Batman Begins "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you."

[Ben Urich]

There's been a bit of contention about the validity of that line. Would the Batman of the comics have made the same move? Has he before? Or was he totally out of character when he said that in the film?

Another poster here had this to say in another thread:

Theres no justifying it. Sorry but Batman doesn't have the right to make that judgement call. At that point hes no longer a hero, hes just a vigilante seeking his own twisted sense of justice. What your saying is very logical, thats absolutely true, but if he compromises with ra's whats to stop him from compromising with everyone else??

"Hey joker, you've escaped from prison way too many times, the justice system is obviously not working here so I'm just going to let you die." What kind of batman is that??

If I can't hold him up to higher standards than the ninjas then what makes him any better than them? Apparently ra's didn't teach him about honor.

As much as I hate to say it, there's definitely validity to that point of view. How is Batman any better than Ra's if he lets him die?
Of course you could mention that Ra's didn't actually die - there's a GIF from the movie floating around the internet that spotlights Ra's falling to safety just before the monorail crash - but the question still lingers.

Your thoughts?

 

[JTIZZLEVILLE]

How is Batman any different from the ninjas and Ra's if he killed Ra's? That's very simple. He does good. Ra's is planning to destroy the city(killing millions) and Batman is saving the city(killing one). it isn't a hard concept and makes perfect sense.

Plus, do you really think that any jail Batman would have taken Ra's to would contain him? The man is a genious, not to mention a skilled warrior who knows how to become invisible and is a master at escaping.

In the situation that was at hand, batman didn't have a choice. he had to stop the train and he had to save himself. not using this as an excuse, but it seems that batman had to have both arms fully extended in order to make his cape rigid. there was no way he could escape while carrying Ra's. Plus, its hard to believe that a man with Ra's charater would even WANT batman to save him from the crash.

Batman had to do what was necessary at the time to accomplish his goal. Now, if batman had caught Ra's and then threw him off a building to his death then i can understand. but Batman simply stopped the train and escaped. Ra's had to die with the train.

 

[The Only Woj]

if I could change the scene, I'd have Batman attempt to grab Ducard and take him with him and have Ducard kick Batman so he gets booted out and leaves himself to die on the train

 

[El Payaso]

Your thoughts?

'I won't kill you but I don't have to save you' is just a cheap euphemism for 'Ok, I'll kill you and save myself more headaches what the hell.'

How is Batman any different from the ninjas and Ra's if he killed Ra's? That's very simple. He does good. Ra's is planning to destroy the city(killing millions) and Batman is saving the city(killing one). it isn't a hard concept and makes perfect sense.

In fact it's a way too simplistic concept.

This is our hero: all he does and say is good and right.
He's the bad guy; all he does and says is bad and evil.

Therefore: the good must win, the evil must be defeated bla bla bla.

In real life - and rescuing the good aspects of Nolan's work, I'd say the black and whote POV is not the way he works things out.

From an external Pov, Ra's would be as good as Batman since he's after destroying evil, just like Batman. They both operates outside the law and social rules.

The only difference is that Batman have decided not to kill. But for that matter some other guy can choose not to kill and still be a villiain.

Plus, do you really think that any jail Batman would have taken Ra's to would contain him? The man is a genious, not to mention a skilled warrior who knows how to become invisible and is a master at escaping.

So?

That sounds like you're providing the perfect excuse to kill. And therefore making Batman closer to Ra's and the ninjas. That's Ra's way of thinking: I can't change the evil man so I kill him. I can't keep Ra's in jail so I kill him.

For that matter, Batman should kill every villiain since all of them seem to escape most of times.

But that raises another aspect of Batman in Begins: he wants to destroy evil by taking villiains to jail but he knows perfectly that Gotham authorities are the most corrupt in the country, so how could he expect to fight crime through that way? Just with 2 allies?

In the situation that was at hand, batman didn't have a choice. he had to stop the train and he had to save himself. not using this as an excuse, but it seems that batman had to have both arms fully extended in order to make his cape rigid. there was no way he could escape while carrying Ra's. Plus, its hard to believe that a man with Ra's charater would even WANT batman to save him from the crash.

If Batman himself had the time and intention of stating "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you" then it's pretty clear what was his purpose and certainly what wasn't.

It wasn't a "Ra's! try to hang on of my belt or rope or something or you're gonna die." He was telling Ra's he won't save him. More like a 'So long, villkiain.' And I surely don't see how did Batman expect Ra's to save himself in any way.

