Batman Begins Contradiction of 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.

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

[RustyCage]

Deleted stupid post. lol

 

[Brother 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.

Spoiler

 

[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.

 

[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.