Batman Begins Contradiction of morals?

[Brother 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.

 

[Brother 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.

 

[Brother 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.

Spoiler

 

[El Payaso]

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

Yes, and Batman caused his fall.

 

[Brother Jack]

Yes, and Batman caused his fall.

Kind of stating the obvious.

 

[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?

 

[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?

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.