Contradiction of morals?

[The Joker]

I was reading a debate on another forum about Batman's 'No killing' policy, and someone brought up Batman Begins. Specifically the scene in the League of Shadows lair, where Ra's wants Bruce to kill the murdering farmer in order to demonstrate his commitment his justice, Bruce refuses, stating he will not become an executioner.

However, in order to escape the situation when Ra's tells him for his own sake there's no turning back and he has to do it, Bruce tosses the hot poker up onto a pile of explosives, and effectively destroys the lair, and in the process we see several League members get blown away, and ironically the farmer who Bruce refused to execute probably perished, too.

I'd love to hear what some of the folk here think about this. Did Bruce contradict his morals and show no regard for human life by igniting those explosives? Some may argue that he only did it to escape, but is that the only way he could have escaped?

Lets hear your thoughts.

[Travesty]

Oh, this has been a debate since day-one, and I have to say, sure, he contradicted himself. I think it's pretty evident, and while it can be 'debated', I think he straight up murdered some folks. Although, sticking to his morals, I don't think it was intentional to kill anybody, but more of a distraction that went bad. :cwink:

[El Payaso]

I think there's a legal name for what he did there; to do something that results directly or indirectly in someone else's death.

[frodawgg]

^^^Manslaughter?

Or negligence of some sort?

[El Payaso]

^^^Manslaughter?

I think that's it.

Anyways, he 's responsible for those deaths which I think he considered better than being an active executioner. But still not a very pro-'no killing' policy thing.

[Travesty]

I think that's it.

Anyways, he 's responsible for those deaths which I think he considered better than being an active executioner. But still not a very pro-'no killing' policy thing.
Yeah, he's responsible for those deaths, but it was unintentional. He didn't kill them on purpose. I mean, he's Batman, if he wanted to, he could have.:cwink:

[IBRAH08]

I think the bigger contradiction of Bat's character is the infamous line, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"

[El Payaso]

Yeah, he's responsible for those deaths, but it was unintentional. He didn't kill them on purpose. I mean, he's Batman, if he wanted to, he could have.:cwink:

He did something that clearly endangered their lives. And then at least one of them died. Unintentional, let's say yes, but still responsible for a human being's death.

I think the bigger contradiction of Bat's character is the infamous line, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"

Oh, absolutely.

There's a long-winded thread about that somewhere.

[Jack O Lantern]

Meh, it's a Christopher Nolan film, they don't tend to make sense. I mean this is a film in which the bad guys main plot was to poision people by turing water into gas. Then he has a bunch of scenes that has steam rising from the ground and no feels any effects.

The villian turns the water to gas by using a machine that does it instantly. We first see this device being turned on while it's on a boat in the middle of the ocean. The water in the ocean is strangely immune.

So much of the movie contradicts itself, but Nolan moves from scene to scene so quickly and has that Hans Simmer score that tells us exactly how to feel that people don't seem to notice.

[3atman]

Nolan's movies make sense in the areas that they absolutely must. That being, to advance the story he wants to tell. They'll have their flaws, but they're disguised well enough either with elegant dialogue (to try to sound intelligent although when you really listen it's not) or with cleverly shot scenes that distract you.

Nolan is one heck of a director, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he's James Cameron who likse to disguise massive MASSIVE flaws that go against everything a good movie should be like terrible acting, boring tired story, and the worst dialogue written for a movie ever considered for any kind of oscar ever *cough cough that piece of crap avatar cough cough*

Nolan's plots are pretty interesting and more of a puzzle, he casts people who can act, he stays true to most source material, he's innovative, he makes genuinely good movies that in 20 years people will still enjoy, he's still a bit artsy at times but not to the point of becoming a parody, he sells a lot of tickets, but doesn't go to the extent that his movies become brainless cheesey popcorn trash movies.

Basically his movies aren't the masterpieces fanboys say they are because they're worked into thinking they're more intelligent than they are but they definately aren't simply "popcorn" action either. Great blend and perfect for a franchise that wants to both sell tickets and please a hardcore fan base (which is what the Batman property is).

