How often has Batman allowed criminals to die?

[Spike_x1]

Regardless of the debate over Batman's degree of responsibility in the deaths of Ra's and Two-Face, I think that in both cases the scenes could have easily been reworked to provide the same result, but without Batman being responsible for death (justifiably or not).

There could have been explosions and s**t on the train blocking Bruce from getting to Ra's in time to save him. Batman could have tried to save Ra's, but have his outreaching hand slapped away at the last second. You could have ended the actual physical fight between them with more ambiguity as Batman tries to convince Ra's to give up and escape with his life as the train falls into flames, but we only see Batman escape through the fire at the last instant.

There are ways to get the same result in the plot that BB gave us without making Bruce a killer, even if it was Ra's who put himself in that position.

And the same goes for the confrontation with Two-Face. It doesn't take much imagination to, let's say, rework the scene so that Batman saves Gordon's kid and Harvey decides to do an imitation of the burglar from the 2002 Spider-Man, and accidentally throws himself over the ledge. Or take even more advantage of the fact that the scene takes place in a building that was just blown up and have Harvey fight Batman on top of some less than safe floorboards, where they fall through and Harvey dies.

As with BB, there are ways to get the same result of Batman saving the boy and Harvey not surviving to see the next movie without having Bruce literally tackle him off a building, directly resulting in Two-Face's death. Sure, it's probably what a lot of people in the real world would have done, and very understandably I would hope, but the death tackle is not what I want to see Batman doing.

 

[Rocanrol]

I think that Nolan's portrayal of Batman's no killing rule is pretty accurate and realistic. Ra's was in a suicide mission, he didn't care to die. And making the decision of not saving him ('cause he did not kill him) maybe prevented another attack from the League of Shadows (minding that Batman could not foresee the events of TDK or TDKR).

I recently saw "Crysis on two Earths" and he make a very similar decision. Owlman was in a suicide mission, and he teleported him with the quantum bomb and the teleporter. He did not kill him. The choice was Owlman's all along.

Two-Face death make him enter a depressive state that lasted almost 8 years...

 

[The Question]

I might agree with Ra's, but with Two Face it sounds too convenient. I don't like it in fiction when the scene is engineered to make a hard choice easy for the hero. I liked the ending of The Dark Knight as it is. Batman made a split second decision to save Jim Junior that resulted in Harvey dying. Bruce couldn't save both of them so he saved the innocent. Contriving the scene to make it a total accident just makes Bruce's decision to be a hero seem like it's destined to be made easy by the universe, which is narratively cheap and kind of goes against the whole thematic point of the film.

I don't feel like it's a violation of Bruce's no killing rule if the villain dies as a result of his actions if the intent was not to kill him and he was left with basically no options and had to make a split second decision. Because having a moral code against killing people doesn't mean it's always an option. Anything contrary to that denies the possibility of a no-win scenario.

 

[Motown Marvel]

I think that Nolan's portrayal of Batman's no killing rule is pretty accurate and realistic. Ra's was in a suicide mission, he didn't care to die. And making the decision of not saving him ('cause he did not kill him) maybe prevented another attack from the League of Shadows (minding that Batman could not foresee the events of TDK or TDKR).

it doesnt matter if ra's was willing to die. batman had the opportunity to save him. he chose not to.

 

[Spike_x1]

I might agree with Ra's, but with Two Face it sounds too convenient. I don't like it in fiction when the scene is engineered to make a hard choice easy for the hero. I liked the ending of The Dark Knight as it is. Batman made a split second decision to save Jim Junior that resulted in Harvey dying. Bruce couldn't save both of them so he saved the innocent. Contriving the scene to make it a total accident just makes Bruce's decision to be a hero seem like it's destined to be made easy by the universe, which is narratively cheap and kind of goes against the whole thematic point of the film.

