it to himself by not exactly killing him, just letting him die. However, batman has never been about justifying things to himself. Batman is about no compromise. No killing. Save innocent lives. I was watching this movie Romero the other day. Based on Oscar Romero the El Salvadoran Archbishop. There's a revoltion going on and the insurgents are obviously the "good" guys, but Romero cannot use violence to fight against the corrupt government because he's a man of principle. He won't compromise. Batman's got different lines drawn for himself, but he's still an unwavering man of principle. Save lives. That's what he does.

[iceberg325]

Save innocent lives.

You said it, Ras was not innocent. Besides, don't you think this dilemma makes Batman more complex? Don't you think it makes the character more interesting?

[Ronny Shade]

It does. Having the dilemma does. But part of what I love about batman, is that no matter how many times he has the dilemma, he's always tragically going to save the villain.

I could like him letting Ra's die in the movie better if they made it more of a choice between saving Ra's and saving Gotham, but they didn't really play that up. It came across more as "Ooh, you big meanie, you caused the depression which made Joe Chill poor which made him buy a gun and rob my parents which made him kill them, so now...you die!"

[iceberg325]

It does. Having the dilemma does. But part of what I love about batman, is that no matter how many times he has the dilemma, he's always tragically going to save the villain.

I could like him letting Ra's die in the movie better if they made it more of a choice between saving Ra's and saving Gotham, but they didn't really play that up. It came across more as "Ooh, you big meanie, you caused the depression which made Joe Chill poor which made him buy a gun and rob my parents which made him kill them, so now...you die!"

I guess this scene in the movie defines littile why he is called the "DARK" Knight. I love Batman also, but I dont mind seeing him do things that are out of his character. To me it makes him more human. Thats why this is one of my favortie movies of all time.

[Ronny Shade]

This is also one of my favorite movies, it's just not perfect. You'll hardly ever catch me naysaying this movie, but there are a couple things I don't like about it.

[iceberg325]

This is also one of my favorite movies, it's just not perfect. You'll hardly ever catch me naysaying this movie, but there are a couple things I don't like about it.

For me, compared to all the other comic movies that come out, Batman is perfect lol. Look at catwoman or the Hulk lol. Makes me appreciate BB 100 times more lol.

[Ronny Shade]

Hey no hating on Hulk.

But yeah, it is why I like it so much. I just think Goyer writes some stories that are a tad bit over-contrived. I mean look at Blade 2. I freakin' love Blade 2, but the plot is kinda dumb.

[iceberg325]

Hey no hating on Hulk.

But yeah, it is why I like it so much. I just think Goyer writes some stories that are a tad bit over-contrived. I mean look at Blade 2. I freakin' love Blade 2, but the plot is kinda dumb.

I actually want to see the Hulk again. I might get it next week. From what I saw in my first veiwing, IT SUCKED, but my opinion might change.

Yeah I feel the same way about Blade 2. What about trinity, who decided to write in that crappy dracula. How do you run from blade and hide behind a baby if you're the strongest vampire ever?? Makes Noooooooo sense.

Anyway, maybe Ras is alive and he'll appear in BB2. Hmmmm wouldnt that be crazy!!!!!

[Ronny Shade]

Hulk was great, IMO. A lot of people hate it because they wanted the TV show or a mindless action fest. Instead they got an interesting character study.

Well Blade 3 just sucked ass.

I'm willing to bet that Ra's is still alive or he's dead and will come back to life via Lazarus pit. I don't think it should happen til bb3 or 4

[iceberg325]

Hulk was great, IMO. A lot of people hate it because they wanted the TV show or a mindless action fest. Instead they got an interesting character study.

Well Blade 3 just sucked ass.

I'm willing to bet that Ra's is still alive or he's dead and will come back to life via Lazarus pit. I don't think it should happen til bb3 or 4

Yup, we have to see Joker, peguin and maybe riddler. Ras can be thrown into the mix. Should be interesting. Lets not forget 2face. He fits right into Nolans batman world.

I didnt want a mindless actionfest, but out of a 3 hour movie, we see hulk like 3 times? Should have been a little more than that. Ill watch it next week, or this weekend and re think my opinion.

[Ronny Shade]

you do that.


I've been thinking of buying it, but that'll cost money :o

[iceberg325]

you do that.


I've been thinking of buying it, but that'll cost money :o

Thats what stopped me from buying it too. I want to make a marvel movie collection. The only ones stopping me from finishing that collection are, hulk, fantastic 4, elektra, and original punisher. Dont really want to buy them. Didnt like them too much lol.

[El Payaso]

We have to remember, Batman is human. People are filled with contradicitions in life. If we can do it, why can't Batman. He made a decision that would benefit the entire city. Ras wasnt an ordinary villian.
This scene makes Batman seem more realistic, and I think that is what Nolan was shooting for. It gives his character more depth. Its not just "hey Im batman, im going to save the city and throw all the bad guys in jail".

That is a great point.

My problem is that the way it was done and directed it looks like it was THE right decision and not only right but witty. Like in 'Ha, Ra's, I'm not going to save you.' Not like Batman was deeply troubled by it. We don't see a subsequent reflection about what happened.

Did Batman step out of character, maybe.

Yes, that was one of the original statements in this thread I seem to recall.

But he didnt kill the man. He is totally right, he didnt have to save him though.

Yes he did. He should have saved him and take him to the justice - which is what Batman is to defend as opposite as not being an executioner in any way.

Anyway, maybe Ras is alive and he'll appear in BB2. Hmmmm wouldnt that be crazy!!!!!

In fact it would be as predictable as tomorrow coming after today. It has been done till boredom, 'hey you thought he was dead, weel he's not'

I just hope we won't have 5 villiains in one sequel.

[WhiteRat]

How is Batman any different from the ninjas and Ra's if he killed Ra's? That's very simple. He does good. Ra's is planning to destroy the city(killing millions) and Batman is saving the city(killing one). it isn't a hard concept and makes perfect sense.

Plus, do you really think that any jail Batman would have taken Ra's to would contain him? The man is a genious, not to mention a skilled warrior who knows how to become invisible and is a master at escaping.

In the situation that was at hand, batman didn't have a choice. he had to stop the train and he had to save himself. not using this as an excuse, but it seems that batman had to have both arms fully extended in order to make his cape rigid. there was no way he could escape while carrying Ra's. Plus, its hard to believe that a man with Ra's charater would even WANT batman to save him from the crash.

Batman had to do what was necessary at the time to accomplish his goal. Now, if batman had caught Ra's and then threw him off a building to his death then i can understand. but Batman simply stopped the train and escaped. Ra's had to die with the train.

Very well said except for the very first part.Batman didnt kill Ra's.Bats did not kill "ONE" .Just because he didnt save him doesnt mean he killed him.

[WhiteRat]

There's been a bit of contention about the validity of that line. Would the Batman of the comics have made the same move? Has he before? Or was he totally out of character when he said that in the film?

Another poster here had this to say in another thread:


As much as I hate to say it, there's definitely validity to that point of view. How is Batman any better than Ra's if he lets him die?
Of course you could mention that Ra's didn't actually die - there's a GIF from the movie floating around the internet that spotlights Ra's falling to safety just before the monorail crash - but the question still lingers.

Your thoughts?

Thats a good point about The Joker.Like someone else said though that can be justified in that Batman was new on the scene at that point where in the years down the road he would not be a rookie anymore,he will by that time overcome his anger and realise that no matter what evil they do,he will need to save them.Plus Ra's is no normal man as someone pointed out.They never showed that he actually died,so they might come out with a sequal in the future that he survives it and they have batman say in the movie-Thats why i didn't save you.I knew you would find a way to survive and be back again.

[Ronny Shade]

That is a great point.

My problem is that the way it was done and directed it looks like it was THE right decision and not only right but witty. Like in 'Ha, Ra's, I'm not going to save you.' Not like Batman was deeply troubled by it. We don't see a subsequent reflection about what happened.

Exactly how I feel


Yes, that was one of the original statements in this thread I seem to recall.



Yes he did. He should have saved him and take him to the justice - which is what Batman is to defend as opposite as not being an executioner in any way.
You could look at it this way: Justice for Ra's is leaving him in the mess that he created. Ra's was the one who wanted to destroy gotham, so he becomes a victim of his own "evilness." You see this in old Superman comics all the time: Bad man makes trap for Lois. Supes saves Lois. Bad man dies in his own trap.

But I still don't like it.



In fact it would be as predictable as tomorrow coming after today. It has been done till boredom, 'hey you thought he was dead, weel he's not'

I just hope we won't have 5 villiains in one sequel.
What you don't want another Batman and Robin?? :p

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He didn't kill anyone, he just didn't save them.

I doubt Batman (or Spiderman) would pass in front of a building on fire and doesn't do a thing to save people inside, whether they're innocent mommas with their little children or ninjas.

One problem there:

Batman is human. He can't jump like 9 feet in the air with no problem....and he can't lift and toss into webs people like Spidey.

No way in hell he could have saved everyone but Ducard in that fire.


No, he let him die.



You can look at it that way......or you can look at it as leaving him to his fate. The man's a terrorist.....doesn't deserve to be saved.

There is a difference between killing someone, and not saving them.


Isn't it?

Not killing a guy but not doing a thing to save him being conscient that you could.

it would be like looking a man drowning and you're right there and you're an Olympic swimmer and you just watch him die. Batman would be not only an Olympic swimmer but one that wants to preserve human life as a highest value.



No, it's just not the same. Not saving him is not the same as killing him.....negligent homicide would be impossible to say against anyone, anywhere, I think.


Terrorist are human beings. Your vengeful feelings are 100% understandable but even so, that doesn't make them right and even if they are, it is not what Batman is supposed to think in Batman begins. He's not for revenge but for justice. An eye for an eye is not justice. If for that, Bruce would have killed that guy in Ra's house as an act of justice as you envision it.

What you want to see Batman do or don't do doesn't match with what the movie states that Batman acts like.



You don't understand....it's not just my feelings. It's the feeling of the world around us.

When Presidential candidates, and the current President, PROMISES....not the the capture, but the deaths of terrorists....promises to KILL them....and the majority agrees....that's something to think about what the country of the US wants. Not to say everyone wants that, but if we had to take a country wide poll on the issue, who do you think would win?

Batman is a culutral icon, he melds with the times....same as Superman and any other icon. The times do have an effect on him and the world around him.


What's the difference? Or are you implying he has little clauses and excpetions in his personal rules? "To preserve human life*









*except if he's Ra's"



He does so b/c he needs a rouge's gallery. It's an editorial decision, and I think that's something we need to remember.


For that matter if a guy prepares a rope to hang himself, Batman shouldn't do a thing to prevent it?



Well, if it was somehow tied into leading to the deaths of millions of innocents, yeah I don't think I could balme him for not saving him.

We're discussing Batman's inolvment in the villiain's death, not even if Ra's is really dead.

Whether this happens in comics or not, it is cristal clear in B Begins that Batman wouldn't allow a preventable death.

He's edgy in the film......maybe wreckless. The chase scene proved that.

I don't feel Batman is accountable for Ra's death.

[El Payaso]

One problem there:

Batman is human. He can't jump like 9 feet in the air with no problem....and he can't lift and toss into webs people like Spidey.


The whole Batman concept and specially in B Begins is that he is more than a human being. A legend.

For that matter I don't know how he could fight 100 ninjas without superpowers. But he does.

No way in hell he could have saved everyone but Ducard in that fire.

Well, then I don't know how he pretends to save Gotham City if he can't save one man.

Any fireman makes his best effort to do it, but yoyu say Batman just can't, "no way."

You can look at it that way......or you can look at it as leaving him to his fate. The man's a terrorist.....doesn't deserve to be saved.

If Batman wants to leave Ra's at his fate, let him to go on. Batman shouldn't have told Gordon to blow up the train's lines. That's twisting Ra's fate.

And Bruce should have let Ra's to kill that thief in the monastery, since he shouldn't intervene in his fate. But no, he saved him.

There is a difference between killing someone, and not saving them.

Yes.

We're discussing how not saving someone when he could have is out of character for Batman.

No, it's just not the same. Not saving him is not the same as killing him.....negligent homicide would be impossible to say against anyone, anywhere, I think.

Again my example, you are drowning in a river, some olympic swimmer sees you, stays for a while and decides not to save you. I guess that would be ok with you, at least for the minutes of life left for you.

You don't understand....it's not just my feelings. It's the feeling of the world around us.

You don't understand, feelings has nothing to do but a superior cause.

If for feelings, Batman would be killing every terrorist and future terrorist (why not?) Bruce's feelings are for revenge. After Chill's murder, he goes after justice, not revenge. That is, he goes after justice, not feelings.

A terrorist is a human being no matter our feelings.

You and me? We'd be probably killing those guys. We're not Batman.

When Presidential candidates, and the current President, PROMISES....not the the capture, but the deaths of terrorists....promises to KILL them....and the majority agrees....that's something to think about what the country of the US wants. Not to say everyone wants that, but if we had to take a country wide poll on the issue, who do you think would win?

I must clear up that Batman is not a presidential candidate. He didn't even decide to be a cop. He also doesn't make polls amongst people so he can decide how to act like Batman according to what majorities say.

Now what you say is a high defense for demagogy, "candidates are elected by how many popular promises they can make and thus they should make those popular promises in order to win." I can't agree on that.

Let's not get back on time with Superman making popular but racist comments on japanese people because they're the US enemies of the moment.

Batman is a culutral icon, he melds with the times....same as Superman and any other icon. The times do have an effect on him and the world around him.

I don't see how that is some "law" for a character.

You're just trying to make Batman a messenger of your own personal views.

Even so, what's the message this 'icon' is giving?

Let terrorists die? Well, I dunno what would be the idea behind that.

Kill terrorists? I thought we were talking about a movie that states for 2 hours that he doesn't kill for revenge or to make justice.

He does so b/c he needs a rouge's gallery. It's an editorial decision, and I think that's something we need to remember.

Audiences don't need to remember Batman is fictional and that he does just what some writer wants.

That's why they make those movies, to make us believe as much as possible that he is real, not some propaganda spreader.

Well, if it was somehow tied into leading to the deaths of millions of innocents, yeah I don't think I could balme him for not saving him.

That thief in Ra's monastery wasn't innocent either. But he saved him.

He's edgy in the film......maybe wreckless. The chase scene proved that.

I don't feel Batman is accountable for Ra's death.

Beyond your feelings, do you have an argument for that.

[Spawn187]

You obviously don't understand the character




And you do? He dont know you man. If batman was to see you in the street he'd turn to camera 3 pull the cigar out his mouth and say "You cant see me".

[iceberg325]

Yes he did. He should have saved him and take him to the justice - which is what Batman is to defend as opposite as not being an executioner in anyway

Hes not an executioner. We learned that in his training. When asked to murder the criminal, what happened? He burned the place down. Batman didnt kill Ras.

[El Payaso]

Hes not an executioner. We learned that in his training. When asked to murder the criminal, what happened? He burned the place down. Batman didnt kill Ras.

In fact in that fire he left the one who was supposed to be Ra's to die. But in that case was ok, because in that case he went after the 'good guy' aka Ducard instead. In that case he had a conflict between saving one of the other.

[iceberg325]

In fact in that fire he left the one who was supposed to be Ra's to die. But in that case was ok, because in that case he went after the 'good guy' aka Ducard instead. In that case he had a conflict between saving one of the other.

I dont think he'd consider Ducard a good guy.

[The Question]

I really don't see any problems with that scene. I mean, he may eschew killing, but I doubt he's going to risk his life for a mass murderer like that. Do you really think he'd risk himself to save The Joker if he were in a situation like that?

[Beelze]

In fact in that fire he left the one who was supposed to be Ra's to die. But in that case was ok, because in that case he went after the 'good guy' aka Ducard instead. In that case he had a conflict between saving one of the other.
He didn't really leave "Ra's" to die in the temple. The decoy attacked Bruce and the latter defended himself, which ended with the decoy getting to the wrong place at the wrong time. The BURNING ROOF fell down on the decoy, and he was practically buried in the debris, with blood running out of his mouth. At the same time, the whole place was about to go to pieces. Now, would Bruce...

a) Dig most-likely dead man out of burning debris, and probably die trying?
b) Hurry and try to make his way out, and save someone on the way?

The latter option made more sense. "Ra's" sure seemed to be a goner, but Bruce knew that Ducard was only unconscious. Also, Bruce thought that Ducard had only been misled and could more easily be "redeemed". Ra's was the man who had gathered all these guys together and "brainwashed" them, and seemed quite dead.

Bruce/Batman may be Bruce/Batman, but it wasn't the right time to pull a Forrest Gump.

[Blade757]

wtf

[Everyman]

If that's true I doubt Batman would be so relaxed about him. Bats and Gordon would be talking about that at the end, 'Cripes, I think Ra's is alive and he's somewhere in the middle of Gotham planning something, we must catch him right now'.

Maybe they were busy with all the inmates who escaped Arkham. Maybe Batman didn't want to worry Gordon at the end more than he already was.

[Everyman]

It does. Having the dilemma does. But part of what I love about batman, is that no matter how many times he has the dilemma, he's always tragically going to save the villain.

I could like him letting Ra's die in the movie better if they made it more of a choice between saving Ra's and saving Gotham, but they didn't really play that up. It came across more as "Ooh, you big meanie, you caused the depression which made Joe Chill poor which made him buy a gun and rob my parents which made him kill them, so now...you die!"

As I said, these kinds of conflicting oaths happen all the time in fiction. You have two principles, and one in some situation contradicts the other. Batman had to compromise there, IMO. And as I said, it's not like Ra's cannot escape Doom.

[Spawn187]

Anyone with a choice to let evil live, or give evil a chance to live would have done the same.

Lets not foreget how soccer mom's wanted bin laden's head on a plate after the attacks on the U.S.A.

[theShape]

you have to think of it this way:

if batman did save him and he was thrown in jail, what do you think would happen? apparently, ra's has so many followers/supporters/minions, that nothing would change. he would be broken out and would still attempt to execute his evil plan one way or another. or he would control things from behind bars.

we're talking about an evil man who was trying to destroy the city. why does he deserve to be saved? he doesn't.

no one complains that batman killed the joker in the original (aside from the fact that people wanted him in more sequels).

batman made a decision and did what was right. he didn't murder ra's, but didn't save him. perfect thing to do in that situation.


*and does anyone know where that GIF of ra's escaping safely is???

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The whole Batman concept and specially in B Begins is that he is more than a human being. A legend.

For that matter I don't know how he could fight 100 ninjas without superpowers. But he does.

