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

[Fenrir]

Oh and just because Batman wears black and is a D@#k dosn't make him an anti hero. Batman's number one goal is to save lives....ALL lives. Here's the difference between hero and an Anti hereo

Take punisher for example or hell Azbats even. They just want justice (in their own image) and if they kill some villian to save a mother, to them the ends justify the means. Sorry but that's not batman. Batman dosn't beleive it's his call if someone dies or lives. He has had many chances to kill many people, but he dosn't...Why? Because a life is a life and he is sworn to protect all life. Just becasue he isn't a boyscout dosnt make him an anti hero.

Jesus, you can't be serious...

You don't know the first thing about what makes a character an anti-hero, bud. An anti-hero is someone who although a hero, also has certain characteristics that are antithetical to those of the traditional hero. Taking lives has NOTHING to do with it.

Batman is an anti-hero because he uses questionable means and acts by his own model of morality. Whether you like it or not, Batman too wants justice in his own image (just read The Dark Knight Returns). As a vigilante alone, his crusade is unlawful and contradictory to the traditional definition of a hero. Even though he doesn't kill, Batman has no problem seriously injuring or wounding criminals. He's also known to be overly paranoid and rarely trusts anyone, even his allies and doesn't hesitate to prepare schemes to take them down (Tower of Babel). Even though he says he wouldn't take a life, Batman has shown to be a little bit more...flexible in this regard when compared to a true hero like Superman. Because Batman has often used people to get his way and even went so far as putting others' lives in danger (read Hush). Batman has often known to be employing the Machiavellian philosophy of the ends justifying the means. If those are not the foremost defining qualities of an anti-hero, then I don't know what is.

Heck, just for referential purposes, why not read this essay on the anti-hero on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-hero - which *gasp* lists Batman as an ANTI-HERO! And that too it does so TWICE!

 

[spiderwear]

Jesus, you can't be serious...

You don't know the first thing about what makes a character an anti-hero, bud. An anti-hero is someone who although a hero, also has certain characteristics that are antithetical to those of the traditional hero. Taking lives has NOTHING to do with it.

Batman is an anti-hero because he uses questionable means and acts by his own model of morality. Whether you like it or not, Batman too wants justice in his own image (just read The Dark Knight Returns). As a vigilante alone, his crusade is unlawful and contradictory to the traditional definition of a hero. Even though he doesn't kill, Batman has no problem seriously injuring or wounding criminals. He's also known to be overly paranoid and rarely trusts anyone, even his allies and doesn't hesitate to prepare schemes to take them down (Tower of Babel). Even though he says he wouldn't take a life, Batman has shown to be a little bit more...flexible in this regard when compared to a true hero like Superman. Because Batman has often used people to get his way and even went so far as putting others' lives in danger (read Hush). Batman has often known to be employing the Machiavellian philosophy of the ends justifying the means. If those are not the foremost defining qualities of an anti-hero, then I don't know what is.

Heck, just for referential purposes, why not read this essay on the anti-hero on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-hero - which *gasp* lists Batman as an ANTI-HERO! And that too it does so TWICE!

Again you say it youself "even though he dosnt kill" I would also include that he dosn't allow people to die either.

 

[spiderwear]

No junior, I was questioning your idea of calling someone a murder and holding them responsible for it on the basis of "inaction" using the Lebanon example. Just like there is another example: No one gives a **** when thousands upon thousands of innocents are being slaughtered by oppressive regimes and tribal warfare in Africa. Does that make you, me and everyone else who doesn't care, murderers of all those people? Because that's exactly what we are guilty of - inaction.

It's really not that hard to grasp - I simply used your faulty logic and applied it to a bigger, real-life example to show you what's wrong with it.

Again how can you compare a global issue with that of two people on a train and one escapeing to leave the other for death???? Should contries be held responsable?? Sure it's inaction goofball. Are you or I responsable?? Well seeing as how we don't have any means to help someone then we are not, if we were standing rite next to one of them being shot, then yes we are guilty of inaction.

Get a good argument, one that makes scense and can be equated to this discussion atleast junior.

 

[spiderwear]

Funny how you talk about "flimsy" yet can't even distinguish the different kinds of treatment applicable to a victim and that to a perpetrator of a crime. You're equating Ra's, a terrorist mastermind hellbent on slaughtering millions of people to apply his own brand of justice in the world with some poor soul who get's mugged?

