They should bring back Ra's for Batman 3

[FenderBoy]

I don't know how, but I think it'd be badass to bring back Ra's (Liam Neeson) and have him help Two-Face in his vigilante revenge. I mean, they could easily come up with a good way to explain his "death." Afterall, Ra's never really dies, even in the realism of Nolan's Batman, he could have survived. I say this also because I think continuous villains are a good thing in superhero stories (comics and movies). That's one thing that always bugged me about other superhero movies, like Burton's Batman, they just kill off the villains. Thoughts?

[elgato]

No. :o

C'mon, nolan can come up with something fresh, and we will aready have Two Face, and probly get a new villain, and as I have understood, it could be a certain female feline

[Fred-Green]

meh... if anybody should comeback it was joker. if HEs :hoboj: not coming back then i would prefer they give some other villain we haven't seen a time to shine

[Killing Joke926]

Hmmmmm............I kinda feel like what was between Batsy and Ra's kinda sorta began and ended in BB; I think right now after TDK I think it should focus more on Two-Face, possibly Joker, and another new villain to the trilogy. However, if it goes further than the three I'm all for more Ra's; as for now though I think they're fine we're they're at right now. :word: :brucebat:

[Joker]

I dont think they need Ra's back so soon. Not till movie #5 or 6 at least.

[last_life]

I think he should come back but as a haunting memory in the dreams of Bruce.

Like Bruce dreaming about not preventing Harvey's loss of sanity and Liam comes in and reiterates: "I told you about compassion Bruce."

Good Stuff IMO.

[Killing Joke926]

I think he should come back but as a haunting memory in the dreams of Bruce.

Like Bruce dreaming about not preventing Harvey's loss of sanity and Liam comes in and reiterates: "I told you about compassion Bruce."

Good Stuff IMO.

Hurm.........very good stuff indeed. :brucebat:

[FenderBoy]

I like the flashbacks/dreams idea. And I don't think the Joker is coming back, and certainly I want the focus to be Bats and Two-Face.

[NinjaTurtleFan]

Rahs is dead. There's no way he could've survived that crash. And I can't see how Nolan would use the Lazarus Pit or make Rahs immortal either. The only way Rahs the name, not the character, could return is if Rahs Al Ghul is just a name, a legendary name that many are reluctant and hesitant to speak or use because Rahs has been made sort of like The Phantom, as if he is a ghost that keeps walking and living on, but only Batman has seen his face.

The only other way Rahs could come back as a name, would be with Talia. She could fool Bruce into thinking that Rahs has returned, but it is her who has taken her father's place as the leader of the League of Shadows.

The only villain I want back is Joker. I'd hate to see him just go to jail and that's it. Two-Face's arc will be all wrapped up after movie 3, but Joker has potential to be a villain that could appear in another movie. He could be incarcerated in Arkam for movie 3, but return in movie 4, with a whole new face but same personality. Why I say a new face is because we are replacing Heath, you need an actor who sounds alot like Heath and looks like Heath, but I think this time Joker being locked away in Arkam has become obsessed with totally looking like a clown. So, he bleaches his skin white. If Michael Jackson could bleach skin, than why couldn't Joker?

[last_life]

Well the reason why I think it could work is that Two Face in a way is what Ra would have wanted. A pure soldier with no pity or mercy who does the "right" thing to do.

So not only would Bruce be full of gilt of letting Harvey down, but also thinking "Was Ra' right?"

I think it would be a good way to go full circle.

[last_life]

Rahs is dead. There's no way he could've survived that crash. And I can't see how Nolan would use the Lazarus Pit or make Rahs immortal either. The only way Rahs the name, not the character, could return is if Rahs Al Ghul is just a name, a legendary name that many are reluctant and hesitant to speak or use because Rahs has been made sort of like The Phantom, as if he is a ghost that keeps walking and living on, but only Batman has seen his face.