Fight 100 ninjas? When he'd do that?

Well, then I don't know how he pretends to save Gotham City if he can't save one man.

Any fireman makes his best effort to do it, but yoyu say Batman just can't, "no way."

Bruce doesn't have on fire resistant gear, he doesn't have a water hose, he doesn't have 4 other firefighters backing him up, plus since there's explosive EVERTHING is exploding......and he's 6'2 weighing about 210.....he can't carry every person. Those are the limitations of being one man.

If Batman wants to leave Ra's at his fate, let him to go on. Batman shouldn't have told Gordon to blow up the train's lines. That's twisting Ra's fate.


Blowing up the train tracks was to stop the train to begin with. If Jim doesn't blow up the pillar line, Gotham City is pretty much destroyed.



And Bruce should have let Ra's to kill that thief in the monastery, since he shouldn't intervene in his fate. But no, he saved him.




Well, Ra's wasn't going to kill the "theif" (atleast, we'd have to take his word for it....and how much is that worth? For a psycho like him, "necessary sacrifies" could be anything, expecially innocents). Ra's, and the League, wanted Bruce to commit murder. They wanted him to be-head this guy. That's not fate.....that's literally murder.


Yes.

We're discussing how not saving someone when he could have is out of character for Batman.




Okay, so....how could Batman have saved Ra's?


Again my example, you are drowning in a river, some olympic swimmer sees you, stays for a while and decides not to save you. I guess that would be ok with you, at least for the minutes of life left for you.



Most people who try and save a drowning person end up drowning with them.

Yeah, I'd be fine.....since I can swim.


You don't understand, feelings has nothing to do but a superior cause.

If for feelings, Batman would be killing every terrorist and future terrorist (why not?) Bruce's feelings are for revenge. After Chill's murder, he goes after justice, not revenge. That is, he goes after justice, not feelings.

A terrorist is a human being no matter our feelings.

You and me? We'd be probably killing those guys. We're not Batman.


That's my point....the real world does affect what goes on with these characters. In today's world, this country does not view Terrorists as human beings. They are viewed as animals. That's why when we bomb one, we...as a nation.....celebrate it. I'm not saying it's right.....I'm just saying that's how the world is.


I must clear up that Batman is not a presidential candidate. He didn't even decide to be a cop. He also doesn't make polls amongst people so he can decide how to act like Batman according to what majorities say.

Now what you say is a high defense for demagogy, "candidates are elected by how many popular promises they can make and thus they should make those popular promises in order to win." I can't agree on that.

Let's not get back on time with Superman making popular but racist comments on japanese people because they're the US enemies of the moment.



Exactly......that was the feeling of the times. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is. Superman fighting "Japs" and making fun of them....it's a sign of the times. And, I feel, in a subtle way....Batman not saving Ra's is a sign of the times in how we deal with terrorists.


I don't see how that is some "law" for a character.

You're just trying to make Batman a messenger of your own personal views.

Even so, what's the message this 'icon' is giving?

Let terrorists die? Well, I dunno what would be the idea behind that.

Kill terrorists? I thought we were talking about a movie that states for 2 hours that he doesn't kill for revenge or to make justice.



He didn't kill anyone.

But, I feel the message is to leave a terrorist like Ra's to his own fate....to the terror he set for himself. That's all.

He didn't kill anyone.

Audiences don't need to remember Batman is fictional and that he does just what some writer wants.

That's why they make those movies, to make us believe as much as possible that he is real, not some propaganda spreader.

But, it's a work of art....and art imitates life. It's not propaganda, I think...just a a sign of the times we all live in.

The fact of the matter is, though, that since Batman is in an ongoing series.....where it's always neverending......Batman NEEDS to save thes people, or else he'll have no one to fight.


That thief in Ra's monastery wasn't innocent either. But he saved him.



Your taking Ra's word for it, the same psycho path who was willing to kill millions of innocent Gothamites for his "purification" and "fate"........so, isn't it conceivable that perhaps the man wasn't actually a thief....or a murder?


Beyond your feelings, do you have an argument for that.


You means facts?

These are opinions, although I'm giving reasons for them.

I thought these were just opinions we were all sharing here......of course, including feelings that go into those....


In fact in that fire he left the one who was supposed to be Ra's to die. But in that case was ok, because in that case he went after the 'good guy' aka Ducard instead. In that case he had a conflict between saving one of the other.


How'd he "leave" him to die? They were fighting, Bruce was on the floor, and a giant beam fell on him. How the hell is that "leaving" him to die?

[The Kid]

Would batman's father have let ra's die?

Or even more.... What's the better risk? Giving a terrorist bastard with funny hair and pointy ears a chance to escape and do more evil, or knocking him out and capturing him so he can go to jail where you can be sure he's not going to cause much harm or fear fear fear fear fear fear?

[iceberg325]

Would batman's father have let ra's die?

Or even more.... What's the better risk? Giving a terrorist bastard with funny hair and pointy ears a chance to escape and do more evil, or knocking him out and capturing him so he can go to jail where you can be sure he's not going to cause much harm or fear fear fear fear fear fear?

You cant compare Batman and his father. I dont think his pops would have let Ras die, but he didnt go through everything Bruce went through. Another thing we have to take into consideration is the Batman we see in BB is new to this superhero thing. He'll make mistakes and learn from them. Look at what happened when he was in the narrows checking out the teddy bears. He thought he could easily take out the guys. What happened? He was put on fire. I think he learned from that. Same with the Ras situation.

[Boss]

Ok, I don't know how this has been discussed or not, but I'll give a shot at it anyway.

Well, since Bats clearly got many of his techniques of surviving from Ra's, I'm sure that he can't feel any sort of "guilt" towards saving Ra's, when Ra's, as Bats, should be able to handle the situation. As a ninja on a train to hell, he should be prepared to get out on his own.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He'll show up again. Ra's always shows up again....

[Ben Urich]

I really hate it when directors find it necessary to kill off villains in movies. Why not save them for sequels? :confused:

[The Kid]

You cant compare Batman and his father. I dont think his pops would have let Ras die, but he didnt go through everything Bruce went through. Another thing we have to take into consideration is the Batman we see in BB is new to this superhero thing. He'll make mistakes and learn from them. Look at what happened when he was in the narrows checking out the teddy bears. He thought he could easily take out the guys. What happened? He was put on fire. I think he learned from that. Same with the Ras situation.

:confused: Oh Snap. I can and ... yeah... have compared them because:

"I'm using this monster to help other people just like my father did."- bruce wayne. Theyre two different men, undeniable, but they share the same ideology.

The whole movie's prettymuch about a child living up to and honoring his father's legacy thanks to a compassionate and idealistic girlfriend, trustworthy and honarable butler, and godly old tech wiz. His father, as a good doctor, was impartial to who he was saving and just saved them no matter what... no question. Rachael even pimp smacks bruce a few times to remind him about his dad's beliefs.

His acts were completely pre-meditated in this situation. He calmly decided to do what he did, not act recklessly. In the narrows situation, maybe he wasn't too careful, maybe. The scarecrow was an unexpected obstacle so it's difficult to say if it was his virginity to superheroing that was his downfall there. He seemed to be doing fine until then. And that bastard, scarecrow farted his gas on him unexpectedly like a wimp. .:up:

what about all that other stuff about ra's possibly escaping and the risk of causing more fear fear fear fear fear? Is it worth it to let someone like him have a chance to do more harm even though he's has a slim chance of escaping? I don't think so...

[iceberg325]

:confused: Oh Snap. I can and ... yeah... have compared them because:

"I'm using this monster to help other people just like my father did."- bruce wayne. Theyre two different men, undeniable, but they share the same ideology.

The whole movie's prettymuch about a child living up to and honoring his father's legacy thanks to a compassionate and idealistic girlfriend, trustworthy and honarable butler, and godly old tech wiz. His father, as a good doctor, was impartial to who he was saving and just saved them no matter what... no question. Rachael even pimp smacks bruce a few times to remind him about his dad's beliefs.

His acts were completely pre-meditated in this situation. He decided to do what he did, not act recklessly. In the narrows situation, maybe he wasn't too careful, maybe. The scarecrow was an unexpected obstacle so it's difficult to say if it was his virginity to superheroing that was his downfall there. He seemed to be doing fine until then. And that bastard, scarecrow farted his gas on him unexpectedly like a wimp. .:up:

what about all that other stuff about ra's possibly escaping and the risk of causing more fear fear fear fear fear? Is it worth it to let someone like him have a chance to do more harm even though he's has a slim chance of escaping? I don't think so...

He did look up to his pops, They have 2 different situations though. His father didnt go into the underworld, become a criminal to understand there mindset, dress up as batman and fight supervillians. Bruce's situation is much more complex. Plus Im not sure about Bruce grandparents, but id bet they werent murdered in front of his fathers eyes. Bruce wanted to help people just like his dad, and he is doing so. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, Bruce wayne is human. He can go against what he believes and contradict himself just like any other man. Just because he wears a suit doesnt make him immune to it. IMO it makes his character much better. Its much more complex than saving the day putting the villain in jail.

[The Kid]

ok, i'll play. lol

Different people. Different methods. Same ideal. 2 Save lives.

Maybe batman made a mistake. That's why this thread exists, I guess. The question is if he did the wrong thing there and I'm in the mindset that he did.

What I find complex is that he's not just another punisher out for vengeance against criminals. he instead, like his father is a true hero in the sense that he's compassionate towards all life without question and is willing to do whatever it takes to save it from destruction. In this case, he failed to honor his father's wishes. Again. The first time was when he planned to kill joe chill. The next was when he blew up ra's house. Afterwards was the police chase with all the death he could have caused. And lastly we get batman deciding a life isn't worth saving because it's beyond saving in his mind, when he's supposedly learned that no life is beyond saving and all deserve justice. "I'm no executioner." You liar. Ra's fate was in your hands and you decided its end right there when you said you didn't have to save him. Nevah! Master Wayne would be very displeased with you, young bruce.

Now it's possible ra's is still out there somewhere, plotting to destroy gotham with an atomic bomb and it's all on batman. The man can't afford to make mistakes like this. Ever. Human or not. He's not an ordinary bruce wayne who falls through wells sometimes anymore. He's batman.The stakes are too high to screw up.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Murdering someone, and being an "Executioner" is not the same thing as NOT saving someone.

He had to blow up Ra's place. I mean, it slowed down they're plans for Gotham enough.

[Beelze]

Wesyeed - how do you even know Bruce's father would've saved Ra's?

[raybia]

There's been a bit of contention about the validity of that line. Would the Batman of the comics have made the same move? Has he before? Or was he totally out of character when he said that in the film?

Another poster here had this to say in another thread:


As much as I hate to say it, there's definitely validity to that point of view. How is Batman any better than Ra's if he lets him die?
Of course you could mention that Ra's didn't actually die - there's a GIF from the movie floating around the internet that spotlights Ra's falling to safety just before the monorail crash - but the question still lingers.

Your thoughts?

This movie was called "Batman Begins" not "Batman as you know him."

Batman started off as a vigilante and has evolved to what he is now presented as.

I'm sure in retrospect Bruce will look at the some of his actions during the events of Batman Begins as lessons to learn from.

[The Kid]

Murdering someone, and being an "Executioner" is not the same thing as NOT saving someone.

He had to blow up Ra's place. I mean, it slowed down they're plans for Gotham enough.

Way I see it is Batman's the reason the train's going to fly off the tracks and go kaboom. He knowingly allows ra's to go down into his exploded tracks or escape it somehow even though he's a dangerous criminal who should instead be put on trial and locked away rather than given a chance to do evil again. It's like in those bond movies where the villian makes a slowly moving death device for the hero and leaves the room assuming the thing will work and the hero will be dead. Is that not an execution of some sort? I'm not sure...

He had to escape to safety. Putting everyone's life in danger, including his own, wasn't really necessary or a good idea to me.

Beezle, I don't know, but based on who his father is, a doctor impartial to his patients, who wants to save lives, do what's right, and is a compassionate and also optimistic individual who believes we only fall to learn to pick ourselves up, I'd guess he might have saved ra's. I ask because maybe some view him a bit differently and think he'd let the man go down too.:confused:

[El Payaso]

I really hate it when directors find it necessary to kill off villains in movies. Why not save them for sequels? :confused:

Dignity.

[iceberg325]

Batman's the reason the train's going to fly off the tracks and go kaboom though. He knowingly allows ra's to go down into his exploded tracks or escape it somehow even though he's a dangerous criminal who should instead be put on trial and locked away rather than given a chance to do evil again. It's like in those bond movies where the villian makes a slowly moving death device for the hero and leaves the room assuming the thing will work and the hero will be dead. Is that not an execution of some sort? I'm not sure...

He had to escape to safety. Putting everyone's life in danger, including his own, wasn't really necessary or a good idea to me.

Beezle, I don't know, but based on who his father is, a doctor impartial to his patients, who wants to save lives, do what's right, and is a compassionate and also optimistic individual who believes we only fall to learn to pick ourselves up, I'd guess he might have saved ra's. I ask because maybe some view him a bit differently and think he'd let the man go down too.:confused:

I think opinions would change when someone knows who they are saving. If you are aware that you are saving a villian who is on the brink of destroying a city, you're mind would change. I dont care who you are lol. At this point, Ra's could be labeled a terrorist. I think if batman would have saved him, he'd be foolish. A fool stuck in their own way. Its a decision he made that would benefit the city. If he would have let him live, I think in a way its selfish. Save him then what? He would have on his conscience, "Phew, I saved him. Im a good guy" but theres a chance he can still be on the loose. Or the other choice. "I wont kill you, but I dont have to save you" I'm still a good guy because I didnt kill Ras, and the whole city could sleep much better tonight. I think IMO he made a great decision.

[The Kid]

I'm trying to say the hero or doctor whoever it is who seeks justice would save lives regardless of who they're saving... it works that way in real life too.. but ...ok, point taken.

What's better?

An unconfirmable death?

Or an incarcerated terrorist?

[iceberg325]

I'm trying to say the hero or doctor whoever it is who seeks justice would save lives regardless of who they're saving... it works that way in real life too.. but ...ok, point taken.

What's better?

An unconfirmable death?

Or an incarcerated terrorist?

In the comic world, they both have no relevance. How many times have we seen the bad guy escape? Its almost the same. If they are incarcerated, they are only there for a short time. If they are claimed to be dead, they are away for a short time, and they come right back. Its the same IMO.

[raybia]

Way I see it is Batman's the reason the train's going to fly off the tracks and go kaboom. He knowingly allows ra's to go down into his exploded tracks or escape it somehow even though he's a dangerous criminal who should instead be put on trial and locked away rather than given a chance to do evil again. It's like in those bond movies where the villian makes a slowly moving death device for the hero and leaves the room assuming the thing will work and the hero will be dead. Is that not an execution of some sort? I'm not sure...

He had to escape to safety. Putting everyone's life in danger, including his own, wasn't really necessary or a good idea to me.

Beezle, I don't know, but based on who his father is, a doctor impartial to his patients, who wants to save lives, do what's right, and is a compassionate and also optimistic individual who believes we only fall to learn to pick ourselves up, I'd guess he might have saved ra's. I ask because maybe some view him a bit differently and think he'd let the man go down too.:confused:

Actually Bruce went out of his way to both save Ra's and reason with him.

When the Monastry was blowing up and burning down he picked up Ra's to carry him out and when the explosion thru Ras down the him, Bruce dove down it to save him.

Even at the end when Ra's was in Bruce's mansion, Bruce asked for more time because he felt Gotham could be saved from the corruption.

What is the implication? If Ra's would have agreed, Bruce would have let Ra's go instead of apprending him for crimes against humanity.

Based on the intended death toll on Gotham and the apparent deaths and collateral damage that did take place as a result of Ra's actions, I find it perfectly acceptable that a "Green" Batman leaves him there to save himself from the runaway train.

[Spawn187]

Wesyeed - how do you even know Bruce's father would've saved Ra's?



How do you know that Bruce's Father is in deed Bruce's father??????If you ask me i think Fox is Bruce's Father cus that dud is smarter than a mofo.

[iceberg325]

How do you know that Bruce's Father is in deed Bruce's father??????If you ask me i think Fox is Bruce's Father cus that dud is smarter than a mofo.

lol

[Everyman]

I really hate it when directors find it necessary to kill off villains in movies. Why not save them for sequels? :confused:

But having a villain apparently killed survive and come back is an old trick. And I think this is what happened to Ra's.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Way I see it is Batman's the reason the train's going to fly off the tracks and go kaboom. He knowingly allows ra's to go down into his exploded tracks or escape it somehow even though he's a dangerous criminal who should instead be put on trial and locked away rather than given a chance to do evil again. It's like in those bond movies where the villian makes a slowly moving death device for the hero and leaves the room assuming the thing will work and the hero will be dead. Is that not an execution of some sort? I'm not sure...


But, the way I see it.....Ra's sealed his own fate. He's the one that destroyed the controls.....he's the one that was going to destroy Gotham. I don't think Ra's has ever stood trial for his crimes...int the comics, atleast....I don't know if the world actually belives he exists in BB.....and, there was no evidence to link him to the crimes, and he probably has enough paid off judges to get him off (no...not like that....).

Although....this kinda seems like it'd be nice fodder for a Talia-Bruce realationship in a later film.


He had to escape to safety. Putting everyone's life in danger, including his own, wasn't really necessary or a good idea to me.


That's the thing......he was in a corner. He had about an army and a half behind him, he had his mentor Ducard (who's line seemed to imply, "Don't do this...and we'll just kill you..) and the leader "Ra's" (the fake).

I think, Bruce had to stop them at all costs, short of killing them. I think he was just trying to get out alive, although it was a short chance of it, at worst he could stop them from destroying Gotham....even if he died.

Although.....it was a terrorist headquarter.....I don't think most people could feel sorry for any who didn't make it out.

Beezle, I don't know, but based on who his father is, a doctor impartial to his patients, who wants to save lives, do what's right, and is a compassionate and also optimistic individual who believes we only fall to learn to pick ourselves up, I'd guess he might have saved ra's. I ask because maybe some view him a bit differently and think he'd let the man go down too.:confused:

I dunno, your right....there's been so many interpretations of the man. Some say he was once portrayed as an verabally abusive, harsh father......and other have portrayed him as a very pacifistic, compassionate, gentle man.

From Batman Begins, I dunno....I don't think we got enough of the pacifist to assume what he would have done.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

How do you know that Bruce's Father is in deed Bruce's father??????If you ask me i think Fox is Bruce's Father cus that dud is smarter than a mofo.

Well, Bruce isn't Black....so............