Wow. Talk about inane standards. :

Actually you are speaking of flimsy rebuttles, not me, I'm just holding you accountable for you're own flimsy argument.

And yes I will compare saving Ra's to saving a mugging victim as long as you are compareing lebinon to batman and Ra's on a train.

And you outrite said "he saved him once so is not obligated to do so again" So you are the one saying he is only obligated to save someone one time. Those were't my words junior.

 

[cryptic name]

Jesus, you can't be serious...

You don't know the first thing about what makes a character an anti-hero, bud. An anti-hero is someone who although a hero, also has certain characteristics that are antithetical to those of the traditional hero. Taking lives has NOTHING to do with it.

Batman is an anti-hero because he uses questionable means and acts by his own model of morality. Whether you like it or not, Batman too wants justice in his own image (just read The Dark Knight Returns). As a vigilante alone, his crusade is unlawful and contradictory to the traditional definition of a hero. Even though he doesn't kill, Batman has no problem seriously injuring or wounding criminals. He's also known to be overly paranoid and rarely trusts anyone, even his allies and doesn't hesitate to prepare schemes to take them down (Tower of Babel). Even though he says he wouldn't take a life, Batman has shown to be a little bit more...flexible in this regard when compared to a true hero like Superman. Because Batman has often used people to get his way and even went so far as putting others' lives in danger (read Hush). Batman has often known to be employing the Machiavellian philosophy of the ends justifying the means. If those are not the foremost defining qualities of an anti-hero, then I don't know what is.

Heck, just for referential purposes, why not read this essay on the anti-hero on Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-hero - which *gasp* lists Batman as an ANTI-HERO! And that too it does so TWICE!

if working outside the traditional definition of the law is part of what makes him an anti-hero, wouldn't superman be considered an anti-hero as well?

 

[7Hells]

Oh and just because Batman wears black and is a D@#k dosn't make him an anti hero. Batman's number one goal is to save lives....ALL lives.

Batman is the first the most widely known Anti-hero. He, brutally, beats the crap out of his foes. He has killed. You cant compare Batman to the Punisher. The Punisher was developed in a completely different era than Batman where violence is more acceptable. There is over a 40 year difference and a war between the two.
Batman is an anti-hero and was created as one. The only thing that has changed is our acceptance, as a society, towards violence.

 

[Fenrir]

if working outside the traditional definition of the law is part of what makes him an anti-hero, wouldn't superman be considered an anti-hero as well?

Please, read my entire post about what makes Batman an anti-hero. And read that wikipedia link about the characteristics of an anti-hero. I don't have the time nor the energy to school everyone in this topic.

 

[Fenrir]

Again you say it youself "even though he dosnt kill" I would also include that he dosn't allow people to die either.

Way to dodge the point that you knew jack-**** about what makes an anti-hero. Face it, bud. You screwed up about your claim on Batman not being an anti-hero. Why not be a sport and concede the fact that you were wrong instead of trying to save face by going on a different tangent altogether?

 

[Fenrir]

Again how can you compare a global issue with that of two people on a train and one escapeing to leave the other for death???? Should contries be held responsable?? Sure it's inaction goofball. Are you or I responsable?? Well seeing as how we don't have any means to help someone then we are not, if we were standing rite next to one of them being shot, then yes we are guilty of inaction.

But in your very own example, does being guilty of inaction make one a "murderer"? Did you or I kill that person? Did we pull the trigger? Did we have any reason to want him dead? If the answer to all of the above is "no" then good luck trying to find a legal system in any part of the world that would describe us as "murderers". Go enlighten yourself with the legal definition of murderer junior before you spout big words on a message board.

Let's try this with a more appropriate example. Say there is this one dude who was a criminal planning to kill a couple of people in your neighbourhood whose life you had saved once already. He had already gotten a second chance without trial or any kind of punishment for planning such a heinous act. Say he comes back again, this time, with an intention to kill even more people than last time. During his killing spree, he puts himself in harm's way and puts his life on the line. Now you have the means to save his life again. Will you do it? If so, how is it morally justified? Are you obligated to save his life? If you don't, does that make you a murderer? Don't dodge this bloody question. I want an answer from you.

Get a good argument, one that makes scense and can be equated to this discussion atleast junior.

Please, get your head out of wherever it is stuck and read my last post carefully. I had made explicitly clear that I simply used a larger-scale, real-life example that raises the same question. If you can't even grasp something as simple as that and are hell-bent on being an ostrich here with your head dug in the sand, then I can't help you.

