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

[iceberg325]

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.

For me, compared to all the other comic movies that come out, Batman is perfect lol. Look at catwoman or the Hulk lol. Makes me appreciate BB 100 times more lol.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Hey no hating on Hulk.

But yeah, it is why I like it so much. I just think Goyer writes some stories that are a tad bit over-contrived. I mean look at Blade 2. I freakin' love Blade 2, but the plot is kinda dumb.

 

[iceberg325]

Hey no hating on Hulk.

But yeah, it is why I like it so much. I just think Goyer writes some stories that are a tad bit over-contrived. I mean look at Blade 2. I freakin' love Blade 2, but the plot is kinda dumb.

I actually want to see the Hulk again. I might get it next week. From what I saw in my first veiwing, IT SUCKED, but my opinion might change.

Yeah I feel the same way about Blade 2. What about trinity, who decided to write in that crappy dracula. How do you run from blade and hide behind a baby if you're the strongest vampire ever?? Makes Noooooooo sense.

Anyway, maybe Ras is alive and he'll appear in BB2. Hmmmm wouldnt that be crazy!!!!!

 

[Ronny Shade]

Hulk was great, IMO. A lot of people hate it because they wanted the TV show or a mindless action fest. Instead they got an interesting character study.

Well Blade 3 just sucked ass.

I'm willing to bet that Ra's is still alive or he's dead and will come back to life via Lazarus pit. I don't think it should happen til bb3 or 4

 

[iceberg325]

Hulk was great, IMO. A lot of people hate it because they wanted the TV show or a mindless action fest. Instead they got an interesting character study.

Well Blade 3 just sucked ass.

I'm willing to bet that Ra's is still alive or he's dead and will come back to life via Lazarus pit. I don't think it should happen til bb3 or 4

Yup, we have to see Joker, peguin and maybe riddler. Ras can be thrown into the mix. Should be interesting. Lets not forget 2face. He fits right into Nolans batman world.

I didnt want a mindless actionfest, but out of a 3 hour movie, we see hulk like 3 times? Should have been a little more than that. Ill watch it next week, or this weekend and re think my opinion.

 

[Ronny Shade]

you do that.


I've been thinking of buying it, but that'll cost money

 

[iceberg325]

you do that.


I've been thinking of buying it, but that'll cost money

Thats what stopped me from buying it too. I want to make a marvel movie collection. The only ones stopping me from finishing that collection are, hulk, fantastic 4, elektra, and original punisher. Dont really want to buy them. Didnt like them too much lol.

 

[El Payaso]

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.

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".

That is a great point.

My problem is that the way it was done and directed it looks like it was THE right decision and not only right but witty. Like in 'Ha, Ra's, I'm not going to save you.' Not like Batman was deeply troubled by it. We don't see a subsequent reflection about what happened.

Did Batman step out of character, maybe.

Yes, that was one of the original statements in this thread I seem to recall.

But he didnt kill the man. He is totally right, he didnt have to save him though.

Yes he did. He should have saved him and take him to the justice - which is what Batman is to defend as opposite as not being an executioner in any way.

Anyway, maybe Ras is alive and he'll appear in BB2. Hmmmm wouldnt that be crazy!!!!!

In fact it would be as predictable as tomorrow coming after today. It has been done till boredom, 'hey you thought he was dead, weel he's not'

I just hope we won't have 5 villiains in one sequel.

 

[WhiteRat]

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.

Very well said except for the very first part.Batman didnt kill Ra's.Bats did not kill "ONE" .Just because he didnt save him doesnt mean he killed him.

 

[WhiteRat]

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:


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?

Thats a good point about The Joker.Like someone else said though that can be justified in that Batman was new on the scene at that point where in the years down the road he would not be a rookie anymore,he will by that time overcome his anger and realise that no matter what evil they do,he will need to save them.Plus Ra's is no normal man as someone pointed out.They never showed that he actually died,so they might come out with a sequal in the future that he survives it and they have batman say in the movie-Thats why i didn't save you.I knew you would find a way to survive and be back again.

 

[Ronny Shade]

That is a great point.

My problem is that the way it was done and directed it looks like it was THE right decision and not only right but witty. Like in 'Ha, Ra's, I'm not going to save you.' Not like Batman was deeply troubled by it. We don't see a subsequent reflection about what happened.

Exactly how I feel

Yes, that was one of the original statements in this thread I seem to recall.



Yes he did. He should have saved him and take him to the justice - which is what Batman is to defend as opposite as not being an executioner in any way.

You could look at it this way: Justice for Ra's is leaving him in the mess that he created. Ra's was the one who wanted to destroy gotham, so he becomes a victim of his own "evilness." You see this in old Superman comics all the time: Bad man makes trap for Lois. Supes saves Lois. Bad man dies in his own trap.

But I still don't like it.

In fact it would be as predictable as tomorrow coming after today. It has been done till boredom, 'hey you thought he was dead, weel he's not'

I just hope we won't have 5 villiains in one sequel.

What you don't want another Batman and Robin??