But having a villain apparently killed survive and come back is an old trick. And I think this is what happened to Ra's.

Oldest trick in the book, indeed. I see him returning eventually.

[The Kid]

In the comic world, they both have no relevance. How many times have we seen the bad guy escape? Its almost the same. If they are incarcerated, they are only there for a short time. If they are claimed to be dead, they are away for a short time, and they come right back. Its the same IMO.

:confused: No way, it's not. We can't assume that. If he's incarcerated, he's locked away assuredly not to cause harm for a long time, maybe forever if he gets life. If he escapes, so be it. Batman will try and get him again. But to let him have a chance to run free after all he's done? That's hardly the same as locking him away in jail.

[The Kid]

Actually Bruce went out of his way to both save Ra's and reason with him.

When the Monastry was blowing up and burning down he picked up Ra's to carry him out and when the explosion thru Ras down the him, Bruce dove down it to save him.

Even at the end when Ra's was in Bruce's mansion, Bruce asked for more time because he felt Gotham could be saved from the corruption.

What is the implication? If Ra's would have agreed, Bruce would have let Ra's go instead of apprending him for crimes against humanity.

Based on the intended death toll on Gotham and the apparent deaths and collateral damage that did take place as a result of Ra's actions, I find it perfectly acceptable that a "Green" Batman leaves him there to save himself from the runaway train.

And it goes against everything he says he believed about seeking justice, being like his father, and saving lives, even of those people like that criminal in the monastary. And it also isn't too smart to allow such a dangerous person a chance to be free. why'd he let Darkman have that chance?

[The Kid]

But, the way I see it.....Ra's sealed his own fate. He's the one that destroyed the controls.....he's the one that was going to destroy Gotham. I don't think Ra's has ever stood trial for his crimes...int the comics, atleast....I don't know if the world actually belives he exists in BB.....and, there was no evidence to link him to the crimes, and he probably has enough paid off judges to get him off (no...not like that....).

Although....this kinda seems like it'd be nice fodder for a Talia-Bruce realationship in a later film.

Batman planned the train crash. Batman's not supposed to decide who deserves saving and who doesn't. Batman believes in justice.


That's the thing......he was in a corner. He had about an army and a half behind him, he had his mentor Ducard (who's line seemed to imply, "Don't do this...and we'll just kill you..) and the leader "Ra's" (the fake).

I think, Bruce had to stop them at all costs, short of killing them. I think he was just trying to get out alive, although it was a short chance of it, at worst he could stop them from destroying Gotham....even if he died.

Although.....it was a terrorist headquarter.....I don't think most people could feel sorry for any who didn't make it out.

Batman believes in justice... "I'm no executioner."

I dunno, your right....there's been so many interpretations of the man. Some say he was once portrayed as an verabally abusive, harsh father......and other have portrayed him as a very pacifistic, compassionate, gentle man.

From Batman Begins, I dunno....I don't think we got enough of the pacifist to assume what he would have done.

I can only say he was a good man, a doctor(seemingly) who probably didn't choose who was worth saving and who wasn't as most I know of don't, did what he could with his money to help a suffering gotham, would have been ashamed of his son for wanting to kill joe chill, didn't try to fight a dirty guy pointing a gun at him, and sacraficed himself for his wife and child. imo

blablabablatexttomakepostlongenough

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I didnt want a mindless actionfest, but out of a 3 hour movie, we see hulk like 3 times? Should have been a little more than that. Ill watch it next week, or this weekend and re think my opinion.

Err you definately need to watch the Hulk again, it is not 3 hours, it is 2hrs and 12minutes long (shorter than BB) and the Hulk appears four times, once for almost 30 mins. I recommend everyone who didnt like it watch the Hulk again, many people liked it a lot better second time around.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

As far as this discussion goes, i dont think Batman had much of a choice in the situation. To save Ra's, he would have had to put himself in a potentially deadly situation, and he obviously hadnt completed his 'mission' yet, so he felt he had to stay alive to continue protecting Gotham.

Also, he left Ra's virtually unharmed so that he had a chance to escape. Its not like he stabbed or wounded him so that he wouldnt have ANY chance of escaping.

[iceberg325]

Err you definately need to watch the Hulk again, it is not 3 hours, it is "hrs and 12minutes long (shorter than BB) and the Hulk appears four times, once for almost 30 mins. I recommend everyone who didnt like it watch the Hulk again, many people liked it a lot better second time around.

Didnt realize it was that short lol. Felt very long lol. I do want to see it again. I was going to buy it but couldnt find it last week. Ill check again this weekend.

Another thing about Ras was, hes the man who trained bruce. Why wouldnt he be able to save himself??

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Didnt realize it was that short lol. Felt very long lol. I do want to see it again. I was going to buy it but couldnt find it last week. Ill check again this weekend.

I think that is just because of the long build up to the first Hulk appearence, it even seemed long to me first time, but the more you watch it, the more you realise that it actually goes quite quick and that a lot of the build up is important to later parts of the movie.

[Beelze]

Another thing about Ras was, hes the man who trained bruce. Why wouldnt he be able to save himself??
Because there were no means to do it? He didn't seem to have any useful equipment on his person or in the train.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Because there were no means to do it? He didn't seem to have any useful equipment on his person.

How do you know this? He pulled a gas mask and a sword out of no were earlier on so what to say he never had a grapple gun or whatever in his coat.

[spawnjack01]

I hate the fact that Batman gets away with that, but everyone *****es about Daredevil letting Quesada die on the railway with a simular line. They both have the same code of honour.

[Beelze]

Batman isn't "getting away with it", as this thread proves.

How do you know this? He pulled a gas mask and a sword out of no were earlier on so what to say he never had a grapple gun or whatever in his coat.
Not the word "seem" in that post of mine that you quoted. Also, Ra's didn't pull a gas mask and a sword out of nowhere (he was always carrying the sword, and the gas mask was probably given to him by one of the LoS members). I don't think he concealed a grapple gun under that suit of his.

Ra's saying, "My fate, however, lies with the rest of Gotham" can be interpreted as him stating his intention to die along with everyone else in Gotham (but that just seems like a dumb move...)

[raybia]

And it goes against everything he says he believed about seeking justice, being like his father, and saving lives, even of those people like that criminal in the monastary. And it also isn't too smart to allow such a dangerous person a chance to be free. why'd he let Darkman have that chance?

Yeah, I heard him say that idealistic b.s. too. He was just blowing smoke up Ducard's butt.

Like I said, Batman is green in this movie. A more seasoned Batman, I'm sure, would taken a different approach. Mistakes early in his career like the ones in BB is what enabled him to become the Dark Knight we all know and love.

You cannot make an omelete unless you break a couple of eggs (actually 3 is ideal.)

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Batman isn't "getting away with it", as this thread proves.


Not the word "seem" in that post of mine that you quoted. Also, Ra's didn't pull a gas mask and a sword out of nowhere (he was always carrying the sword, and the gas mask was probably given to him by one of the LoS members). I don't think he concealed a grapple gun under that suit of his.

Ra's saying, "My fate, however, lies with the rest of Gotham" can be interpreted as him stating his intention to die along with everyone else in Gotham (but that just seems like a dumb move...)

Well, it seems to me that a man like Ra's would have everything about the operation thought out beforehand, including more than one way of escaping. After all, he had been planning this since before Bruce came to him for training.

[Ben Urich]

I hate the fact that Batman gets away with that, but everyone *****es about Daredevil letting Quesada die on the railway with a simular line. They both have the same code of honour.

Daredevil had the means to save Quesada. Batman didn't have the means to save Ra's.

[raybia]

Daredevil had the means to save Quesada. Batman didn't have the means to save Ra's.


I don't think Ra's would have let Bruce save him.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Batman planned the train crash. Batman's not supposed to decide who deserves saving and who doesn't. Batman believes in justice.


He planned to stop the train, destroying the tracks was a backup plan- which luckily saved Gotham.


Batman believes in justice... "I'm no executioner."




And, he's not.

blablabablatexttomakepostlongenough

Fine....I'll post in moderation, and make small posts, equaling in more posts. lol.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I hate the fact that Batman gets away with that, but everyone *****es about Daredevil letting Quesada die on the railway with a simular line. They both have the same code of honour.


Well, for one.....nobody cared.

And, second.....the Director's Cut was better....and overall, the film wasn't as good as it should have been. That might be why.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Daredevil had the means to save Quesada. Batman didn't have the means to save Ra's.

I agree.

I don't see how Batman could have saved Ra's.

[raybia]

He planned to stop the train, destroying the tracks was a backup plan- which luckily saved Gotham.



And, he's not.



Fine....I'll post in moderation, and make small posts, equaling in more posts. lol.

I have no problem with Batman's actions. He's not a cop and he's not Superman. In terms of Justice and vengence, Batman should be ambiguous.

Batman should always be seen as a vigilante first and hero 2nd in my opinion.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, I think he is a hero.

There's this high morality that people assume must be met to be one, for some reason. I don't think saving a terrorist would win any sympathy or anything.

[raybia]

Well, I think he is a hero.

There's this high morality that people assume must be met to be one, for some reason. I don't think saving a terrorist would win any sympathy or anything.


I think he is a hero too. But what I mean is that the general population doesn't know.

In fact when you really think about it the citizens of Gotham only know what the media has told them about Batman, and at this point he is probably viewed as a menace and only Gordon knows the truth on how Batman saved Gotham that night from destruction.

He's not perceived as a hero in Gotham's eyes...yet.

[El Payaso]

As far as this discussion goes, i dont think Batman had much of a choice in the situation. To save Ra's, he would have had to put himself in a potentially deadly situation, and he obviously hadnt completed his 'mission' yet, so he felt he had to stay alive to continue protecting Gotham.

In fact Batman put himself in danger every time he fights crime on the streets and he will never end his mission.

He could have injuried several people and killed himself and Rachel when she was poisoned but he did what he had to do anyway, so the fact he was in danger doesn't excuse him fpr not helping to save a life.

Also, he left Ra's virtually unharmed so that he had a chance to escape. Its not like he stabbed or wounded him so that he wouldnt have ANY chance of escaping.

He left Ra's on the train without not even saying, 'Hey, Ra's, by the way, my friend gordon is going to stoop the train right now, fly away.' No. Batman just went away and left Ra's to die.

Well, it seems to me that a man like Ra's would have everything about the operation thought out beforehand, including more than one way of escaping. After all, he had been planning this since before Bruce came to him for training.

And that's why he wasn't ready for Batman intervention.

I agree.

I don't see how Batman could have saved Ra's.

Yes, that Batman guy is totally useless saving people from extremely dangerous situations. He sucks at it. I cannot see him grabbing Ra's or using bat-rope or anything to save people.

But at least he can state verbally he don't want to save ceretain people before leaving them to die.

There's this high morality that people assume must be met to be one, for some reason. I don't think saving a terrorist would win any sympathy or anything.

And is Batman doing what he does for simpathy? for the people's applause? Is that how he chooses what to do?

[WhiteRat]

[quote=ChrisBaleBatman]One problem there:


There is a difference between killing someone, and not saving them.



No, it's just not the same. Not saving him is not the same as killing him.....negligent homicide would be impossible to say against anyone, anywhere, I think.



Yeah it never ceases to amaze me the lengths the human race goes to in showing their ignorance that they dont know the difference between killing someone and not saving them,that they are two entirely different things.:rolleyes:

[Phaser]

What most people fail to consider in this particular scenario that it was Ra's himself and not Batman who had planted the seeds of his own demise. Remember when Batman tries to stop the train but Ra's jams the controls? Apparently, Ra's had very much become suicidal in his desperation to stop Batman from thwarting his plan. As soon as the monorail would have reached Wayne Tower, the main hub would have blown up and taken the monorail (as well as some of Wayne Tower) along with it.

Then there's also the question of redemption. Bruce saved Ra's at the monastery and it almost cost him his city and millions of lives. One thing that we can be sure of is that Batman had no intention of killing Ra's. Remember when Batman has Ra's pinned down with the two batarangs aimed at his throat - that's when Ra's says to him "Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?", which was essentially a way of provoking Bruce, challenging his ideals, to which Bruce replies "I won't kill you...".

"...but I don't have to save you."

Technically speaking, Batman simply left Ra's to his own fate that Ra's had doomed himself to.

Now the question is this - if a homicidal maniac like say, the Joker, somehow attempts suicide, should or should not Batman intervene? Would that be justifiable in your view? If yes, how?

[spawnjack01]

Daredevil had the means to save Quesada. Batman didn't have the means to save Ra's.

But by saying that he didn't "have to" he implied that it was a concious choice he made not to make an effort. To me that is the same thing as DD did.

[spawnjack01]

If he said "I won't kill you, but this time I can't save you" the scene would work better imo.

[iceberg325]

In fact Batman put himself in danger every time he fights crime on the streets and he will never end his mission.

He could have injuried several people and killed himself and Rachel when she was poisoned but he did what he had to do anyway, so the fact he was in danger doesn't excuse him fpr not helping to save a life.



He left Ra's on the train without not even saying, 'Hey, Ra's, by the way, my friend gordon is going to stoop the train right now, fly away.' No. Batman just went away and left Ra's to die.



And that's why he wasn't ready for Batman intervention.



Yes, that Batman guy is totally useless saving people from extremely dangerous situations. He sucks at it. I cannot see him grabbing Ra's or using bat-rope or anything to save people.

But at least he can state verbally he don't want to save ceretain people before leaving them to die.



And is Batman doing what he does for simpathy? for the people's applause? Is that how he chooses what to do?

Come on!!!! He sucks at it???? Pffft!!!!!! Thats really funny. Like I said think about it, if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him. He did the right thing. He didnt kill Ras!!!! Batman chose to turn his back on a terrorist!!! Big frickin deal!!!!!

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Daredevil had the means to save Quesada. Batman didn't have the means to save Ra's.

This i totally agree with, Daredevil's was a much more evil ploy than Batmans. DD could have easily saved him, Batman on the hand would have had difficulty saving Ra's. But they are both great parts in each movie.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

In fact Batman put himself in danger every time he fights crime on the streets and he will never end his mission. #

Well that was sort of my point, savings Ra's would have put him in considerable danger, were he could have died or got an injury that would prevent him being Batman. I mean, he needed both hands to hold his wings, and his grapple gun was still attached to the bottom of the train (or it seemed that way to me) therefore i think he made a choice about what was more important, saving this one life of an evil (though understandibly) man, or carrying on and rescuing god knows how many people as Batman.

He could have injuried several people and killed himself and Rachel when she was poisoned but he did what he had to do anyway, so the fact he was in danger doesn't excuse him fpr not helping to save a life.

Well, i didnt consider Batman to be in any considerable danger during that scene, i mean the Batmobile is a tank, and the people chasing him had no means of stopping it IMO. Yes he put people in danger, which Alfred rightly lambasted him for, but Rachel is a very important person to him in BB, other than Alfred, she is probably THE most important person to him.

He left Ra's on the train without not even saying, 'Hey, Ra's, by the way, my friend gordon is going to stoop the train right now, fly away.' No. Batman just went away and left Ra's to die.

Well, Ra's saw the track collapse before Batman did, so he knew what was coming. And i dont think Batman did 'leave him to die' in the sense that he didnt care. He left him to save himself which IMO is different. If Ra's was wounded and couldnt walk/move, and Batman still did the same thing, then i would agree with you that he left him to die.


And that's why he wasn't ready for Batman intervention.

Come on, he had enough time to factor Batman into his plans, otherwise he wouldnt have shown up at Wayne manor and tried to kill him, or he wouldnt have had so many 'pawns' with him.

I do understand what your trying to say, but i have a different outlook on it.:)

[iceberg325]

#

Well that was sort of my point, savings Ra's would have put him in considerable danger, were he could have died or got an injury that would prevent him being Batman. I mean, he needed both hands to hold his wings, and his grapple gun was still attached to the bottom of the train (or it seemed that way to me) therefore i think he made a choice about what was more important, saving this one life of an evil (though understandibly) man, or carrying on and rescuing god knows how many people as Batman.



Well, i didnt consider Batman to be in any considerable danger during that scene, i mean the Batmobile is a tank, and the people chasing him had no means of stopping it IMO. Yes he put people in danger, which Alfred rightly lambasted him for, but Rachel is a very important person to him in BB, other than Alfred, she is probably THE most important person to him.



Well, Ra's saw the track collapse before Batman did, so he knew what was coming. And i dont think Batman did 'leave him to die' in the sense that he didnt care. He left him to save himself which IMO is different. If Ra's was wounded and couldnt walk/move, and Batman still did the same thing, then i would agree with you that he left him to die.




Come on, he had enough time to factor Batman into his plans, otherwise he wouldnt have shown up at Wayne manor and tried to kill him, or he wouldnt have had so many 'pawns' with him.

I do understand what your trying to say, but i have a different outlook on it.:)

Yes rachel is probably the most important after Alfred. We have to remember that Bruce lost his parents. He'll do anything for rachel because she is closest to family that he has. I think hed do almost anything for alfred if alfred were in danger.

Of course Alfred lambast him for it lol. Bruce is new at this whole superhero thing. Of course he put people in danger, but hes still a "noob" at this point. It just shows his love for rachel. Its his flaw as a hero but he his human capable of making mistakes just as everyone is.

[The Kid]

He planned to stop the train, destroying the tracks was a backup plan- which luckily saved Gotham.



And, he's not.



Fine....I'll post in moderation, and make small posts, equaling in more posts. lol.

Chris, Can you drive stick? :O Lol. Anyway, the main plan was to stop them from loading the train, but the backup was to blow away the tracks to screw up ra's too, yes. What I think I was saying was that batman's the reason ra's will need saving in the first place, so if ra's dies in the falling train, it's on him.

If I recall correctly, you said something about it being beneficial for batman to blow up a bunch of ra's gang so they can't go attack gotham later. I said something about that not being batman's way since he's not an executioner etc.

And The blablabla text was just thrown in there since this thing won't allow us to post only quotes.

[The Kid]

Well, I think he is a hero.

There's this high morality that people assume must be met to be one, for some reason. I don't think saving a terrorist would win any sympathy or anything.

Letting a bad guy go down in a ship he sank isn't what I believe batman should always do. That's the Punisher's style and Batman's no executioner, thats what makes him better than the punisher to me. He still believes in justice.

[raybia]

Letting a bad guy go down in a ship he sank isn't what I believe batman should always do. That's the Punisher's style and Batman's no executioner, thats what makes him better than the punisher to me. He still believes in justice.