I find it no more convenient or contrived for the intended story than the fact that Harvey just happened to be standing in front of an open window. Batman couldn't have just tackled him into a wall and taken him in alive? But Harvey had to die for the filmmakers' intended effect, so insert a precarious ledge right behind Harvey.

And following up on that, Batman can't use batarangs, can't tackle Harvey from any other direction (which wouldn't have made a difference, since Two-Face didn't see him coming anyway), can't snag him with the batrope or disarm him in any other way. In effect, Batman conveniently has to tackle Harvey over a ledge while the gun thankfully doesn't go off mid tackle.

Personally, that's what I find forced when it didn't need to be.

EDIT: Imagine an alternate cut of the movie where Batman had found a way to save the kid's life without killing Harvey and you didn't have the original cut to compare it to (and ignoring the followup on Harvey's death in TDKR). Would anyone be criticizing the scene for its lack of Batman killing Two-Face?

 

[The Question]

I find it no more convenient or contrived for the intended story than the fact that Harvey just happened to be standing in front of an open window. Batman couldn't have just tackled him into a wall and taken him in alive? But Harvey had to die for the filmmakers' intended effect, so insert a precarious ledge right behind Harvey.

And following up on that, Batman can't use batarangs, can't tackle Harvey from any other direction (which wouldn't have made a difference, since Two-Face didn't see him coming anyway), can't snag him with the batrope or disarm him in any other way. In effect, Batman conveniently has to tackle Harvey over a ledge while the gun thankfully doesn't go off mid tackle.

Personally, that's what I find forced when it didn't need to be.

EDIT: Imagine an alternate cut of the movie where Batman had found a way to save the kid's life without killing Harvey and you didn't have the original cut to compare it to (and ignoring the followup on Harvey's death in TDKR). Would anyone be criticizing the scene for its lack of Batman killing Two-Face?

Yes, they could have done it so Two-Face didn't die. But since the story that had planned requires Two-Face to die, the way they did it is the least contrived way to do it.

Yes, they could have had Two-Face not die at all and it would have been fine, but since they needed him to die for their story, then changing it so it was more accidental and less Batman's fault would have been way more contrived than having Batman make a split second decision to save Jim Junior and Harvey dying as a result.

As for Batman's method of dispatching him, I really don't see how he had any other option. Using a Batarang would have hurt him, but he had a gun to the Gordon kid's head, it might have just caused him to shoot the gun. He had to get Harvey away from the kid, and the best way to do that in that moment was to tackle him.

 

[Rocanrol]

it doesnt matter if ra's was willing to die. batman had the opportunity to save him. he chose not to.

But ultimately did not kill him. Very hard moral implications to analize, and even more hard decisions to make. It's the same to kill a man or let a villain die? A villain that killed several people in his crazy path of destruction and vengeance. A villain that almost set Gotham on fire, spreading fear and chaos among their citizens, just to have his hole plan blown up in his face. I think Batman just let that path go all along. Even making a moral of that story. A life of hate, destruction and darkness can just end in death. And Batman chose not to live that life.

I might agree with Ra's, but with Two Face it sounds too convenient. I don't like it in fiction when the scene is engineered to make a hard choice easy for the hero. I liked the ending of The Dark Knight as it is. Batman made a split second decision to save Jim Junior that resulted in Harvey dying. Bruce couldn't save both of them so he saved the innocent. Contriving the scene to make it a total accident just makes Bruce's decision to be a hero seem like it's destined to be made easy by the universe, which is narratively cheap and kind of goes against the whole thematic point of the film.

I don't feel like it's a violation of Bruce's no killing rule if the villain dies as a result of his actions if the intent was not to kill him and he was left with basically no options and had to make a split second decision. Because having a moral code against killing people doesn't mean it's always an option. Anything contrary to that denies the possibility of a no-win scenario.

(Y)

I find it no more convenient or contrived for the intended story than the fact that Harvey just happened to be standing in front of an open window. Batman couldn't have just tackled him into a wall and taken him in alive? But Harvey had to die for the filmmakers' intended effect, so insert a precarious ledge right behind Harvey.

