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

[Galactical]

Kill? No, he shouldn't, in cold blood. But when it comes down to him choosing to save the bad guy and having millions die, or saving the millions and having one die, I hope Batman's judgement isn't seriously messed up. He should prevent as many deaths as possible. Sometimes you gotta take a step back in order to go two (or in this case, about 11 million) steps forward.

By giving ducard a chance to escape or die? Batman will drag the joker out of a burning building the clown set to fire if it comes to that just because that's what he does, gives everybody over to justice, regardless of what they've done. The reason this scene was written like this was because ducard knew batman's identity. Taking him to the police would have surely been too troublesome so what goyer did was have batman leave him to die or escape, whatever happened. They just needed the villain out of the picture in the end and batman obliged.

 

[Galactical]

I think he said that line because while it was nessecery for Ras to die, and even though he couldn't do anything about it, he felt guilt over leaving his once father figure to die. Saying that helped him do what he had to. It helped him keep it straight in his mind that bad things sometimes happen to prevent worse things from happening.

Because he couldn't save him, he decided to say "I don't have to save you"?

see ya

 

[DareDemon]

By giving ducard a chance to escape or die? Batman will drag the joker out of a burning building the clown set to fire if it comes to that just because that's what he does, gives everybody over to justice, regardless of what they've done. The reason this scene was written like this was because ducard knew batman's identity. Taking him to the police would have surely been too troublesome so what goyer did was have batman leave him to die or escape, whatever happened. They just needed the villain out of the picture in the end and batman obliged.

I have no doubt that Batman would have saved Ras from a burning building. But this was not a burning building. you couldn't simply walk out, or jump out and make a landing you could survive. This was a train going a billion miles an hour about 50 feet in the air.

Withen the context of the movie, at least. Just because these situations don't arise in the comics doesn't mean they CAN'T happen.

 

[DareDemon]

Because he couldn't save him, he decided to say "I don't have to save you"?

see ya

You've never heard of someone saying something they didn't believe to make them feel better?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

How could he have even saved Ra's? He needs two hands to glide the cape, other wise he'll fall from the sky.

 

[Beelze]

Believe me, uber-organisations that are so totally secret no one but their members know of their existence and are controlling the world's events (and some of them) don't really exist in real life, and secret societies of the past are nowadays well known. It works well in the world of paranoid fantasy to think that the fire of London was provoqued by some obscure scheming force, but don't try to defend this possibility in real life. Having the League of Shadows responsible for all great disasters is just as ridiculous as having Ra's survive. Both don't work in real life.

Ra's mentioned three things. He didn't say that they caused every disaster in history. It's physically impossible to survive what Ra's went through. It's not impossible for secret organisations to exist and manipulate in the background, even if it has never happened. The idea doesn't break any laws of reality. Also, I'm supposed to just believe you when you say there are no secret organisations that we don't know about? Did you fine-comb the earth recently? I'd prefer to not be that gullible... but on the other hand, I'm not going to dwell on the possibility either.

... Now, if Ra's had claimed that they had caused a volcanic eruption 420 B.C. ...

 

[El Payaso]

How could he have even saved Ra's? He needs two hands to glide the cape, other wise he'll fall from the sky.

Wjhat if that was Rachel instead Ra's? What would Batman have said and done?

BATMAN: How could I save you, Rach? I need two hands to glide the cape, other wise I'll fall from the sky. Good-bye.

I... don't think so. I think if it was rachel on the train - or any other person - Batman would have saved him.

OR

Batman could have said Ra's "You know, if I save you I could die, so I can't". But no. He said that he didn't 'have to save him' like in 'I could, and because I could I have to clarify that I don't have to. Because if I would have to, then I wouldn't have any excuse for not saving you.' Batman excuse for not saving Ra's is that he doesn't have to do it. Not my speculation, but what Batman said. In my opinion, he had to.

 

[JLBats]

El Payaso, why do you even care?

Aren't you okay with Batman literally killing people with fire in Batman Returns?

 

[Beelze]

He claims to be bothered by inconsistency. In BR, it was never implied that Batman was against killing. In Begins, it is strongly implied that he doesn't want to kill ("I will not become an executioner"). Saving Ra's would probably, ultimately, have been a stupid move... at least Bats didn't outright kill him.

 

[JLBats]

Er, letting a man die does not make you an executioner. If he had shot Ra's in the back of the head, that's an executioner. And he specifically says " I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you", so he clearly doesn't HIMSELF consider it killing. Whether or not it actually is doesn't matter.

 

[Beelze]

Er, letting a man die does not make you an executioner.

I agree. But in the comics it is kind of his moral code to save even the villains (if only so they can be locked up). Bruce tried to save the murderer at the LoS temple, but decided not to, or could not, save Ra's. If it was his choice then I fully understand him. Anyway, this you'll have to take up with Payaso.