Yeah, but give Batman a break. He's a rookie at this point.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I dont believe Batman did that though, if he had wounded Ra's, or knocked him out, and THEN left him on the train, then yes i would say he did let him die. But Ra's was still very able bodied, and therefore DID have chance to escape.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yeah, but give Batman a break. He's a rookie at this point.

And that as well:)

[El Payaso]

Come on!!!! He sucks at it???? Pffft!!!!!! Thats really funny.

The funny part is that you didn't get the obvious sarcasm.

Like I said think about it, if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him. He did the right thing. He didnt kill Ras!!!! Batman chose to turn his back on a terrorist!!! Big frickin deal!!!!!

Change the name for any other villiain and you have the same thing.

As a result, in your words, Batman should kill every villiain - no previous trial - in order to prevent their future crimes and keep Gotham safe and free of danger. Which is the way terrorism works. So Batman should be a little more terrorist in order to fight terrorism.

How about the criminal in the monastery. Under your Pov, Bruce should have been less selfish, think about the next people who were going to be robbed by him, and cut his head off. Turning his back on a thief. Big freaking deal. Or is a theif's life worthier than a terrorist's one?

And please, since long time no one's saying Batman killed Ra's - IF someone told that even once. Just let him die when he could safe him.

Well that was sort of my point, savings Ra's would have put him in considerable danger, were he could have died or got an injury that would prevent him being Batman. I mean, he needed both hands to hold his wings, and his grapple gun was still attached to the bottom of the train (or it seemed that way to me) therefore i think he made a choice about what was more important, saving this one life of an evil (though understandibly) man, or carrying on and rescuing god knows how many people as Batman.

But for that matter any night he goes out, batman is taking the risk of being injuried in such way he couldn't be Batman anymore. This particular case is no different. Except for the fact that he left a man die.

If Batman was in such position that he couldn't save him because he ahd other people to sdave, I think he would have said something very different to Ra's, 'I'm sorry, Ra's, this is the fate you built to yourself' or something. But he stated that "he doesn't have to save him", like in 'I could, but I choose not to.'

Well, i didnt consider Batman to be in any considerable danger during that scene, i mean the Batmobile is a tank, and the people chasing him had no means of stopping it IMO. Yes he put people in danger, which Alfred rightly lambasted him for, but Rachel is a very important person to him in BB, other than Alfred, she is probably THE most important person to him.

Batman oput many other people's lives in danger to save Rachel. He ran the Tumbler over police patrols, etc etc, destroyed buildings, roads, etc.

It seems when it's about Rachel he does whatever it is necessary to safe a life and doesn't care how many other lives are in risk in order to safe that single life.

As you say it is one of the most importants persons for him.

The only possible conclusion is that Batman is not that 'universal symbol of Justice' Bruce is trying to make, but a guy that it seems saves just the people he wants to save. And for selfish reasons, 'who the hell cares for those cops and people when Rachel - the woman I love - life is on the line.'

Well, Ra's saw the track collapse before Batman did, so he knew what was coming. And i dont think Batman did 'leave him to die' in the sense that he didnt care. He left him to save himself which IMO is different. If Ra's was wounded and couldnt walk/move, and Batman still did the same thing, then i would agree with you that he left him to die.

How could Ra's know about the track collapse before Batman when Batman planned it with Gordon long time before? Even before they start fighting, Batman knew that was going to happen.

Batman left Ra's to save himself? How? He knows if you haven't a gliding cape, there's no possibility of survivance there. So it's the same thing. You are in a high train that is crumbling down, come on, you don't have to be crippled to be totally unable to escape from there.

Come on, he had enough time to factor Batman into his plans, otherwise he wouldnt have shown up at Wayne manor and tried to kill him, or he wouldnt have had so many 'pawns' with him.

After all, he had been planning this since before Bruce came to him for training.

I was just going after your words.

[iceberg325]

What Im trying to get at is when he saw Rachel in trouble, he was no longer Batman. He became Bruce!!!! His feelings kicked in. Hes human!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a natural reaction to help someone you love.

I didnt say he has to knock off every villian. I dont know where you get that conclusion. He didnt even kill Ras. So thats irrelevant.

Yeah sorry I missed the sarcasm.

[El Payaso]

What Im trying to get at is when he saw Rachel in trouble, he was no longer Batman. He became Bruce!!!! His feelings kicked in. Hes human!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a natural reaction to help someone you love.

1.- He was Batman saving Rachel. Suit, mask, in the night, he was in his Batman activities. In fact, he becoming Bruce at that time it's a mere supposition of yours.
2.- Batman is human.
3.- Batman was born to go beyond fear and natural reactions or there is no point in Batman to exist. It would be better to be a good cop.

I didnt say he has to knock off every villian. I dont know where you get that conclusion. He didnt even kill Ras. So thats irrelevant.

I got it from here:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.

Let's talk about Joker:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Joker just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.



Or Penguin:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Penguin just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.


It is the same deal for every evil character if you state that saving a villiain is selfish and wrong because you put the city in danger.

[Everyman]

El Payaso, you always implied that Batman killed, or tried to kill, Ra's, in this particular scene, which is NOT the case. He didn't even left him helpless in the train, Ducard could have left the train. There is no indication that he is dead either.

[raybia]

Much Ado About Nothing.

Superman Killed Zod In Superman Ii And No One Is Complaining About That.

[iceberg325]

1.- He was Batman saving Rachel. Suit, mask, in the night, he was in his Batman activities. In fact, he becoming Bruce at that time it's a mere supposition of yours.
2.- Batman is human.
3.- Batman was born to go beyond fear and natural reactions or there is no point in Batman to exist. It would be better to be a good cop.



I got it from here:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.

Let's talk about Joker:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Joker just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.



Or Penguin:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Penguin just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.


It is the same deal for every evil character if you state that saving a villiain is selfish and wrong because you put the city in danger.

Yes he had on a suit and a cape, nipples (joking) and a belt. What does that mean. Who is he under neath. This is a scene where we see bruce coming out over the batman persona. Hes new to the whole superhero thing. It shows in many cases in the movie. The rachel/tumbler chase scene for example. Its really obvious. Ok for example, if you were a superhero, and god forbid one of your family members were trouble, you wouldnt do anything to save that family member? You wouldnt rush into action and throw caution to the wind to help the ones you love? Im sorry but if you wouldnt, I feel sorry for you lol. Thats what he did.

What does putting every villians name into my context do?

[Everyman]

Much Ado About Nothing.

Superman Killed Zod In Superman Ii And No One Is Complaining About That.

Actually, I think some people did. In SUperman's case, it wasdownright execution, because since Zod was indeed permanently powerless, he was not dangerous anymore.

Hey, I know it's off topic, but I am thinking: had Superman got Zod and co. in jail instead of killing them, that would have made a nice sequel. Zod could have escaped and tried to get his powers back. Maybe he could have fought Superman and tried to go back to the Fortress of Solitude with Krypton technology...

[Phaser]

Anyway, the main plan was to stop them from loading the train, but the backup was to blow away the tracks to screw up ra's too, yes.

The backup plan was meant to be used as a contingency fallback option in case all attempts to prevent the monorail from reaching Wayne Tower failed.

The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading thae train, which of course, failed.

The secondary plan was to stop the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That too got ****ed up when Ra's jammed the controls.

Which was exactly when the backup plan came into effect.

So considering all of the above, if either the main or the secondary plan worked out, then blowing up the tracks would have been an inconsequential element since the train never would have gone that far to begin with. What I'm meaning to ask you is...since Batman never intended to outright kill Ra's in the first place, how and why the hell did he decide to change his mind to "screw up" Ra's halfway through after his first two plans failed?

Oh and...why do the peanut-brains on this forum ALWAYS overlook he fact that Ra's was on a suicide mission when he jammed the controls and planned to ride the monorail full speed into Wayne Tower? I know it's a bit...unusual to get annoyed by something so trivial, but when pages upon pages of discussions continue over something that's clearly explained in the film and not even a real issue to begin with, it starts to get quite bothersome.

[raybia]

The backup plan was meant to be used as a contingency fallback option in case all attempts to prevent the monorail from reaching Wayne Tower failed.

The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading thae train, which of course, failed.

The secondary plan was to stop the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That too got ****ed up when Ra's jammed the controls.

Which was exactly when the backup plan came into effect.

So considering all of the above, if either the main or the secondary plan worked out, then blowing up the tracks would have been an inconsequential element since the train never would have gone that far to begin with. What I'm meaning to ask you is...since Batman never intended to outright kill Ra's in the first place, how and why the hell did he decide to change his mind to "screw up" Ra's halfway through after his first two plans failed?

Oh and...why do the peanut-brains on this forum ALWAYS overlook he fact that Ra's was on a suicide mission when he jammed the controls and planned to ride the monorail full speed into Wayne Tower? I know it's a bit...unusual to get annoyed by something so trivial, but when pages upon pages of discussions continue over something that's clearly explained in the film and not even a real issue to begin with, it starts to get quite bothersome.


End of discussion. Thanks Phaser.


Mods close thread.

[Phaser]

How about the criminal in the monastery. Under your Pov, Bruce should have been less selfish, think about the next people who were going to be robbed by him, and cut his head off. Turning his back on a thief. Big freaking deal. Or is a theif's life worthier than a terrorist's one?

Bruce did not mean to kill all those ninjas. Out of desperation, he took the only option he had of creating an explosive distraction that could have hopefully given both the prisoner as well as himself (and anyone else who wished to live) a chance to escape. Again, blaming Bruce for any possible deaths of the ninjas in the monastery is absurd. All of them had ample time to escape and save their lives, and many did. Not to mention Bruce was in a significantly more riskier position than everyone else.

And please, since long time no one's saying Batman killed Ra's - IF someone told that even once. Just let him die when he could safe him.

Question is, should Batman have saved Ra's, especially considering that it was Ra's who had doomed himself to a suicide mission in a desperate attempt to stop Batman from foiling his plan, not to mention the fact that is it really appropriate for Batman to save the man again realizing what it had already cost him for doing so?

The problem here is that a couple of you are being increasingly juvenile for judging such a morally complex action in simpleton black and white terms.

Batman oput many other people's lives in danger to save Rachel. He ran the Tumbler over police patrols, etc etc, destroyed buildings, roads, etc.

It seems when it's about Rachel he does whatever it is necessary to safe a life and doesn't care how many other lives are in risk in order to safe that single life.

As you say it is one of the most importants persons for him.

The only possible conclusion is that Batman is not that 'universal symbol of Justice' Bruce is trying to make, but a guy that it seems saves just the people he wants to save. And for selfish reasons, 'who the hell cares for those cops and people when Rachel - the woman I love - life is on the line.'

Again, being prematurely judgemental. What you're ignoring here is that you have a hero who's just starting out and very much susceptible to recklessness and mistakes, with his first major run-in with the cops and his childhood friend taking her possibly her last breaths on the seat of his car unless he does something about it. Fact of the matter is that even though the cowl and the cape is symbol of fear, the man inside still has human emotions and those very emotions incited Bruce to make the questionable decision of irresponsibly blowing through the city to get to the cave in the available time at all costs. He took a dangerous chance - either play rough with the police exposing tailing patrol officers to possible serious-injury or even death...OR...doom his childhood friend to a certain death.

Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would you risk? Possibility or certainty?

[Phaser]

3.- Batman was born to go beyond fear and natural reactions or there is no point in Batman to exist. It would be better to be a good cop.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Batman was created to go beyond the limits imposed by conventional law and order. To terrify criminals and hunt them down in places where the police and other enforcement agencies can't touch them. To become a dark knight of fear and justice not bound in the chains of rules in books written down by men. To be infallible, immortal, untouchable - an urban legend that knows no pity nor remorse.

Batman is an idea.

But technically, Batman doesn't exist. It is just a manifestation of that idea by Bruce Wayne. Like I said in my last post, the cowl and the cape, being symbols, are invincible...but not the man underneath. Like any human being, extreme situations can break even the strongest of heroes and lead them into acting emotionally instead of rationally.

This was shown in Loeb's Hush series where Batman almost killed the Joker in rage when he had supposedly "shot" Thomas Elliot. With the shocking "death" of his close friend, Bruce once again had to deal with his greatest fear of losing the ones dearest to him and that fear took over his sense of justice. And if Gordon hadn't knocked some sense into him, then the Joker would have breathed his last.

There's also a similiar occassion in Azarello's Broken City, where Bruce contemplates or dreams on what he should have, could have or would have done on the fateful night of his parents' death. One was where he hoped for a "third" shot for himself so that he could be together with his parents forever. As for the other, here's how it goes -

"...or before the 'bang bang' I act. I know exactly the right bundle of nerves I need to squeeze to make him drop the gun...which he does, but I keep squeezing, more pressure, more pressure...waiting for the nauseating pop...when it comes, I know he'll never be able to hold a gun ever again...and I'll be held by arms that I've never been held by since."

I simply love the irony of comicbook fanboys screaming bloody murder over the dumbing down of their favorite characters that strip them of their intriguing complexity, yet when a filmmaker captures something as deep and meaningful as the emotional outbursts that expose the human frailties of a hero on celluloid, they dismissively cry of it being "out-of-character" and whatnot. Wonderful world we live in, eh?

[JLBats]

Wrong. Dead wrong. Batman was created to go beyond the limits imposed by conventional law and order. To terrify criminals and hunt them down in places where the police and other enforcement agencies can't touch them. To become a dark knight of fear and justice not bound in the chains of rules in books written down by men. To be infallible, immortal, untouchable - an urban legend that knows no pity nor remorse.

Batman is an idea.

But technically, Batman doesn't exist. It is just a manifestation of that idea by Bruce Wayne. Like I said in my last post, the cowl and the cape, being symbols, are invincible...but not the man underneath. Like any human being, extreme situations can break even the strongest of heroes and lead them into acting emotionally instead of rationally.

This was shown in Loeb's Hush series where Batman almost killed the Joker in rage when he had supposedly "shot" Thomas Elliot. With the shocking "death" of his close friend, Bruce once again had to deal with his greatest fear of losing the ones dearest to him and that fear took over his sense of justice. And if Gordon hadn't knocked some sense into him, then the Joker would have breathed his last.

There's also a similiar occassion in Azarello's Broken City, where Bruce contemplates or dreams on what he should have, could have or would have done on the fateful night of his parents' death. One was where he hoped for a "third" shot for himself so that he could be together with his parents forever. As for the other, here's how it goes -

"...or before the 'bang bang' I act. I know exactly the right bundle of nerves I need to squeeze to make him drop the gun...which he does, but I keep squeezing, more pressure, more pressure...waiting for the nauseating pop...when it comes, I know he'll never be able to hold a gun ever again...and I'll be held by arms that I've never been held by since."

I simply love the irony of comicbook fanboys screaming bloody murder over the dumbing down of their favorite characters that strip them of their intriguing complexity, yet when a filmmaker captures something as deep and meaningful as the emotional outbursts that expose the human frailties of a hero on celluloid, they dismissively cry of it being "out-of-character" and whatnot. Wonderful world we live in, eh?

God, for that last paragraph, if nothing else, I love you.

[iceberg325]

Bruce did not mean to kill all those ninjas. Out of desperation, he took the only option he had of creating an explosive distraction that could have hopefully given both the prisoner as well as himself (and anyone else who wished to live) a chance to escape. Again, blaming Bruce for any possible deaths of the ninjas in the monastery is absurd. All of them had ample time to escape and save their lives, and many did. Not to mention Bruce was in a significantly more riskier position than everyone else.



Question is, should Batman have saved Ra's, especially considering that it was Ra's who had doomed himself to a suicide mission in a desperate attempt to stop Batman from foiling his plan, not to mention the fact that is it really appropriate for Batman to save the man again realizing what it had already cost him for doing so?

The problem here is that a couple of you are being increasingly juvenile for judging such a morally complex action in simpleton black and white terms.



Again, being prematurely judgemental. What you're ignoring here is that you have a hero who's just starting out and very much susceptible to recklessness and mistakes, with his first major run-in with the cops and his childhood friend taking her possibly her last breaths on the seat of his car unless he does something about it. Fact of the matter is that even though the cowl and the cape is symbol of fear, the man inside still has human emotions and those very emotions incited Bruce to make the questionable decision of irresponsibly blowing through the city to get to the cave in the available time at all costs. He took a dangerous chance - either play rough with the police exposing tailing patrol officers to possible serious-injury or even death...OR...doom his childhood friend to a certain death.

Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would you risk? Possibility or certainty?

Exaclty what I was saying, but you said it using bigger words lol

[The Kid]

Intimidating isnt it. Oh noooooooooooooooo everybody run!

[iceberg325]

Intimidating isnt it. Oh noooooooooooooooo everybody run!

lol

[The Kid]

The backup plan was meant to be used as a contingency fallback option in case all attempts to prevent the monorail from reaching Wayne Tower failed.

The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading thae train, which of course, failed.

The secondary plan was to stop the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That too got ****ed up when Ra's jammed the controls.

Which was exactly when the backup plan came into effect.

So considering all of the above, if either the main or the secondary plan worked out, then blowing up the tracks would have been an inconsequential element since the train never would have gone that far to begin with. What I'm meaning to ask you is...since Batman never intended to outright kill Ra's in the first place, how and why the hell did he decide to change his mind to "screw up" Ra's halfway through after his first two plans failed?

Oh and...why do the peanut-brains on this forum ALWAYS overlook he fact that Ra's was on a suicide mission when he jammed the controls and planned to ride the monorail full speed into Wayne Tower? I know it's a bit...unusual to get annoyed by something so trivial, but when pages upon pages of discussions continue over something that's clearly explained in the film and not even a real issue to begin with, it starts to get quite bothersome.

chill, deep breath, babe, it's only movie discussion, and people have different points of view... no bones are broken.

I want to know now how you come to the conclusion that the train would have exploded KABOOM blam!! if ra's finally came to his destination. It seems like an assumption to me.

there were only two plans. 1. stop them from loading the train. 2. Blow up the tracks. that next plan you wrote of seemed more like a whim than something actually planned. Judging by how things went, batman didn't need to jump into the train at all but did so for whatever reason. His actions ultimately had no impact on the result of the train tracks destruction. It was checkmate for ra's long before batman arrived or the jamming of the controls.

I think the fact remains that batman's responsible for the track's destruction and therefore did considered the possibility that he might not stop the loading of the train. Which tells me that yeah, he's very much did mean to outright kill ra's if it came to that. that wasnt my point though. My point to chris was that batman's the reason ra's needed saving. But as an openminded individual, I'll view the movie again to see if indeed what you say is true about the train crashing into wayne tower anyway. To me it seemed like it'd have passed right through. As a son of a transit worker, I'm not convinced that the train would have derailed or anything of that sort for quite a while as long as it has a means of passing through wayne tower.

