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

[spiderwear]

Just wanted to throw my two cents in. First off, this scene wasn't thatbad to me, neither were the scences from 89 and returns.

Someone said (paraphrazing) that Ra's did it to himself. But the last time I watched it, Bat's was the one who ordered the tracks to be destroyed. Next, Batman dosn't kill and if he can do anything about it he wont let someone die by his inaction. It's just not how he works, if anything he has just created a new version of himself in killing a daughters father. Burton did it and now Nolan is keeping that torch burning.

Next people said Ra's couldn't be charged because he wasn't linked to anything..Well Falcone was charged just for being restrained (chained to the seach light) so how could Ra's not have been charged in the same manner if he was found near the Microwave Emmiter? Wouldn't he then be a theif and prosicuted accordingly?

 

[El Payaso]

^ That's the thing.

 

[Fenrir]

Someone said (paraphrazing) that Ra's did it to himself. But the last time I watched it, Bat's was the one who ordered the tracks to be destroyed.

But didn't Ra's bust the controls in the first place? Last I remember, Batman wanted to stop the train, not crash it. He only had Gordon destroy the tracks in case he fails to stop the train in it's tracks or dies while doing it.

I think the statement that Ra's did it to himself is fairly accurate.

 

[spiderwear]

But didn't Ra's bust the controls in the first place? Last I remember, Batman wanted to stop the train, not crash it. He only had Gordon destroy the tracks in case he fails to stop the train in it's tracks or dies while doing it.

This is true, and this is what makes it a hard question. It can truly be looked at in both lights. I agree, Ra's ruined the controlls, his problem...But to me, Bats didn't give him enough warning to save himself, seemed like maybe ten seconds. Even for a kung fu master that is nothing if you don't have a parachute or something. In my eyes that's right there with pulling the trigger himself.

I think it would have been much better if Bats would have saved him, then a couple of things would have happend. First it would have solidified that he is a hero not an anti hero like punisher. It would have also have left Ra's for a sequal with Talia. Finally it would have been a great departure from other superhero movies in general where the bad guy usually dies.

 

[El Payaso]

If Batman woukld have said 'Ra's the train's gonna crash' and ra's would have insisted in being on the train, then it would have been Ra's fault.

 

[Fenrir]

This is true, and this is what makes it a hard question. It can truly be looked at in both lights. I agree, Ra's ruined the controlls, his problem...But to me, Bats didn't give him enough warning to save himself, seemed like maybe ten seconds. Even for a kung fu master that is nothing if you don't have a parachute or something. In my eyes that's right there with pulling the trigger himself.

Batman tried hard enough to prevent things from getting to the point where he had no choice but to crash it. Which is why I see Ra's being primarily responsible for his fate. Bruce tried to stop Ra's as Wayne Manor. Then he tried to stop him from loading the micro wave emitter on the train. He even tried to stop the monorail dead in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. Ultimately, the only way to save Ra's (and the city) was to stop the train at all costs and Ra's blew that by jamming the controls. I don't believe Batman ever planned Ra's death which is why he's not responsible.

I think it would have been much better if Bats would have saved him, then a couple of things would have happend. First it would have solidified that he is a hero not an anti hero like punisher. It would have also have left Ra's for a sequal with Talia. Finally it would have been a great departure from other superhero movies in general where the bad guy usually dies.

First of all, a lot of people agree that Batman is an anti-hero. He simply isn't gung-ho like The Punisher is. The anti-hero aspect of Batman's character is especially evident in his clashes with Superman, who is what you'd call a hero.

And death of the villain is not only common in superhero films, but all genres. It has less to do with the fact that it's become a cliche, but more about an acceptable and moral conclusion that gives a satisfying closure to the film. Heck, even masterpieces like The Godfather or The Shawshank Redemption aren't exempt from this element. Sure, it is unfaithful to the character but it's also a part of the way stories are told.

 

[Fenrir]

If Batman woukld have said 'Ra's the train's gonna crash' and ra's would have insisted in being on the train, then it would have been Ra's fault.