The only other way Rahs could come back as a name, would be with Talia. She could fool Bruce into thinking that Rahs has returned, but it is her who has taken her father's place as the leader of the League of Shadows.

The only villain I want back is Joker. I'd hate to see him just go to jail and that's it. Two-Face's arc will be all wrapped up after movie 3, but Joker has potential to be a villain that could appear in another movie. He could be incarcerated in Arkam for movie 3, but return in movie 4, with a whole new face but same personality. Why I say a new face is because we are replacing Heath, you need an actor who sounds alot like Heath and looks like Heath, but I think this time Joker being locked away in Arkam has become obsessed with totally looking like a clown. So, he bleaches his skin white. If Michael Jackson could bleach skin, than why couldn't Joker?

1) Too soon. Nobody should emulate what Heath did. It would be a mockery at least and what you are thinking of is studio thinking. For shame.

2) What I like what Nolan did was keep Ra's story ambiguous. I love that little gesture were Ra is just sitting there in meditation. To the normal movie goer, it just seems like he is accepting his face. To comic book fans, we know what is up.

Its a nice way to realistically work around a supernatural problem. :woot:

[omerhead]

I think it's a great idea to bring Ra's Al Ghul back from the dead, but I would prefer if they use him for a Batman film after the third film IMO.

[Aidan2209]

No, but seriously, he died. He isn't immortal (unless in a metaphorical sense). He can't be resurrected. The train crashed and exploded. He is now deceased. It isn't significant that you didn't see his body being thrown around the carriage and consumed by fire. Seeing the train crash and explode was enough. He's dead. Trying to explain how he survived would be ham-handed and silly, and ultimately unnecessary. Ra's is dead, he isn't coming back, even if they do any other films.

[omerhead]

I don't think the Lazarus Pit is stupid, they could introduce it without stretching it's origins and keeping it mysterious just like Wolverine past.

[NinjaTurtleFan]

I had an idea (and it's in my Batman comic that I will be releasing some pages and excerpts from today) but I had an idea that Rahs is indeed dead but he has a hand in Riddler's work. If Joker is not brought back in a future film, than I think Rahs or at least the League of Shadows or Talia could have a hand in pulling the strings; being the machination that is controlling everything and moving things along to an even worse state than what Rahs began in "BB" or what Joker does in "TDK."

Rahs promised chaos, he promised anarchy, he promised Gotham would fall. Joker almost succeeds in making it plunge into the depths of panic and terror but I think Rahs to be the grand mastermind behind all things; the ventriloquist behind the curtain pulling the strings for other criminals would be an unique effect. It'd show that even if Rahs is dead or persumed dead, that he still has a effect or presence in Gotham.

[omerhead]

That's a pretty good idea, it sound like something that Christopher Nolan might do.

[souvlaki]

What is with everyone dismissing the idea of using the lazurus pit with Ra's? I fail to see why, just because Christopher Nolan is doing a more "realistic" take on Batman (what, Denny O'Neal didn't?), he can't introduce the lazurus pit. I mean, this is the same man that introduced the microwave emitter in Begins that somehow doesn't affect humans. The lazurus pit has been a part of Batman's history for almost forty years now. There was nothing in Begins that completely dismissed the possibility that the lazurus pit exists. I'm not saying that I necessarily want Ra's to return, but it would certainly not be a bad way to wrap up the series if he were to return toward the end of the next film. What I can't believe is there are people here that would rather see Heath Ledger re-cast as soon as the next film than Liam Neeson return as Ra's. I mean seriously people, I can understand not wanting Ra's to return because you want to see other villains, but I can't understand people saying they'd rather see the Joker return when the actor, who according to every review out there completely nailed the part, would be unable to return. It's too soon. The general public was already complaining when Heath was cast because as far as they were concerned at the time, nobody was going to top Jack Nicholson. Could you imagine the reaction if Nolan got someone else to fill in for Heath? Why is it so hard to just wait until someone other than Nolan takes a shot at Batman?