Now call me names and make me feel like my penis fell off. Do it! come on! Lets get nuts!

salted nuts

[The Kid]

lol

WRONG!!!!

It's HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

:o

[El Payaso]

Bruce did not mean to kill all those ninjas. Out of desperation, he took the only option he had of creating an explosive distraction that could have hopefully given both the prisoner as well as himself (and anyone else who wished to live) a chance to escape. Again, blaming Bruce for any possible deaths of the ninjas in the monastery is absurd. All of them had ample time to escape and save their lives, and many did. Not to mention Bruce was in a significantly more riskier position than everyone else.

Yes, blaming Bruce for those deaths is absurd. As much as replying me about the ninja's death when I haven't said Bruce had anything to do with that. So you're basically replying to nothing. At leaast nothing I said on the quoted paragraph.

I replied to someone who stated : "if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him. (...) Batman chose to turn his back on a terrorist!!! Big frickin deal!!!!!. So I said that from THAT POV - Bruce must think of future damage first than the villiain's life - he should kill every villiain that could mean any future danger for community.

You see if you reply to what people actually say, this will be less complex.

Question is, should Batman have saved Ra's, especially considering that it was Ra's who had doomed himself to a suicide mission in a desperate attempt to stop Batman from foiling his plan, not to mention the fact that is it really appropriate for Batman to save the man again realizing what it had already cost him for doing so?

The question is, Did Ra's know about the train being blasted by Gordon aka Plan B? Because if he didn't know about it it was a risky move but not suicidal 100%.

The problem here is that a couple of you are being increasingly juvenile for judging such a morally complex action in simpleton black and white terms.

The problem is what the movie stated as being the Batman character and then it seems that Batman itself went out of characyter - which could be fine - but there's no sign in the movie that it is part of the total vision of Batman exposed in this specific movie.

Batman let Ra's die and - I repeat myself for the 5th time - there's no sign in the movie that Batman gave that a second thought, a reflection after doing that. The movie states for 2 hours that Batman preserves human life and then he let someone die. After that, there's no sign of a thought about the issue. Which can be read as a, 'that action by Batman was totally ok under our vision.'

I wish it was the way you say.

Again, being prematurely judgemental. What you're ignoring here is that you have a hero who's just starting out and very much susceptible to recklessness and mistakes, with his first major run-in with the cops and his childhood friend taking her possibly her last breaths on the seat of his car unless he does something about it. Fact of the matter is that even though the cowl and the cape is symbol of fear, the man inside still has human emotions and those very emotions incited Bruce to make the questionable decision of irresponsibly blowing through the city to get to the cave in the available time at all costs. He took a dangerous chance - either play rough with the police exposing tailing patrol officers to possible serious-injury or even death...OR...doom his childhood friend to a certain death.

Yes and at least Nolan showed us Alfred talking firmly about it to Bruce, reproaching him for that. Then Bruce tells him (and us) that he HAD to do it. That way we can see Bruce was against the wall in this. He shouldn't have, he did, but he CARES about what he did, because it wasn't right.
Where is that moment for what he did to Ra's?

Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would you risk? Possibility or certainty?

What do we care about what I would have done since I'm not Batman?
Me? I take the girl and quit defending people I know.
Me? I put terrorists inside a container and throw it inside a volcano.

I simply love the irony of comicbook fanboys screaming bloody murder over the dumbing down of their favorite characters that strip them of their intriguing complexity, yet when a filmmaker captures something as deep and meaningful as the emotional outbursts that expose the human frailties of a hero on celluloid, they dismissively cry of it being "out-of-character" and whatnot. Wonderful world we live in, eh?

If that filmmaker tells us it is on purpose then it's ok. If he doesn't we have the right to doubt, think and debate about it. Nolan exposing the human frailties of a hero is what it should have been. Nolan showing Batman letting Ra's die with a witty line before he did it and then not a word about it is doubtfully what you say.

Otherwise I can go back to the Burton movies and claim Batman didn't kill that clown in Returns. It was the complexities of the character.

The debate still goes on.

[El Payaso]

I think the fact remains that batman's responsible for the track's destruction and therefore did considered the possibility that he might not stop the loading of the train.

Not only that. The Plan B for Batman meant that not only he was aware of this, but that - therefore - he HAD to have a plan for escaping the train himself in time. And therefore again, since he knew Ra's was on the train, he should have considered the certain possibility that - if he succeeded - Ra's was going to be in deep troubles. It was up to Batman to consider either to A) save him (if Plan B succeeded) or B) leaving him to his fate; will he die, will he survive, who knows, who cares.

Even so, if Batman would have considered the possibility of Ra's surviving, he would have been worried about finding his body (if Ra's survives then Gotham City is still in danger). None of this we see.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Batman considered the possibilty that Gotham could be destroyed if he failed to stop the train. I think that was the end of what he had planned.

[Phaser]

chill, deep breath, babe, it's only movie discussion, and people have different points of view... no bones are broken.

I simply said that pointless discussion over something that's already addressed in the film itself is...annoying. Never proposed to have you people castrated and your corpses paraded through the streets,so keep those useless "calm down"s to yourself.

I want to know now how you come to the conclusion that the train would have exploded KABOOM blam!! if ra's finally came to his destination. It seems like an assumption to me. But as an openminded individual, I'll view the movie again to see if indeed what you say is true about the train crashing into wayne tower anyway. To me it seemed like it'd have passed right through. As a son of a transit worker, I'm not convinced that the train would have derailed or anything of that sort for quite a while as long as it has a means of passing through wayne tower.

No it isn't. It's clearly explained in the film that Wayne Tower was sitting right on top of the main hub and the microwave emitter would trigger the blowing up of the main hub which would consequently prove fatally catastrophic. It's exactly why the head engineer had everyone evacuate the building. Now consider this - if the main hub blowing up is such a disastrous outcome to Wayne Tower itself, what would you think would happen to the monorail when it's at the building at that very moment?

there were only two plans. 1. stop them from loading the train. 2. Blow up the tracks. that next plan you wrote of seemed more like a whim than something actually planned. Judging by how things went, batman didn't need to jump into the train at all but did so for whatever reason. His actions ultimately had no impact on the result of the train tracks destruction. It was checkmate for ra's long before batman arrived or the jamming of the controls. I think the fact remains that batman's responsible for the track's destruction and therefore did considered the possibility that he might not stop the loading of the train. Which tells me that yeah, he's very much did mean to outright kill ra's if it came to that. that wasnt my point though.

You're totally clueless, aren't you? The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading the microwave emitter on the train. What point is there for Batman to have Gordon blow up the tracks if Batman succeeds and the train never even reaches that point to begin with? Think.

If you're still having trouble, let me lay it out for you as regards to what exactly happened:

Batman had Gordon destroy the tracks in case he fails Ra's from loading the train or stopping the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That's exactly why he jumps on the train - heck, you even see him go for the controls...to STOP THE TRAIN and that's when Ra's butts in and jams them. Gordon destroying the tracks was Batman's contingency plan, his ace in the hole, his trump card that was guarenteed to succeed.

"But why would Batman bother with all the trouble of preventing Ra's from loading the microwave emitter and fighting him on the monorail and all that if he had already everything figured out", you ask? Well the answer is obvious - Batman's contingency plan was the most destructive option, which is why he used it as a backup plan and not the main strategy. Batman tries his level best to stop Ra's with the least amount of human and property damage as possible. If he had succeeded in preventing his former mentor from loading the train, the immediate threat to the city would have been neutralized then and there - no casualties, no damage.

[Phaser]

The question is, Did Ra's know about the train being blasted by Gordon aka Plan B? Because if he didn't know about it it was a risky move but not suicidal 100%.

It was a 100% suicidal move on part of Ra's because he would be riding the train full speed into Wayne Tower as a result of which, the main hub blowing up will be lethally devastating to both Wayne Tower and the monorail, since they were both sitting on top of it. Why else do you think the order to evacuate the entire building was given?

The problem is what the movie stated as being the Batman character and then it seems that Batman itself went out of characyter - which could be fine - but there's no sign in the movie that it is part of the total vision of Batman exposed in this specific movie.

...take a look at that paragraph you wrote once again and see if you can try and make any sense of it. As for me, all I see confused jabber.

Batman let Ra's die and - I repeat myself for the 5th time - there's no sign in the movie that Batman gave that a second thought, a reflection after doing that. The movie states for 2 hours that Batman preserves human life and then he let someone die. After that, there's no sign of a thought about the issue. Which can be read as a, 'that action by Batman was totally ok under our vision.'

I wish it was the way you say.

Again, such juvenile remarks. Sure, one can easily be all judgemental and say "yeah he let someone die", but refuse to take into context that "someone" is a twisted fanatic on a suicide mission, ready to slaughter millions to impose his own brand of justice upon the world and that it was to save the life of that very madman that Bruce risked his own for earlier. Take all that account and the justification for Batman saving Ra's in the end becomes that much harder.

Yes and at least Nolan showed us Alfred talking firmly about it to Bruce, reproaching him for that. Then Bruce tells him (and us) that he HAD to do it. That way we can see Bruce was against the wall in this. He shouldn't have, he did, but he CARES about what he did, because it wasn't right.
Where is that moment for what he did to Ra's?

Apparently you're naive enough to expect the same treatment to be given to risking the lives of police officers doing their job and risking the life of an idealistic extremist. Bruce didn't need to "ponder over" his decision to leave Ra's in that doomed train. If Ra's hadn't jammed the controls in desperation, he could have stopped the monorail and saved his life. Essentially, Ra's pretty much screwed himself there, and seeing as that Bruce had saved his life once already, I see no strong moral obligation for him to do the same again.

What do we care about what I would have done since I'm not Batman?
Me? I take the girl and quit defending people I know.
Me? I put terrorists inside a container and throw it inside a volcano.

If you lack even the most basic competence of drafting a direct, appropriate and relevant response to the question I posed, then please...shut up. Smart-ass remarks like that will get you nowhere and will only serve to disrupt the flow of this discussion.

If that filmmaker tells us it is on purpose then it's ok. If he doesn't we have the right to doubt, think and debate about it. Nolan exposing the human frailties of a hero is what it should have been. Nolan showing Batman letting Ra's die with a witty line before he did it and then not a word about it is doubtfully what you say.

Only half-wits would take Batman's last words to Ra's as just a simple "witty line". It very much implies Bruce witnessing the grave consequences of his decision to save Ra's back at the monastery and the phrase "...but I don't have to save you" effectively means "I already saved your life once, hence I am in no obligation to do it again especially seeing what it has brought upon me and my city...which is why I won't be making the same mistake again for you have doomed yourself to this fate and I don't need to save you from it."

A very similiar and interesting parallel was also seen in Saving Private Ryan, where Opham fights for the German's life to be spared and convinces Captain Miller to let him go. But in the end, we see Opham witnessing the very same German knocking out Miller with a direct hit on the chest (or perhaps the heart, either way, it was on a critical point of the body which ultimately kills him). Of course, when the battle is over and Opham rounds up the enemy combatants, the very same German tries to be friendly with Opham again, only this time Opham gives him a bullet instead of sympathy.

In very loose and circumstantial terms, pretty much the same situation in BB as well.

Otherwise I can go back to the Burton movies and claim Batman didn't kill that clown in Returns. It was the complexities of the character.

There is no way you can possibly justify it with a simple "complexities of the character" blurb considering you'll never be able to elaborate on it with a valid argument, thereby leaving you practically crippled with no leg to stand on

The debate still goes on.

Not for one who has the humble intellectual capacity required to fully comprehend what was shown in the film.

[El Payaso]

It was a 100% suicidal move on part of Ra's because he would be riding the train full speed into Wayne Tower as a result of which, the main hub blowing up will be lethally devastating to both Wayne Tower and the monorail, since they were both sitting on top of it. Why else do you think the order to evacuate the entire building was given?

So he was to commit suicide.

For the seventh time: Is being a suicide reason enough for Batman not to save you?

A villiain throws gasoline on himself and he's about to set himself afire... so Batman shouldn't stop him because he was killing himself on purpose being a dangerous villiain?

...take a look at that paragraph you wrote once again and see if you can try and make any sense of it. As for me, all I see confused jabber.

B Begins states what is being Batman. After that the same movie shows us Batman going out of character (by letting someone die, what he's not supposed to do). But then, there's no sign in the movie that this event (Batman letting someone die) is somehow part of the character. No sign of remosrse or reflection about it.

Even Daredevil had a reflection about the 'hero' and the way he shpuldn't kill the criminals as a way for crimefighting.

Again, such juvenile remarks. Sure, one can easily be all judgemental and say "yeah he let someone die", but refuse to take into context that "someone" is a twisted fanatic on a suicide mission, ready to slaughter millions to impose his own brand of justice upon the world and that it was to save the life of that very madman that Bruce risked his own for earlier. Take all that account and the justification for Batman saving Ra's in the end becomes that much harder.

Ok, Batman let a terrorist die. A person who wanted to kill millions.

"A terrorist, a person who wanted to kill millions" describes Ra's and most of Batman main villaiins (Joker, Penguin, etc etc) so the conclusion for you would be he should let all those villiains to die if he could since it's not easily justistifiable.

Apparently you're naive enough to expect the same treatment to be given to risking the lives of police officers doing their job and risking the life of an idealistic extremist. Bruce didn't need to "ponder over" his decision to leave Ra's in that doomed train. If Ra's hadn't jammed the controls in desperation, he could have stopped the monorail and saved his life. Essentially, Ra's pretty much screwed himself there, and seeing as that Bruce had saved his life once already, I see no strong moral obligation for him to do the same again.

His only moral obligation to save him was the one he imposed to himself at the moment of being Batman.

If you lack even the most basic competence of drafting a direct, appropriate and relevant response to the question I posed, then please...shut up. Smart-ass remarks like that will get you nowhere and will only serve to disrupt the flow of this discussion.

Is this another of your replying-to-nothing-with-a-big-fuzz reaction?

You ask me what would have I done as Batman? I am not Batman so what's the point? I'm just pointing out the incoherence inside the movie. I'm not even saying I agree with saving a terrorist.

In fact I prefer the Burton killing Batman. So there.

Only half-wits would take Batman's last words to Ra's as just a simple "witty line". It very much implies Bruce witnessing the grave consequences of his decision to save Ra's back at the monastery and the phrase "...but I don't have to save you" effectively means "I already saved your life once, hence I am in no obligation to do it again especially seeing what it has brought upon me and my city...which is why I won't be making the same mistake again for you have doomed yourself to this fate and I don't need to save you from it."


Oh, again the name calling. Your only true success.

So your personal translation of Batman words should work as an absolute for us?

Nolan should have make that clear so we wouldn't need you.

A very similiar and interesting parallel was also seen in Saving Private Ryan, where Opham fights for the German's life to be spared and convinces Captain Miller to let him go. But in the end, we see Opham witnessing the very same German knocking out Miller with a direct hit on the chest (or perhaps the heart, either way, it was on a critical point of the body which ultimately kills him). Of course, when the battle is over and Opham rounds up the enemy combatants, the very same German tries to be friendly with Opham again, only this time Opham gives him a bullet instead of sympathy.


Cool movie.

So?

Did Opham have a mission about fighting crime and not taking lives as Batman did?

In very loose and circumstantial terms, pretty much the same situation in BB as well.

Very loose, yes.

There is no way you can possibly justify it with a simple "complexities of the character" blurb considering you'll never be able to elaborate on it with a valid argument, thereby leaving you practically crippled with no leg to stand on

Of course there's no justification over the 'complexities of the character' here. I couldn't give it the same as you couldn't. That's the point.

Not for one who has the humble intellectual capacity required to fully comprehend what was shown in the film.

Yes. Stick to the insult lines. Your best goal so far.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I've got a lot of reading to do...

[ChrisBaleBatman]

My input on this is that, ammounted with the point Phaser gave about already saving him once, I just think it's another sign of the times. Ra's isn't just a madman. He's a terrorist mastermind (that word fits here I think), and the global view on them is not sympathy. I feel this is art imitating life, yet again, with the movie fitting the times we live in.

[El Payaso]

He's a terrorist mastermind (that word fits here I think), and the global view on them is not sympathy.

We know.

The issue here is Batman view not global or personal.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

But, my point is, that the global view of our current times does have an affect on how these characters are portrayed.

Superman is said to be portrayed as a savior who returns to a post 9/11 world, a world who has been victimized by evil....and now has to learn to re-embrace the Man of Steel.

That, right there, is a sign of the real world having a profound affect on the story and the struggles of that icon, in that story. That's what I'm pointing out here.

[El Payaso]

Ok, then B Begins should have had more about anti-terrorism feeling (as in let them die) and less about not taking a life.

[Everyman]

Ok, then B Begins should have had more about anti-terrorism feeling (as in let them die) and less about not taking a life.

But Batman does NOT take Ra's life. He lets him in a dangerous situation, a situation Ra's created, and where he might die. And Batman takes the decision on the heat of the moment.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Batman didn't take a life, though.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

But for that matter any night he goes out, batman is taking the risk of being injuried in such way he couldn't be Batman anymore. This particular case is no different. Except for the fact that he left a man die.

So its not the same at all, Batman was in a LOT more danger on the train than he was at any point in the movie except perhaps the monastery. Your telling me on an average night, were he just has to fight a few criminals, he's in the same danger as he was on the train? I dont think so.

If Batman was in such position that he couldn't save him because he ahd other people to sdave, I think he would have said something very different to Ra's, 'I'm sorry, Ra's, this is the fate you built to yourself' or something. But he stated that "he doesn't have to save him", like in 'I could, but I choose not to.'

He did have someone else to save, himself. What was more important for the future safety of Gotham? Batman being safe or both Ra's and Batman being safe, i'd go with the first one.



Batman oput many other people's lives in danger to save Rachel. He ran the Tumbler over police patrols, etc etc, destroyed buildings, roads, etc.

It seems when it's about Rachel he does whatever it is necessary to safe a life and doesn't care how many other lives are in risk in order to safe that single life.

As you say it is one of the most importants persons for him.

The only possible conclusion is that Batman is not that 'universal symbol of Justice' Bruce is trying to make, but a guy that it seems saves just the people he wants to save. And for selfish reasons, 'who the hell cares for those cops and people when Rachel - the woman I love - life is on the line.'

I'm sorry, i think this part of your argument is ridiculous, Rachel was DYING, you telling me that if someone you loved was on death's door, you wouldnt mind risking a few injuries to some cops you've never met. Thats just stupid. Anyone and everyone in their right mind ( and yes, even those who dress up as bats) would risk anything and everything to save a loved one, to say otherwise is stupid, IMO.