Come on. You and I both know that is pushing the limits of hypothesis. Batman did not bust the controls of the train which would have been the only way of saving Ra's and the city. And don't tell me Batman shouldn't have crashed the train. His primary concern was to prevent the train from reaching Wayne Tower AT ALL COSTS. Destroying the tracks helped him achieve that. Even so, he tries his best to prevent things from getting to that point. After all this, blaming the hero for what he did is being unnecessarily and prematurely judgemental. It's just a classic case of passing the blame torch.

 

[El Payaso]

Come on. You and I both know that is pushing the limits of hypothesis. Batman did not bust the controls of the train which would have been the only way of saving Ra's and the city. And don't tell me Batman shouldn't have crashed the train. His primary concern was to prevent the train from reaching Wayne Tower AT ALL COSTS. Destroying the tracks helped him achieve that. Even so, he tries his best to prevent things from getting to that point. After all this, blaming the hero for what he did is being unnecessarily and prematurely judgemental. It's just a classic case of passing the blame torch.

Batman did not bust the controls and Ra's didn't blew away the train's tracks. Call it Plan B, the Only Way to Save the City or whatever. Batman did this intentionally and didn't warn Ra's. Not warning Ra's about that wasn't the only way to save the city. In fact not warning Ra's has nothing to do with saving Gotham.

Nobody is discussing that crashing the train was the only/best way to save the city and that Batman HAD to do it. The thing is he didn't tell Ra's and that way Batman intentionally denied Ra's the possibility of chosing whether he would insist on his plan and fight Batman or save himself instead.

 

[Fenrir]

Batman did not bust the controls and Ra's didn't blew away the train's tracks. Call it Plan B, the Only Way to Save the City or whatever. Batman did this intentionally and didn't warn Ra's. Not warning Ra's about that wasn't the only way to save the city. In fact not warning Ra's has nothing to do with saving Gotham.

Nobody is discussing that crashing the train was the only/best way to save the city and that Batman HAD to do it. The thing is he didn't tell Ra's and that way Batman intentionally denied Ra's the possibility of chosing whether he would insist on his plan and fight Batman or save himself instead.

I think he didn't do so because he was busy trying to stop the train before it even got to that point. After that, it was just him and Ra's busting each other's ass. Batman was getting kicked bad by Ra's to even had a chance to speak properly.

Like I said, judging on the basis of hypothesis is ridiculous. You can insert any number of possibilities yet you can't make a strong case because there is no way you can prove the applicabililty and chances of said possibility occurring.

 

[Bathead]

As far as warning Ra's, you don't warn your enemy of your plans, and as Ra's is an extreme fanatic, it likely wouldn't have stopped him anyway. He would have been willing to sacrifice himself to advance Gotham's destruction. Batman knew that. Batman would have given Ra's a chance if he could have defeated him in time, but Ra's blew it when he sabotaged the controls. Batman could only save himself at that point and had NO CHOICE but to let Ra's suffer the consequences of his own actions, lest they both die.

 

[El Payaso]

I think he didn't do so because he was busy trying to stop the train before it even got to that point. After that, it was just him and Ra's busting each other's ass. Batman was getting kicked bad by Ra's to even had a chance to speak properly.

Yet he had the time to say properly "I won't kill you" - big pause - "But I don't have to save you"

Like I said, judging on the basis of hypothesis is ridiculous. You can insert any number of possibilities yet you can't make a strong case because there is no way you can prove the applicabililty and chances of said possibility occurring.

Nice try to stop the discusion, but the case is far from being clear and closed.

As far as warning Ra's, you don't warn your enemy of your plans, and as Ra's is an extreme fanatic, it likely wouldn't have stopped him anyway. He would have been willing to sacrifice himself to advance Gotham's destruction. Batman knew that. Batman would have given Ra's a chance if he could have defeated him in time, but Ra's blew it when he sabotaged the controls.

But since Batman didn't, we don't know that.

It's like sending a guy to jail because of something he hasn't done yet. It's totally and ethically wrong from batman just to assume Ra's is not going to listen. At the very least he should have tried, after that it's up to Ra's, before that it's up to Batman to decide Ra's future.

