Batman Begins How was Batman allowing Ra's to die justified?

[XCharlieX]

The only poorly written scene in the entire film, imo. Which is funny cause the way it's written is pretty awesome, it's just not Batman.

Oh please. Thats only "poorly written" to you because it doesnt use a sad cop out that you find so amazing in the comics.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Yeah.....I liked that scene actually. He didn't kill the dude. And, "neglient homicide" is insane.

 

[Riven]

It's a thin line Batman walks there, but I could understand it. Bruce saved "Ducard" once and it bit him in the ass majorly. Saving him again would mean continuously endangering Gotham and the rest of the world from Ra's reprisals.

And besides... he might have survived. I'm not saying that cause I hold out hope he'll return in one of the sequels (like those insane Spidey fans who keep insisting Doc Oc is still alive), just that it's very much possible, however unlikely. Ra's is a master ninja, he might have made his escape in the last split second. It's not like Bruce stuck around to check... Bruce just refused to take Ra's fate in his hands, he left Ra's squarely to his own destiny. If that meant death, so be it...

 

[El Payaso]

It's a thin line Batman walks there, but I could understand it. Bruce saved "Ducard" once and it bit him in the ass majorly. Saving him again would mean continuously endangering Gotham and the rest of the world from Ra's reprisals.

And besides... he might have survived. I'm not saying that cause I hold out hope he'll return in one of the sequels (like those insane Spidey fans who keep insisting Doc Oc is still alive), just that it's very much possible, however unlikely. Ra's is a master ninja, he might have made his escape in the last split second. It's not like Bruce stuck around to check... Bruce just refused to take Ra's fate in his hands, he left Ra's squarely to his own destiny. If that meant death, so be it...

I got totally what you say. But my big question has always been, did Batman let him die knowing he was going to survive. Because if it was that way, then he wasn't after ending forever the Ra's menace.

But the scene leaves me feeling Batman thought Ra's was going to die. There's no further indication of Lazarus Pit or something that can tell you that Batman knew he could survive.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

That is true.

But I think ultimately, we have to give Batman the benefit of the doubt. He is a genius. He is aware of what is going on around him. This is the way I see it, and then I will speak no more on this matter:

It was the emotion/energy of the moment that he knew he had to leave Ra's behind, and decide his own fate. Maybe Batman thought Ra's didn't need saving. Maybe he KNEW beyond a shadow of a doubt that if Ra's wanted saved, he was mature and mentally healthy enough to make that decision for HIMSELF.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I just think Batman let Ra's reap what he had sown.

Plus, having already saved him twice.....and it biting him in the ass in MAJOR ways....I dunno, saving Ra's seems less and less worthwhile.

There was no evidence on Ra's either. As far as I can tell, everyone assumed....and STILL assumes that the major hell upon Gotham at the end was all Crane's fault. The Scarecrow's doing. Ra's and the League of Shadows did just that....remain in the shadows. So, there's not exactly a court of law to bring Ra's to either way. So, let the law of destiny and fate do it's work.

I think that's one way of looking at it.

And hey......LordofHypertime, interesting sig. I mean, I dunno.....it is interesting though....

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Heheh. Thanks.

 

[Cax40]

The problem would be that the movie made big efforts to state how Batman doesn't want to take human lives. And at the end he finds a way to do it without actually pulling the trigger.

Batman didn't take Ras' life. He simply allowed Ras to suffer the consequences of his own actions.

 

[saint sinner x]

it was justifyed because Batman didn't really killed him, Besides batman did the same thing in "death in the family" He left joker to die but as always joker survived, I hope he does something simular in "The dark knight" because we all want to see joker die well I do, at least make batman attemp to kill the joker and the joker survives, I'm wondering how will the joker be physcial threatning to batman in the sequel oh well i guess i'm gonna have to wait till 2008 year of the bat!

 

[El Payaso]

Batman didn't take Ras' life. He simply allowed Ras to suffer the consequences of his own actions.