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

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.

One problem there:

Batman is human. He can't jump like 9 feet in the air with no problem....and he can't lift and toss into webs people like Spidey.

No way in hell he could have saved everyone but Ducard in that fire.

No, he let him die.

You can look at it that way......or you can look at it as leaving him to his fate. The man's a terrorist.....doesn't deserve to be saved.

There is a difference between killing someone, and not saving them.

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.

No, it's just not the same. Not saving him is not the same as killing him.....negligent homicide would be impossible to say against anyone, anywhere, I think.

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.

You don't understand....it's not just my feelings. It's the feeling of the world around us.

When Presidential candidates, and the current President, PROMISES....not the the capture, but the deaths of terrorists....promises to KILL them....and the majority agrees....that's something to think about what the country of the US wants. Not to say everyone wants that, but if we had to take a country wide poll on the issue, who do you think would win?

Batman is a culutral icon, he melds with the times....same as Superman and any other icon. The times do have an effect on him and the world around him.

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"

He does so b/c he needs a rouge's gallery. It's an editorial decision, and I think that's something we need to remember.

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

Well, if it was somehow tied into leading to the deaths of millions of innocents, yeah I don't think I could balme him for not saving him.

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.

He's edgy in the film......maybe wreckless. The chase scene proved that.

I don't feel Batman is accountable for Ra's death.

 

[El Payaso]

One problem there:

Batman is human. He can't jump like 9 feet in the air with no problem....and he can't lift and toss into webs people like Spidey.

The whole Batman concept and specially in B Begins is that he is more than a human being. A legend.

For that matter I don't know how he could fight 100 ninjas without superpowers. But he does.

No way in hell he could have saved everyone but Ducard in that fire.

Well, then I don't know how he pretends to save Gotham City if he can't save one man.

Any fireman makes his best effort to do it, but yoyu say Batman just can't, "no way."

You can look at it that way......or you can look at it as leaving him to his fate. The man's a terrorist.....doesn't deserve to be saved.

If Batman wants to leave Ra's at his fate, let him to go on. Batman shouldn't have told Gordon to blow up the train's lines. That's twisting Ra's fate.

And Bruce should have let Ra's to kill that thief in the monastery, since he shouldn't intervene in his fate. But no, he saved him.

There is a difference between killing someone, and not saving them.

Yes.

We're discussing how not saving someone when he could have is out of character for Batman.

No, it's just not the same. Not saving him is not the same as killing him.....negligent homicide would be impossible to say against anyone, anywhere, I think.

Again my example, you are drowning in a river, some olympic swimmer sees you, stays for a while and decides not to save you. I guess that would be ok with you, at least for the minutes of life left for you.

You don't understand....it's not just my feelings. It's the feeling of the world around us.

You don't understand, feelings has nothing to do but a superior cause.

If for feelings, Batman would be killing every terrorist and future terrorist (why not?) Bruce's feelings are for revenge. After Chill's murder, he goes after justice, not revenge. That is, he goes after justice, not feelings.

A terrorist is a human being no matter our feelings.

You and me? We'd be probably killing those guys. We're not Batman.

When Presidential candidates, and the current President, PROMISES....not the the capture, but the deaths of terrorists....promises to KILL them....and the majority agrees....that's something to think about what the country of the US wants. Not to say everyone wants that, but if we had to take a country wide poll on the issue, who do you think would win?

I must clear up that Batman is not a presidential candidate. He didn't even decide to be a cop. He also doesn't make polls amongst people so he can decide how to act like Batman according to what majorities say.

Now what you say is a high defense for demagogy, "candidates are elected by how many popular promises they can make and thus they should make those popular promises in order to win." I can't agree on that.

Let's not get back on time with Superman making popular but racist comments on japanese people because they're the US enemies of the moment.

Batman is a culutral icon, he melds with the times....same as Superman and any other icon. The times do have an effect on him and the world around him.

I don't see how that is some "law" for a character.

You're just trying to make Batman a messenger of your own personal views.

Even so, what's the message this 'icon' is giving?

Let terrorists die? Well, I dunno what would be the idea behind that.

Kill terrorists? I thought we were talking about a movie that states for 2 hours that he doesn't kill for revenge or to make justice.

He does so b/c he needs a rouge's gallery. It's an editorial decision, and I think that's something we need to remember.

Audiences don't need to remember Batman is fictional and that he does just what some writer wants.

That's why they make those movies, to make us believe as much as possible that he is real, not some propaganda spreader.

Well, if it was somehow tied into leading to the deaths of millions of innocents, yeah I don't think I could balme him for not saving him.

That thief in Ra's monastery wasn't innocent either. But he saved him.

He's edgy in the film......maybe wreckless. The chase scene proved that.

I don't feel Batman is accountable for Ra's death.

Beyond your feelings, do you have an argument for that.

 

[Spawn187]

You obviously don't understand the character

And you do? He dont know you man. If batman was to see you in the street he'd turn to camera 3 pull the cigar out his mouth and say "You cant see me".