And following up on that, Batman can't use batarangs, can't tackle Harvey from any other direction (which wouldn't have made a difference, since Two-Face didn't see him coming anyway), can't snag him with the batrope or disarm him in any other way. In effect, Batman conveniently has to tackle Harvey over a ledge while the gun thankfully doesn't go off mid tackle.

Personally, that's what I find forced when it didn't need to be.

EDIT: Imagine an alternate cut of the movie where Batman had found a way to save the kid's life without killing Harvey and you didn't have the original cut to compare it to (and ignoring the followup on Harvey's death in TDKR). Would anyone be criticizing the scene for its lack of Batman killing Two-Face?

Obviously the story must convey...

 

[Spike_x1]

As for Batman's method of dispatching him, I really don't see how he had any other option. Using a Batarang would have hurt him, but he had a gun to the Gordon kid's head, it might have just caused him to shoot the gun. He had to get Harvey away from the kid, and the best way to do that in that moment was to tackle him.

But Batman didn't "get Harvey away from the kid" so much as he tackled them both and caught the kid before he fell like Harvey did. A batarang would've been no less risky than that. Batman's hypothetical use of a batarang vs. tackle are effectively completely interchangeable in this context. Aside from one of those options holding more risk that Batman might be directly responsible for a villain's death, which rubs me the wrong way, but is beside the point.

"Using a tackle would have hurt him, but he had a gun to the Gordon kid's head, it might have just caused him to shoot the gun."

See? Switching one out for the other makes absolutely no difference to the risk involved and hypothetical effectiveness if the writers wishes it so. What if Batman wasn't able to catch the kid after tackling them? What if the batarang wasn't effective? Both options hold the potential to be disastrous or victorious, with the result being entirely dependent on the wishes of the filmmakers. For example, it's only by the decision of the screen writer that the gun didn't go off against the kid's head as soon as Batman slammed into them.

 

[Cain]

You guys are going to plotz when you see TDKR

 

[Rocanrol]

But was the writer's wishes to kill Two-Face. I believe that make him even credible and real, and the moment full of emotional tension.

And also makes available half the plot of TDKR

 

[Gale]

Two-Face's death worked for me 'cause it wasn't like he had any time to really think considering Gordon's kid was in danger. It was the inverse of what happened to him as a child and there was no way Bats was going to let it happen.

 

[Karem-Knight]

You know what bugs me? Why couldn't it have been Barbara Gordon (you know which one I mean) instead of James Jr Two-Face was about to kill? That would have been nice.

Also does the time Batman made that guy accidentally shoot his own dick count? I know it didn't kill him, but man that was just cold.

 

[Rocanrol]

Barbara Gordon is such a heavy character to treat lightly...

 

[Motown Marvel]

But ultimately did not kill him. Very hard moral implications to analize, and even more hard decisions to make. It's the same to kill a man or let a villain die? A villain that killed several people in his crazy path of destruction and vengeance. A villain that almost set Gotham on fire, spreading fear and chaos among their citizens, just to have his hole plan blown up in his face. I think Batman just let that path go all along. Even making a moral of that story. A life of hate, destruction and darkness can just end in death. And Batman chose not to live that life.

yer making excuses to justify loopholes, exploiting grey areas and technicalities. i understand why you personally are cool with that, but do you really think someone as hard lined as batman would think that way? did batman directly kill him? no. but the fact is he could have saved him. but he willingly chose not to. thats pretty out of character for batman.

 

[Rorschach II]

There was never anything to indicate that. And then he breaks it again in TDK by killing Two-Face at the end anyway.

I remember when the movie came out, I kept saying Harvey Dent can't be dead, because it doesn't make any sense to make the "No Kill Rule" such a huge part of the film's plot and then have Batman kill someone at the end anyway.