Ra's could have sabotaged the controls but it was Batman's plan B what killed him and Batman knew this.

Batman could only save himself at that point and had NO CHOICE but to let Ra's suffer the consequences of his own actions, lest they both die.

There was the choice of warning him the train was going to crash, the choice of saving him as Batman has saved tons of people before (Ra's included). Don't bring the old tune that Batman couldn't have saved him. Batman trained himself for years to save people.

 

[Fenrir]

Yet he had the time to say properly "I won't kill you" - big pause - "But I don't have to save you"

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

Nice try to stop the discusion, but the case is far from being clear and closed.

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.

Ra's could have sabotaged the controls but it was Batman's plan B what killed him and Batman knew this.

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.

Don't bring the old tune that Batman couldn't have saved him. Batman trained himself for years to save people.

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?

 

[Bathead]

I see no way he could have saved Ra's. The only reason Ra's ended up as he did was his own fault, not Batman's.

 

[spiderwear]

Batman tried hard enough to prevent things from getting to the point where he had no choice but to crash it. Which is why I see Ra's being primarily responsible for his fate. Bruce tried to stop Ra's as Wayne Manor. Then he tried to stop him from loading the micro wave emitter on the train. He even tried to stop the monorail dead in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. Ultimately, the only way to save Ra's (and the city) was to stop the train at all costs and Ra's blew that by jamming the controls. I don't believe Batman ever planned Ra's death which is why he's not responsible.



First of all, a lot of people agree that Batman is an anti-hero. He simply isn't gung-ho like The Punisher is. The anti-hero aspect of Batman's character is especially evident in his clashes with Superman, who is what you'd call a hero.

And death of the villain is not only common in superhero films, but all genres. It has less to do with the fact that it's become a cliche, but more about an acceptable and moral conclusion that gives a satisfying closure to the film. Heck, even masterpieces like The Godfather or The Shawshank Redemption aren't exempt from this element. Sure, it is unfaithful to the character but it's also a part of the way stories are told.

Fair enough. However I really like Ra's as a character and I really hope this will be a long lived franchise. The problem with killing characters in my opinion is that you take away the "come back for revenge" aspect. Some may say been there done that, but there are so many possibilities. Maybe Ra's in the background with talia as the main villian...so on so on so on.

I just hate killing of characters and future stories they may hold. Foever had one redeeming quality for me. They actually put the villians in Arkham instead of killing them.

On another note, many people have said that Bats cape could not support both he and Ra's, But he did have his grapple gun with a 350 pound line. Those lines are allways rated low (incase one breaks) meaning that it could have held 500lbs easy. So yes he deffinetly could have grabbed Ra's and saved him. Ra's wasnt screaming "leave me here" and holding a rail, bats basicly said your gonna die (while Ra's was down) then took off.

The argument is murder....In my opinoin it is murder. Did you know that if your are certifed in CPR and someone around has an MI are is choking and they die and it is found out that you were CPR certified and could have saved them, you would be charged with negligent homocide. Same thing. Villian or not murder is murder.

 

[spiderwear]

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.

 

[spiderwear]

I see no way he could have saved Ra's. The only reason Ra's ended up as he did was his own fault, not Batman's.

(cough) grapple gun (cough)

 

[spiderwear]

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.

Fact-Bats new the tracks were going to be blown by Gordon.
Fact-Bats new the controlls were ruined.
Fact-Bats clearly states that he will let Ra's die.
Fact-Bats could have helped him.
Fact-Bats is responceable for a death due to inaction.
Fact-Through inaction Bats is a murderer.

 

[Fenrir]

Fact-Bats new the tracks were going to be blown by Gordon.

Fact: Batman also wanted to stop the train before it crashes from the blown tracks.

Fact-Bats new the controlls were ruined.

Fact: Batman knew the controls were ruined after Ra's sabotaged them with the broken sword while he was attempting to stop

Fact-Bats clearly states that he will let Ra's die.

Fact: Batman also tried to stop Ra's twice from taking the monorail to Wayne Tower until Ra's becomes suicidal in.

Fact-Bats could have helped him.

Possibility. NOT fact.