[Bathead]

There's also the side of the argument that the only person in the monastery that we know absolutely for sure died was fake Ra's. Sure we saw the ninjas being tossed about but it's unclear as to their ultimate fate. Some folk will say, well, being tossed about in explosions like that had to be deadly, and yet, Nolan makes a point os showing "Ra's" being quite obviously dead, why would he not show any ninjas as dead? And there are some that point to the party scene at Wayne manor later, where the claim is you see all the ninjas that were present at the monastery very much alive. Myself I'm not sure at all what exactly happened. I really wish Nolan had made it much clearer, it does indeed seem to be a contradiction if they did die earlier.

[CWP]

However, in order to escape the situation when Ra's tells him for his own sake there's no turning back and he has to do it, Bruce tosses the hot poker up onto a pile of explosives, and effectively destroys the lair, and in the process we see several League members get blown away, and ironically the farmer who Bruce refused to execute probably perished, too.

It may not count for much, but I remember in the video game, you were required to rescue the prisoner and escape with him alive or you'd fail the mission. :oldrazz:

[Original Spawn]

The ninja´s probably escaped eccept the ras all ghoul decoy who died unintentionally, in the end bruce doesn´t save ras because if he does it he returns.
Batman Begins is actually inteligent but it has as many flaws as raimi´s spider-man.
But it´s a bit better of course.

[ALP]

Batman killed fake Ra's, commited arson, and then refused to save a life.

[El Payaso]

Batman killed fake Ra's, commited arson, and then refused to save a life.

erm... he didn't refuse to save a life.... was that sarcasm?

[ALP]

Well I was not serious about any of them at all really.

I really think you guys are just looking too far. Batman's intentions are(almost) always noble. He wanted to save the thief, that was the point of the scene. I don't think Nolan's intentions was to make us think, "Oh Batman threw the hot poker in the hay and killed 100 people" lol

Digging too deep.

[General Vulcun]

Nolan's Batman definitely walks a fine line, but he never crosses over into being a murderer. Bruce said he would not be an executioner, and not at one moment in Begins does he become one.

[El Payaso]

Well I was not serious about any of them at all really.

And yet two of them were kinda true.

On that scene. Because he did refuse to save a life with Ra's on the monorail scene.

So it's not that sarcastic.

I really think you guys are just looking too far. Batman's intentions are(almost) always noble. He wanted to save the thief, that was the point of the scene. I don't think Nolan's intentions was to make us think, "Oh Batman threw the hot poker in the hay and killed 100 people" lol

Oh we know. The thing is that, sometimes, directors' intentions are ones but the results are different.

He wanted to save the thief and he ended up provoking someone else's death. (And I don't know how that thief with his hands tied could escape from there when free-hands ninjas weren't).

I think he didn't want to save the thief as much as save himself from killing a man.

[El Payaso]

Nolan's Batman definitely walks a fine line, but he never crosses over into being a murderer. Bruce said he would not be an executioner, and not at one moment in Begins does he become one.

He found though a way to get an enemy killed without breaking the rules "legally."

[ALP]

And yet two of them were kinda true.

On that scene. Because he did refuse to save a life with Ra's on the monorail scene.

So it's not that sarcastic.

Oh we know. The thing is that, sometimes, directors' intentions are ones but the results are different.

He wanted to save the thief and he ended up provoking someone else's death. (And I don't know how that thief with his hands tied could escape from there when free-hands ninjas weren't).

I think he didn't want to save the thief as much as save himself from killing a man.

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what your meaning up top.

Those three things I mentioned, Batman did sort of do them in a way. He caused fake Ra's to get killed, burned down the entire place, and let real Ra's die. It's just that I don't think they should officially count if you know what i mean...I wasn't really trying to be sarcastic I was just joking.

Because if we really want to stretch it and think that Batman caused the death of the shadow members...couldn't we just as easily assume that most of them were able to make it out through the back entrance or something...since they are speedy world class ninjas. Besides, Ra's has many ninjas at the end of the film so they all couldn't have died(unless we are to believe he trained another 50 people in that timeframe)

But really it just depends on how you look at it all.

[El Payaso]

Oh yes.

Still he did cause fake Ra's death, he did set the place on fire and he did refuse to save Ra's.

What's up to imagination is whatever happened to the thief.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Almost all directors who have ever done Batman, with the exception of Bruce Timm, have struggled with the "no killing" policy, and in some cases with the "no gun" policy.

