Batman Begins "Consider us even."

Reflectionist

Civilian
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Messages
222
Reaction score
0
Points
11
"You burned down my house and left me for dead; consider us even."

Bruce didn't leave him for dead, Bruce rescued him (quite painfully, actually) so what does Ra's mean by this? Is this just a mistake, or...? The Shaman even says, "I'll tell him you saved his life."

Also, check out how hilarious Ken-Ra's' scream is when the wood falls on him.

"AAAIIIIEEEEEE!!"
 
I think in the movie Ra's al Ghul is less of a person and more of a generational title, so when Watanabe died, Ducard took his place. So when he said that Bruce "left him for dead," he wasn't talking about Ducard, he was talking about Ra's al Ghul.
 
Bruce killed the man he thought was Ra's al Ghul when he escaped from the temple. The fact that he saved Ducard's life doesn't matter, because in Bruce's mind he had left al Ghul for dead.
 
I think in the movie Ra's al Ghul is less of a person and more of a generational title, so when Watanabe died, Ducard took his place. So when he said that Bruce "left him for dead," he wasn't talking about Ducard, he was talking about Ra's al Ghul.
Wrong.

Neeson's character was Ra's Al Ghul from the start. Ken Watanabe's character was a decoy. Neeson's character admits as much in the birthday party scene, with the "cheap parlor tricks / dual identities" line.

When Ra's (Neeson) says "You burned my house down and left me for dead", he isn't of course entirely correct. Bruce did indeed save him first. But he did burn his house down and took off as soon as he could. So it's not hard to understand why Ra's has a serious chip on his shoulder with regards to Bruce. He at least feels like he was left for dead, since Bruce obviously didn't want to stick around to see if he made it or not.

Besides, Ra's is a villain with many less-than-logical motivations, let's not forget!
 
The way I interpreted was that he basically meant in terms of his clan & Ras' ideologies not in a literal sense. When Bruce left since the temple was burned down with members in it the league was presumably no more.
 
I agree with Riven and Cain both, but in addition to their theories, I always thought that it was part of Ra's Al Ghul's ideology. Bruce burned his home, and didn't stay to face the consequences. He didn't even stay long enough to be sure Ra's was okay. Therefore, Ra's burns his house, and leaves him to escape on his own. That's Ra's idea of justice. This comes into play one final time with Batman's line, "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."
 
Wrong.

Neeson's character was Ra's Al Ghul from the start. Ken Watanabe's character was a decoy. Neeson's character admits as much in the birthday party scene, with the "cheap parlor tricks / dual identities" line.

When Ra's (Neeson) says "You burned my house down and left me for dead", he isn't of course entirely correct. Bruce did indeed save him first. But he did burn his house down and took off as soon as he could. So it's not hard to understand why Ra's has a serious chip on his shoulder with regards to Bruce. He at least feels like he was left for dead, since Bruce obviously didn't want to stick around to see if he made it or not.

Besides, Ra's is a villain with many less-than-logical motivations, let's not forget!


dido
 
Would it have been great if Nolan just nodded to a Lazarus Pit!?
The scene when Ra's Al Ghul's place was destroyed would have been great for this.

For example: Ra's is deadly wounded during this, and at some point we get a shot of him crawling and slowly starting to crawl into a pit (just a shot of his hands, going in first that's all) in some weird lavalike substance. That would have been great!

The "you left me for dead" scene would have also been more correct.

Sigh...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"