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

[Ronny Shade]

Assuming Batman knew Ra's could get out if he wanted to, fits with my characterization of Batman, yeah, but I didn't get that impression from that scene.

 

[iceberg325]

Assuming Batman knew Ra's could get out if he wanted to, fits with my characterization of Batman, yeah, but I didn't get that impression from that scene.

I really dont see how Ras could get out of that.

 

[Image]

I'm sure he survived. I always thought he wasn't dead when I first saw the movie.

 

[Beelze]

El Payaso is right - Batman's decision wasn't fully in line with the morals he had seemingly established... his code, so to speak. Sure, it was a tough call (myself, I would've been torn about what to do, assuming I could've saved Ra's), but that doesn't excuse him. If it's a flaw in the movie or part of character development, or "anti-development" - can't say, but I, myself, will attribute the "flaw" to the fact that this was a rookie Batman.

Imagine that, instead of Batman saying what he said and doing what he did in the movie, our crimefighter had extended his hand, as if inviting Ra's to grab it, and said something along the lines of, "forget what you said about compassion."

That would have been the Batman thing to do... and Hell, it could still have ended up the way it did in the movie, seeing as Ra's could've refused, and that Batman would've felt the need to escape, with or without Ra's. Anyway, it's too late for that now, but perhaps they'll show a more compassionate Batman when The Joker enters the picture.

 

[El Payaso]

Letting the villain ina dangerous situation (but not a situation in which the resourceful Rha's couldn't get through) while he was busy saving the whole city is very in character I think, since Batman couldn't do two things at once. In medieval literature (Hell, in any kinds of fiction), it is a usual dilemma for the hero: having to follow two oaths that contradict each other in a precise situation. The hero has then to choose the most important of these oaths,

Your argument falls apart since Batman counted on Gordon to stop the train anyway, so he wasn't in any conflict between saving the city or saving Ra's. Batman was basically in the train to prevent Ra's to escape but now I think that if gordon was supposed to stop the train, Batman was there basically to save Ra's from the catastrophe he told gordon to make in order to stop the train.

Anyway, all your argument stands on the presumption that Batman could have saved Rha's al Ghul, but I think they meant the situation to be Cornelian. Wether they succeeded or not is debatable, but to assume that Batman had malicious intends is presumptuous.

It's not a presumption, is what Batman said. I didn't state it was malicious, but Batman stated that he wasn't going to save Ra's.

 

[Everyman]

Assuming Batman knew Ra's could get out if he wanted to, fits with my characterization of Batman, yeah, but I didn't get that impression from that scene.

I might have read too many comic books, but I thought his "death" was quite ambiguous, and I presumed he survived.

 

[Spawn187]

What Batman did was Fine. Cus the end justified the means. He let him live before and look what happen the kids had to see people in the city freaking out. And people started going crazy Ra's Had an evil intent he wanted death, distruction, and Mayhem. If I was batman I would have shot Ra's in the chest twice took the cigar out my mouth looked at camera 2 and said "Now your Ra's al fool" and jumped out of the train.



(the joke is for any Conan O'brien fans)


Eat Snacky Smores.....

 

[Image]

Aha! That's funny.

 

[iceberg325]

What Batman did was Fine. Cus the end justified the means. He let him live before and look what happen the kids had to see people in the city freaking out. And people started going crazy Ra's Had an evil intent he wanted death, distruction, and Mayhem. If I was batman I would have shot Ra's in the chest twice took the cigar out my mouth looked at camera 2 and said "Now your Ra's al fool" and jumped out of the train.



(the joke is for any Conan O'brien fans)


Eat Snacky Smores.....

aha.....AHA!!!!!! Thats pretty funny.

 

[Spawn187]

What If it wasnt batman who was in the train at all but some one else........ Some one familiar with terriost............some one who knows a lot about death, insanity, and rape........some one like..........wait for it...............a litlle more...........................................BORATMAN..

 

[iceberg325]

What If it wasnt batman who was in the train at all but some one else........ Some one familiar with terriost............some one who knows a lot about death, insanity, and rape........some one like..........wait for it...............a litlle more...........................................BORATMAN..

That would have been the best movie ever. LONG LIVE BORAT!!!!!

 

[Spawn187]

Anyway the film was done in a real life tone and if it was anyone else they would have done the same thing.....



EAT SNACKY SMORES....



.

 

[Everyman]

Your argument falls apart since Batman counted on Gordon to stop the train anyway, so he wasn't in any conflict between saving the city or saving Ra's. Batman was basically in the train to prevent Ra's to escape but now I think that if gordon was supposed to stop the train, Batman was there basically to save Ra's from the catastrophe he told gordon to make in order to stop the train.



It's not a presumption, is what Batman said. I didn't state it was malicious, but Batman stated that he wasn't going to save Ra's.

Didn't Batman have something to do with the mechanics of the train? I don,t remember much, but I thought he neutralised Ra's to abort his former mentor's operation. I doubt he went in the train just for a fight, he could have stayed out to get the same results. And I don't think Ra's wanted to be a kamikaze, he must have had ane scape plan from the beginning.

