The Dark Knight Rises Has Nolan done a good job showing super-moral Batman?

[GregComicFan]

Hi,

As a kid, I remember watching Batman: The Animated Series and one of the things that struck me about Batman was... he's human, but he has perfected his body to a high degree, perfected his intellect, but also... his moral compass... Batman never kills, he saves the bad guy, he's mr. morality....we all know what I'm talking about, so no need to explain...

Has Nolan done a good job at showing this? I think he has...

1. Batman uses non-lethal tactics... no guns, no deadly weapons, he interrogates criminals without using the real threat of death...
2. He saved Ducard; then he let him make his own fate on the train.
3. Batman didn't kill the Joker.
4. Batman tried to reason with Dent, twice, on two occasions. Then he only struck him because it was either his life or the life of a young boy.
5. He keeps telling Gordon "You don't have to thank me".... LOL.
6. He gave Lucius the power to spy on Gotham's citizens, not himself, then destroyed the machine after the Joker had been discovered.
7. He tried to turn himself in when Gotham's public figures were being murdered.... and last.... but definitely not least....
...8. He took the fall for Dent's killings.

So I think Nolan has done an EXCELLENT job at reminding us WHY Batman is a hero and resembling the Batman of B:TAS and the comics.

You?

Greg

PS: Please don't make this into a thread about Batman/Ras Al Ghul and whether or not Batman killed him/did the right thing.... talk about all of Batman's choices in the two films. The thread about Ras already exists and would be redundant and I don't like my threads getting deleted

 

[Goodfellas]

Whats the point of this thread??
Isn't it pretty obvious Nolan has done a good job of making sure Batman doesnt kill and has morals?

 

[GregComicFan]

Uuuh no some people might disagree. That is what I am asking.

 

[SheldonLevene]

In my opinion there is more to morality than simply using non-lethal tactics and not killing. He has proven himself to be a pretty brutal s.o.b. (dropping Maroni etc.). The real question is, is Batman doing the right thing for Gotham, and to that end I would argue yes. He has saved the city from fear gas, and put away a mass murderer. One major gripe I have is that every crime he has stopped has been in some way tied to the major villains scheme. I suppose you could argue that the dock scene in BB is an exception aside from the fact that Falcone was put away as a result of it. And that was his first night on the job.

I realize that the plot needs to be moved along, but I want to see some random crime being stopped in the next film. I want to see Batman on patrol. I thought we were going to see this in TDK with him scanning the city from that tall building, but that too was tied to the Jokers plan to kill Dent. I seem to have gone on a tangent.

In response to the op yes.

 

[ChickenScratch]

When I think of this thread a quote from John Galt's speech comes to mind, "When good men do nothing, evil wins by default." So yes, he's moral.

 

[El Payaso]

When I think of this thread a quote from John Galt's speech comes to mind, "When good men do nothing, evil wins by default." So yes, he's moral.

That sounds as "When Batman does nothing to save Ra's..."

I for once hate super-moral Batman.

That said, I think Nolan has handled the subject brilliantly. More than super-moral, what this Batman has is a solid code of conduct. This Batman seems to see the world as a big gray area - which it is - but tries to turn it - as much as he can - more into a black & white thing, so it could be more understandable, bearable and controlable.

Crippling a guy letting him fall from a thrid floor is not super-moral. Nor is to lie to the people just to cover up your failure. Nor is, going back to Ra's al Ghul, letting a man die when you can save him.

But Batman understands - at least after meeting the Joker - that there's no infallible moral; just a neverending battle to reach his goals. And thank god his goals are so unselfish he's willing to sacrifice himself.

 

[tekken]

really?
isn't batman all about morals? how can you not like super-moral batman? i mean he's pretty much defined by his morals...i'd say.

i think nolan did a good job. although this batman messes up here and there, we still get the idea that batman has a high set of morals. i think those mess ups are necessary; they're there to make him a believable character.

 

[The Major]

Yes.

 

[GregComicFan]

Even though Nolan, I think, hasn't done the best job showing Bruce as a genius.... (Lucius' character takes a lot away from Bruce in regards to his intellect)... I think Nolan has done a superb job showing Bruce as pretty wise and incredibly-deep-in-thought when it comes to his moral code and his decisions are always based upon it... he's constantly thinking of what Batman means to Gotham, its citizens, and how best Batman can be utilized.

I hope Batman 3 continues this.

 

[cryptic name]

Nolan's done an excellent job showing us a man filled with rage and darkness, struggling to be very moral. he keeps himself in check when it comes to crossing lines, and i think that's much better than an easily moral batman

 

[Mr. Earle]

NO.