[omerhead]

I agree, I think the lazurus pit concept is pretty realistic. I don't know why people keep dismissing it,
maybe only comic book fans appreciate the concept.

[FenderBoy]

Ra's would work really well with Harvey Two-Face. I mean, Ra's was not about anarchy and chaos. He was about order and justice, by any means necessary, and he saw mankind as corrupt and unworthy. Thus, he could help Harvey Two-Face bring REAL justice to Gotham. Of course, as Bruce found out, Ra's's idea of justice and order are far different from his. Ra's could easily exploit Harvey Two-Face in the same way he tried to use Bruce to force justice on mankind. I think this would work really well, although I don't expect it to happen, but it's fun to speculate.

[rzatherazor]

I think you have a good point, but I think it'd be too hard to put on screen and allow pepole to enjoy it.

[Anakinos]

I dont think they need Ra's back so soon. Not till movie #5 or 6 at least.

I can live with that.

I think he should come back but as a haunting memory in the dreams of Bruce.

Like Bruce dreaming about not preventing Harvey's loss of sanity and Liam comes in and reiterates: "I told you about compassion Bruce."

Good Stuff IMO.

Nows theres a cameo that has Nolan's style all over it. He could also do a flash back of the joker killing a certain someone that makes bruce realize what he has to become to stop men like him.:brucebat::batty::hoboj:

[JAX]

[quote=Aidan2209;15162049]No, but seriously, he died. He isn't immortal (unless in a metaphorical sense). He can't be resurrected. The train crashed and exploded. He is now deceased. [quote]


That may or may not be the case. If you've watched the scene (which I'm sure someone here has a clip of) you could see someone or something jumping from the train. Not to disagree, but a cameo by Ra's in future films would be cool. Just not a whole arc around him.

[Caladbolg]

No, but seriously, he died. He isn't immortal (unless in a metaphorical sense). He can't be resurrected. The train crashed and exploded. He is now deceased. It isn't significant that you didn't see his body being thrown around the carriage and consumed by fire. Seeing the train crash and explode was enough. He's dead. Trying to explain how he survived would be ham-handed and silly, and ultimately unnecessary. Ra's is dead, he isn't coming back, even if they do any other films.

Agree.

[El Payaso]

Rahs is dead. There's no way he could've survived that crash. And I can't see how Nolan would use the Lazarus Pit or make Rahs immortal either. The only way Rahs the name, not the character, could return is if Rahs Al Ghul is just a name, a legendary name that many are reluctant and hesitant to speak or use because Rahs has been made sort of like The Phantom, as if he is a ghost that keeps walking and living on, but only Batman has seen his face.

I agree. Specially on the first three words.

[NinjaTurtleFan]

After, seeing "Wanted" the Lazarus Pit might work if you don't call it that but used the same pool they would dipped themselves in or bathe in to heal up their wounds and cauterize their cuts. Once again I don't know how Rahs could've ever survived the train crash but if you were to bring in the Pit that's how I would do it but I think Talia should take over the name and mess with Bruce's head about him being either alive or dead. He keeps hearing murmurs or whispers of his name is close quarters thinking it's possible he did survive but it's her who's decieving him and she takes on the name and the League of Shadows as a method of revenge. This would show like I stated before that Rahs still has a hand in puppeteering and motioning things; bringing on new terrors and supervillains to challenge our hero.

[darkseid26]

bring in talia and catwoman, and batman can watch them catfight.

[DACrowe]

Wow I'd love the character (one of my top 3 Batman villains) and Liam Neeson to come back. The series doesn't need him, move on.

Now, I could see them bringing Talia Al Ghul into a third movie. But I suspect we'll see Catwoman before we see Talia, though.