 

[lujho]

er..Whatever way he implied that he could have if he wanted to...

Yes. Or, for an example, grabbing Ra's and using the grappling gun to get out (shoot it out the back of the train at the track) instead of (stupid) gliding.

That's what he would have done in the comics or cartoon. If it was impossible to save him he should have been shown to make the effort but failed (or Ra's not letting him). But it wasn't impossible, because if it was, he'd have said "I want to save you but I can't", whereas he basically says "I can save you but I won't".

For **** sake, evil through inaction is still evil. What Bruce did was *****ty and out of character.

 

[Beelze]

For **** sake, evil through inaction is still evil. What Bruce did was *****ty and out of character.

Knowing Ra's and the organisation backing him, Batman would likely endanger more people if he had saved Ra's. If Ra's was put in jail, he would have found the means to escape (thanks to his organisation - "we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure", and so on). Besides, what would tie Ra's to what happened in Gotham? Where's the evidence that would get him locked up? Should they just trust Batman (there's no way he'd testify in court anyway)? They'd have to get Crane or Carmine, or find some other proof, but the two aforementioned guys are probably not considered trustworthy at the moment. Saving Ra's would leave Gotham, and other places, vulnerable to more attacks. I don't see how stopping such a thing from happening again is an evil deed. That's not to say it wasn't out-of-character, just that saving Ra's at that time would've been a dumb move.

 

[lujho]

Knowing Ra's and the organisation backing him, Batman would likely endanger more people if he had saved Ra's. If Ra's was put in jail, he would have found the means to escape (thanks to his organisation - "we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure", and so on). Besides, what would tie Ra's to what happened in Gotham? Where's the evidence that would get him locked up? Should they just trust Batman (there's no way he'd testify in court anyway)? They'd have to get Crane or Carmine, or find some other proof, but the two aforementioned guys are probably not considered trustworthy at the moment. Saving Ra's would leave Gotham, and other places, vulnerable to more attacks. I don't see how stopping such a thing from happening again is an evil deed. That's not to say it wasn't out-of-character, just that saving Ra's at that time would've been a dumb move.

I'm not saying what he did wouldn't make sense for another character. But Batman sees killing for any reason at all wrong, yes, even if that person may go on to kill many more people.

Not killing Joker is a dumb move, yet that's what Batman does. It's silly and naive to have a hero like this dealing with the type of villains he does and not kill them... or "let them die" now and then - but that's Batman. Change that and you get a distorted version of the character.

Not saving or trying to save Ra's was simply not a "Batman" thing to do, especially if the implication was that he could have saved him (and it was). Same with Dardevil letting the guy get hit by a train in that film. Not really what those characters would do.

It would have been fine if they'd shown there there really, absolutely was no way to save Ra's, or that he at least tried.

 

[indy83]

Knowing Ra's and the organisation backing him, Batman would likely endanger more people if he had saved Ra's. If Ra's was put in jail, he would have found the means to escape (thanks to his organisation - "we have infiltrated every level of its infrastructure", and so on). Besides, what would tie Ra's to what happened in Gotham? Where's the evidence that would get him locked up? Should they just trust Batman (there's no way he'd testify in court anyway)? They'd have to get Crane or Carmine, or find some other proof, but the two aforementioned guys are probably not considered trustworthy at the moment. Saving Ra's would leave Gotham, and other places, vulnerable to more attacks. I don't see how stopping such a thing from happening again is an evil deed. That's not to say it wasn't out-of-character, just that saving Ra's at that time would've been a dumb move.

Your right on this one. Saving Ra's only would have caused the city and batman more trouble after. Technically he never killed him, he gave him the chance to somehow get off the train. The possibility of it happening was small but that is not killing somebody. If batman would have socked him in the head and KO'd him it would be different but he left him on the train conscious and alert.

Let's not forget that Bruce already saved Ra's life once and ended up paying for it later. Is he going to be stupid enough to do it again?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Wjhat if that was Rachel instead Ra's? What would Batman have said and done?

BATMAN: How could I save you, Rach? I need two hands to glide the cape, other wise I'll fall from the sky. Good-bye.

I... don't think so. I think if it was rachel on the train - or any other person - Batman would have saved him.

How?

 

[DareDemon]

Okay, about it being inconsistent: It's not. Bruce said he isn't an executioner, but people dying in combat is different. Batman didn't have the bad guys groveling at his feet before shooting them in the head. They died from explosions, etc. Just like police, he won't kill if it can be avoided, but he will do whatever does the least amount of damage, which sometimes does involve death (no one say the "Do I look like the police?!?" line, because despite their differences, the police (ones that aren't corrupt, anyway) and Batman are also very similar).