Burton certainly seemed to understand the "no gun" policy, but he frequently had Batman do things that you knew had to either result in death or lead to the strong probability of said characters' death.

Nolan seems troubled by both. He's at least tried to articulate the "no killing" policy, but hasn't really tried to put it in practice. Batman essentially firebombs Ra's temple, but does make a curious effort to save Ra's Al Ghul, and no one else. Then in TDK, he "kills" Harvey Dent and also blows up a good portion of a parking structure. While no one was harmed, it was certainly a reckless action that could've easily resulted in death. In addition, Nolan seems to have no qualms about Batman indirectly or directly using guns.

Then in Schumacher's films Batman kills Harvey Dent again, albeit unintentionally, but it seemed like throwing coins would ONLY result in him falling into a pit of spikes. Ironically though Batman & Robin actually gets both the "no killing" and "no guns" rules absolutely correct.

I think directors, especially in regards to action, don't really consider a lot of the unintentional contradictions of every action scene. Crashing a train, blowing up a building, or pancaking cop cars more than likely is gonna kill someone, but it makes for good visuals...so it's usually a while before they start to leave a sour taste.

[ALP]

Oh yes.

Still he did cause fake Ra's death, he did set the place on fire and he did refuse to save Ra's.

What's up to imagination is whatever happened to the thief.

I haven't seen Batman Begins in a bit so my memormy may be a bit sketchy...but how exactly did fake Ra's die? Wasn't he sword fighting with Bruce and then Bruce pushed him out of the way and when he was pushed away the ruble and burning wood fell on him?

I suppose in court Batman could be charged with some sort of murder. Never mind him destroying all the rooftops in Gotham:oldrazz:

[General Vulcun]

I haven't seen Batman Begins in a bit so my memormy may be a bit sketchy...but how exactly did fake Ra's die? Wasn't he sword fighting with Bruce and then Bruce pushed him out of the way and when he was pushed away the ruble and burning wood fell on him?

I suppose in court Batman could be charged with some sort of murder. Never mind him destroying all the rooftops in Gotham:oldrazz:

They were sword fighting, the explosion knocked them both down, Bruce rolls out of the way, fake Ra's does not, burning wood falls on fake Ra's. If you want to get technical about it, Bruce murders fake Ra's because he should've saved him but decide to let fake Ra's roll out of the way in the same way that he rolled out of the way.

Obviously, though, Nolan isn't dealing in technicalities. If you deconstruct Bruce's actions enough you can prove on some level that he is a murderer, that he is responsible for the deaths of other people (you could probably argue this with BTAS as well, if it wasn't for the wild coincidences that saved some villains in order to keep the show at the G rated level), but it doesn't prove Bruce to be the thing he said he wouldn't be: an executioner, someone whose actions directly intend for someone else to die.

As I said, the line is very fine and Batman is indeed incredibly reckless, but he never becomes an executioner.

[ALP]

Good point. There are many times that he actually causes others death or at least he "allows" them to get killed. I can think of several times in TAS and the comics where crooks are shooting at Batman, he glides out of the way, gets behind another crook and they shoot eachother up instead.

But yeah Batman does not do something like shot someone or break their neck lol

[Happy Jack]

The only time Batman ever actually killed anyone was when he pushed Two-Face over the ledge to his death. But even then the intention was not to kill Dent so much as it was to keep him from killing Gordon Jr. Honestly with the stuff Batman does (in all incarnations) on a regular basis it's a wonder he doesn't accidentally kill people more often.

[Travesty]

The only time Batman ever actually killed anyone was when he pushed Two-Face over the ledge to his death. But even then the intention was not to kill Dent so much as it was to keep him from killing Gordon Jr. Honestly with the stuff Batman does (in all incarnations) on a regular basis it's a wonder he doesn't accidentally kill people more often.Exactly. It's almost like saying a driver who was trying to swerve out of the way of another car, and hitting another, while killing the people in that car, is his fault. Stuff just happens sometimes, and not everything can go so smoothly as planned.

[El Payaso]

The only time Batman ever actually killed anyone ...