Even when Ra's would have refused to be saved by Batman, that doesn't justify a thing. In that case, Batman should let every suicide person to kill hilmself since they are refusing to be saved. But even so, we don't know what Ra's would have wanted or done because Batman left him before we could know.

Batman had to do what was necessary at the time to accomplish his goal. Now, if batman had caught Ra's and then threw him off a building to his death then i can understand. but Batman simply stopped the train and escaped. Ra's had to die with the train.

No, Ra's didn't have to die necessarily.

Batman in fact put many life in risk when he tried to save Rachel, so is that he just do what he can just to save people he care for?

 

[El Payaso]

[EDITED by Billy Bob Thornton]

...

 

[El Payaso]

[EDITED by Carrottop]


...

 

[drunkhomer]

yeah,i kinda agree, but wutever, that scene where batman flies off the train was just awsome....

 

[Beelze]

Some good things have been said, and I'd just like to add the "rookie Batman" argument. In his emotional high, he made a decision, and it might not have been what he really stood for, or wanted to stand for, but it seemed right at the moment. And yes, that part where he flies out of the train was great. Had it been in slow-motion it is likely that I would had an orgasm the first time I saw it.

 

[Ben Urich]

How is Batman any different from the ninjas and Ra's if he killed Ra's? That's very simple. He does good.

That's subjective. Don't you think that, had Ra's succeeded, there would have been some celebrating? The 9/11 bombers were lauded by some as heroes. Granted, it's an extreme point of view, but still. I don't think saying "Batman's good, Ra's is evil, justice is done" really covers it because life isn't black and white like that.

Some good things have been said, and I'd just like to add the "rookie Batman" argument. In his emotional high, he made a decision, and it might not have been what he really stood for, or wanted to stand for, but it seemed right at the moment.

I can deal with that.
Had this movie been set, oh, 5 years into Batman's career (instead of, you know, a week), he might have acted differently.

 

[Mr_Mortis]

I think Batman just lost control of himself for a second. I mean, it's the end of the film, everyone wants Ducard to die, Batman is so angry at Ducard because of the taunting. He just snapped.

Thats what I reckon any way.

 

[JTIZZLEVILLE]

I think people are making way too big of a deal out of this. People are up in arms because they believe this to be way out of Batman's character. Let's not forget that he had 2 chances to kill Ra's. First, he saved him from the mountain when he could of simply let him fall. Two, after knocking Ra's down on the train he pulled the "Bat-Knives" (or whatever they were) on him, only to thrown them through the window. I think this is very much in Batman's character.

You can also argue the point that Batman knew Ra's ability to save himself (which some believe you can see him leaping from the train -- I do not). This was Batman saying, "I not going to be responsible for your death, but I'm not going to be responsible for you life either." Ra's has a demented way at looking at life. He feels the only way to combat the evil in Gotham is to distroy it and start over. He is not going to stop. Narrowly dieing in a train crash is not going to change is point of view. Batman, on the other hand, feels that their is good in Gotham and it just needs a force to rally behind.

Knowing this, Batman still didn't kill Ra's. If you ask me, I think this is more in Batman's character than anything else in the movie.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

There's been a bit of contention about the validity of that line. Would the Batman of the comics have made the same move? Has he before? Or was he totally out of character when he said that in the film?

Another poster here had this to say in another thread:

Yeah, he did it at the end of Gotham Knights.......but we all choose to forget it cuz that entire arc sucked ne ways.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I would ask this though:

In today's world.......around us, how do WE deal with terrorists?

Ra's was a terrorist. And, I think this is a sign of the world we live in today. Batman bends with the times, and I think is one sign of how he does.

 

[Ronny Shade]

This is one of the few problems I have with this movie. He "kills" Ra's...basically negligent homicide. He also killed how many people in the fire in Tibet? I mean come on.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

He didn't kill anyone in the monerstary. Things like that have happened before in the comics.

Again, he didn't kill Ra's.

Negligent homicide is the craziest thing I've heard in years.........I mean, WTF?

Again,.....we live in a world where people don't want to see Terrorists.....TERRORISTS......treated like human beings.........and they sure has hell don't want to see them survive by a hero saving them.

 

[blind_fury]

Nobody dies under Batman's watch. He cherishes life more than most people.

 

[Beelze]

This is one of the few problems I have with this movie. He "kills" Ra's...basically negligent homicide. He also killed how many people in the fire in Tibet? I mean come on.