Bruce knows Ras well enough to not do the grapple thing. Ras wouldn't have allowed it, he would have just pushed him away or stabbed him. If Ras stabbed Batman, he would have died. If he pushed him away, those precious seconds that could have been used to escape were wasted. It is 100% certain Ras would not have allowed Batman to help, and Batman knew that. If it was Rachel, the grapple may have worked.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Bruce didn't kill him, so ergo....it's not murder. Thus, he's no executioner.

 

[iceberg325]

Bruce didn't kill him, so ergo....it's not murder. Thus, he's no executioner.

Bingo!!!!

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Most of you guys aren't realizing that although what Batman did was questionable, that this is Batman in his EARLY DAYS. He is a lot less seasoned, and a little less mature than what most of you are picturing him as. It is over time that his ideals become 'written in stone.' In Batman Begins, he has ideals, but they are still fresh to him.

 

[Everyman]

Ra's mentioned three things. He didn't say that they caused every disaster in history. It's physically impossible to survive what Ra's went through. It's not impossible for secret organisations to exist and manipulate in the background, even if it has never happened. The idea doesn't break any laws of reality. Also, I'm supposed to just believe you when you say there are no secret organisations that we don't know about? Did you fine-comb the earth recently? I'd prefer to not be that gullible... but on the other hand, I'm not going to dwell on the possibility either.

... Now, if Ra's had claimed that they had caused a volcanic eruption 420 B.C. ...

Ra's mentionned three things that in history were caused by unrelated events. It is ludicrous enough. It's impossible these three events are interrelated, even loosely, and that such a secret organisation could exist being kept totally secret through centuries. And I am gullible to not believe such a secret organisation could exist? I think you should consider me skeptic, which is the contrary to gullible. I don't believe in an UFO cover up in Roswell either, by the way. Or in the involvment of an American organisation in the events of 9/11. Sorry, but that exist in fiction, not in real life.

What I meant anyway was that these three events Ra's mention make sense taken separately, not as manifestation of a greater scheme. Fiction licence made Nolan give them a sense they don't have, but if you look at it, in real life it absolutely implausible. Just like Ra's surviving the traincrash. It could not happen in real life, or if it would, Ra's would be maimed and paraplegic, at best. That said, Nolan can use the licence of fiction in this case too too.

 

[Beelze]

Saying "NO, there is no such thing" isn't the same as being a skeptic. Either way, the interaction of people caused those things in one way or another. They mustn't have been unrelated, but in real life, yes, they most likely were unrelated. So, it's highly unlikely, and a stretch... but for Ra's to survive... impossible. Just rewatch the scene a few times. 5 seconds to escape certain doom? I don't think so. But, of course, they can bring him back through movie/comic book magic.

 

[El Payaso]

How?

He prepared himself for decades for this, I'm sure he would have prevented a case where he should help people to save their lives in critical situations. Ropes, gadgets, etc. And using this movie/comic book magic, if they can bring Ra's out of death, it's pretty sure they can have Batman saving a person from a train next to crash, which I'm sure is what Batman does with or without any magic.

 

[Beelze]

He prepared himself for decades for this, I'm sure he would have prevented a case where he should help people to save their lives in critical situations. Ropes, gadgets, etc. And using this movie/comic book magic, if they can bring Ra's out of death, it's pretty sure they can have Batman saving a person from a train next to crash, which I'm sure is what Batman does with or without any magic.

From an earlier post of mine:

I'm not even sure Batman had the means to save Ra's. At least not if he was going to escape using the glider. Batman couldn't possibly have planned ahead of time. Well, I can imagine the inner monologue:

"What if Ducard comes back and reveals to me that he was actually the real Ra's al Ghul, whereafter he proceeds to execute his grand plan of destroying Gotham, a plan which I, after realizing how he's going to execute it, would have at most twenty minutes to foil, and where foiling it would mean destroying the train tracks that my father built, thus leaving Ra's, who would be in the train moving towards the wrecked part of the track, in enormous danger. Since I probably can't glide well while carrying another person who might even struggle with me as I do so. Hell, the mere fact that my arms need to be wide apart for me to glide makes it quite troublesome. This means that I better prepare some kind of means of saving him, like... ropes, and stuff."

Bruce had about 20 minutes (in the movie it's about 12, but I increased the time window a bit, since you never really know with movies), to figure out how Ra's was going to execute the plan, figure out a plan that wouldn't cause too much collateral damage (thus possibly hurting others), a couple of backup plans, put himself into Batman gear, drive to the Narrows in the Tumbler, find Gordon and get him to help him, try to stop Ra's from loading the Microwave Emitter on the train, try to incapacitate Ra's and stop the train, and finally escape the train. In short, I just don't think it was the right time to acquire the proper equipment for saving someone in a situation like that. Hell, Batman didn't even know that Ra's would personally be on the train...

 

[Everyman]

But, of course, they can bring him back through movie/comic book magic.

Yes, that's what I have been defending all along. And like I said, there is the Lazarus's Pit they could use to explain a full recovery.