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.

[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]

Originally Posted by frodawgg

^^^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]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Travesty

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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"

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]

Originally Posted by Joker

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by ALP

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.

[El Payaso]

Originally Posted by ALP

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.

Originally Posted by ALP

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.

[ALP]

Originally Posted by El Payaso

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[ALP]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[General Vulcun]

Originally Posted by ALP

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

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.

[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.

[Man of Steel]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.