How could Ra's know about the track collapse before Batman when Batman planned it with Gordon long time before? Even before they start fighting, Batman knew that was going to happen.

But Ra's did know before Batman, because Ra's saw the track collapse first. Batman had planned to have Gordon blow the tracks out, but he didnt know Gordon had succeeded and couldnt have known while he was pinned on the floor of the train. He only knew when he saw the look on Ra's face AFTER Ra's saw the track collapse.

Batman left Ra's to save himself? How? He knows if you haven't a gliding cape, there's no possibility of survivance there. So it's the same thing. You are in a high train that is crumbling down, come on, you don't have to be crippled to be totally unable to escape from there.

He also knows that Ra's is a very clever, and scheming person, and that there is a big chance that he would have escaped.

Just out of curiosity i'd like to know how many times you have seen this movie, El, as judging by some of your idea's you need to watch it again.

[Phaser]

So he was to commit suicide.

For the seventh time: Is being a suicide reason enough for Batman not to save you?

In the case of Ra's, yes.

A villiain throws gasoline on himself and he's about to set himself afire... so Batman shouldn't stop him because he was killing himself on purpose being a dangerous villiain?

Why should he? Out of all the crooks Batman sent to jail or Arkham, you think not a single one of them ever broke down and decide to end his life then and there? You think Batman should have saved him?

B Begins states what is being Batman. After that the same movie shows us Batman going out of character (by letting someone die, what he's not supposed to do). But then, there's no sign in the movie that this event (Batman letting someone die) is somehow part of the character. No sign of remosrse or reflection about it.

Because there was no need to. And I dare you to show me where the Begins' Batman "cherishes" human life as naively as the Batman from the comics. If you're talking about the prisoner at the monastery, Bruce never said that he will "not take a life". That line was in the leaked script before Ra's burns down the mansion but Nolan cleverly changed it to something a lot more appropriate - Bruce objects that the prisoner should be given fair trial and that he will not execute him in cold blood.

You're expecting Bruce to feel remorse for a crime he didn't commit in the first place. In the case of Ra's, if there's anything Batman's guilty of, it's apathy and not murder. And if he's not guilty of actually "killing" Ra's, why would he need to reflect upon it?

Even Daredevil had a reflection about the 'hero' and the way he shpuldn't kill the criminals as a way for crimefighting.

How is this even relevant? Batman never "kills" in Begins, so what's the point?

Ok, Batman let a terrorist die. A person who wanted to kill millions.

"A terrorist, a person who wanted to kill millions" describes Ra's and most of Batman main villaiins (Joker, Penguin, etc etc) so the conclusion for you would be he should let all those villiains to die if he could since it's not easily justistifiable.

Ask me, sometimes the whole "I will not take a life" angle in the comics that is Batman is portrayed in is simply foolish idealism taken to extremes and downright absurd in a few cases. I think it's nothing but a cheap ploy by writers to give Batman an inane excuse to not permanently kill off the kind of villains that shouldn't be allowed to live anymore. Take for example, the case of the Joker - he killed countless number of people (including Jason Todd) without so much as a whim and crippled Barbara. And he's been sent to Arkham for rehabilitation so many times, it's impossible to keep count anymore. In spite of this, he still goes on the same usual routine of kill, get caught, escape and then kill again and on and on. Realistically speaking, no government on the face of the Earth would ever let the Joker's seemingly never-ending homicidal spree slide for so long and so many times. It's an established fact that the criminals like the Joker are nothing but an uncontrollable hazard to the lives of the citizens of Gotham who, regardless of his insanity, should finally be put to death.

His only moral obligation to save him was the one he imposed to himself at the moment of being Batman.

And what was that exactly? Please, do try and elaborate - with actual quotes or instances from the film. Otherwise, don't even bother.

Is this another of your replying-to-nothing-with-a-big-fuzz reaction?

You ask me what would have I done as Batman? I am not Batman so what's the point? I'm just pointing out the incoherence inside the movie. I'm not even saying I agree with saving a terrorist.

I asked what would you rather have Batman do. Take a risky chance to save his childhood friend's life, or forego that risk altogether and let her die a certain death? The manner in which you could have answered this question was painfully simple, yet you have your back against the wall trying to avoid it.

"I am not Batman so what's the point" you say? If that's the case, then your incompetence in involvedly commenting on the situation of the character also strips you all right of passing any kind of judgement on him.

In fact I prefer the Burton killing Batman. So there.

Yet here you are hypocritically taking the Begins' Batman to task simply for leaving a man to his fate and not blatantly killing him like Burton's Batman often did. Double-standards much?

Oh, again the name calling. Your only true success.

Good. Now that we're done passing the blame torch, how about an actual, substantial reply to my argument?

So your personal translation of Batman words should work as an absolute for us?
Nolan should have make that clear so we wouldn't need you.

Clear as in spoonfeeding everything to you ad-nauseum? Say, wasn't that a big problem many so-called critics had with Begins? That it doesn't think the audience is smart enough to figure things out on it's own?

Tell me something - out of what you know of the film, what exactly are the reasons for Batman leaving Ra's to his fate in the end of Begins?

Just show me where, even a single goddamned instance where I've inserted an interpolation, something NOT shown or said in the film to back my interpretation of the film. If there isn't any, then how the hell does it make it make my "translation" of the film "personal" instead of "factual"?

Cool movie.

So?

I used that parellel as an example of how morality works in any given story or film. I'm sure there are many other similiar examples with similiar outcomes.

Did Opham have a mission about fighting crime and not taking lives as Batman did?

What part of my post that said "in very loose and circumstantial terms" didn't you understand?

Of course there's no justification over the 'complexities of the character' here. I couldn't give it the same as you couldn't. That's the point.

Please. Either show me the errors in my argument or shut up.

Yes. Stick to the insult lines. Your best goal so far.

Yes, stick to avoiding addressing my points directly and making even more vague, meaningless statements. Your best goal so far.

[El Payaso]

In the case of Ra's, yes.

Why and how does this new exceptions Bat-rule work?

Why should he? Out of all the crooks Batman sent to jail or Arkham, you think not a single one of them ever broke down and decide to end his life then and there? You think Batman should have saved him?

Yes. Because it is a human life. Any thing he does should be - according to Batman - be resolved by justice, not him or the villiain himself.

Because there was no need to. And I dare you to show me where the Begins' Batman "cherishes" human life as naively as the Batman from the comics. If you're talking about the prisoner at the monastery, Bruce never said that he will "not take a life". That line was in the leaked script before Ra's burns down the mansion but Nolan cleverly changed it to something a lot more appropriate - Bruce objects that the prisoner should be given fair trial and that he will not execute him in cold blood.

And how did Ra's have this 'fair trial' and how leaving him in a train that is going to collapse is not 'cold blood', even if it's not directly a murder?

You're expecting Bruce to feel remorse for a crime he didn't commit in the first place. In the case of Ra's, if there's anything Batman's guilty of, it's apathy and not murder. And if he's not guilty of actually "killing" Ra's, why would he need to reflect upon it?

Apathy is what - in part - let the crime and corruption to increase. Now you say Batman can show apathy for human life.

He needs to reflect on that.

How is this even relevant? Batman never "kills" in Begins, so what's the point?

Relevant in the sense that even a movie like Daredevil took the time for reflection over letting someone die (or kill someone in DD case).

Ask me, sometimes the whole "I will not take a life" angle in the comics that is Batman is portrayed in is simply foolish idealism taken to extremes and downright absurd in a few cases. I think it's nothing but a cheap ploy by writers to give Batman an inane excuse to not permanently kill off the kind of villains that shouldn't be allowed to live anymore. Take for example, the case of the Joker - he killed countless number of people (including Jason Todd) without so much as a whim and crippled Barbara. And he's been sent to Arkham for rehabilitation so many times, it's impossible to keep count anymore. In spite of this, he still goes on the same usual routine of kill, get caught, escape and then kill again and on and on. Realistically speaking, no government on the face of the Earth would ever let the Joker's seemingly never-ending homicidal spree slide for so long and so many times. It's an established fact that the criminals like the Joker are nothing but an uncontrollable hazard to the lives of the citizens of Gotham who, regardless of his insanity, should finally be put to death.


Why didn't you start by saying you think the main source - Batman comics - are absurd and too naive? B Begins trying to be so close to the comics then is a problem for you.

And what was that exactly? Please, do try and elaborate - with actual quotes or instances from the film. Otherwise, don't even bother.

Bruce throws a gun to the sea, he will never take a human life.

Then he finds a better way. To leave them to die. That gives him the perfect excuse and he's still "technically" keeping his word.

I asked what would you rather have Batman do. Take a risky chance to save his childhood friend's life, or forego that risk altogether and let her die a certain death? The manner in which you could have answered this question was painfully simple, yet you have your back against the wall trying to avoid it.

"I am not Batman so what's the point" you say? If that's the case, then your incompetence in involvedly commenting on the situation of the character also strips you all right of passing any kind of judgement on him.

"I asked what would you rather have Batman do." is very different from "Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would YOU risk? Possibility or certainty?" which was your original question. So the incompetence is entirely yours about elaborating the right question, that way you won't have to to change it later so it looks like I was mistaken.

I would have saved both Rachel and Ra's, so to keep a little consistency about human life and not choosing people according to my personal feelings about who should/shouldn't be saved.

Yet here you are hypocritically taking the Begins' Batman to task simply for leaving a man to his fate and not blatantly killing him like Burton's Batman often did. Double-standards much?

No.

I stated clearly I was looking for the incoherence in the movie itself.

Burton provided no reason or hint about Batman being after a fair trial for villains or being worried about human life. In Burton's movies Batman was just about personal revenge and from that Pov it is always like that. Is that opposite to some points in the comic books? sure, but inside the fiction of those movies is not incoherent/out of character.

Good. Now that we're done passing the blame torch, how about an actual, substantial reply to my argument?

After that line I gave it to you. Pretending I didn't won't help you.

Clear as in spoonfeeding everything to you ad-nauseum? Say, wasn't that a big problem many so-called critics had with Begins? That it doesn't think the audience is smart enough to figure things out on it's own?

The same reading you did about Batman words I could state in another direction.

"I won't kill you but I don't have to save you": "Look, Ra's I tried the easy way but you not only fooled me but came back to destroy my house and my city so I had it. I won't kill you because I swore I won't kill, but - look at this - I'll let you die even when i could save you. See the irony? I keep my oath and you die. Beautiful. So long."

See how easy it is?

Tell me something - out of what you know of the film, what exactly are the reasons for Batman leaving Ra's to his fate in the end of Begins?

Maybe it was all the damage Ra's did to Bruce. Ra's provided the reasons for the wayne's murder, for Gotham City to be slowly corrupted and rot, he burned Wayne manor and all the precious memories in it, etc etc. Batman was plenty of reasons to let him die.

Just show me where, even a single goddamned instance where I've inserted an interpolation, something NOT shown or said in the film to back my interpretation of the film. If there isn't any, then how the hell does it make it make my "translation" of the film "personal" instead of "factual"?

All your interpretations can and have been refuted with some POSSIBLE not absolut reply and argument.

Your interpretations are not wrong per se. Could be wrong.

I used that parellel as an example of how morality works in any given story or film. I'm sure there are many other similiar examples with similiar outcomes.

What part of my post that said "in very loose and circumstantial terms" didn't you understand?

I didn't understand the part where you use that example in spite of being admittedly "in very loose and circumstancial terms."

Please. Either show me the errors in my argument or shut up.

Your arguments are debatable and I'm doing that.

I won't shut up because you got angry.

Yes, stick to avoiding addressing my points directly and making even more vague, meaningless statements. Your best goal so far.

I always replied to your points directly.

And with no name calling until you started.

[The Kid]

I simply said that pointless discussion over something that's already addressed in the film itself is...annoying. Never proposed to have you people castrated and your corpses paraded through the streets,so keep those useless "calm down"s to yourself.

Calm down. Just relax and in a non-condescending way explain what you want and maybe you'll get it. OK, babe? I won't pretend to know you or why it's bothersome to you that "Us people" want to talk about batman from our respective points of view, all I know is that it isn't pointless to me and well I have the right to discuss whatever I want unless a mod says otherwise.

No it isn't. It's clearly explained in the film that Wayne Tower was sitting right on top of the main hub and the microwave emitter would trigger the blowing up of the main hub which would consequently prove fatally catastrophic. It's exactly why the head engineer had everyone evacuate the building. Now consider this - if the main hub blowing up is such a disastrous outcome to Wayne Tower itself, what would you think would happen to the monorail when it's at the building at that very moment?

Like I said, I have an open mind and am willing to view that as a possibility. Although that doesn't defeat the fact, FACT I SAY, that batman's the reason the train will be destroyed. If we think abou tit, the microwave machine might have run out of power or any number of possibilities before entering the station. Hell, maybe it'd have had a delay time enough for the train to pass through the hub point before the building exploded... lots of different possibilities yet.... but let's say we can see the future and the hub station instantly would blow up once the train reached it, fact is that it never did thanks to batman. Hence I still believe batman's the reason ra's needed saving in that moment on the train. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. annoyed by different opinons on the internet? ha ha ha ha ha

You're totally clueless, aren't you? The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading the microwave emitter on the train. What point is there for Batman to have Gordon blow up the tracks if Batman succeeds and the train never even reaches that point to begin with? Think.

Oh now what did I say about being condescending... I won't read anything more that you say because you think attacking people over a nice comic-book movie discussion is the only way to argue for your point of view and help educate and enlighten the world with what you have to offer. You should know that that's actually the worst way...

If you're still having trouble, let me lay it out for you as regards to what exactly happened:

Batman had Gordon destroy the tracks in case he fails Ra's from loading the train or stopping the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That's exactly why he jumps on the train - heck, you even see him go for the controls...to STOP THE TRAIN and that's when Ra's butts in and jams them. Gordon destroying the tracks was Batman's contingency plan, his ace in the hole, his trump card that was guarenteed to succeed.

"But why would Batman bother with all the trouble of preventing Ra's from loading the microwave emitter and fighting him on the monorail and all that if he had already everything figured out", you ask? Well the answer is obvious - Batman's contingency plan was the most destructive option, which is why he used it as a backup plan and not the main strategy. Batman tries his level best to stop Ra's with the least amount of human and property damage as possible. If he had succeeded in preventing his former mentor from loading the train, the immediate threat to the city would have been neutralized then and there - no casualties, no damage.

I didn't bother reading any of this. I'll just assume it's something like "You failed to see what I saw because you are too stupid you peanut brain stupid fart doo doo face dumbass. LOL." To that, I say. YOUR MOTHER! ha ha I bet that stung.

Now Let's go watch star trek and kill some klingons instead. Pew Pew pew!

[Beelze]

I'm not even sure Batman had the means to save Ra's. At least not if he was going to escape using the glider. Batman couldn't possibly have planned ahead of time. Well, I can imagine the inner monologue:

"What if Ducard comes back and reveals to me that he was actually the real Ra's al Ghul, whereafter he proceeds to execute his grand plan of destroying Gotham, a plan which I, after realizing how he's going to execute it, would have at most twenty minutes to foil, and where foiling it would mean destroying the train tracks that my father built, thus leaving Ra's, who would be in the train moving towards the wrecked part of the track, in enormous danger. Since I probably can't glide well while carrying another person who might even struggle with me as I do so. Hell, the mere fact that my arms need to be wide apart for me to glide makes it quite troublesome. This means that I better prepare some kind of means of saving him, like... ropes, and stuff."

Bruce had about 20 minutes (in the movie it's about 12, but I increased the time window a bit, since you never really know with movies), to figure out how Ra's was going to execute the plan, figure out a plan that wouldn't cause too much collateral damage (thus possibly hurting others), a couple of backup plans, put himself into Batman gear, drive to the Narrows in the Tumbler, find Gordon and get him to help him, try to stop Ra's from loading the Microwave Emitter on the train, try to incapacitate Ra's and stop the train, and finally escape the train. In short, I just don't think it was the right time to acquire the proper equipment for saving someone in a situation like that. Hell, Batman didn't even know that Ra's would personally be on the train...

... So, in the end, delivering a cool one-liner was the most heroic thing he could do. ;)

If Bruce said "I won't kill you, but I can't save you" it would've left a lot of people wondering what he meant by "can't". If he gave a full explanation it would've been a bit too much talk in a situation like that. I know that "I don't have to" makes it seem like as if Batman could, but I don't see how he had the means. Perhaps he could've given Ra's some grapple gun. I'm not sure if Batman got it on the train though, or if he had more than one on him...

... Heh, well at least he didn't say, "I won't kill you, but I don't feel like saving you, nya-ha! :p"

[raybia]

Now Let's go watch star trek and kill some klingons instead. Pew Pew pew!


Wesyeed, who is that in your avatar?

[Nightwing92]

Now Let's go watch star trek and kill some klingons instead. Pew Pew pew!


HAHAHA... klingons.....

[Nightwing92]

Duplicate....

[raybia]

I'm not even sure Batman had the means to save Ra's. At least not if he was going to escape using the glider. Batman couldn't possibly have planned ahead of time. Well, I can imagine the inner monologue:

"What if Ducard comes back and reveals to me that he was actually the real Ra's al Ghul, whereafter he proceeds to execute his grand plan of destroying Gotham, a plan which I, after realizing how he's going to execute it, would have at most twenty minutes to foil, and where foiling it would mean destroying the train tracks that my father built, thus leaving Ra's, who would be in the train moving towards the wrecked part of the track, in enormous danger. Since I probably can't glide well while carrying another person who might even struggle with me as I do so. Hell, the mere fact that my arms need to be wide apart for me to glide makes it quite troublesome. This means that I better prepare some kind of means of saving him, like... ropes, and stuff."

Bruce had about 20 minutes (in the movie it's about 12, but I increased the time window a bit, since you never really know with movies), to figure out how Ra's was going to execute the plan, figure out a plan that wouldn't cause too much collateral damage (thus possibly hurting others), a couple of backup plans, put himself into Batman gear, drive to the Narrows in the Tumbler, find Gordon and get him to help him, try to stop Ra's from loading the Microwave Emitter on the train, try to incapacitate Ra's and stop the train, and finally escape the train. In short, I just don't think it was the right time to acquire the proper equipment for saving someone in a situation like that. Hell, Batman didn't even know that Ra's would personally be on the train...