Fact-Bats is responceable for a death due to inaction.

Fact: Batman already saved Ra's once before. He gave him a chance. Batman has no obligation to save him again.

Fact-Through inaction Bats is a murderer.

That's a flimsy argument. It's like saying the entire world is responsible for the deaths of the Lebanese because of "inaction".

 

[spiderwear]

That's a flimsy argument. It's like saying the entire world is responsible for the deaths of the Lebanese because of "inaction".

LMAO, not trying to be rude. But you speak of flimsy arguments and you going to compare the whole world to two people in a confined space??? I didn't say Bats was responceable for a death ten thousand miles away.LMAO

 

[spiderwear]

Fact: Batman already saved Ra's once before. He gave him a chance. Batman has no obligation to save him again.

I was going to let this go but.....So you're saying Bats is only responceable for someones life one time and then they are on their own? I hope noone gets mugged in gotham more than once.

Did I mention flimsy?

 

[spiderwear]

Fact: Batman also wanted to stop the train before it crashes from the blown tracks.



Fact: Batman knew the controls were ruined after Ra's sabotaged them with the broken sword while he was attempting to stop



Fact: Batman also tried to stop Ra's twice from taking the monorail to Wayne Tower until Ra's becomes suicidal in.



Possibility. NOT fact.



Fact: Batman already saved Ra's once before. He gave him a chance. Batman has no obligation to save him again.



That's a flimsy argument. It's like saying the entire world is responsible for the deaths of the Lebanese because of "inaction".

I guess I'll just quote the whole thing, the more I read it the more I have to comment on. Sorry I can't do your fancy one liner quotes .

Part one-This isn't about Bats wanting to stop the train. It's about him letting Ra's die.

Two-The means and timing of the controlls being broken has nothing to do with "did Bats let Ra's die and is that murder".

Three-How exactly was Ra's suicidel? I didn't get that impression. Did you watch an alternate ending?

Four- Fact Bats carries grapple guns. Fact, Bats could have saved Ra's using said grapple gun.

Five and Six- see above post.

 

[Fenrir]

Part one-This isn't about Bats wanting to stop the train. It's about him letting Ra's die.

And he only let's Ra's die after trying real hard not to get him killed in the process of stopping the train. Besides, didn't he already save Ra's once before? What good did it bring? Why should he save him again? How is it justified? Let's just look at it in simple terms of morality and forget the whole "just because he's Batman" gig.

Two-The means and timing of the controlls being broken has nothing to do with "did Bats let Ra's die and is that murder".

Letting someone die is not murder, especially when that someone himself planted the seeds of his own demise.

Three-How exactly was Ra's suicidel? I didn't get that impression. Did you watch an alternate ending?

When Ra's jams the controls, he knows he'll plow full speed into Wayne Tower. And Wayne Tower was sitting right on top of the main hub. The monorail reaching the main hub would blow it up which would have been catastrophic to Wayne Tower (and consequently, the monorail). It's exactly why the chief engineer evacuates the building. Had the main hub exploded, it would have taken a good chunk of Wayne Tower and the monorail (and Ra's) along with it. Hence, suicidal.

Four- Fact Bats carries grapple guns. Fact, Bats could have saved Ra's using said grapple gun.

I never said Batman COULDN'T save Ra's. I said he was in no obligation to.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Begins was pretty ambigious throughout the entire movie about the whole killing thing. While Batman says he doesn't kill, he ends up blowing up an entire building filled with bad guys to save a farmer, probably killing people in the process, takes part in a high speed car chase, and somehow doesn't kill any cops, though not for lack of trying by the looks of it, and also allows Ra's to die.

So ya, it was kind of say one thing, do another kind of attitude.

 

[Fenrir]

I was going to let this go but.....So you're saying Bats is only responceable for someones life one time and then they are on their own? I hope noone gets mugged in gotham more than once.

Did I mention flimsy?

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. :

 

[Fenrir]

LMAO, not trying to be rude. But you speak of flimsy arguments and you going to compare the whole world to two people in a confined space??? I didn't say Bats was responceable for a death ten thousand miles away.LMAO

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.