 

[Fenrir]

Actually you are speaking of flimsy rebuttles, not me, I'm just holding you accountable for you're own flimsy argument.

Perhaps it's your piss-poor reading comprehension that is prolonging this discussion unnecessarily. Seeing that you can't even discern the basic difference between "your" and "you're" speaks volumes about your incompetence in the English language.

And yes I will compare saving Ra's to saving a mugging victim as long as you are compareing lebinon to batman and Ra's on a train.

First of all, that Lebanon example was part of the whole "inaction" argument, so what relevance does it have with THIS argument? That's right. NONE.

Secondly, the big problem between you equating Ra's with some unfortunate soul getting mugged is the fact that you ignore their differences. Ra's is an insane madman intent on destroying millions of lives to see his own brand of justice in the world and is hence, a CRIMINAL - he made his own choices and is reponsible for it's consequences.

Some poor innocent guy who gets mugged is a VICTIM who neither choosed to get mugged nor deserved it. Batman is entitled to save people like these everyday, not would-be mass-murderers like Ra's.

See the difference? I hope and pray no one makes you part of any jury anywhere seeing that in your eyes CRIMINALS and VICTIMS are one and the same who deserve equal and same treatment. God, I can't even begin to put into words how downright ******ed that sounds.

And you outrite said "he saved him once so is not obligated to do so again" So you are the one saying he is only obligated to save someone one time. Those were't my words junior.

Which meant he was obligated to save a CRIMINAL like Ra's only once. Jesus, was it so hard to make that distinction, chump? Ra's is some ordinary joe-schmoe to you that you equate him with some guy who gets mugged?

 

[darknight7]

Look, the point here is:

Goyer and Nolan KNOW that Ra's is IMMORTAL, in the comics. So instead of seeing him splattered all over the pavement (ala The Joker 1989), or instead of Batman saying: "I will save you."

They left it open to any possibility. No one knows that he is actually dead. The fact that you do NOT see his body, makes it SO EASY to come back in the third movie and have him say: "You left me to escape, you didn't think I would?"

Or something like that. The dude is immortal in the comics, I'm not saying he will be in the movies, just saying the option at the end of the movie leaves us all thinking, that is why we are having this discussion, because for all we know, Nolan could be planning to bring him back some how.

As for Batman being just, it's what he had to do, and he knew if he TRIED to save Ra's, it was possible that Ra's would try to fight him off. If that happened, they both may have died. It was the only thing Batman could do, he couldn't risk anymore than he already did.

--dk7

 

[Bathead]

^^exactly. I thought the ending was straight out of the comics in this sense -- It is (or was ) a typical comic book ending where a villain apperently unescapably dies, comes back months later, pulling off some kind of miraculous escape. Especially someone like Al Ghul. Happened a number of times with him in the comics.
Could Bats have rescued him? Maybe, maybe not. He couldn't risk it, and the fact that because of his previous rescue, Gotham is almost destroyed, further added to the risk. I think his thought process might have been something like "I'm not going to risk my life or those of Gotham's citizen's to save this fanatic again. I'm outta here!"
This and a few other parts of the movie are ones I wish someone could sit Nolan down and ask him just what his thinking was.

 

[7Hells]

oO oO!! I know what he was thinking!
It was apparent, to me, in the line, "I cant kill you but I dont have to save you."
Nolan was establishing Batman as the anti-hero he is instead of the saviour like every other superhero.

It was a PG version of Bats kicking someones face in

 

[spiderwear]

Perhaps it's your piss-poor reading comprehension that is prolonging this discussion unnecessarily. Seeing that you can't even discern the basic difference between "your" and "you're" speaks volumes about your incompetence in the English language.



First of all, that Lebanon example was part of the whole "inaction" argument, so what relevance does it have with THIS argument? That's right. NONE.

Secondly, the big problem between you equating Ra's with some unfortunate soul getting mugged is the fact that you ignore their differences. Ra's is an insane madman intent on destroying millions of lives to see his own brand of justice in the world and is hence, a CRIMINAL - he made his own choices and is reponsible for it's consequences.

Some poor innocent guy who gets mugged is a VICTIM who neither choosed to get mugged nor deserved it. Batman is entitled to save people like these everyday, not would-be mass-murderers like Ra's.