... So, in the end, delivering a cool one-liner was the most heroic thing he could do. ;)

If Bruce said "I won't kill you, but I can't save you" it would've left a lot of people wondering what he meant by "can't". If he gave a full explanation it would've been a bit too much talk in a situation like that. I know that "I don't have to" makes it seem like as if Batman could, but I don't see how he had the means. Perhaps he could've given Ra's some grapple gun. I'm not sure if Batman got it on the train though, or if he had more than one on him...

... Heh, well at least he didn't say, "I won't kill you, but I don't feel like saving you, nya-ha! :p"

Yeah, I can imagine: I won't kill you, but I can't save you because of the design of my glider and the lack of equipment to properly !#$@$% BOOM BOOM CRASH!!! AGHHH! Ra's- I TOLD YOU TO BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS!

[The Kid]

Wesyeed, who is that in your avatar?

This be Tristan Lake Leabu from the new superman movie. :supes: aka: THE KID.:up:

[raybia]

This be Tristan Lake Leabu from the new superman movie. :supes: aka: THE KID.:up:


Wow, I didn't recognize the little Pimp.

Enjoy the limelight while you can kid!

Hey maybe he can be in the sequel to the Sixth Sense.

[The Kid]

Not only that. The Plan B for Batman meant that not only he was aware of this, but that - therefore - he HAD to have a plan for escaping the train himself in time. And therefore again, since he knew Ra's was on the train, he should have considered the certain possibility that - if he succeeded - Ra's was going to be in deep troubles. It was up to Batman to consider either to A) save him (if Plan B succeeded) or B) leaving him to his fate; will he die, will he survive, who knows, who cares.

Even so, if Batman would have considered the possibility of Ra's surviving, he would have been worried about finding his body (if Ra's survives then Gotham City is still in danger). None of this we see.

exactly. yeah i know.... to me it seems like too much thought was put into this entire plan for it to have been a rookie mistake... "I won't kill you. but I don't have to save you." Yes you do have to save him, not only because it's your personal belief, but to save yourself too. I'm not saying it absolutely wasn't a mistake but considering how dangerous ra's is to gotham's safety and to batman's plan to save it, to not give a thought to ra's being alive and planning another attack or even GASP exposing his identity, just seemed like too much of an oversight for this to simply be a mistake a rookie batman would make. He can't afford either of those things to happen so giving ra's a chance to be free is... well you get the idea.

Now that I think about it. It'd have been troublesome for batman to save ra's since ra's would just tell the police who batman was. whether they'd believe him or not, I can't say.

Maybe that's why he let ra's "die".

Oh goyer...

[The Kid]

Wow, I didn't recognize the little Pimp.

Enjoy the limelight while you can kid!

Hey maybe he can be in the sequel to the Sixth Sense.

or omen 2. ;)

[raybia]

or omen 2. ;)


Yeah, but I don't want him to be a evil brat. I actually found him to be quite charming in the movie...which was a surprise. You know how kid actors can be.

[xwolverine2]

superman wouldve saved him...

thats why superman sucks balls.

[xwolverine2]

This be Tristan Lake Leabu from the new superman movie. :supes: aka: THE KID.:up:
I.WANT.TO.KILL.HIM:)

[Nightwing92]

HAHAHA...... kill him.....

[Phaser]

Why and how does this new exceptions Bat-rule work?

I've already explained it in detail in my earlier posts. Go fetch.

Yes. Because it is a human life. Any thing he does should be - according to Batman - be resolved by justice, not him or the villiain himself.

And where is the justice in repeatedly saving a potential mass-murderer who plots the demise of millions of people and attempts to kill the very man who had already saved his life before?

And how did Ra's have this 'fair trial' and how leaving him in a train that is going to collapse is not 'cold blood', even if it's not directly a murder?

Actually Ra's already had his chance when Bruce saved him from the burning monastery.

Apathy is what - in part - let the crime and corruption to increase. Now you say Batman can show apathy for human life.

No, Batman can show apathy to inhuman fanatics like Ra's, especially after risking his neck trying to save Ra's the first time.

He needs to reflect on that.

Nope. Because leaving Ra's to the fate he had doomed himself to was essentially the redemption for what Bruce's compassion for his former mentor had brought on him and his city. I'm not saying Bruce should not have saved Ra's at the monastery, but that Ra's actions later in the film proved that a twisted, radical madman like him didn't deserve to be saved in the first place.

Relevant in the sense that even a movie like Daredevil took the time for reflection over letting someone die (or kill someone in DD case).

Unless the one who got killed in DD was very much like Ra's and had been rescued from certain death by DD earlier in the film, the "relevance" of the example you posted is pretty much non-existent, because the circumstances as well as the reasons that led to the outcome of that situation are strikingly different.

On a side note, my memory about the events in Daredevil is a bit hazy, but can you please elaborate just when and whose death does Daredevil "reflect upon"?

Why didn't you start by saying you think the main source - Batman comics - are absurd and too naive? B Begins trying to be so close to the comics then is a problem for you.

I never said the entire Batman comics are absurd and too naive. I was talking only about that singular, particular element of Batman comics where he so foolishly cherishing the lives of the most despicable kind of scum that has ever walked the Earth.

All meaning of participating in a discussion with you is lost when you resort to dishonest tactics where you exaggerate words and put them in my mouth just so you can still save some face in this debate. Disgusting.

Bruce throws a gun to the sea, he will never take a human life.

And he didn't. At least not in Begins.

Then he finds a better way. To leave them to die. That gives him the perfect excuse and he's still "technically" keeping his word.

It's really appalling to you reach to the lengths where you equate the life of a megalomaniac like Ra's with a normal human life. I'm at a loss for words. So you're essentially willing to overlook all that Ra's has done and judging from what was shown in the film, very much continue to do just so Batman ideals in the film can remain identical to that of his comics counterpart?

"I asked what would you rather have Batman do." is very different from "Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would YOU risk? Possibility or certainty?" which was your original question. So the incompetence is entirely yours about elaborating the right question, that way you won't have to to change it later so it looks like I was mistaken.

The first time I asked you that, I meant it figuratively. But since you were apparently too dumb and spineless to give a simple, straightforward answer, I had to rephrase it to coax you into replying in a way where you'd have nowhere to run. This whole debacle wouldn't have even started if didn't try to be such a smartass.

I would have saved both Rachel and Ra's, so to keep a little consistency about human life and not choosing people according to my personal feelings about who should/shouldn't be saved.

See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Oh and my question was only concerning the case of Rachel and not Ra's.

No.

I stated clearly I was looking for the incoherence in the movie itself.

And it's clear that there is no incoherence, at least as far as what was shown in the movie itself. The only way you can validate this argument of yours is if you compare the film and the comics, which does not exactly equal "incoherence" in the film itself now, does it?

Burton provided no reason or hint about Batman being after a fair trial for villains or being worried about human life. In Burton's movies Batman was just about personal revenge and from that Pov it is always like that. Is that opposite to some points in the comic books? sure, but inside the fiction of those movies is not incoherent/out of character.

The same reasoning can be said used in the case of Begins as well. You say Ra's didn't get a fair trial, but stupendously overlook the fact that thanks to Bruce, he had gotten a far better deal - a graceful second chance at life without even a fair trial acquitting him for the crimes he had already committed before.

After that line I gave it to you. Pretending I didn't won't help you.

You mean the line about "personal translation"? That's not a reply, just a lame "it's only your opinion" copout without directly addressing what I had said earlier. Now try again, chump.

The same reading you did about Batman words I could state in another direction.

"I won't kill you but I don't have to save you": "Look, Ra's I tried the easy way but you not only fooled me but came back to destroy my house and my city so I had it. I won't kill you because I swore I won't kill, but - look at this - I'll let you die even when i could save you. See the irony? I keep my oath and you die. Beautiful. So long."

See how easy it is?

Yes, but apparently your amusing short-sightedness fail to consider the fact that your above statement is but an ideal example of selective reasoning, where you only pick the facts that support your argument and discard everything else. Besides, that incoherent babble is not even keeping in line with the dialogue and events in the movie.

"Look Ra's I tried the easy way..."? What was this "easy way"? Bruce risking being burn to shreds in an exploding monastery? Almost falling off a cliff trying to save Ra's? Yeah, it was a piece of cake, when apparently the hard way for Bruce to do it was to just leave Ra's there to die and instead worry about getting his own ass out of danger.

Oh, oh and how about the part where Ra's destined himself to a suicide mission towards Wayne Tower on that doomtrain? Bah, silly stuff, you needn't bother about. It would only serve to weaken your argument and hence, not worth the effort of taking into account.

Sarcasm kills, doesn't it?

Maybe it was all the damage Ra's did to Bruce.

Oh, so now you're arguing with me on the basis of conjured assumptions[i] instead of certainties? All this debate over something you're not even completely sure of? Will someone hand over a debate rulebook to Mr. Payaso that would hopefully enlighten him about the fulity of debating without definite statements and concrete arguments.

Ra's provided the reasons for the wayne's murder, for Gotham City to be slowly corrupted and rot, he burned Wayne manor and all the precious memories in it, etc etc. Batman was plenty of reasons to let him die.

Actually, Bruce wasn't pissed at Ra's for burning down his parent's house after Alfred consoled him that it was Bruce and not just some brick house which was the true Wayne legacy.

And Gotham City became a hellhole primarily because of mob bosses like Falcone. Don't forget that Gotham was already a wasteland mired with corruption, things that invited Ra's and gave him a reason for attacking Gotham to begin with. Gotham was pretty much dead. Ra's was simply there to deliver the finishing blow by further worsening the disease that had infected the city which would bring about the events to trigger it's own self-destruction.

All your interpretations can and have been refuted with some POSSIBLE not absolut reply and argument.

Yes, my "interpretations" that are backed with completely with events and dialogue from the film without any selective dismissiveness have been "refuted" with "possible not absolute reply and argument" that are, bluntly speaking, only mere assumptions and not facts.

Oh you [I]so got me there. :rolleyes:

Your interpretations are not wrong per se. Could be wrong.

Please tell me how exactly. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air where you discount my "interpretation" as only a possibility yet fail to elaborate on the thought process that brought you to that conclusion.

I didn't understand the part where you use that example in spite of being admittedly "in very loose and circumstancial terms."

I put if forward as being an appropriate example in highlighting on the way morality functions in stories and films keeping in mind the blatant similiarities between said events in the two films, yet also acknowledging the difference between them at the same time, hence the phrase "in very loose and circumstantial terms". It was simply to elaborate on what basis exactly am I correlating the situational likeness between the Opham/German scenes and that of Batman/Ra's.

But I guess all that was incomprehensibly too complex for you.

Your arguments are debatable and I'm doing that.

And your counter-arguments have very little to no merit or validity, as I've pointed out above. Sure my arguments are "debatable". Practically anything on this planet can be contested but that doesn't mean that such attempts are always successful and are impervious to failure. Your posts are a standing testament to that.

I won't shut up because you got angry.

Not angry, more like annoyed.

I always replied to your points directly.

With vague and meaningless statements.

[The Kid]

Yes. I Think It's My Turn.:)

[Phaser]

Calm down. Just relax and in a non-condescending way explain what you want and maybe you'll get it. OK, babe?

Can anyone else here see the repulsive irony present in little ol' Weyseed condescendingly calling me "babe" and then telling me to explain myself in a non-condescending way?

Although that doesn't defeat the fact, FACT I SAY, that batman's the reason the train will be destroyed.

No, Ra's is the reason the train was destroyed. Because he had succeeded in loading the microwave emitter on the train and prevented Batman from prematurely halting the monorail in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. On the contrary, Batman tries his level best to not have the train destroyed until it came down to the point where he had no other option to save the city.

If we think abou tit, the microwave machine might have run out of power or any number of possibilities before entering the station.

It's a possibility yes, and a baseless one at that since nothing of the sort was implied in the film. In fact, the microwave emitter was still functional right up until the end just before it exploded after the train crashed in the abandoned parking lot.

Hell, maybe it'd have had a delay time enough for the train to pass through the hub point before the building exploded...

There certainly was no delay in those sewege covers popping off the ground as the monorail passed over them. What makes the main hub any different?

...lots of different possibilities yet.... but let's say we can see the future and the hub station instantly would blow up once the train reached it, fact is that it never did thanks to batman.

Erm, what exactly are you implying here? The fact that the main hub didn't blow up thanks to Batman's valiant efforts doesn't change the fact that it would have blown up and would have been disastrous to both the monorail as well Wayne Tower.

Hence I still believe batman's the reason ra's needed saving in that moment on the train. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. annoyed by different opinons on the internet? ha ha ha ha ha

Not by different opinions. But by the thickheadedness of some people where pages upon pages of pointless discussion is endured over something that's already been cleared up in the film itself.

Oh now what did I say about being condescending... I won't read anything more that you say because you think attacking people over a nice comic-book movie discussion is the only way to argue for your point of view and help educate and enlighten the world with what you have to offer. You should know that that's actually the worst way...

Being condescending is my forte. I don't care about what you or anyone else thinks about it because I'm not here to educate you. I'm simply debating your ill-concieved points and proving just how wrong they really are. You don't like the way I do it? Tough luck for you that it's a pity I don't really have anything else to do with aside from our current disagreements. So let's just focus on the "discussion" at hand and leave all this useless finger-pointing for some other time now, shall we?

I didn't bother reading any of this. I'll just assume it's something like "You failed to see what I saw because you are too stupid you peanut brain stupid fart doo doo face dumbass. LOL." To that, I say. YOUR MOTHER!

Yes, "yo mamma" jokes. Goes to show the level of stupidity this argument has sunk down into.

[Phaser]

Yes. I Think It's My Turn.:)

Dun dun dun. :unishr:

[The Kid]

babe, You want me to yield to your constant verbal attacks?

NEVAH.

[The Kid]

Can anyone else here see the repulsive irony present in little ol' Weyseed condescendingly calling me "babe" and then telling me to explain myself in a non-condescending way?

well do it for once. And ur a babe to me... that's all. I mean no harm. Sorry if it hurt to be called that. You want me to stop?

No, Ra's is the reason the train was destroyed. Because he had succeeded in loading the microwave emitter on the train and prevented Batman from prematurely halting the monorail in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. On the contrary, Batman tries his level best to not have the train destroyed until it came down to the point where he had no other option to save the city.

You and I are on the same page. Ra's was punk'd by batman in the end, yes. So why did the train fall? Because it had no tracks to pick itself back up.

It's a possibility yes, and a baseless one at that since nothing of the sort was implied in the film. In fact, the microwave emitter was still functional right up until the end just before it exploded after the train crashed in the abandoned parking lot.

Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. we'll never know because it exploded.

There certainly was no delay in those sewege covers popping off the ground as the monorail passed over them. What makes the main hub any different?

A short delay but there was one.

Erm, what exactly are you implying here? The fact that the main hub didn't blow up thanks to Batman's valiant efforts doesn't change the fact that it would have blown up and would have been disastrous to both the monorail as well Wayne Tower.

The part about the train being completely destroyed and killing ras is however speculation.

Not by different opinions. But by the thickheadedness of some people where pages upon pages of pointless discussion is endured over something that's already been cleared up in the film itself.

Are you sure?

Being condescending is my forte. I don't care about what you or anyone else thinks about it because I'm not here to educate you. I'm simply debating your ill-concieved points and proving just how wrong they really are. You don't like the way I do it? Tough luck for you that it's a pity I don't really have anything else to do with aside from our current disagreements. So let's just focus on the "discussion" at hand and leave all this useless finger-pointing for some other time now, shall we?

I don't care what you think about it either. I just want you to try posting without the attitude, but you won't. I'll live.

Yes, "yo mamma" jokes. Goes to show the level of stupidity this argument has sunk down into.

Peanut brain's are the suck lol.

ha ha ha ha ha ha

I have to go. But maybe I'll be back later tonight to play some more, ok.

[Phaser]

well do it for once. And your a babe to me... that's all. I mean no harm. Sorry if it hurt to be called that. You want me to stop?

Not exactly, seeing as it puts me in quite a favorable position to CONTINUE being condescending without juvenile crybabies breathing down my neck about.

You and I are on the same page. Ra's was punk'd by batman in the end, yes. So why did the train fall? Because it had no tracks to pick itself back up.

And your point is...?

Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. we'll never know because it exploded.

It exploded because it was still functional. D'uh. Didn't you see the rotator spinning right before the microwave emitter blows up?

Oh and for the record, presenting the possibility of the microwave emitter running out of power is like assuming the Batmobile running out of gas during the middle of a high-speed chase. Meaning incredibly asinine.

A short delay but there was one.

Not more than two seconds at most. Remember that Batman had the grappling hook attached to the car Ra's was in and despite being so close, he still had to dodge those manhole covers. Heck you even see a couple pop right in front of him. Pay attention, little one.

Speculation.

No, fact. Remember that the head engineer at Wayne Tower had everyone evacuate the building. Why exactly did he give that order? "We're sitting right on top of the main hub and it's gonna blow". Considering that quote, the order to evacuate was given for the simple reason that the blowing up of the main hub would have been a fatal catastrophe. But knowing you, you'd probably argue the old man was just doing it for kicks because he only wanted a little "private time" for himself, what with all those monitors and the many...erogenous possibilities.

Are you sure?

You can take that to the bank, junior.

I don't care what you think about it either. I just want you to try saying posting without the attitude, but you won't. I'll live.

Good lad.

[The Kid]

Ok, I lied. Back for more punishment.:o Let's do this. I feel like batman right now.

Not exactly, seeing as it puts me in quite a favorable position to CONTINUE being condescending without juvenile crybabies breathing down my neck about.

You don't have to be this way.

And your point is...?

The train fell off the tracks because it had no more tracks to continue driving on.

It exploded because it was still functional. D'uh. Didn't you see the rotator spinning right before the microwave emitter blows up?

I saw it blow up. how long would it have kept going if it didn't break, do you think?

Oh and for the record, presenting the possibility of the microwave emitter running out of power is like assuming the Batmobile running out of gas during the middle of a high-speed chase. Meaning incredibly asinine.

It's not asinine. That's always a possibility especially if batman doesn't keep the gas tank full. Where does he get gas anyway? I guess he has his own fuel pump or gets gas from a nearby station.

Not more than two seconds at most. Remember that Batman had the grappling hook attached to the car Ra's was in and despite being so close, he still had to dodge those manhole covers. Heck you even see a couple pop right in front of him. Pay attention, little one.

There is a delay. You see it too.

No, fact. Remember that the head engineer at Wayne Tower had everyone evacuate the building. Why exactly did he give that order? "We're sitting right on top of the main hub and it's gonna blow". Considering that quote, the order to evacuate was given for the simple reason that the blowing up of the main hub would have been a fatal catastrophe. But knowing you, you'd probably argue the old man was just doing it for kicks because he only wanted a little "private time" for himself, what with all those monitors and the many...erogenous possibilities.

