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

[raybia]

or omen 2.

Yeah, but I don't want him to be a evil brat. I actually found him to be quite charming in the movie...which was a surprise. You know how kid actors can be.

 

[xwolverine2]

superman wouldve saved him...

thats why superman sucks balls.

 

[xwolverine2]

This be Tristan Lake Leabu from the new superman movie. aka: THE KID.

I.WANT.TO.KILL.HIM

 

[Nightwing92]

HAHAHA...... kill him.....

 

[Phaser]

Why and how does this new exceptions Bat-rule work?

I've already explained it in detail in my earlier posts. Go fetch.

Yes. Because it is a human life. Any thing he does should be - according to Batman - be resolved by justice, not him or the villiain himself.

And where is the justice in repeatedly saving a potential mass-murderer who plots the demise of millions of people and attempts to kill the very man who had already saved his life before?

And how did Ra's have this 'fair trial' and how leaving him in a train that is going to collapse is not 'cold blood', even if it's not directly a murder?

Actually Ra's already had his chance when Bruce saved him from the burning monastery.

Apathy is what - in part - let the crime and corruption to increase. Now you say Batman can show apathy for human life.

No, Batman can show apathy to inhuman fanatics like Ra's, especially after risking his neck trying to save Ra's the first time.

He needs to reflect on that.

Nope. Because leaving Ra's to the fate he had doomed himself to was essentially the redemption for what Bruce's compassion for his former mentor had brought on him and his city. I'm not saying Bruce should not have saved Ra's at the monastery, but that Ra's actions later in the film proved that a twisted, radical madman like him didn't deserve to be saved in the first place.

Relevant in the sense that even a movie like Daredevil took the time for reflection over letting someone die (or kill someone in DD case).

Unless the one who got killed in DD was very much like Ra's and had been rescued from certain death by DD earlier in the film, the "relevance" of the example you posted is pretty much non-existent, because the circumstances as well as the reasons that led to the outcome of that situation are strikingly different.

On a side note, my memory about the events in Daredevil is a bit hazy, but can you please elaborate just when and whose death does Daredevil "reflect upon"?

Why didn't you start by saying you think the main source - Batman comics - are absurd and too naive? B Begins trying to be so close to the comics then is a problem for you.

I never said the entire Batman comics are absurd and too naive. I was talking only about that singular, particular element of Batman comics where he so foolishly cherishing the lives of the most despicable kind of scum that has ever walked the Earth.

All meaning of participating in a discussion with you is lost when you resort to dishonest tactics where you exaggerate words and put them in my mouth just so you can still save some face in this debate. Disgusting.

Bruce throws a gun to the sea, he will never take a human life.

And he didn't. At least not in Begins.

Then he finds a better way. To leave them to die. That gives him the perfect excuse and he's still "technically" keeping his word.

It's really appalling to you reach to the lengths where you equate the life of a megalomaniac like Ra's with a normal human life. I'm at a loss for words. So you're essentially willing to overlook all that Ra's has done and judging from what was shown in the film, very much continue to do just so Batman ideals in the film can remain identical to that of his comics counterpart?

"I asked what would you rather have Batman do." is very different from "Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would YOU risk? Possibility or certainty?" which was your original question. So the incompetence is entirely yours about elaborating the right question, that way you won't have to to change it later so it looks like I was mistaken.

The first time I asked you that, I meant it figuratively. But since you were apparently too dumb and spineless to give a simple, straightforward answer, I had to rephrase it to coax you into replying in a way where you'd have nowhere to run. This whole debacle wouldn't have even started if didn't try to be such a smartass.

I would have saved both Rachel and Ra's, so to keep a little consistency about human life and not choosing people according to my personal feelings about who should/shouldn't be saved.

See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Oh and my question was only concerning the case of Rachel and not Ra's.

No.

I stated clearly I was looking for the incoherence in the movie itself.

And it's clear that there is no incoherence, at least as far as what was shown in the movie itself. The only way you can validate this argument of yours is if you compare the film and the comics, which does not exactly equal "incoherence" in the film itself now, does it?