See "SPOILERS MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOWING--Did Batman break his one rule?" thread in the TDK forum. I believe that its inevitable for someone like batman to resort to manslaughter in real life. But since this is fiction, comic book writers (most of them) are more careful when it comes to gray areas. They use some deus ex machina when someone holds a gun to someone's head and dont have batman push them out of the ledge. Then, they have made clear, again and again that batman tries to avert the loss of all life, be it Alfred or a supervillain. Batman has saved the Joker from others numerous times. He has never left anyone to die because he doesnt get to choose who lives and who dies. If someone dies its because Batman couldnt save him, not because he chose to leave him to die (especially in an accident that batman orchestrated himself - he instructed Gordon to blow up the rails and then broke the train's panel so that it wouldnt stop and consequently fall. He could have left Ras to stop it. Ras would still have lost).

So no OP, i think that Nolan hasnt treated Batman as well as he is treated in the comics. (still, in comics writers change constantly so someone is meant to **** up, only for his story to be retconned in some way)

 

[BuzzGrub]

I think super moral is the wrong way to put it. As has been pointed out, tossing a guy three stories is not really moral. Batman lives in an ethical gray area (which is where he should) where he can push the laws to a certain point. That point happens to be murder. But anything up to that point, like breaking bones, is acceptable.

TAS didn't have to deal with that because it was a cartoon and there are very little real world consequences. Batman can beat the snot out of a guy and all he need get is a trickle of blood from his lip and we accept that. But with real people, the physics of the reality dictate that it be more brutal.

 

[Steyin]

I still don't think Nolan has truely showed us Batman first of all, just more so Bruce as Batman. But I can accept that since the films need to build up into him completely descending into his creation. As for his morals, he's done an acceptable job. I wouldn't say its really good or bad, but more so neutral. My only real concern is that I still haven't felt that this Batman reflects the character I know from the comics and animated series, and I hope the next film really solidifies that character more so into that territory.

 

[The Guard]

No.

While it's a valid interpretation of Batman, this is Chris Nolan's Batman through and through. The character has elements of the character from the comics, but it is not an accurate reflection of his often absolutist moral approach.

Nolan presents Batman as a man who will flatten police cars and endanger lives when it suits him, destroy public property, and really, often for no other reason than for "action's sake". You can't really begin to logically argue that Batman HAS to do those things in the movie because he has no alternatives, only that he has done so. The only other writer I can think of who has presented Batman in this manner overtly...is Frank Miller.

Nolan's Batman has more of a "gray" approach to morality. And he has not, in my mind, adequately explored Batman's difficulty in adhering to his moral code very well. He was starting to toward the end of THE DARK KNIGHT, and then he had Batman simply break it out of neccessity in THE DARK KNIGHT after spending an entire movie (and some of the previous one) setting up "I will not kill".

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think super moral is the wrong way to put it. As has been pointed out, tossing a guy three stories is not really moral. Batman lives in an ethical gray area (which is where he should) where he can push the laws to a certain point. That point happens to be murder. But anything up to that point, like breaking bones, is acceptable.

TAS didn't have to deal with that because it was a cartoon and there are very little real world consequences. Batman can beat the snot out of a guy and all he need get is a trickle of blood from his lip and we accept that. But with real people, the physics of the reality dictate that it be more brutal.

Batman beats people up all the time, both in comics and BTAS. It wasnt shown in BTAS, but there have been many scenes where it was implied. Batman's shadow would get bigger over his victim and then a scream would be heard over a wider shot of the city or something.

Spoiler

That reminds me of a badass scene from the crossover movie of BTAS and STAS where Batman captures a Russian thug. The thug says in Russian: "you dont understand a thing that i say and even if you did, i wouldnt talk to you". Batman then in fluent russian: "I do....and you will..." and then the screen would go black and a scream would be heard.
AWESOME is too poor a word to describe it.

So breaking a few bones is one thing, letting someone die is another.

No.

While it's a valid interpretation of Batman, this is Chris Nolan's Batman through and through. The character has elements of the character from the comics, but it is not an accurate reflection of his often absolutist moral approach.

I agree.

Nolan presents Batman as a man who will flatten police cars and endanger lives when it suits him, destroy public property, and really, often for no other reason than for "action's sake". You can't really begin to logically argue that Batman HAS to do those things in the movie because he has no alternatives, only that he has done so. The only other writer I can think of who has presented Batman in this manner overtly...is Frank Miller.