See the difference? I hope and pray no one makes you part of any jury anywhere seeing that in your eyes CRIMINALS and VICTIMS are one and the same who deserve equal and same treatment. God, I can't even begin to put into words how downright ******ed that sounds.



Which meant he was obligated to save a CRIMINAL like Ra's only once. Jesus, was it so hard to make that distinction, chump? Ra's is some ordinary joe-schmoe to you that you equate him with some guy who gets mugged?

Gee golly I love when you kids get so upset that your points are horrible you resort to name calling and such.

I think maybe you need to go back to second grade aswell. The correct wording would be "a person whom has not chosen to be mugged" or perhaps "a person whom did not choose to be mugged"

I'm done arguing with you child, so I will leave it at this. Bats could have saved him and he did not. This means he signed his death ticket himself. He, in other words, killed him through inaction.

I see no need to find a law book to state this or anything similar, I'm talking about a film. If you choose to relove an education around a film then have fun in mommies basement for the rest of you life. Chump.

 

[7Hells]

Thats an interesting post considering you were the first to sling insults and bring in name calling.

 

[darknight7]

^^exactly. I thought the ending was straight out of the comics in this sense -- It is (or was ) a typical comic book ending where a villain apperently unescapably dies, comes back months later, pulling off some kind of miraculous escape. Especially someone like Al Ghul. Happened a number of times with him in the comics.
Could Bats have rescued him? Maybe, maybe not. He couldn't risk it, and the fact that because of his previous rescue, Gotham is almost destroyed, further added to the risk. I think his thought process might have been something like "I'm not going to risk my life or those of Gotham's citizen's to save this fanatic again. I'm outta here!"
This and a few other parts of the movie are ones I wish someone could sit Nolan down and ask him just what his thinking was.

Exactly, it was a perfect ending.

Not only was the escalation speech/Joke card a cliffhanger, but so was Ra's death. Because you never see them pull out a burnt corpse, or you don't see him breath his last breath under a piller, or see him screaming on fire, or see him get his head cut off by the train. The point here is, YOU DO NOT SEE! Anything, and he is a ninja MASTER, who in the comics has suposedly *DIED* many times, but some how comes back, not only with Ra's but it has happened with many other characters. Think about how boring the ending would have been if he saved him. lol.

Batman: "Well, Ra's I hope you learned your lesson. Gordon, take him away."

Ra's: "And I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that Bat guy and his lousy gadgets."

The end.

BOOOOOOOORING!

You needed that dramatic, tough, badass: "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" scene. It was perfect, because Batman has let characters "die" in the comics, when it was too risky to save them, and they always return.

It just leaves the doors open. So hopefully we can get Ra's in the third movie.

Think about how cool it would be. They could tie it in to the whole story, where you think "villain" is the bad guy, but REALLY at the end, you see Ra's sitting there, smiling. Or Bruce sees him. Or Batman figures it out. The possibilities are endless and brilliant

--dk7

 

[Fenrir]

Gee golly I love when you kids get so upset that your points are horrible you resort to name calling and such.

I don't believe I've called you names yet. I was just highlighting how your poor grasp of the English language was prolonging the debate unnecessarily. I may have attacked your arguments but I have yet to resort to any personal insults.

I think maybe you need to go back to second grade aswell. The correct wording would be "a person whom has not chosen to be mugged" or perhaps "a person whom did not choose to be mugged"

Actually, you are wrong. "Whom" in this case, is more properly applicable when talking in a plural sense (as in "persons none of whom did not choose to get mugged") instead of singular. So much for your "elite" English skills eh, chummy?

I admit there was a mistake in that part of my post (the correct way of saying that phrase was - "who neither chose to get mugged), and because I was pressed for time probably might have been the cause of that. Still it's comparitively insignificant compared to the spelling and grammatical blunders your posts are full of.

You know, words and phrases like - "escaeping" "scense" "a mugging victim" "compareing lebinon" "rebuttles" "contries" "responsable (this was used twice so it was deliberate)" "rite" "outrite (don't know the proper spelling for right?)" "were't". Yup all your words, friend, taken verbatim from YOUR posts. Know what they say about people living in glass houses throwing stones? Same thing here.

I'm done arguing with you child, so I will leave it at this. Bats could have saved him and he did not. This means he signed his death ticket himself. He, in other words, killed him through inaction.