[Frontier]

So, this ties in with another post I'm going to make in the Begins section, but, I had some ideas and... one of them is, what if Thomas Wayne was involved with the League of Shadows? What if Ducard, when they tried their new weapon of economics, tried to reason with Wayne and stop his altruism, tried to explain that by causing a depression people would leave, and lives would not need to be sacrificed. No "plague rats" or "burning London to the ground" or "sacking Rome" - no, they could kill Gotham by depriving it of money and forcing people to leave, and then rebuild. Thomas Wayne, like his son, believed in the good though, and fought Ducard. And so... Ducard arranged for Joe Chill to kill them.

Ra's could be a really scary enemy for Bruce/Batman. He knows him well, knows all his secrets, trained him, knows his limits and what will stop him, shock him, distract him. He uses the daughter Wayne never knew he had, Talia, as a distraction - though she ends up falling for Bruce and dances on the fence of helping him or her father. He threatens Bruce in every way he can; threatens to reveal his identity, sets up a scenario where a number of thugs pull guns on parents out with their child and kills the parents to enrage Bruce, to make him watch such a thing, to use his own demons against him. They could completely gloss over his survival - or return - from Begins, just as they omitted the Joker's origins - in order to both add mystery, and to make him a much more imposing enemy.

Just a thought... ;)

[Superman Prime]

I'm surprised that few fans have considered that Ra's might actually return... and that the Joker was yet another one of his tools to bring Gotham to its knees and destroy it.

In my mind, he's still very much alive, biding his time.

[Brooklyn Zoo]

I just don't see The Lazarus Pit in the Nolan movies.

[Coleman Reese]

I can't see how they would bring him back without the lazarus pit and this pushes it outside the realism aspect of this franchise.

[Frontier]

I just don't see The Lazarus Pit in the Nolan movies.

You don't have to have it. They don't have to explain it. Nolan left Joker's origins unknown because it made him more mysterious, and more absolute. The same would be accomplished with Ra's. If it's unknown how he survived, he becomes a whole new level of threat. By keeping that a secret, it makes him an unknown element. Can anything really stop him for good? Apparent death did not.

[Superman Prime]

Here's a thought: He jumped out of the train before the explosion.

....?!?!?

And I'm not one of those nuts that thinks they see him do it in BB. It would've happened off-screen.

[The Major]

Ra's could be physically weak from his injuries in Batman Begins.

He could be calling the shots while others do the dirty work. Bane and/or Talia could be the League's field leaders.

[Coleman Reese]

Ok let's get past the explanations for brining Ra's back and query why reuse Ra's when you could just use another villain? Thematically Ra's was wrapped up at the closing of BB. So why does he come back? I don't see Nolan going the cliched revenge route that's been done a hundred times before. And for what purpose to try and destroy Gotham again after he failed once already?

[Superman Prime]

Ok let's get past the explanations for brining Ra's back and query why reuse Ra's when you could just use another villain? Thematically Ra's was wrapped up at the closing of BB. So why does he come back? I don't see Nolan going the cliched revenge route that's been done a hundred times before. And for what purpose to try and destroy Gotham again after he failed once already?

You're right. If at first you don't succeed, give up entirely.

:whatever:

[Coleman Reese]

You're right. If at first you don't succeed, give up entirely.

:whatever:

If you can come up with a fresh motivation for Ra's that fits in with where Batman 3 looks to be going with Batman being hunted down and such that Ra's would be a better choice than using another fresh, new villain I'm all ears.

[The Major]

If you can come up with a fresh motivation for Ra's that fits in with where Batman 3 looks to be going with Batman being hunted down and such that Ra's would be a better choice than using another fresh, new villain I'm all ears.

I agree.

They should just use Talia instead.

[Superman Prime]

If you can come up with a fresh motivation for Ra's that fits in with where Batman 3 looks to be going with Batman being hunted down and such that Ra's would be a better choice than using another fresh, new villain I'm all ears.

Why would he need a fresh motivation? He wants to destroy Gotham under Batman's nose. Period. That leaves countless doors open to the possibilities of "how."