Nolan was directing a superhero action movie. One of Batman's main obstacles were the cops. He didnt kill any, he just carefully tackled their cars. I can only assume that he knew what he was doing when he leveled their car or when he threw those mines and flipped the car that followed him. Its a movie, so we can assume things like that. In real life, being inside a car that flips so violently can be extremely dangerous. Batman caused collateral damage but not deaths (if you dont count the ninjas, but then again, maybe they got out). Superheroes cause collateral damage all the time and in every medium.

In both movies, Nolan established some gadgetry and other deus ex machinas at the beginning of the films and then used them to resolve tricky situations. One of those is the gauntlet projectile thing (which is a pretty impractical and stupid gadget if you ask me). Nolan could have turned the cowl's ears into projectiles (hey, his whole arsenal in TDK was stupid, that would be a drop in the ocean. But i am mostly kidding really.) and resolved the TwoFace confrontation differently. Maybe TwoFace would have tripped or something. This was just wrong.... Especially after 2.5 hours of him hitting us over the head that batman wont kill. IMHO its like Nolan loses his focus halfway through and lets things like that happen. He either follows his one rule or he doesnt just like you say man.

And just like i wont accept a story about Batman tormenting Chill for months and then handing him the gun he killed his parents withand telling him "you know what to do", i wont accept Nolan's slips. And just because Nolan's work is top notch, it doesnt mean that he did no wrong, that i have to accept his every decision, or try to rationalize his errors with theories and "deep explanations" to convince myself that its perfect.

At least in his lunacy Miller is consistent over Batman's psych and morals.

 

[baerrtt]

No.

While it's a valid interpretation of Batman, this is Chris Nolan's Batman through and through. The character has elements of the character from the comics, but it is not an accurate reflection of his often absolutist moral approach.

Nolan presents Batman as a man who will flatten police cars and endanger lives when it suits him, destroy public property, and really, often for no other reason than for "action's sake". You can't really begin to logically argue that Batman HAS to do those things in the movie because he has no alternatives, only that he has done so. The only other writer I can think of who has presented Batman in this manner overtly...is Frank Miller.

Nolan's Batman has more of a "gray" approach to morality. And he has not, in my mind, adequately explored Batman's difficulty in adhering to his moral code very well. He was starting to toward the end of THE DARK KNIGHT, and then he had Batman simply break it out of neccessity in THE DARK KNIGHT after spending an entire movie (and some of the previous one) setting up "I will not kill".

The character's morality in dealing with villains has shifted so many times in the comics (particularly over the last 20 years) that the Batman I see in Nolans films is, to me, a compendium of how this character's been portrayed by different writers including Miller. For me there's been no fixed set of characteristics, as for example we're told for years he's afraid of picking up guns and then the likes of Grant Morrison, for storyline purposes, has him use a gun on Darkseid.

The character isn't 'set' to one particular standard in his own books.

 

[The Guard]

Nolan was directing a superhero action movie. One of Batman's main obstacles were the cops. He didnt kill any, he just carefully tackled their cars. I can only assume that he knew what he was doing when he leveled their car or when he threw those mines and flipped the car that followed him. Its a movie, so we can assume things like that. In real life, being inside a car that flips so violently can be extremely dangerous. Batman caused collateral damage but not deaths (if you dont count the ninjas, but then again, maybe they got out). Superheroes cause collateral damage all the time and in every medium.

So because it's a movie, him endangering people's lives via really reckless and dangerous behavior is suddenly less overtly reckless and dangerous? Not buying it. Especially since Nolan makes a point of having Alfred point out the whole "You're getting lost inside this monster of yours" bit. He very much intended to paint Batman in a destructive light, hence the Tumbler crushing the cars in the parking garage, all the property damage, explosions, etc.

In both movies, Nolan established some gadgetry and other deus ex machinas at the beginning of the films and then used them to resolve tricky situations. One of those is the gauntlet projectile thing (which is a pretty impractical and stupid gadget if you ask me).

I'd be worried about shooting myself or some innocent person accidentally if I was wearing that gadget.

This was just wrong.... Especially after 2.5 hours of him hitting us over the head that batman wont kill. IMHO its like Nolan loses his focus halfway through and lets things like that happen. He either follows his one rule or he doesnt just like you say man.

Nolan's a hell of a filmmaker, but I have yet to see anything that indicates he has anything other than a basic knowledge of how story and character development works. He's been fortunate to work with some good writers, but there are a few missteps and missed opportunities in his movies that just lead me to wonder. It would be one thing if after developing that theme throughout the film, if after showing Batman struggling not to take a life, the necessity of killing Dent had been explored. But it wasn't. At all.

The character isn't 'set' to one particular standard in his own books.