Burton provided no reason or hint about Batman being after a fair trial for villains or being worried about human life. In Burton's movies Batman was just about personal revenge and from that Pov it is always like that. Is that opposite to some points in the comic books? sure, but inside the fiction of those movies is not incoherent/out of character.

The same reasoning can be said used in the case of Begins as well. You say Ra's didn't get a fair trial, but stupendously overlook the fact that thanks to Bruce, he had gotten a far better deal - a graceful second chance at life without even a fair trial acquitting him for the crimes he had already committed before.

After that line I gave it to you. Pretending I didn't won't help you.

You mean the line about "personal translation"? That's not a reply, just a lame "it's only your opinion" copout without directly addressing what I had said earlier. Now try again, chump.

The same reading you did about Batman words I could state in another direction.

"I won't kill you but I don't have to save you": "Look, Ra's I tried the easy way but you not only fooled me but came back to destroy my house and my city so I had it. I won't kill you because I swore I won't kill, but - look at this - I'll let you die even when i could save you. See the irony? I keep my oath and you die. Beautiful. So long."

See how easy it is?

Yes, but apparently your amusing short-sightedness fail to consider the fact that your above statement is but an ideal example of selective reasoning, where you only pick the facts that support your argument and discard everything else. Besides, that incoherent babble is not even keeping in line with the dialogue and events in the movie.

"Look Ra's I tried the easy way..."? What was this "easy way"? Bruce risking being burn to shreds in an exploding monastery? Almost falling off a cliff trying to save Ra's? Yeah, it was a piece of cake, when apparently the hard way for Bruce to do it was to just leave Ra's there to die and instead worry about getting his own ass out of danger.

Oh, oh and how about the part where Ra's destined himself to a suicide mission towards Wayne Tower on that doomtrain? Bah, silly stuff, you needn't bother about. It would only serve to weaken your argument and hence, not worth the effort of taking into account.

Sarcasm kills, doesn't it?

Maybe it was all the damage Ra's did to Bruce.

Oh, so now you're arguing with me on the basis of conjured assumptions instead of certainties? All this debate over something you're not even completely sure of? Will someone hand over a debate rulebook to Mr. Payaso that would hopefully enlighten him about the fulity of debating without definite statements and concrete arguments.

Ra's provided the reasons for the wayne's murder, for Gotham City to be slowly corrupted and rot, he burned Wayne manor and all the precious memories in it, etc etc. Batman was plenty of reasons to let him die.

Actually, Bruce wasn't pissed at Ra's for burning down his parent's house after Alfred consoled him that it was Bruce and not just some brick house which was the true Wayne legacy.

And Gotham City became a hellhole primarily because of mob bosses like Falcone. Don't forget that Gotham was already a wasteland mired with corruption, things that invited Ra's and gave him a reason for attacking Gotham to begin with. Gotham was pretty much dead. Ra's was simply there to deliver the finishing blow by further worsening the disease that had infected the city which would bring about the events to trigger it's own self-destruction.

All your interpretations can and have been refuted with some POSSIBLE not absolut reply and argument.

Yes, my "interpretations" that are backed with completely with events and dialogue from the film without any selective dismissiveness have been "refuted" with "possible not absolute reply and argument" that are, bluntly speaking, only mere assumptions and not facts.

Oh you so got me there.

Your interpretations are not wrong per se. Could be wrong.

Please tell me how exactly. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air where you discount my "interpretation" as only a possibility yet fail to elaborate on the thought process that brought you to that conclusion.

I didn't understand the part where you use that example in spite of being admittedly "in very loose and circumstancial terms."

I put if forward as being an appropriate example in highlighting on the way morality functions in stories and films keeping in mind the blatant similiarities between said events in the two films, yet also acknowledging the difference between them at the same time, hence the phrase "in very loose and circumstantial terms". It was simply to elaborate on what basis exactly am I correlating the situational likeness between the Opham/German scenes and that of Batman/Ra's.

But I guess all that was incomprehensibly too complex for you.

Your arguments are debatable and I'm doing that.

And your counter-arguments have very little to no merit or validity, as I've pointed out above. Sure my arguments are "debatable". Practically anything on this planet can be contested but that doesn't mean that such attempts are always successful and are impervious to failure. Your posts are a standing testament to that.

I won't shut up because you got angry.