I trust Nolan to come up with a supreme story in BB3, whether that involved Ra's or not.

[Coleman Reese]

Why would we need a fresh motivation? He wants to destroy Gotham under Batman's nose. Period. That leaves countless doors open as to the "how" of that.

I trust Nolan to come up with a supreme story in BB3, whether that involved Ra's or not.

Do you really wanna rehash a whole Ra's and the league of shadows surreptitiously trying to destroy Gotham again plot? Should creativity take a backseat to laziness?

[Symbiotic]

Here's a thought: He jumped out of the train before the explosion.

....?!?!?

And I'm not one of those nuts that thinks they see him do it in BB. It would've happened off-screen.That's really the only way he could've survived.

[Brooklyn Zoo]

I think the story needs to progress. Batman Begins was about Bruce saving Gotham, TDK is the start of a new class of criminal, and the third should be about the freaks taking over, leaving us with Batman having to take them on forever. So I rather see a bunch of minor villains running around (Mad Hatter, Killer Croc, Ventriloquist), with mob leaders trying to take over (Black Mask, and Penguin), and the big storyline being taken up by maybe someone like Riddler, Bane, or Two-Face.

[Blader5489]

Here's a thought: He jumped out of the train before the explosion.

Into what? Did the League of Shadows set up a huge safety net underneath the train tracks?

[The Major]

Do you really wanna rehash a whole Ra's and the league of shadows surreptitiously trying to destroy Gotham again plot? Should creativity take a backseat to laziness?
Reusing Ra's or the League of Shadows again doesn't mean its creatively lazy.

It means there's more story to be told about those characters.

If they did appear it wouldn't be Batman Begins 2.0. Things would be different. Unlike before they know how Batman operates more then they did the last time.
The events after BB and TDK would give them new perspectives on how to handle Batman and Gotham.

[cerealkiller182]

I wouldnt mind Talia taking her father's throne so to speak.

But bringing back Ra's is an easy fix. First of all, I think one of the ways to top Joker is to surreal. But I really think that as long as Nolan says so anything is possible. There comes a time when you got to say, "**** it"

Of course ultimately Id rather see someone like Bane or Freeze done well, or a character we havent seen at all

[The Major]

I wouldnt mind Talia taking her father's throne so to speak.

But bringing back Ra's is an easy fix. First of all, I think one of the ways to top Joker is to surreal. But I really think that as long as Nolan says so anything is possible. There comes a time when you got to say, "**** it"

Agreed.

Of course ultimately Id rather see someone like Bane or Freeze done well, or a character we haven't seen at all

That's why I'd be disappointed if they wrap this up with a trilogy.

Id like to see other directors, like Fincher, explore Nolan's world if he wants to leave the franchise after 2 or 3.

[marukisu]

...

[Superman Prime]

Into what? Did the League of Shadows set up a huge safety net underneath the train tracks?

He jumped to.... the hard concrete ground, and hurt himself. The train wasn't on the bridge when it exploded. It was in Wayne Tower.

Seriously, a lot of people on SHH don't even think before they make a post. It's getting intolerable to even read any of these threads.

[I Am The Knight]

I'd love to see Ra's come back, but I think Nolan will use Talia instead.

[NoirMan82]

I was one of those nuts who thought they saw Ra's jump (it was just a piece of metal) but it would sort of be cool if we had a Darth Vader/Palpatine relationship with Talia and Ra's. Talia executing Ra's plans while he secretly remains in the shadows.

[Doc Samson]

I can't see how they would bring him back without the lazarus pit and this pushes it outside the realism aspect of this franchise.

I just posted this in another thread in the Begins forum, but it applies to this as well:

When he crashes Bruce's birthday party, when he first reveals himself to be the true Ras he says "isn't Ras Al Ghul immortal, his methods supernatural" or something to that effect. Now Nolan has stated some of Batman's villains won't work because he's going for a realistic approach, but to me, it seems like Ras was admitting to being immortal, just like the comics :huh:.