Yes, but we were also talking about the times he let someone else die or when the deaths came indirectly from Batman's actions.

Pushing Harvey Dent couldn't have been more justified. The thing is if the Nolan could have done the scene some other way.

[Original Spawn]

From what i read, Harvey only died because his neck was brocken when batman pushed him.

[ALP]

Yes, but we were also talking about the times he let someone else die or when the deaths came indirectly from Batman's actions.

Pushing Harvey Dent couldn't have been more justified. The thing is if the Nolan could have done the scene some other way.

If Nolan wanted Two Face alive the scene would have been easy to write.

Instead of being in a small building, they could have been in a massive building and when Batman pushed Two Face, he used the grappler to grab him and save them both just as he saved Joker.

Instead it went that way, they were in a small building so Batman didn't have the time to pull out the grapple and save him, it was an immediate splat. Because Nolan wanted Two Face dead.

[El Payaso]

From what i read, Harvey only died because his neck was brocken when batman pushed him.

The neck got broken as a result of the fallen.

If Nolan wanted Two Face alive the scene would have been easy to write.

Instead of being in a small building, they could have been in a massive building and when Batman pushed Two Face, he used the grappler to grab him and save them both just as he saved Joker.

Instead it went that way, they were in a small building so Batman didn't have the time to pull out the grapple and save him, it was an immediate splat. Because Nolan wanted Two Face dead.

Yes.

The thing is that he could have died because of something other than Batman killing him.

[Happy Jack]

Yes.

The thing is that he could have died because of something other than Batman killing him.
Batman could have just walked in from behind armed with a batarang and taken Dent down (though that would have been very risky) but he didn't, he chose to try to reason with Harvey because he still believed in the good in him. Unfortunately that doesn't work and Batman gets shot, leaving him with no other choice (in his mind anyway).

[The Joker]

From what i read, Harvey only died because his neck was brocken when batman pushed him.

Bloody hell, Batman would have to have pushed him with the force and speed of Superman to have broken Harvey's neck when he pushed him.

[Happy Jack]

His neck broke due to the fall, not Batman's push.

[The Joker]

Exactly. If that push broke Harvey's neck, then it would have easily snapped the child's neck, too.

[ALP]

You both grossly underestimate his powers.

http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/Goddamn%20Batman%202.gif

[El Payaso]

His neck broke due to the fall, not Batman's push.

Yes, and Batman caused his fall.

[Happy Jack]

Yes, and Batman caused his fall.
Kind of stating the obvious. :cwink:

[LightningFlash]

From what i read, Harvey only died because his neck was brocken when batman pushed him.

So Batman was missing and Superman was wearing the cape and cowl?

"Knight Time" all over again.

[Travesty]

Exactly. If that push broke Harvey's neck, then it would have easily snapped the child's neck, too.
Now, I'm not saying the initial push broke anybody's neck, but if it did, how would it have broken both necks, if Batman's actual impact was at Harvey, not the kids? Or am I just reading this debate wrong?:huh:

[The Joker]

Now, I'm not saying the initial push broke anybody's neck, but if it did, how would it have broken both necks, if Batman's actual impact was at Harvey, not the kids? Or am I just reading this debate wrong?:huh:

The force of the push knocked the kid back, too, because Harvey was holding him. A force strong enough to break a man's neck would definitely do the same to a child's.

[Travesty]

The force of the push knocked the kid back, too, because Harvey was holding him. A force strong enough to break a man's neck would definitely do the same to a child's.I don't think it works that way. I don't think a persons force can be so strong to break the person he was pile-driving, along with the person they were holding. The kid was an indirect contact, while Harvey was clearly the direct contact.


Anyways, I don't subscribe to Batman Breaking Hervey's neck before the fall, but if he did, I don't think it would even be physically possible to break both necks, especially when one person was indirectly hit/involved. It just doesn't make sense.....

[Man of Steel]

Almost all directors who have ever done Batman, with the exception of Bruce Timm, have struggled with the "no killing" policy, and in some cases with the "no gun" policy.

Burton certainly seemed to understand the "no gun" policy, but he frequently had Batman do things that you knew had to either result in death or lead to the strong probability of said characters' death.