Not angry, more like annoyed.

I always replied to your points directly.

With vague and meaningless statements.

 

[The Kid]

Yes. I Think It's My Turn.

 

[Phaser]

Calm down. Just relax and in a non-condescending way explain what you want and maybe you'll get it. OK, babe?

Can anyone else here see the repulsive irony present in little ol' Weyseed condescendingly calling me "babe" and then telling me to explain myself in a non-condescending way?

Although that doesn't defeat the fact, FACT I SAY, that batman's the reason the train will be destroyed.

No, Ra's is the reason the train was destroyed. Because he had succeeded in loading the microwave emitter on the train and prevented Batman from prematurely halting the monorail in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. On the contrary, Batman tries his level best to not have the train destroyed until it came down to the point where he had no other option to save the city.

If we think abou tit, the microwave machine might have run out of power or any number of possibilities before entering the station.

It's a possibility yes, and a baseless one at that since nothing of the sort was implied in the film. In fact, the microwave emitter was still functional right up until the end just before it exploded after the train crashed in the abandoned parking lot.

Hell, maybe it'd have had a delay time enough for the train to pass through the hub point before the building exploded...

There certainly was no delay in those sewege covers popping off the ground as the monorail passed over them. What makes the main hub any different?

...lots of different possibilities yet.... but let's say we can see the future and the hub station instantly would blow up once the train reached it, fact is that it never did thanks to batman.

Erm, what exactly are you implying here? The fact that the main hub didn't blow up thanks to Batman's valiant efforts doesn't change the fact that it would have blown up and would have been disastrous to both the monorail as well Wayne Tower.

Hence I still believe batman's the reason ra's needed saving in that moment on the train. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. annoyed by different opinons on the internet? ha ha ha ha ha

Not by different opinions. But by the thickheadedness of some people where pages upon pages of pointless discussion is endured over something that's already been cleared up in the film itself.

Oh now what did I say about being condescending... I won't read anything more that you say because you think attacking people over a nice comic-book movie discussion is the only way to argue for your point of view and help educate and enlighten the world with what you have to offer. You should know that that's actually the worst way...

Being condescending is my forte. I don't care about what you or anyone else thinks about it because I'm not here to educate you. I'm simply debating your ill-concieved points and proving just how wrong they really are. You don't like the way I do it? Tough luck for you that it's a pity I don't really have anything else to do with aside from our current disagreements. So let's just focus on the "discussion" at hand and leave all this useless finger-pointing for some other time now, shall we?

I didn't bother reading any of this. I'll just assume it's something like "You failed to see what I saw because you are too stupid you peanut brain stupid fart doo doo face dumbass. LOL." To that, I say. YOUR MOTHER!

Yes, "yo mamma" jokes. Goes to show the level of stupidity this argument has sunk down into.

 

[Phaser]

Yes. I Think It's My Turn.

Dun dun dun.

 

[The Kid]

babe, You want me to yield to your constant verbal attacks?

NEVAH.

 

[The Kid]

Can anyone else here see the repulsive irony present in little ol' Weyseed condescendingly calling me "babe" and then telling me to explain myself in a non-condescending way?

well do it for once. And ur a babe to me... that's all. I mean no harm. Sorry if it hurt to be called that. You want me to stop?

No, Ra's is the reason the train was destroyed. Because he had succeeded in loading the microwave emitter on the train and prevented Batman from prematurely halting the monorail in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. On the contrary, Batman tries his level best to not have the train destroyed until it came down to the point where he had no other option to save the city.

You and I are on the same page. Ra's was punk'd by batman in the end, yes. So why did the train fall? Because it had no tracks to pick itself back up.

It's a possibility yes, and a baseless one at that since nothing of the sort was implied in the film. In fact, the microwave emitter was still functional right up until the end just before it exploded after the train crashed in the abandoned parking lot.

Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. we'll never know because it exploded.

There certainly was no delay in those sewege covers popping off the ground as the monorail passed over them. What makes the main hub any different?

A short delay but there was one.

Erm, what exactly are you implying here? The fact that the main hub didn't blow up thanks to Batman's valiant efforts doesn't change the fact that it would have blown up and would have been disastrous to both the monorail as well Wayne Tower.