In a comic book from the 90's, Batman put his life in high risk to stop Two Face from commiting suicide. Suicide was clearly Two face's own choice and his death would be the consequence. Even so, Batman did what he could to stop him. He went after him, grabbed him in mid air and then, sincre Two Face was still trying to die, Batman let the batrope go and they both were falling, just to make Two Face to forget the idea of killing himself. That's the Batman I thought the movie was portraying.

 

[Bathead]

Well, that scene in the movie only bothered me just a little, But not as much as the deliberate killings in the two Burton movies. (not raggin' on Burton here, so calm down). I can't but help think of the part near the end of Knightfall where Azbats allowed the (really nasty) villain Abbatoir to die. The idea was that Azbats had crossed the final line, and what he did was almost as bad as if he had deliberately killed him. If I remember correctly, that was what convinced Bruce that he had to take Azbats down and regain the mantle. In that respect, what he did in Begins was definitely out of character. The only thing I think might mitigate that is that he is a rookie, and hasn't quite matured in his role as Batman.

 

[Rob-el]

I had absolutely no problem with him letting Ra's suffer his own fate. I thought that that really is what Batman would be like - he saves the innocent but can allow the deaths of criminals - just not cause them. We can argue that by ommission of action he's just as guilty but at the end of teh day he is a vigitalante (spelling?!) who lives under his own rules. I actually loved the scene now that I think about it more and it really differentiates the basic beliefs between Batman and Superman.

 

[Beelze]

There was no evidence on Ra's either. As far as I can tell, everyone assumed....and STILL assumes that the major hell upon Gotham at the end was all Crane's fault. The Scarecrow's doing. Ra's and the League of Shadows did just that....remain in the shadows. So, there's not exactly a court of law to bring Ra's to either way. So, let the law of destiny and fate do it's work.

This is something I keep saying. Where'd Batman put him anyway? Make his own prison where he puts the criminals (now there's an idea!)?

 

[the_freshdude]

So with everything you guys said, regardless of what he did even if it is justified or not, do you think in the sequels, bruce should tell alfred (or someone close to him) how he feels about letting ra's die, maybe he could have did something different, or do you guys prefer not to maintien anything about it.

 

[El Payaso]

So with everything you guys said, regardless of what he did even if it is justified or not, do you think in the sequels, bruce should tell alfred (or someone close to him) how he feels about letting ra's die, maybe he could have did something different, or do you guys prefer not to maintien anything about it.

They should. In fact they should have done in the first movie.

 

[Ibn]

Am I the only one who thinks kindly of a harsh not givin a **** ass bats? I actually like the ruthless approach to public menaces, and don't think the character should come under fire, although I can see why people would get upset.

 

[casketmouth]

In Batman Begins, one of the things that they tried to emphasize was that Batman was "no executioner". However, at the end of the movie, he left Ra's Al Ghul to die on the train. Would Batman ever leave anybody to die? How was that justified?

SO WHAT!!!! Execution means YOU execute an action. He had nothing to do with Ra's dying. Ra's killed himself. Bruce saved his own ass and could only do so. His cape wouldn't have held two, and this was a personal vendetta. Bruce IS no executioner and was not in anyway in that situation. Ra's put himself in that situation, he should have got himself out. Don't look at it as bruce left him to die. Bruce just saved himself. Ra's's life was not worth batman going an extra limb for him. If you robbed a bank and popped 20 people, I guarantee you the cops will not respond to a 911 call for you as fast, if at all, you were layed out by bullets. In a way it WAS justice.

Ra's had no bakground, no one knew his true identity. almost everything he told Bruce was a lie and no court could convict him if they wanted to cause they couldn't get anything attatched to him and so forth. So honestly out of a little revenge in Bruce's heart and a little intellegent disecting of the situation... ra's had to go!!!! It's war. ra's had made his mind up that he was ready to die. It was either bruce or him.

 

[casketmouth]

Am I the only one who thinks kindly of a harsh not givin a **** ass bats? I actually like the ruthless approach to public menaces, and don't think the character should come under fire, although I can see why people would get upset.

I agree in ruthless justice too. So long as it IS justice. For all I care, I wouldn't even dot he death penalty for folks who are openly admitted to there guilt. I would put the in a rotweiler pit and give them a stick to try and stay alive from 4 deadly dogs.