But after Nolan flat out declared Dent was dead, and after seeing The Dark Knight Rises, I can only guess that Nolan & Co were making a statement: sometimes, deadly force is absolutely necessary, even if you're Batman.

They hammer that home when Batman

Spoiler

kills Talia Al Ghul at the end of TDKR by launching everything The Bat has at her. Saving Gotham from annihilation was more important than the No Kill Rule, just like saving Gordon's boy was.

 

[KingMob]

17.

 

[GregComicFan]

I prefer the Batman of the comics, the Batman who does go out of his way to spare enemies lives and risk his own life to save theirs...

HOWEVER, I don't fault Nolan's interpretation of Batman's "no kill rule". After watching BB, TDK, and TDKR, I would say his Batman just doesn't "murder criminals" ruthlessly and with reckless abandon.

Basically, Nolan's Batman would still frown at Frank Castle/Punisher...

Nolan's Batman won't just ambush a crowd of criminals, during a criminal act, and kill them all in order to "stop crime" and "bring justice" to the streets.

If he did, Gordon would never work with him. Batman would be considered a nutcase and a crazy vigilante...

However...

Batman doesn't save Ras, because 1) Ras made the choice to be on that train 2) Batman's cape doesn't hold two people very well (it barely held him and Rachael in TDK)... Nolan's Batman does not murder Ras Al Ghul... he just doesn't have mercy for him...

Batman does not murder Two-Face. Whenever I watch TDK, I simply interpret the scene as Batman trying to save Gordon's son the moment before a bullet enters his skull. He leaps at Dent, knocks him over, and oops! - a cliff was there, Dent fell, Batman says "my bad, didn't mean to do that!". Dent dead. Again, Batman did not murder him in cold blood. He saved the kid. Dent fell.

and in TDKR, Batman is trying to stop the annihilation of 30 million people. He's trying to stop the armored-truck carrying the nuke, so he sends every missile on the Bat to destroy the truck. Talia happens to be driving it. Her problem. If she wanted to live, she shouldn't be driving the truck that is carrying the bomb. Again, it's not cold-blooded murder; Batman has to stop the truck, plain and simple.

 

[serendipity]

You have to remember what Bruce said in Begins:

"I'm no executioner."

 

[JTStarkiller]

Also does the time Batman made that guy accidentally shoot his own dick count? I know it didn't kill him, but man that was just cold.

Which part is this exactly? Which film?

 

[KevanG]

It was that book with the inhibition drugs with two-face. I can't remember the name of it. It's the same book from which we get the amazing Batman hates ice cream meme.

 

[Mystirious]

That scene was probably the worst part of Begins for me, and it was made even worse when Batman's refusal to kill became the linchpin of TDK's whole plot. I prefer Batman to be more absolutist about his no kill rule.

Yep

I made the face when he

Spoiler

Was okay with Selina totally murdering Bane

I still dug the movie but that seemed out of character

 

[Roose Bolton]

Well he did have nuke to disarm Mysti, no use crying over spilt milk when the entire kitchen's about to explode.

 

[Coca Cola Duracell Franklin.]

Dent HAD to die for the "Dent Act" to go into effect.

 

[Baramos]

I think Two-Face in The Dark Knight is best explained by an episode of the cartoon series: there was at least one episode where both Talia Al'Ghul and some random villain are falling and he saves Talia (who in this episode was on his side). So he tackled both Two-Face and James Jr. over the side in order to save James, but since he couldn't save both was forced to save James Jr. and allow Harvey to fall. Basically if it's the villain's fault that they accidentally fall in a struggle and he just can't save them, he doesn't beat himself up about it too much.

Of course, none of this explains Begins (or the tail-end of TDKR...)

 

[BeserkerHilf]

I was reading Dark Knight Returns tonight, and on top of seeing a movie-theater shooting happen in the second act and the media immediately pinning that to Batmania, Batman straight up empties an automatic into a Mutant who kidnapped the rich family's baby.