Actually, he generally does have a pretty clear standard, especially in the 20 years or so, other than some Elseworlds tales, and Miller's continuity, which we all know isn't remotely close to anything that "could" be the future of the current DCU's Batman. He is fiercely against killing, to the point that it creates more problems for Gotham and Batman, and his allies.

That's why Grant Morrison showing Batman using a gun in an attempt to kill Darkseid (did Darkseid end up dying?) was huge in comics.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I'd be worried about shooting myself or some innocent person accidentally if I was wearing that gadget.

I was mostly mocking the way Nolan made the gauntlet scallops into projectiles. What i really meant, is that batman could have used some deus ex machina, be it a gadget, the surroundings, a distraction, whatever.

So...because it's a movie, him endangering people's lives via really reckless and dangerous behavior is suddenly less reckless and dangerous. Not buying it. Especially since Nolan makes a point of having Alfred point out the whole "You're getting lost inside this monster of yours" bit.

You and Alfred both make a valid point. But i think it goes with the business. A vigilante always causes collateral damage. When Superman punched Brainiac through a dozen skyscrapers, wouldnt you say that he endagers civilians?
The tumbler went over the car's bonnet mostly and in hollywood a flipping car is never dangerous. Its a movie, so what is deadly can be stretched a bit to being just a bit harmful.

I personally wouldnt be interested in a 100% realistic batman movie. A movie needs liberties like this to actually be impressive and entertaining. You shouldnt be looking so much into it. I'd rather have a movie where Superman and Brainiac level half of Metropolis that a boring, carefull fight.

Actually, he generally does have a pretty clear standard, especially in the 20 years or so, other than some Elseworlds tales, and Miller's continuity, which we all know isn't remotely close to anything that "could" be the future of the current DCU's Batman. He is fiercely against killing, to the point that it creates more problems for Gotham and Batman, and his allies.

That's why Grant Morrison showing Batman using a gun in an attempt to kill Darkseid (did Darkseid end up dying?) was huge in comics.

He did but it took the two flashes and superman to kill him. This time, everybody used lethal force. I guess they compromised in the face of armageddon.

 

[Cunning Stunts]

I think a more realistic version has been shown. In a life of crime-fighting, having no casualties is just short of impossible. I think the deaths of Ra's and Dent are two perfect examples of this.

 

[Doc Samson]

I think to really answer this question we have to see how the next film plays out. He's only been Batman for a short period of time, and especially with the Joker, he was visibly close to breaking his conduct. That being said, I believe if the next film is truly to be the last of Nolan, I would hope he leaves this Batman in a state much closer to his traditional comic book self: The full-fledged, cold, stoic, unflinching Dark Knight Detective

 

[GregComicFan]

I would definitely like to see Nolan's Batman continuing to make tough choices and sacrificing his own wants/needs/reputation/livelihood/body to the better good of Gotham City. I think the most interesting thing to ponder with Batman 3 is... HOW WILL IT END? Will Nolan leave Batman feeling successful? Broken? Defeated? Happy? Sad? and how Batman reacts to it will also be a defining moment for how Nolan interprets Batman's moral code.

 

[ronny]

I think that describing Batman as "super moral" is a bit of a disservice to the character. I'll agree that he can be overly obsessive and self-righteous at times but he is still capable of compassion towards those he brings to justice.
Something true "super moral" characters like Walter Kovacs and Harvey Dent would never do.
Now, has Nolan done a good job of showing us this conflicted and sympathetic personality. Yeah, I think so. We see that his actions are done out of a compassion for the city and achieve both a selfless objective and a means to satisfy his lust for vengeance.

 

[Zephyr Alexian]

I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but illegally spying on people's freedoms doesn't really sound super moral to me. At least he doesn't kill anyone though. *cough* except for the unsuspecting people who died when the bridge collapsed in 'Begins.' Actually, Gordon killed them, so it's still cool I guess. *cough* Batman's still batting a no-hitter.

 

[bane]

Well he did kill the garbage truck driver without hesitation, so...

 

[Rincewind]

I don't think that Nolan's Batman is super-moral. Most times he does what is necessary, not what's moral - for example, the spying over Gotham to find where the Joker was, the way he took down Ra's and Two-Face, dropping Maroni from a height that would only break his legs instead of killing him etc. Now, there were few moments when he chose morals over necessity, like when he saved the Joker or when turned against the League of Shadows just because he didn't want to execute a peasant, but as a whole, I think of Nolan's Batman as a guy who is more concerned with doing what is needed for the greater good.
So... no, I don't think that Nolan showed a super-moral Batman. But I don't really think that he intended to.