As for what Batman said, I think it only meant "why don't you get out of this one if you are so smart?". And I doubt Ra's died, and I think Batman knew he survived the moment he left the train.

 

[Ben Urich]

When Batman says "It ends here.", Ra's responds with "For you and the police. My fate lies with the rest of Gotham." He already had mentioned that he planned on destroying the city.

That's an excellent point.

I've gotta wonder how the general public would react if Batman had saved Ra's (or at least made an effort.) Ra's is a terrorist. Is America ready to see a figure of justice (vigilante or otherwise) be sympathetic towards a terrorist? I have to say yes; if we can watch a movie that dramatizes one of the hijackings on 9/11, I think we could have tolerated Batman at least trying to save Ra's.

If Batman had saved Ra's, and somehow induced sleep, I wonder how Ra's would react. Certainly he wouldn't remain captive for long, but it's still interesting. He would have lost some of his honor, no? It'd make for an interesting character point to touch on in a sequel.

This is a great discussion

 

[Borat]

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

Ya I like the sounds of that.

 

[El Payaso]

I think Batman knew he survived the moment he left the train.

If that's true I doubt Batman would be so relaxed about him. Bats and Gordon would be talking about that at the end, 'Cripes, I think Ra's is alive and he's somewhere in the middle of Gotham planning something, we must catch him right now'.

 

[Katsuro]

I'm still wondering whether or not he could have saved Ra's. Both arms needed to be fully extended to operate the cape, they had only a few seconds, and honestly, I doubt Ra's would've even accepted help. I'm having trouble even imagining what a scene with Batman saving Ra's would look like or how it would work out.

 

[El Payaso]

I'm still wondering whether or not he could have saved Ra's. Both arms needed to be fully extended to operate the cape, they had only a few seconds, and honestly, I doubt Ra's would've even accepted help. I'm having trouble even imagining what a scene with Batman saving Ra's would look like or how it would work out.

I wonder if Batman would have had any problem at that if the person in the train was Rachel.

 

[Ronny Shade]

What Batman did was Fine. Cus the end justified the means. He let him live before and look what happen the kids had to see people in the city freaking out. And people started going crazy Ra's Had an evil intent he wanted death, distruction, and Mayhem. If I was batman I would have shot Ra's in the chest twice took the cigar out my mouth looked at camera 2 and said "Now your Ra's al fool" and jumped out of the train.



(the joke is for any Conan O'brien fans)


Eat Snacky Smores.....

You obviously don't understand the character

 

[iceberg325]

We have to remember, Batman is human. People are filled with contradicitions in life. If we can do it, why can't Batman. He made a decision that would benefit the entire city. Ras wasnt an ordinary villian. Falcone was the guy who had all the power in Gotham, he had the city in his pocket. He was untouchable. Even he was affraid of Ras. Did Batman step out of character, maybe. But he didnt kill the man. He is totally right, he didnt have to save him though. This scene makes Batman seem more realistic, and I think that is what Nolan was shooting for. It gives his character more depth. Its not just "hey Im batman, im going to save the city and throw all the bad guys in jail".

 

[Ronny Shade]

I understand the dilemma. It makes sense that'd he be in that position, "the only wayt o ensure the safety of the city and innocent lives is for Ra's Al Ghul to die" and he can further justify it to himself by not exactly killing him, just letting him die. However, batman has never been about justifying things to himself. Batman is about no compromise. No killing. Save innocent lives. I was watching this movie Romero the other day. Based on Oscar Romero the El Salvadoran Archbishop. There's a revoltion going on and the insurgents are obviously the "good" guys, but Romero cannot use violence to fight against the corrupt government because he's a man of principle. He won't compromise. Batman's got different lines drawn for himself, but he's still an unwavering man of principle. Save lives. That's what he does.

 

[iceberg325]

Save innocent lives.

You said it, Ras was not innocent. Besides, don't you think this dilemma makes Batman more complex? Don't you think it makes the character more interesting?

 

[Ronny Shade]

It does. Having the dilemma does. But part of what I love about batman, is that no matter how many times he has the dilemma, he's always tragically going to save the villain.

I could like him letting Ra's die in the movie better if they made it more of a choice between saving Ra's and saving Gotham, but they didn't really play that up. It came across more as "Ooh, you big meanie, you caused the depression which made Joe Chill poor which made him buy a gun and rob my parents which made him kill them, so now...you die!"

 

[iceberg325]

It does. Having the dilemma does. But part of what I love about batman, is that no matter how many times he has the dilemma, he's always tragically going to save the villain.

I could like him letting Ra's die in the movie better if they made it more of a choice between saving Ra's and saving Gotham, but they didn't really play that up. It came across more as "Ooh, you big meanie, you caused the depression which made Joe Chill poor which made him buy a gun and rob my parents which made him kill them, so now...you die!"

I guess this scene in the movie defines littile why he is called the "DARK" Knight. I love Batman also, but I dont mind seeing him do things that are out of his character. To me it makes him more human. Thats why this is one of my favortie movies of all time.

 

[Ronny Shade]

This is also one of my favorite movies, it's just not perfect. You'll hardly ever catch me naysaying this movie, but there are a couple things I don't like about it.