He also goes on about destroying previous civilizations, dating back thousands of years. I don't believe we'll be seeing Ras again, but I always found it interesting that Nolan would use those choice of words. Maybe it was just a nod to fans, who knows, but I do find it odd that Ras himself refers to being immortal and supernatural...

[ManofmyWord]

I get what you're saying but I think it was just a nod to the comics. In terms of the story he was just using "Ras" as a metaphor for the league. How they've been around forever and in fact that Ras was a human symbol for their ideals. Much like he said "Ras saved us from our darkest fears". I think he really was Henri Ducard, but took on the Ras idenity. "As a man, I can be ignored, as a Symbol..."etc. Like Batman.

[Superman Prime]

but I do find it odd that Ras himself refers to being immortal and supernatural...

Don't let Ra's fool you. Theatricality and deception were prime themes in Batman Begins.

Bruce sums it up nicely when he tells Ra's they're cheap parlor tricks.

[ThePoisonPuppet]

The main reason they can't bring R'as back as far as I can see is that he knows who Batman is and if he wanted to combat him effectively, he would just reveal his identity to the public through a third party.

If he really wants to defeat Batman then he'd be dumb not to say who he is to everyone, I mean you could fix this with making up some kind of warrior's honor bullcrap but It would still seem weak to me. I mean the only reason he didn't do it in the 1st movie is he didn't think it was needed when Gotham was going down the tubes in several hours.

I guess if you wanted to have everyone know that Bruce is Batman in the movies it would be fine, but I don't see them going that route. Thats just me though.

[Superman Prime]

The main reason they can't bring R'as back as far as I can see is that he knows who Batman is and if he wanted to combat him effectively, he would just reveal his identity to the public through a third party.

How exactly would he go about doing that without making it look like a hoax?

[Nepenthes]

it would make no sense at all, by any standard of reasoning

[ThePoisonPuppet]

How exactly would he go about doing that without making it look like a hoax?

There is dozens of ways> Pictures and video footage of Batman and then comparing that to real life Bruce Wayne for one. I mean their mouthes and eyes still do look exactly the same. And there is also always files from Wayne Enterprises, though that might be harder to infiltrate. But once word got out that Bruce Wayne might be Batman and the evidence seemed like it made sense, then he would be so constantly hounded by the media it would be hard to keep it secret for long. And besides no one in TDK suggested that Coleman Reese was putting out a hoax. All R'as would have to do is make up a fake person with some inside information on him or something.

R'as would also be able to target Alfred, Lucius and anyone Bruce came in contact with at all, which would really flip things too far in his favor for a movie I think....

[chaseter]

I don't know how, but I think it'd be badass to bring back Ra's (Liam Neeson) and have him help Two-Face in his vigilante revenge. I mean, they could easily come up with a good way to explain his "death." Afterall, Ra's never really dies, even in the realism of Nolan's Batman, he could have survived. I say this also because I think continuous villains are a good thing in superhero stories (comics and movies). That's one thing that always bugged me about other superhero movies, like Burton's Batman, they just kill off the villains. Thoughts?
This is the lamest idea ever. I bet you hope SM4 has Doc Ock, Venom, Green Goblin, and Goblin Jr. all teaming up to finally get Spider-Man:whatever:

[IceVenom]

Pretty sure that Nolan has stated that he will never kill off his villains.

I think Ra's is alive. Either as somebody else or as himself still. The Laz pit could just be an old league of shadow's method of healing soldiers hurt in battle.

But yea, Ra's said his name is a symbol so some one could always take the mantle of Ra's, thus making him immortal.

I would love to see him in a cameo much like the scarecrow (Time frame of course).

But ultimately i want to see Talia's story.

[darkseid26]

i would want ra's to come back to bring the trilogy full circle, but i doubt he will, we always have talia thou...

[gwynplaine]

Huh, no... on the other hand Scarecrow:cwink:...