I changed my thoughts on that.


You can take that to the bank, junior.

I will.

Good lad.

I know.

[Phaser]

Ok, I lied. Back for more punishment.:o Let's do this.

*crunches knuckles*

You don't have to be this way.

I like it this way.

The train fell off the tracks because it had no more tracks to continue driving on.

...and what does that have to do with anything?

It's not asinine. That's always a possibility especially if batman doesn't keep the gas tank full. Where does he get gas anyway? I guess he has his own fuel pump or gets gas from a nearby station.

The Tumbler runs on lunar power. The one Fox shows him at Wayne Enterprises used backup batteries. :o

There is a delay. You see it too.

Yes, a delay no more than a second or two at most. The effect of the microwave emitter is almost instantaneous.

I changed my thoughts on that.

I wonder why...

[El Payaso]

Yes. I Think It's My Turn.:)

Hahaha.

Phaser is right in whatever he wrote.:up:

[The Kid]

that's all? I expected something A LOT more hurtful... your not that bad...

I'm actually feeling ok... wow....

what the hell? I mean it's not a friendly reply or anything close to that but it's not the brutal slaying I thought it would be either...

I'm going to take a tangent here... Here's what I've learned in my nearly a decade now of internet surfing. some people are just absolutely merciless online, yunno, to the point of just pure madness where your asking yourself outside of cyberspace, "What did I do to deserve that kind of remark?" and it's an instant downer. You can't get it out of your head and your at school, thinking about, wanting it to just be forgotten but it's not. It's still there like it's haunting you until you see yourself in the same meaning as that remark/insult/whatever and the only way to feel any sense of dignity again is to agree with it, assume it to be true since it's been so perfectly laid out why it is, thatyou can't see a way around it. Maybe you won't care but that's just me. I would love an internet where people just had a common, basic level of respect for each other, basically just be friendly and peaceful as much as possible so there's no ignition for flames etc... but it murders my spirit to know that'll probably never happen. Like batman, I dream for some ideal that'll never be realized... .

Your mind is your house, phaser. I believe it's not up to me to force you to re-paint it or mow the lawn etc. It's all yours. Hell I can't and I know I can't.... All I can do is make a suggestion that maybe some flowers would look nice planted next to the entrance or whatever.

*steps down off soapbox*

What was this topic about again?

Oh yeah, batman on the train, saying he's not going to save ra's.... etc...

Batman was pretty much in a lose/lose situation there...

ok, now i'm really gone... the irony is that I have to catch a train. Have a good summer you batfans.

[The Kid]

Hahaha.

Phaser is right in whatever he wrote.:up:

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh my life is ruined:ghost:

[ChrisBaleBatman]

This be Tristan Lake Leabu from the new superman movie. :supes: aka: THE KID.:up:

I owe you an apology man. I totally hated the kid beforehand.......but, after watching the movie......Jason's a good character. He's cool with me.

[TheGrayGhost]

Here's what I think:

Batman doesn't administer justice; he brings criminals to justice. Accordingly, I think his apathy towards Ra's is out of character. And it's strange, much of the movie stresses the importance of the "will to act," yet Batman defeats his enemy by not acting at all, choosing to leave Ra's to his fate. By comparison, Batman is following in the footsteps of his father by not choosing to act. But whereas Thomas Wayne didn't accomplish anything in the way of justice, Batman saved Gotham City from destruction. Of course, in a way, Batman's decision could display both a will to act and not act simultaneously.

I suppose placing Batman's words into the greater context of the film justifies his actions (or lack thereof), but I still don't think it is in keeping with Batman's strict codes of conduct and morality; it's a very ambiguous event, at least. But I'm talking about Batman in general, which may not be applicable to Nolan's Batman.

You know, anyone who reads my posts knows that my interpretation of Batman comes from the DCAU. I guess that places me at a loss because my vision of Batman would never resort to murder, directly or otherwise. Anyway, the DCAU interpretation of Batman makes clear that the concept of apathy is an ideology in which Batman strongly opposes, and I think it's safe to say that that's true in most interpretations of Batman, including Nolan's. Accordingly, I think it's contrary to Batman's character that he should defeat Ra's by being apathetic, even if Ra's had intentions of suicide and murder, and even if Batman had saved him before.

So I see two issues at hand: apathy and indirect murder. I had trouble wording the latter because what Batman did is not necessarily murder, but rather choosing not to prevent death. But then one must also consider that Ra's also had the ability to save himself, but he chose not to.

I guess the situation is too blurred for me to fully map, but I still don't think Batman should have done what he did.

I don't think the notion of apathy should be associated with Batman.

EDIT: It was a compromise that he shouldn't have made.

[Cobblepot]

In "Batman And Superman" The Movie, he did the same with Joker. So I don't really mind the scene in BB.

[TheGrayGhost]

In "Batman And Superman" The Movie, he did the same with Joker. So I don't really mind the scene in BB.

Hmm. Good point. I'll have to watch it again before I can respond.

[El Payaso]

Here's what I think:

Batman doesn't administer justice; he brings criminals to justice. Accordingly, I think his apathy towards Ra's is out of character. And it's strange, much of the movie stresses the importance of the "will to act," yet Batman defeats his enemy by not acting at all, choosing to leave Ra's to his fate. By comparison, Batman is following in the footsteps of his father by not choosing to act. But whereas Thomas Wayne didn't accomplish anything in the way of justice, Batman saved Gotham City from destruction. Of course, in a way, Batman's decision could display both a will to act and not act simultaneously.

I suppose placing Batman's words into the greater context of the film justifies his actions (or lack thereof), but I still don't think it is in keeping with Batman's strict codes of conduct and morality; it's a very ambiguous event, at least. But I'm talking about Batman in general, which may not be applicable to Nolan's Batman.

You know, anyone who reads my posts knows that my interpretation of Batman comes from the DCAU. I guess that places me at a loss because my vision of Batman would never resort to murder, directly or otherwise. Anyway, the DCAU interpretation of Batman makes clear that the concept of apathy is an ideology in which Batman strongly opposes, and I think it's safe to say that that's true in most interpretations of Batman, including Nolan's. Accordingly, I think it's contrary to Batman's character that he should defeat Ra's by being apathetic, even if Ra's had intentions of suicide and murder, and even if Batman had saved him before.

So I see two issues at hand: apathy and indirect murder. I had trouble wording the latter because what Batman did is not necessarily murder, but rather choosing not to prevent death. But then one must also consider that Ra's also had the ability to save himself, but he chose not to.

I guess the situation is too blurred for me to fully map, but I still don't think Batman should have done what he did.

I don't think the notion of apathy should be associated with Batman.

Speechless Gray Ghost. You left me speechless. You said it all.

[El Payaso]

In "Batman And Superman" The Movie, he did the same with Joker. So I don't really mind the scene in BB.

well he did that then... so?

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, fans love that incarnation....and it's a ****ing awesome interpretation. I think that's why he mentioned it.

[Beelze]

Batman doesn't administer justice; he brings criminals to justice. Accordingly, I think his apathy towards Ra's is out of character. And it's strange, much of the movie stresses the importance of the "will to act," yet Batman defeats his enemy by not acting at all, choosing to leave Ra's to his fate. By comparison, Batman is following in the footsteps of his father by not choosing to act. But whereas Thomas Wayne didn't accomplish anything in the way of justice, Batman saved Gotham City from destruction. Of course, in a way, Batman's decision could display both a will to act and not act simultaneously.
Batman did act. You know, acting doesn't necessarily mean knocking Ra's unconscious and bringing him to court (a court which will let him go because there's no evidence suggesting he was the perpetrator - unless they, say, get Falcone, Crane, and Batman to testify against him. Being what those three are at the moment, their testimonies might seem a bit untrustworthy, and I just don't see Batman showing up and testifying in a court.)

Acting can mean making sure that something is done, and Batman did more than just that. He got Jim to destroy the tracks, he tried to stop Ra's from loading the microwave emitter onto the train, he fought Ra's in order to incapacitate him and stop the train. That he chose to leave Ra's to his fate does not erase the fact that he did not fail to act. He did a lot up until that point, especially if you count him investigating the matter. He didn't foil Ra's plan and defeat Ra's simply by just existing.

[CLARKY]

IMHO :
batman doesn't kill. This is his first and absolute rule.
In batman Begins he does kill. Just as the Burton's ones. But in the movies, it's always exceptionnal, so I'll live with it.

[iceberg325]

IMHO :
batman doesn't kill. This is his first and absolute rule.
In batman Begins he does kill. Just as the Burton's ones. But in the movies, it's always exceptionnal, so I'll live with it.

Who did he kill in Batman Begins???

[Phaser]

Hahaha.

Phaser is right in whatever he wrote.:up:

It's nice to see people on these forums still resorting to the age-old trick of derivative, idiotic and essentially worthless "comebacks" instead of providing a concise, relevant reply or respectfully concede the argument. Nice work, chump.

[Phaser]

Here's what I think:

And it's strange, much of the movie stresses the importance of the "will to act," yet Batman defeats his enemy by not acting at all, choosing to leave Ra's to his fate. By comparison, Batman is following in the footsteps of his father by not choosing to act.

Bruce did act. When the monastery was tearing itself apart. And it was exactly his "will to act" that put Gotham in peril near the end of the film. Practically speaking, Ra's actions proved that he was someone who didn't deserve to be saved in the first place, yet Bruce upheld his duty and did it anyway. I see no obligation on Bruce's part to do it again.

But whereas Thomas Wayne didn't accomplish anything in the way of justice, Batman saved Gotham City from destruction. Of course, in a way, Batman's decision could display both a will to act and not act simultaneously.

Exactly.

I suppose placing Batman's words into the greater context of the film justifies his actions (or lack thereof), but I still don't think it is in keeping with Batman's strict codes of conduct and morality; it's a very ambiguous event, at least.

Thank God there's at least one person who understands this. Else, this place is rife with judgemental, juvenile jurists who are ready to crucify everything and everyone in their sights with their ignorant B&W standards.

But I'm talking about Batman in general, which may not be applicable to Nolan's Batman.

Ditto.

You know, anyone who reads my posts knows that my interpretation of Batman comes from the DCAU. I guess that places me at a loss because my vision of Batman would never resort to murder, directly or otherwise. Anyway, the DCAU interpretation of Batman makes clear that the concept of apathy is an ideology in which Batman strongly opposes, and I think it's safe to say that that's true in most interpretations of Batman, including Nolan's. Accordingly, I think it's contrary to Batman's character that he should defeat Ra's by being apathetic, even if Ra's had intentions of suicide and murder, and even if Batman had saved him before.

I've already stated earlier how I find that particular element of the Batman mythos downright absurd. Thank heavens for writers like Azzarello and Loeb who correctly put this irrational ideology to an acid-test with emotionally extreme situations that clearly put it's validity to question and doubt.

So I see two issues at hand: apathy and indirect murder. I had trouble wording the latter because what Batman did is not necessarily murder, but rather choosing not to prevent death. But then one must also consider that Ra's also had the ability to save himself, but he chose not to.

I guess the situation is too blurred for me to fully map, but I still don't think Batman should have done what he did.

I don't think the notion of apathy should be associated with Batman.

EDIT: It was a compromise that he shouldn't have made.

I believe taking into context all that was said, done and implied in the film, it was a perfectly justifiable action. Sure, it directly contradicts a very well known creed of the character from the comics, but then again, I couldn't care less about that particular fact.

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Again.........Batman, he did NOT kill. Jeez. They're saying the same thing about Superman, over at his boards too.....

[xxshady]

Who cares if Batman kills if hes ridding the city of the corrupt?

What are you like criminal activists *rolls eyes*

[iceberg325]

Who cares if Batman kills if hes ridding the city of the corrupt?

What are you like criminal activists *rolls eyes*

Well hes a hero, he shouldnt kill. The thing is, he didnt kill in BB. I dont know where people get that impression from.

[TheGrayGhost]

Again.........Batman, he did NOT kill. Jeez. They're saying the same thing about Superman, over at his boards too.....

He made a decision to NOT prevent death. Whether or not that means he killed him or not depends on your specific understanding of morality. Then again, Batman knew that Ra's had the ability to escape. It's an ambiguous event.

Regardless of the ambiguity, though, I cannot help but feel that it's out of character.

[iceberg325]

He made a decision to NOT prevent death. Whether or not that means he killed him or not depends on your specific understanding of morality. Then again, Batman knew that Ra's had the ability to escape. It's an ambiguous event.

Regardless of the ambiguity, though, I cannot help but feel that it's out of character.

You have to look deeper into the character. Look behind the mask, and figure out, given the situation, would bruce question his own morality? I think thats exactly what he did, and IMO he made the right decision.

[TheGrayGhost]

You have to look deeper into the character. Look behind the mask, and figure out, given the situation, would bruce question his own morality? I think thats exactly what he did, and IMO he made the right decision.

Interestingly enough, my vision of Batman is one that views Batman as the truth of the man. The man behind the physical mask is also Batman. He is Batman.

Anyway, I think it boils down to whether or not he administered justice himself or brought the criminal to justice. And I think he should have done the latter.

[iceberg325]

Interestingly enough, my vision of Batman is one that views Batman as the truth of the man. The man behind the physical mask is also Batman. He is Batman.

Anyway, I think it boils down to whether or not he administered justice himself or brought the criminal to justice. And I think he should have done the latter.

Yeah he is Batman. But Like I said in earlier posts, he is still human. He can contradict himself. He can make mistakes, if thats what you want to call it.

[TheGrayGhost]

"It can't be personal. Otherwise, you're just a vigilante."

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It wasnt personal with Ra's, Bruce/Batman just made a choice between the safety of Gotham, or Ra's life and he made the right choice IMO.

[iceberg325]

It wasnt personal with Ra's, Bruce/Batman just made a choice between the safety of Gotham, or Ra's life and he made the right choice IMO.

Exactly!!!

[Galactical]

Is it batman's duty to save those in danger indiscriminantly?

[darknight7]

In my oponion, it was awesome. A lot is being said about indirect murder. But Batman had to act. If he took that extra second to try and save Ra's, it could have been the end of them both, because Ra's may have fought back. That is one way you can look at it, so his WILL TO ACT was perfect. He knew that Ra's could save himself if he had to (he is a friggin ninja...he TRAINED BATMAN). So Batman knew, either I save myself, or we both go down, he can do whatever the hell he wants. He didn't NOT ACT, he actually did the oposite. He knew what he had to do, and he acted, no hesitation. It was properly done, he did not murder him, he just let him die (and yes Batman doesn't do that, but sometimes he does get pushed over the edge...he is still human, and deals with inner demons).
PLUS: Ra's burnt down the mansion...what an *******...lol

--dk7

[ChrisBaleBatman]

How could he have brought Ra's to justice? There was no way he could...

[raybia]

May I also add that the way the novice Batman responded to this situation is not neccessarily the way the seasoned Batman would respond.

Regardless, it was not murder and he's the Dark Knight, not a Boy Scout.

[xxshady]

Lol seriously

1) He hasnt seasoned into the fully established and grown Batman figure that we know

2) He can do whatever he wants

3) If hes ridding the city of the corrupt.. hey.. thats good

4) If he tried to helped Ra's he wouldve died

5) BALE DAMMIT!!!

[Galactical]

May I also add that the way the novice Batman responded to this situation is not neccessarily the way the seasoned Batman would respond.

Regardless, it was not murder and he's the Dark Knight, not a Boy Scout.

You can say that but of course we know the truth of it all.

Didn't ra's and his gang know who bruce really was? (why don't some of his ninja gang tell the press?) I believe ra's was allowed to die to solve that little issue of him knowing bruce's secret. It's like how anyone who figures out superman is clark is usually dead by the end of the show. still, ra's ninja goons know everything about bruce anyway. Batman ought to deal with that in the future.

[Eros]

comic book Batman would of saved Ra's, and hell the late 90s Batman would of done so. Batman not suppose to be their judge, hes suppose to bring them to justice. How many time has batman saved Joker, even though he could of let him die, or killed him. Letting someone[no matter wo] just die on a train is not what Batman from any decade would do. Thats just one of many downfalls with Batman Begins, let nots get started on the bad fight scene and etc.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Eros, if you think BB has a lot of flaws, you need to watch more movies, he never killed Ra's, if he had left him on the train wounded or knocked out then yes i would say he killed him. Ra's was a ninja for god knows how years more than Bruce, i think he was more than capable of saving himself.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Eros, if you think BB has a lot of flaws, you need to watch more movies, he never killed Ra's, if he had left him on the train wounded or knocked out then yes i would say he killed him. Ra's was a ninja for god knows how years more than Bruce, i think he was more than capable of saving himself.

[El Payaso]

It's nice to see people on these forums still resorting to the age-old trick of derivative, idiotic and essentially worthless "comebacks" instead of providing a concise, relevant reply or respectfully concede the argument. Nice work, chump.

Only poorer thing than a bad loser is a bad winner.

Then, there's Phaser. "Convince them or bore them."

[Phaser]

Only poorer thing than a bad loser is a bad winner.

Then, there's Phaser. "Convince them or bore them."

The irony of a spineless wretch like you who is simply too incompetent to give an objective reply to arguments in a debate, calling his oppenent a "bad winner" is simply astounding.

I wonder what pretentious, half-wit smartass remark will you retort with next...

[Beelze]

I'm not saying it absolutely wasn't a mistake but considering how dangerous ra's is to gotham's safety and to batman's plan to save it, to not give a thought to ra's being alive and planning another attack or even GASP exposing his identity, just seemed like too much of an oversight for this to simply be a mistake a rookie batman would make. He can't afford either of those things to happen so giving ra's a chance to be free is... well you get the idea.
Honestly, there was no way Ra's could've survived. You can't just jump out of a train like that, or pull out a grappling gun from nowhere and just fly away. Especially not when you're closing your eyes and seemingly just accepting your fate. We as an audience, or batfans rather, keep thinking that Ra's is alive because we know his character and background. We suspect the possibility of him being able to pull the craziest ninja move and escape from certain doom, or even the possibility of a lazarus pit bringing him back to life. Now, Batman saw a man with little-to-none equipment crash down into a parking garage whereafter an explosion consumed most of that man's body. And who are we to say that Batman didn't check out the wreck afterwards? Sure, the movie fast-forwards, but it's not like the first thing Batman did was to drop down next to Jim and saying, "who's for chinese?", whereafter they both walked, arm-in-arm, towards the setting sun.