If what Batman did was "negligent homicide," then Ra's committed "negligent suicide."

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Nobody dies under Batman's watch. He cherishes life more than most people.

Okay.....do you know why he does?

If what Batman did was "negligent homicide," then Ra's comitted "negligent suicide."

Yeah, he's the one that ****ed up the controls.....he's the one that put the device on the train......he solidfied his death.

Btw......This stuff happens ALL THE TIME IN COMICS AND CARTOONS. The villians "die"...only to return next time out. It's happened to the Joker like 500 times.

 

[Everyman]

I think people are making way too big of a deal out of this. People are up in arms because they believe this to be way out of Batman's character. Let's not forget that he had 2 chances to kill Ra's. First, he saved him from the mountain when he could of simply let him fall. Two, after knocking Ra's down on the train he pulled the "Bat-Knives" (or whatever they were) on him, only to thrown them through the window. I think this is very much in Batman's character.

You can also argue the point that Batman knew Ra's ability to save himself (which some believe you can see him leaping from the train -- I do not). This was Batman saying, "I not going to be responsible for your death, but I'm not going to be responsible for you life either." Ra's has a demented way at looking at life. He feels the only way to combat the evil in Gotham is to distroy it and start over. He is not going to stop. Narrowly dieing in a train crash is not going to change is point of view. Batman, on the other hand, feels that their is good in Gotham and it just needs a force to rally behind.

Knowing this, Batman still didn't kill Ra's. If you ask me, I think this is more in Batman's character than anything else in the movie.

Agreed. And let's not forget that batman did not kill, or even tried to kill, Rha's Al Ghul. Batman left his ennemy in a dangerous situation while he was trying to stop the train. There was many more lives at stake than simply Rha's.

 

[El Payaso]

I think people are making way too big of a deal out of this. People are up in arms because they believe this to be way out of Batman's character.

In fact what's odd is all the fuzz the movie makes about Batman not taking a life and then it contradicts that core point at the end.

I saw a violent semi-killer Batman in B89 and B Returns and I couldn't care less about it.

Let's not forget that he had 2 chances to kill Ra's. First, he saved him from the mountain when he could of simply let him fall.

Why?

He didn't know he was Ra's.

And for the guy who was supposed to be... well, Bruce left him pretty much to die too.

Two, after knocking Ra's down on the train he pulled the "Bat-Knives" (or whatever they were) on him, only to thrown them through the window. I think this is very much in Batman's character.

Yes, but what he does next is not. Or at least is debatable.

You can also argue the point that Batman knew Ra's ability to save himself (which some believe you can see him leaping from the train -- I do not). This was Batman saying, "I not going to be responsible for your death, but I'm not going to be responsible for you life either."

Batman saying 'I'm not responsible for your life'?

That would imply that Batman doesn not care any longer for what Ra's do with his life, like destroying Gotham. I doubt he meant that.

Now, if you mean that Batman said he wasn't responsible for saving his life, when Bruce refused to kill the thief in Ra's monastery it was because he thought the evildoers must be judged by justice, then he would be contradicting himself by not taking Ra's to justice.

Ra's has a demented way at looking at life. He feels the only way to combat the evil in Gotham is to distroy it and start over.

And Batman thinks the only way to fight evil is to dress as a bat.

Both are weird characters.

Knowing this, Batman still didn't kill Ra's. If you ask me, I think this is more in Batman's character than anything else in the movie.

What? Letting the villiain die? How is this more in Batman character than anything else - like taking the villiain to justice?

 

[El Payaso]

He didn't kill anyone in the monerstary. Things like that have happened before in the comics.

He didn't kill anyone, he just didn't save them.

I doubt Batman (or Spiderman) would pass in front of a building on fire and doesn't do a thing to save people inside, whether they're innocent mommas with their little children or ninjas.

Again, he didn't kill Ra's.

No, he let him die.

Negligent homicide is the craziest thing I've heard in years.........I mean, WTF?

Isn't it?

Not killing a guy but not doing a thing to save him being conscient that you could.

it would be like looking a man drowning and you're right there and you're an Olympic swimmer and you just watch him die. Batman would be not only an Olympic swimmer but one that wants to preserve human life as a highest value.

Again,.....we live in a world where people don't want to see Terrorists.....TERRORISTS......treated like human beings.........and they sure has hell don't want to see them survive by a hero saving them.