[COMPO]

what if Ra's came back and he was disabled he'd tried to get out of teh train last minute almost did but ended up crippled and has now a machanical lung and voice box so he cabn breath and speak making him more chilling and he sort of works in teh shadows having his minions stealing chemicals to make the lazarus pit.

[ThePoisonPuppet]

what if Ra's came back and he was disabled he'd tried to get out of teh train last minute almost did but ended up crippled and has now a machanical lung and voice box so he cabn breath and speak making him more chilling and he sort of works in teh shadows having his minions stealing chemicals to make the lazarus pit.


If you are going to change him that much he is not really Ra's Al Ghul anymore and it just seems kind of pointless.

[The Major]

If you are going to change him that much he is not really Ra's Al Ghul anymore and it just seems kind of pointless.

Ra's was already changed in Batman Begins. Compo is just expanding on that foundation.

[Melkay]

I just posted this in another thread in the Begins forum, but it applies to this as well:

When he crashes Bruce's birthday party, when he first reveals himself to be the true Ras he says "isn't Ras Al Ghul immortal, his methods supernatural" or something to that effect. Now Nolan has stated some of Batman's villains won't work because he's going for a realistic approach, but to me, it seems like Ras was admitting to being immortal, just like the comics :huh:.

He also goes on about destroying previous civilizations, dating back thousands of years. I don't believe we'll be seeing Ras again, but I always found it interesting that Nolan would use those choice of words. Maybe it was just a nod to fans, who knows, but I do find it odd that Ras himself refers to being immortal and supernatural...

This is absurd... Suggesting is not the same thing as admitting... and with Nolan's realism, suggesting is all we will have. Want to bring back Ra's after the Nolan finishes his trilogy? Fine. But AFTER that.

And let's not repeat villains just for repetition's sake. Bring new characters, keep fleshing out the Bat-world, do not los the freshness... this is not a soap opera, this is not endless returns of characters... Gotham must keep on expanding. batman must keep on expanding.

With realism, we will never have a Lazarus Pit. Maybe Ra's is alive, but with Nolan, we will never know. He won't betray himself like this.


And... to the first poster... Two-Face is dead. Deal with it in the best way you can, except denial.

[Doc Samson]

This is absurd... Suggesting is not the same thing as admitting... and with Nolan's realism, suggesting is all we will have. Want to bring back Ra's after the Nolan finishes his trilogy? Fine. But AFTER that.

And let's not repeat villains just for repetition's sake. Bring new characters, keep fleshing out the Bat-world, do not los the freshness... this is not a soap opera, this is not endless returns of characters... Gotham must keep on expanding. batman must keep on expanding.

With realism, we will never have a Lazarus Pit. Maybe Ra's is alive, but with Nolan, we will never know. He won't betray himself like this.


And... to the first poster... Two-Face is dead. Deal with it in the best way you can, except denial.


:whatever: See Melkay, this is where we always run into problems. What's so absurd about repeating what Ras himself said? I wasn't saying he in fact is immortal, I'm saying why would Nolan use those choice of words? It could of very well just been a nod to the fans, thats fine, but its absurd that you would even try to take that and attempt to flip it into something else. I never said to bring him back definitely, I don't care either way, I'm just asking the question of why would Nolan, who is obsessed with this realism as you just pointed out, use that termanology? Since it seems like you thirst for another argument, tell me, why did he say that, in that way, with those words?

[The Major]

Doc:

Technically Ra's al Ghul could be immortal, just not in a super natural form.

Its not a secret the League uses trickery and symbols. Ra's is one of their symbols. It's a rank, not a character.

[chaseter]

It was said that Ra's is not a single person, he is an idea...a symbol like Batman and that is immortal.