The part about the train being completely destroyed and killing ras is however speculation.

Not by different opinions. But by the thickheadedness of some people where pages upon pages of pointless discussion is endured over something that's already been cleared up in the film itself.

Are you sure?

Being condescending is my forte. I don't care about what you or anyone else thinks about it because I'm not here to educate you. I'm simply debating your ill-concieved points and proving just how wrong they really are. You don't like the way I do it? Tough luck for you that it's a pity I don't really have anything else to do with aside from our current disagreements. So let's just focus on the "discussion" at hand and leave all this useless finger-pointing for some other time now, shall we?

I don't care what you think about it either. I just want you to try posting without the attitude, but you won't. I'll live.

Yes, "yo mamma" jokes. Goes to show the level of stupidity this argument has sunk down into.

Peanut brain's are the suck lol.

ha ha ha ha ha ha

I have to go. But maybe I'll be back later tonight to play some more, ok.

 

[Phaser]

well do it for once. And your a babe to me... that's all. I mean no harm. Sorry if it hurt to be called that. You want me to stop?

Not exactly, seeing as it puts me in quite a favorable position to CONTINUE being condescending without juvenile crybabies breathing down my neck about.

You and I are on the same page. Ra's was punk'd by batman in the end, yes. So why did the train fall? Because it had no tracks to pick itself back up.

And your point is...?

Maybe it would have, maybe it wouldn't have. we'll never know because it exploded.

It exploded because it was still functional. D'uh. Didn't you see the rotator spinning right before the microwave emitter blows up?

Oh and for the record, presenting the possibility of the microwave emitter running out of power is like assuming the Batmobile running out of gas during the middle of a high-speed chase. Meaning incredibly asinine.

A short delay but there was one.

Not more than two seconds at most. Remember that Batman had the grappling hook attached to the car Ra's was in and despite being so close, he still had to dodge those manhole covers. Heck you even see a couple pop right in front of him. Pay attention, little one.

Speculation.

No, fact. Remember that the head engineer at Wayne Tower had everyone evacuate the building. Why exactly did he give that order? "We're sitting right on top of the main hub and it's gonna blow". Considering that quote, the order to evacuate was given for the simple reason that the blowing up of the main hub would have been a fatal catastrophe. But knowing you, you'd probably argue the old man was just doing it for kicks because he only wanted a little "private time" for himself, what with all those monitors and the many...erogenous possibilities.

Are you sure?

You can take that to the bank, junior.

I don't care what you think about it either. I just want you to try saying posting without the attitude, but you won't. I'll live.

Good lad.

 

[The Kid]

Ok, I lied. Back for more punishment. Let's do this. I feel like batman right now.

Not exactly, seeing as it puts me in quite a favorable position to CONTINUE being condescending without juvenile crybabies breathing down my neck about.

You don't have to be this way.

And your point is...?

The train fell off the tracks because it had no more tracks to continue driving on.

It exploded because it was still functional. D'uh. Didn't you see the rotator spinning right before the microwave emitter blows up?

I saw it blow up. how long would it have kept going if it didn't break, do you think?

Oh and for the record, presenting the possibility of the microwave emitter running out of power is like assuming the Batmobile running out of gas during the middle of a high-speed chase. Meaning incredibly asinine.

It's not asinine. That's always a possibility especially if batman doesn't keep the gas tank full. Where does he get gas anyway? I guess he has his own fuel pump or gets gas from a nearby station.

Not more than two seconds at most. Remember that Batman had the grappling hook attached to the car Ra's was in and despite being so close, he still had to dodge those manhole covers. Heck you even see a couple pop right in front of him. Pay attention, little one.

There is a delay. You see it too.

No, fact. Remember that the head engineer at Wayne Tower had everyone evacuate the building. Why exactly did he give that order? "We're sitting right on top of the main hub and it's gonna blow". Considering that quote, the order to evacuate was given for the simple reason that the blowing up of the main hub would have been a fatal catastrophe. But knowing you, you'd probably argue the old man was just doing it for kicks because he only wanted a little "private time" for himself, what with all those monitors and the many...erogenous possibilities.

I changed my thoughts on that.


You can take that to the bank, junior.