Terrorist are human beings. Your vengeful feelings are 100% understandable but even so, that doesn't make them right and even if they are, it is not what Batman is supposed to think in Batman begins. He's not for revenge but for justice. An eye for an eye is not justice. If for that, Bruce would have killed that guy in Ra's house as an act of justice as you envision it.

What you want to see Batman do or don't do doesn't match with what the movie states that Batman acts like.

Okay.....do you know why he does?

What's the difference? Or are you implying he has little clauses and excpetions in his personal rules? "To preserve human life*









*except if he's Ra's"

Yeah, he's the one that ****ed up the controls.....he's the one that put the device on the train......he solidfied his death.

For that matter if a guy prepares a rope to hang himself, Batman shouldn't do a thing to prevent it?

Btw......This stuff happens ALL THE TIME IN COMICS AND CARTOONS. The villians "die"...only to return next time out. It's happened to the Joker like 500 times.

We're discussing Batman's inolvment in the villiain's death, not even if Ra's is really dead.

Whether this happens in comics or not, it is cristal clear in B Begins that Batman wouldn't allow a preventable death.

 

[Doc Holliday]

there's a GIF from the movie floating around the internet that spotlights Ra's falling to safety just before the monorail crash

Where could I find this GIF? I'm interested.

But yes, I've always wondered about this myself. I did sort of a double take when I heard it. I think I've decided it was for the mere purpose of poetic justice.

 

[Jack Napier]

He saved R'as before, look how that worked out. Death was the only way to stop him from doing what he felt had to be done to Gotham.

 

[iceberg325]

First off, Batman did not kill Ras. Think about it, did Batman have to save him? Does bruce even have to wear the suit and help the city? No, he doesnt. Its his choice. The city should be happy that he is around to do what he does. Why would he even consider helping ras. He did once and what happened. He threatened to destory gotham and burned down the wayne mansion. Say batman did save him what would have happened? He would have been put in Jail. Come on now, hes the leader of the league of shadows. Even Falcone was scared of him. Dont you think he would have been resuced? Of course. Then what? Hed try to destroy Batman, and gotham again. Would you guys like for a guy like that to be around? Batman did the right thing. No question about it.

 

[El Payaso]

He saved R'as before, look how that worked out. Death was the only way to stop him from doing what he felt had to be done to Gotham.

If that's true then we have a killer Batman. 'Killer' being in a good way - if that's possible - since that way he would be 'liberating' Ra's from his mission.

From that POV Batman should 'liberate' every criminal from being a criminal by killing them. Then I don't get why he refused to save that thief at ra's monastery. He could have "stop him from doing what he felt had to be done."

And from that very perspective too, Ra's is totally justified as wanting to destroy both Batman and Gotham since from his point of view, they're doing terrible things; being corrupt and defending the city that is being corrupt respectively.

First off, Batman did not kill Ras. Think about it, did Batman have to save him? Does bruce even have to wear the suit and help the city? No, he doesnt. Its his choice.

Yes, Batman had to save him according to what B Begins ells us about Batman and his will of not taking human lives. And no, I don't think being Batman is a choice anymore.

it's not like he can quit any night. Just say, 'meh, I don't feel like being Batman anymore.' He's obssessed with his mission, it's not something he chose to do but a necessity that he can't avoid.

The city should be happy that he is around to do what he does.

Certainly.

Why would he even consider helping ras.

Because it is one of his main morals according to the movie.

He did once and what happened.

Funny because Ra's himself told that same thing to Bruce.

So you're saying he should learn Ra's philosophies about compasion. By thinking the way you do, Batman is a little more Ra's at the end of the movie since he learnt Ra's morals.

He threatened to destory gotham and burned down the wayne mansion.

Certainly.

Some other villiians kill people or steal, etc. Where is supposed to be the line where Batman can allow himself to let people die?

Say batman did save him what would have happened? He would have been put in Jail. Come on now, hes the leader of the league of shadows. Even Falcone was scared of him. Dont you think he would have been resuced? Of course. Then what? Hed try to destroy Batman, and gotham again. Would you guys like for a guy like that to be around? Batman did the right thing. No question about it.

Under that perspective he shopuld kill every villiain since every one of them can escape (and we know that happens a lot).

Right thing or not, Batman did what he said he wouldn't do.

Would you guys like for a guy like that to be around? Batman did the right thing. No question about it.

What we - guys - would do or not do it's irrelevant since we're not Batman.