Nolan seems troubled by both. He's at least tried to articulate the "no killing" policy, but hasn't really tried to put it in practice. Batman essentially firebombs Ra's temple, but does make a curious effort to save Ra's Al Ghul, and no one else. Then in TDK, he "kills" Harvey Dent and also blows up a good portion of a parking structure. While no one was harmed, it was certainly a reckless action that could've easily resulted in death. In addition, Nolan seems to have no qualms about Batman indirectly or directly using guns.

Then in Schumacher's films Batman kills Harvey Dent again, albeit unintentionally, but it seemed like throwing coins would ONLY result in him falling into a pit of spikes. Ironically though Batman & Robin actually gets both the "no killing" and "no guns" rules absolutely correct.

I think directors, especially in regards to action, don't really consider a lot of the unintentional contradictions of every action scene. Crashing a train, blowing up a building, or pancaking cop cars more than likely is gonna kill someone, but it makes for good visuals...so it's usually a while before they start to leave a sour taste.
What about when he killed Joe Chill in court? How come no one's bringing that up? And Schumacher's Two-Face didn't die, I saw him in Arkham in Batman and Robin.

[Grommers]

I never looked at all those ninja's dying as really bruce's fault.

They all had potential to get out of that building, most of them tried to stay and fight Bruce if not all of them. They made the decision to risk there lives to try and stop bruce. Yes, the scenario happened because of bruce. Had it been an old age home or something I would blame Bruce 100% because they did not have the means to get out. However, these guys did have the means to escape they just decided to try and stop bruce instead showing little regard for there own lives.

[The Joker]

And Schumacher's Two-Face didn't die, I saw him in Arkham in Batman and Robin.

You saw him, or you saw his costume in the criminal property room?

[El Payaso]

I never looked at all those ninja's dying as really bruce's fault.

They all had potential to get out of that building, most of them tried to stay and fight Bruce if not all of them. They made the decision to risk there lives to try and stop bruce. Yes, the scenario happened because of bruce. Had it been an old age home or something I would blame Bruce 100% because they did not have the means to get out. However, these guys did have the means to escape they just decided to try and stop bruce instead showing little regard for there own lives.

If someone puts your house on fire, it is his fault if someone in there dies, no matter if you had the potential of escape.

And we saw no ninja dying but we saw old Ra's dying.

Now, you say that ninjas are able to escape. But what about that fat guy with his hands tied on his back? Did Bruce assumed he could wasily escape?

[The Joker]

We did see some ninjas get blow away by the explosions.

[El Payaso]

We did see some ninjas get blow away by the explosions.

You're right.

[RustyCage]

I don't know, everyone who saw what was happening had a chance to flee. And I mean, they're ninjas. He wasn't trying to kill anyone, just set up a distraction. People dying was an undesired possibility that he had to risk. It was that tight of a situation. They chose to stick around.

Someone might have said this by now, but I was more shocked at the way Batman deliberately lit that dude on fire with the Batmobile in Returns.

[ALP]

You saw him, or you saw his costume in the criminal property room?

That was just Schumacher's way of giving us a reference, but it ended up entirely sloppy and confusing for some.

If someone puts your house on fire, it is his fault if someone in there dies, no matter if you had the potential of escape.

And we saw no ninja dying but we saw old Ra's dying.

Now, you say that ninjas are able to escape. But what about that fat guy with his hands tied on his back? Did Bruce assumed he could wasily escape?

It was a bit strange that Bruce specifically saved Ducard(who asked him to murder) while he left the criminal man with his hands tied to die...seeing as the whole intent of catching fire to the place was to save the criminal.


Someone might have said this by now, but I was more shocked at the way Batman deliberately lit that dude on fire with the Batmobile in Returns.
Burton's Batman does not enter into the equation because his killing was intentional as Batman did in his early days. So Keaton's Batman wasn't really contradicting his morals.

[RustyCage]

Burton's Batman does not enter into the equation because his killing was intentional as Batman did in his early days. So Keaton's Batman wasn't really contradicting his morals.

What do you mean by 'in his early days'? Cause Begins was the origin story, those days are early as they get. So I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Simply saying 'Burton just didn't have a Batman with as strong morals' suffices, but yeah.