I will.

Good lad.

I know.

 

[Phaser]

Ok, I lied. Back for more punishment. Let's do this.

*crunches knuckles*

You don't have to be this way.

I like it this way.

The train fell off the tracks because it had no more tracks to continue driving on.

...and what does that have to do with anything?

It's not asinine. That's always a possibility especially if batman doesn't keep the gas tank full. Where does he get gas anyway? I guess he has his own fuel pump or gets gas from a nearby station.

The Tumbler runs on lunar power. The one Fox shows him at Wayne Enterprises used backup batteries.

There is a delay. You see it too.

Yes, a delay no more than a second or two at most. The effect of the microwave emitter is almost instantaneous.

I changed my thoughts on that.

I wonder why...

 

[El Payaso]

Yes. I Think It's My Turn.

Hahaha.

Phaser is right in whatever he wrote.

 

[The Kid]

that's all? I expected something A LOT more hurtful... your not that bad...

I'm actually feeling ok... wow....

what the hell? I mean it's not a friendly reply or anything close to that but it's not the brutal slaying I thought it would be either...

I'm going to take a tangent here... Here's what I've learned in my nearly a decade now of internet surfing. some people are just absolutely merciless online, yunno, to the point of just pure madness where your asking yourself outside of cyberspace, "What did I do to deserve that kind of remark?" and it's an instant downer. You can't get it out of your head and your at school, thinking about, wanting it to just be forgotten but it's not. It's still there like it's haunting you until you see yourself in the same meaning as that remark/insult/whatever and the only way to feel any sense of dignity again is to agree with it, assume it to be true since it's been so perfectly laid out why it is, thatyou can't see a way around it. Maybe you won't care but that's just me. I would love an internet where people just had a common, basic level of respect for each other, basically just be friendly and peaceful as much as possible so there's no ignition for flames etc... but it murders my spirit to know that'll probably never happen. Like batman, I dream for some ideal that'll never be realized... .

Your mind is your house, phaser. I believe it's not up to me to force you to re-paint it or mow the lawn etc. It's all yours. Hell I can't and I know I can't.... All I can do is make a suggestion that maybe some flowers would look nice planted next to the entrance or whatever.

*steps down off soapbox*

What was this topic about again?

Oh yeah, batman on the train, saying he's not going to save ra's.... etc...

Batman was pretty much in a lose/lose situation there...

ok, now i'm really gone... the irony is that I have to catch a train. Have a good summer you batfans.

 

[The Kid]

Hahaha.

Phaser is right in whatever he wrote.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh my life is ruined

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

This be Tristan Lake Leabu from the new superman movie. aka: THE KID.

I owe you an apology man. I totally hated the kid beforehand.......but, after watching the movie......Jason's a good character. He's cool with me.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

Here's what I think:

Batman doesn't administer justice; he brings criminals to justice. Accordingly, I think his apathy towards Ra's is out of character. And it's strange, much of the movie stresses the importance of the "will to act," yet Batman defeats his enemy by not acting at all, choosing to leave Ra's to his fate. By comparison, Batman is following in the footsteps of his father by not choosing to act. But whereas Thomas Wayne didn't accomplish anything in the way of justice, Batman saved Gotham City from destruction. Of course, in a way, Batman's decision could display both a will to act and not act simultaneously.

I suppose placing Batman's words into the greater context of the film justifies his actions (or lack thereof), but I still don't think it is in keeping with Batman's strict codes of conduct and morality; it's a very ambiguous event, at least. But I'm talking about Batman in general, which may not be applicable to Nolan's Batman.

You know, anyone who reads my posts knows that my interpretation of Batman comes from the DCAU. I guess that places me at a loss because my vision of Batman would never resort to murder, directly or otherwise. Anyway, the DCAU interpretation of Batman makes clear that the concept of apathy is an ideology in which Batman strongly opposes, and I think it's safe to say that that's true in most interpretations of Batman, including Nolan's. Accordingly, I think it's contrary to Batman's character that he should defeat Ra's by being apathetic, even if Ra's had intentions of suicide and murder, and even if Batman had saved him before.