I believe in it and I have no remorse. i think the government shuld go and whipe out all the crips and bloods who terrorize our cities and our schools. If we care about foreign terrorists...what about the ones we know of at home who do twice as worse than 911 everyday. At leats 911 wasn't over a pair of shoes or the color of a shirt. If they implemented gangs and stuff in Batman realms...I could be interesting. Honeslty that's why I love The Punisher. Not the movie, but the original character how he's supposed to be.

 

[casketmouth]

I had absolutely no problem with him letting Ra's suffer his own fate. I thought that that really is what Batman would be like - he saves the innocent but can allow the deaths of criminals - just not cause them. We can argue that by ommission of action he's just as guilty but at the end of teh day he is a vigitalante (spelling?!) who lives under his own rules. I actually loved the scene now that I think about it more and it really differentiates the basic beliefs between Batman and Superman.

Allowing a criminal to suffer his own fate is no mans responsibiliy what so ever.
You are not guilty in that sense.

 

[7Hells]

Not saving Ra's might be one of the things that torments Batman in TDK.
We are going to get the Bruce Wayne that questions his role as Batman and, in fights, I think we will get more of a Miller caption interpretation. He will be torn and it will affect his fighting.
It will also make him more sympathetic to Dents future dilema.

 

[7Hells]

And we also have to look at this from a film makers perspective.
We all know Batmans true nature. He isnt the squeaky clean superhero, he gets dirty and bloody with more than just his blood.

If Nolan cant show Batman beating Joker or other villians to a bloody pulp due to PG 13 how can he convey to the audience they are watching a movie about hero that can be, and for many/most is, considered an anti-hero?

Isnt that one of the things us fans love about Batman?
Would we even accept a Batman thats all sunshine and daisies?

 

[casketmouth]

And we also have to look at this from a film makers perspective.
We all know Batmans true nature. He isnt the squeaky clean superhero, he gets dirty and bloody with more than just his blood.

If Nolan cant show Batman beating Joker or other villians to a bloody pulp due to PG 13 how can he convey to the audience they are watching a movie about hero that can be, and for many/most is, considered an anti-hero?

Isnt that one of the things us fans love about Batman?
Would we even accept a Batman thats all sunshine and daisies?

All I know is that it has been long overdue that Batman is finally shown in this light. Batman is not a nice guy. he does have to mature and he was still a very tormented guy in these movies, so... Anyway I feel that that seen is one of the scenes that are Batman Begins's success. Many people grow attached to movies that have those important one liners that actually define the whole character. That was a moment that let you know that Batman is a great hero and a seeker of justice. Before he's all about Justice...He IS a CRIME FIGHTER. Crime fighting is never a thing that has to have the word justice attached to it cause in the long run... Who's justice are we talking about. Bruce Wayne has the Eye for an Eye theory but he respects the system enough to go slaughtering everyone. If it means STOPPING an ongoing crime then he will STOP it. Makes more sense of the character after all these years cause finally Nolan didn't regard the naive outlook on batman but eliminated all that to the core. He didn't care about shooting that guy in the foot, and he normally would not use a gun to aid him in any manner, but Nolan put a more realistic guy that I can relate to. There is not one thing I myself would have changed if I was Batman. NOTHING!!!! Would go to church more often but I guess that's it.

 

[COMPO]

Remember at the end he threw a batarang at the window. That was so Ra's could jump out. (Which he did)

 

[El Payaso]

Remember at the end he threw a batarang at the window. That was so Ra's could jump out.

???

But you know that jumping out that train equals to die all the same?

Or did Batman save Ra's and then just went away? In other words, he let the villiain free so he can have another chance to kill people?

I mean, assuming that Batman did that for that specific reason and not just to make the train crack so he could escape himself, which I'm sure it's what he really did.

(Which he did)

??????????? Where? When?

 

[deathfromabove]

Remember at the end he threw a batarang at the window. That was so Ra's could jump out. (Which he did)

that was so the wind would catch his cape.

give it up on this ras jumping out.

besides even if he did jump he would still be dead only they would have found a body lying on the street.