[ALP]

What do you mean by 'in his early days'? Cause Begins was the origin story, those days are early as they get. So I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Simply saying 'Burton just didn't have a Batman with as strong morals' suffices, but yeah.

lol, you don't understand what I'm saying. Perhaps I worded it wrong.

I do not mean Batman's actual career in a timeline. I mean his original Bob Kane conception over 70 years ago. In the late 30s through the 40s Batman was a stone cold killer. He snapped people's necks, choked them til they died, and carried a gun for a short while. Kane conceived Batman as a killer.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_bdVR-JIDi2g/Rgfy0MmGb_I/AAAAAAAAA30/R_oZS6xcBXo/s400/with-gun.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_xBR8gYSco18/SP0Qh8tDRBI/AAAAAAAAAjY/SyxoZI0VwcU/s400/batman2.jpg

[RustyCage]

Deleted stupid post. lol

[Happy Jack]

I do not mean Batman's actual career in a timeline. I mean his original Bob Kane conception over 70 years ago. In the late 30s through the 40s Batman was a stone cold killer. He snapped people's necks, choked them til they died, and carried a gun for a short while. Kane conceived Batman as a killer.

That was only in '39 if I remember correctly. Though it's canon and isn't technically a wrong characterization, it's something I've never liked. Kane's original concept wasn't all that great, in fact it was Bill Finger who really made Batman Batman.

[ALP]

Yes, you are right. It was only until '40 that he killed. He did not stop totally killing until after Robin came along. I'm not a big fan of it myself, only pointing out the basis for it in Burton's films. I believe it was Daniel Waters(or possibly Hamm) who said Batman killing in the first two films was inspired by the very early Kane comics. As for Finger, Batman would not exist without him or Kane, I've always seen it as 50-50. Anyway, here's an article I found that details Batman's original killing habbits, and lists all of the comic books in which he murdered from 1939-40.

http://rikdad.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-batman-kill-his-enemies.html

Batman also carried a gun and holster in Year 2 after deciding he would become like the criminals he faces, but he later realizes it is not the path he wants.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_SIUL8EbikTs/TDfK82ga78I/AAAAAAAABFo/qB7yREykOmo/s1600/BatmanGun.jpg

[General Vulcun]

If someone puts your house on fire, it is his fault if someone in there dies, no matter if you had the potential of escape.

And we saw no ninja dying but we saw old Ra's dying.

Now, you say that ninjas are able to escape. But what about that fat guy with his hands tied on his back? Did Bruce assumed he could wasily escape?

You mean the fat guy whose hands were untied by Bruce? The same fat guy who, after his hands were untied, ran away off screen?

Thing is, we all have are perspective on the situation, as the prisoner just runs off screen and that is that. Those of us who want to side with "Bruce was an executioner in this scene" are more likely to argue for the possibility that a LoS member caughter him along the way (one of the ones who didn't stay behind to watch fake Ra's and Bruce fight) or he was killed by a LoS member or by the explosion. Those of us who believe "Bruce was acting in self-defense and didn't set the fire with the intent of having everyone in that room other than himself die" while likely argue that after Bruce untied the prisoner he escaped. I mean, since there isn't enough evidence to conclusively say one way or the other, we are more likely to side with the theory that best suits the side we want to support.

That said, I personally believe that the prisoner escaped. He was freed before the explosion really got going or before wreckage really started to fly. The last feeling I got when I saw him run off screen was not that of a feeling of doom for that character. Nolan doesn't imply he died in the wreckage, nor does he imply re-capture or murder at the hands of a ninja. It'll be different for everyone, but the personal impression I got was that we were ment to think the prisoner escaped.

That is, uh, if we actually noticed the shot of the prisoner escaping. :oldrazz::cwink:

[Grommers]

If someone puts your house on fire, it is his fault if someone in there dies, no matter if you had the potential of escape.

And we saw no ninja dying but we saw old Ra's dying.

Now, you say that ninjas are able to escape. But what about that fat guy with his hands tied on his back? Did Bruce assumed he could wasily escape?

I have to disagree, bruce didn't set the fireworks off to put the house on fire, he set them off for a distraction. Different intention completely.

As for the man that was tied up, yeah i got nothing, and I wish nolan would of had one of the ninjas just kill him after he said no.