So I see two issues at hand: apathy and indirect murder. I had trouble wording the latter because what Batman did is not necessarily murder, but rather choosing not to prevent death. But then one must also consider that Ra's also had the ability to save himself, but he chose not to.

I guess the situation is too blurred for me to fully map, but I still don't think Batman should have done what he did.

I don't think the notion of apathy should be associated with Batman.

EDIT: It was a compromise that he shouldn't have made.

 

[Cobblepot]

In "Batman And Superman" The Movie, he did the same with Joker. So I don't really mind the scene in BB.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

In "Batman And Superman" The Movie, he did the same with Joker. So I don't really mind the scene in BB.

Hmm. Good point. I'll have to watch it again before I can respond.

 

[El Payaso]

Here's what I think:

Batman doesn't administer justice; he brings criminals to justice. Accordingly, I think his apathy towards Ra's is out of character. And it's strange, much of the movie stresses the importance of the "will to act," yet Batman defeats his enemy by not acting at all, choosing to leave Ra's to his fate. By comparison, Batman is following in the footsteps of his father by not choosing to act. But whereas Thomas Wayne didn't accomplish anything in the way of justice, Batman saved Gotham City from destruction. Of course, in a way, Batman's decision could display both a will to act and not act simultaneously.

I suppose placing Batman's words into the greater context of the film justifies his actions (or lack thereof), but I still don't think it is in keeping with Batman's strict codes of conduct and morality; it's a very ambiguous event, at least. But I'm talking about Batman in general, which may not be applicable to Nolan's Batman.

You know, anyone who reads my posts knows that my interpretation of Batman comes from the DCAU. I guess that places me at a loss because my vision of Batman would never resort to murder, directly or otherwise. Anyway, the DCAU interpretation of Batman makes clear that the concept of apathy is an ideology in which Batman strongly opposes, and I think it's safe to say that that's true in most interpretations of Batman, including Nolan's. Accordingly, I think it's contrary to Batman's character that he should defeat Ra's by being apathetic, even if Ra's had intentions of suicide and murder, and even if Batman had saved him before.

So I see two issues at hand: apathy and indirect murder. I had trouble wording the latter because what Batman did is not necessarily murder, but rather choosing not to prevent death. But then one must also consider that Ra's also had the ability to save himself, but he chose not to.

I guess the situation is too blurred for me to fully map, but I still don't think Batman should have done what he did.

I don't think the notion of apathy should be associated with Batman.

Speechless Gray Ghost. You left me speechless. You said it all.

 

[El Payaso]

In "Batman And Superman" The Movie, he did the same with Joker. So I don't really mind the scene in BB.

well he did that then... so?

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, fans love that incarnation....and it's a ****ing awesome interpretation. I think that's why he mentioned it.

 

[Beelze]

Batman doesn't administer justice; he brings criminals to justice. Accordingly, I think his apathy towards Ra's is out of character. And it's strange, much of the movie stresses the importance of the "will to act," yet Batman defeats his enemy by not acting at all, choosing to leave Ra's to his fate. By comparison, Batman is following in the footsteps of his father by not choosing to act. But whereas Thomas Wayne didn't accomplish anything in the way of justice, Batman saved Gotham City from destruction. Of course, in a way, Batman's decision could display both a will to act and not act simultaneously.

Batman did act. You know, acting doesn't necessarily mean knocking Ra's unconscious and bringing him to court (a court which will let him go because there's no evidence suggesting he was the perpetrator - unless they, say, get Falcone, Crane, and Batman to testify against him. Being what those three are at the moment, their testimonies might seem a bit untrustworthy, and I just don't see Batman showing up and testifying in a court.)

Acting can mean making sure that something is done, and Batman did more than just that. He got Jim to destroy the tracks, he tried to stop Ra's from loading the microwave emitter onto the train, he fought Ra's in order to incapacitate him and stop the train. That he chose to leave Ra's to his fate does not erase the fact that he did not fail to act. He did a lot up until that point, especially if you count him investigating the matter. He didn't foil Ra's plan and defeat Ra's simply by just existing.

 

[CLARKY]

IMHO :
batman doesn't kill. This is his first and absolute rule.
In batman Begins he does kill. Just as the Burton's ones. But in the movies, it's always exceptionnal, so I'll live with it.