Inaction doesn't kill a person. Inaction is not something fatal nor is it a means. Hence, a person who is guilty of inaction cannot be a murderer. No court or legal system on Earth would call that murder.

I see no need to find a law book to state this or anything similar, I'm talking about a film. If you choose to relove an education around a film then have fun in mommies basement for the rest of you life. Chump.

Ah, because it is only in your own twisted version of morality where the victim is the same as the criminal, a would-be mass-murdering criminal mastermind is equal to some poor Joe getting mugged and inaction makes a man a murderer. I believe it is obvious you lack the education and the intellectual insight to make a proper decision in such complex moral questions. Oh and it is called "mommy's basement" dear, not "mommies basement". :

 

[El Payaso]

Yes, and it was about to crash just seconds later. What good would a warning would have done then?

A better one than none.

'The train's gonna crash! Jump!', that¡'s even shorter than 'you know, I won't kill you etc etc etc'

Nice try and dodging my point. There is absolutely nothing you can prove with your pointless hypothesis "he could have done this" "he should have done this". Criticism on the basis of such hypothesis only shows how weak an argument you have that you can't even resort to proper facts.

So, we can't argue at all.

We can't prove a thing or a fact since it's a movie and things happens as some guy writes them. Big deal. As you can see, we still can have hypotesis and speculation based in some logics no matter what you say.

Yes, as depicted in the movie itself, Batman should have done things he didn't. At the very least we can argue about that.

Actually, it was Ra's that put Batman's plan B into action when he sabotaged those controls. We constantly see Batman trying hard to stop the train before it gets to the point where he has no choice but to crash it. Batman didn't want his plan B to go into action if he can help it. It was Ra's who squashed hopes of any other alternative.

Batman didn't want Plan B but nevertheless he used it and didn't say a word to Ra's. If he said something to him he could have saved himself. Maybe not but it would have been giving Ra's a choice, otherwise it like trying to make things in order for him to die.

Really? I didn't see Batman training himself for years to save people from a high-speed doomsday train about to crash while it has a microwave emitter that keeps busting drain covers on the way infecting the city with fear gas. You make it sound like such rescues were routine for him. You sure you watched the right film?

Bruce rescued Ra's (Ducard) from falling after the te,mple's explosion and with no grappling gun or cape-glider, so it doesn't matter you didn't see what you say in the movie since it's so obvious he's skilled enough to save people from extremely dangerous situations.

 

[El Payaso]

I see no way he could have saved Ra's.

lol. yes, I didn't see a way he could save the city. But oh boy, he did. That happens when you have the skills and you actually try.

Look, the point here is:

Goyer and Nolan KNOW that Ra's is IMMORTAL, in the comics. So instead of seeing him splattered all over the pavement (ala The Joker 1989), or instead of Batman saying: "I will save you."

They left it open to any possibility. No one knows that he is actually dead. The fact that you do NOT see his body, makes it SO EASY to come back in the third movie and have him say: "You left me to escape, you didn't think I would?"

Or something like that. The dude is immortal in the comics, I'm not saying he will be in the movies, just saying the option at the end of the movie leaves us all thinking, that is why we are having this discussion, because for all we know, Nolan could be planning to bring him back some how.

I don't think it was a bad ending. Just looking for the possible incoherence in Batman's behaviour.

As for Batman being just, it's what he had to do, and he knew if he TRIED to save Ra's, it was possible that Ra's would try to fight him off. If that happened, they both may have died. It was the only thing Batman could do, he couldn't risk anymore than he already did.

Then why don't just leave the train without the smart remark?

 

[lordofthenerds]

Who cares, personally I was grinning with satisfaction when Batman didn't try to save Ra's and let him be exploded to pieces on the train.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

lol. yes, I didn't see a way he could save the city. But oh boy, he did. That happens when you have the skills and you actually try

You really didn't see a way to save the city??

Uh......er......stop.....the...train....er....??

C'mon. I don't see a way he could have saved Ra's. He needs both hands to stiffen the cape and glide out of there, and I'd LOVE to see him die shooting his grapling hook out of a speeding train probably breaking his neck. Although, he probably could have jumped out......and then shot the hook, but then wouldn't the hook possible hit nothing really b/c of the amount of space around him? I dunno.

See.....not as simple.

 

[Ibn]

I.................... nah, **** it.

 

[CConn]

I.................... nah, **** it.

I agree with this.

 

[El Payaso]

I disagree.

 

[CConn]

Can we agree to disagree?