[Melkay]

:whatever: See Melkay, this is where we always run into problems. What's so absurd about repeating what Ras himself said? I wasn't saying he in fact is immortal, I'm saying why would Nolan use those choice of words? It could of very well just been a nod to the fans, thats fine, but its absurd that you would even try to take that and attempt to flip it into something else. I never said to bring him back definitely, I don't care either way, I'm just asking the question of why would Nolan, who is obsessed with this realism as you just pointed out, use that termanology? Since it seems like you thirst for another argument, tell me, why did he say that, in that way, with those words?

Doc, why do you pressume so many things? Instead of answering your questions, let me ask you some other... why did Ra's said what he said... in that way? See, he wasn't making any sort of statements about whether or not he was inmortal? He was asking rethorical questions (because he knows the answer to this) and his choice of words was a nod to the fans ONLY. To the memebers of the audience that don't know about Ra's inmortality in the comics, he was just talking about the tradition of having a Ra's Al Ghul in the League, and protecting him. That's why we get Bruce's opinion on the matter... "just cheap parlos tricks to conceal your true identity"... and that's all we got. Ra's doesn't even deny it. All the moviegoers (the ones unfamiliar with the comics) got was that Ra's was taunting Bruce and that's it.

Nolan's world is rooted in realism. Nobody expects him to break that in such a drastic way, but to change completely the inmortality aspect without giving some space to give the source material the respect it deserves... that would have been too much. That's why we got that moment and the other one where he closes his eyes trance-like before going down with the train. That, and never showing the body. That's all, those were the moments that were made entirely for the comic fans wihtout spoiling the consistent realism for the movie-goers. That's it. Each side had expectations and Nolan and Goyer made sure that there was space for both of them... but never gave any hint beyond that. He won't return with Ra's and you know it, that's why I find so absurd that you are willing to give the idea some thought.

The terminology, as you say, was just a nod to the fans. There's nothing puzzling about it, that's how it is. If he had chosen some other words, then it WOULDN'T be a NOD to the FANS. What is puzzling here is how you are not seeing that.

[Doc Samson]

Doc, why do you pressume so many things? Instead of answering your questions, let me ask you some other... why did Ra's said what he said... in that way? See, he wasn't making any sort of statements about whether or not he was inmortal? He was asking rethorical questions (because he knows the answer to this) and his choice of words was a nod to the fans ONLY. To the memebers of the audience that don't know about Ra's inmortality in the comics, he was just talking about the tradition of having a Ra's Al Ghul in the League, and protecting him. That's why we get Bruce's opinion on the matter... "just cheap parlos tricks to conceal your true identity"... and that's all we got. Ra's doesn't even deny it. All the moviegoers (the ones unfamiliar with the comics) got was that Ra's was taunting Bruce and that's it.

Nolan's world is rooted in realism. Nobody expects him to break that in such a drastic way, but to change completely the inmortality aspect without giving some space to give the source material the respect it deserves... that would have been too much. That's why we got that moment and the other one where he closes his eyes trance-like before going down with the train. That, and never showing the body. That's all, those were the moments that were made entirely for the comic fans wihtout spoiling the consistent realism for the movie-goers. That's it. Each side had expectations and Nolan and Goyer made sure that there was space for both of them... but never gave any hint beyond that. He won't return with Ra's and you know it, that's why I find so absurd that you are willing to give the idea some thought.

The terminology, as you say, was just a nod to the fans. There's nothing puzzling about it, that's how it is. If he had chosen some other words, then it WOULDN'T be a NOD to the FANS. What is puzzling here is how you are not seeing that.

Jesus christ, people need to relax, I never said Ras was immortal, I was just bringing up the notion that he said it that way. In my original post, I said myself, that it was probably just a nod to fans but I found it odd that he would still use the words immortal in a realistic based film. I also said myself that the title of Ras Al Ghul could be more like a symbol, passed down through generations, I got all that. It was more of a rhetorical question in another thread in the first place, I only posted that here because, like I said above, it applies to this thread and IMO was an interesting choice of words that I wanted to discuss, period. I'm willing to give anything thought, thats the point of a messageboard.