 

[iceberg325]

Yes he did. He should have saved him and take him to the justice - which is what Batman is to defend as opposite as not being an executioner in anyway

Hes not an executioner. We learned that in his training. When asked to murder the criminal, what happened? He burned the place down. Batman didnt kill Ras.

 

[El Payaso]

Hes not an executioner. We learned that in his training. When asked to murder the criminal, what happened? He burned the place down. Batman didnt kill Ras.

In fact in that fire he left the one who was supposed to be Ra's to die. But in that case was ok, because in that case he went after the 'good guy' aka Ducard instead. In that case he had a conflict between saving one of the other.

 

[iceberg325]

In fact in that fire he left the one who was supposed to be Ra's to die. But in that case was ok, because in that case he went after the 'good guy' aka Ducard instead. In that case he had a conflict between saving one of the other.

I dont think he'd consider Ducard a good guy.

 

[The Question]

I really don't see any problems with that scene. I mean, he may eschew killing, but I doubt he's going to risk his life for a mass murderer like that. Do you really think he'd risk himself to save The Joker if he were in a situation like that?

 

[Beelze]

In fact in that fire he left the one who was supposed to be Ra's to die. But in that case was ok, because in that case he went after the 'good guy' aka Ducard instead. In that case he had a conflict between saving one of the other.

He didn't really leave "Ra's" to die in the temple. The decoy attacked Bruce and the latter defended himself, which ended with the decoy getting to the wrong place at the wrong time. The BURNING ROOF fell down on the decoy, and he was practically buried in the debris, with blood running out of his mouth. At the same time, the whole place was about to go to pieces. Now, would Bruce...

a) Dig most-likely dead man out of burning debris, and probably die trying?
b) Hurry and try to make his way out, and save someone on the way?

The latter option made more sense. "Ra's" sure seemed to be a goner, but Bruce knew that Ducard was only unconscious. Also, Bruce thought that Ducard had only been misled and could more easily be "redeemed". Ra's was the man who had gathered all these guys together and "brainwashed" them, and seemed quite dead.

Bruce/Batman may be Bruce/Batman, but it wasn't the right time to pull a Forrest Gump.

 

[Blade757]

wtf

 

[Everyman]

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'.

Maybe they were busy with all the inmates who escaped Arkham. Maybe Batman didn't want to worry Gordon at the end more than he already was.

 

[Everyman]

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!"

As I said, these kinds of conflicting oaths happen all the time in fiction. You have two principles, and one in some situation contradicts the other. Batman had to compromise there, IMO. And as I said, it's not like Ra's cannot escape Doom.

 

[Spawn187]

Anyone with a choice to let evil live, or give evil a chance to live would have done the same.

Lets not foreget how soccer mom's wanted bin laden's head on a plate after the attacks on the U.S.A.

 

[The Shape]

you have to think of it this way:

if batman did save him and he was thrown in jail, what do you think would happen? apparently, ra's has so many followers/supporters/minions, that nothing would change. he would be broken out and would still attempt to execute his evil plan one way or another. or he would control things from behind bars.

we're talking about an evil man who was trying to destroy the city. why does he deserve to be saved? he doesn't.

no one complains that batman killed the joker in the original (aside from the fact that people wanted him in more sequels).

batman made a decision and did what was right. he didn't murder ra's, but didn't save him. perfect thing to do in that situation.


*and does anyone know where that GIF of ra's escaping safely is???

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

The whole Batman concept and specially in B Begins is that he is more than a human being. A legend.

For that matter I don't know how he could fight 100 ninjas without superpowers. But he does.

Fight 100 ninjas? When he'd do that?

Well, then I don't know how he pretends to save Gotham City if he can't save one man.

Any fireman makes his best effort to do it, but yoyu say Batman just can't, "no way."

Bruce doesn't have on fire resistant gear, he doesn't have a water hose, he doesn't have 4 other firefighters backing him up, plus since there's explosive EVERTHING is exploding......and he's 6'2 weighing about 210.....he can't carry every person. Those are the limitations of being one man.

If Batman wants to leave Ra's at his fate, let him to go on. Batman shouldn't have told Gordon to blow up the train's lines. That's twisting Ra's fate.

Blowing up the train tracks was to stop the train to begin with. If Jim doesn't blow up the pillar line, Gotham City is pretty much destroyed.

And Bruce should have let Ra's to kill that thief in the monastery, since he shouldn't intervene in his fate. But no, he saved him.

Well, Ra's wasn't going to kill the "theif" (atleast, we'd have to take his word for it....and how much is that worth? For a psycho like him, "necessary sacrifies" could be anything, expecially innocents). Ra's, and the League, wanted Bruce to commit murder. They wanted him to be-head this guy. That's not fate.....that's literally murder.

Yes.

We're discussing how not saving someone when he could have is out of character for Batman.

Okay, so....how could Batman have saved Ra's?

Again my example, you are drowning in a river, some olympic swimmer sees you, stays for a while and decides not to save you. I guess that would be ok with you, at least for the minutes of life left for you.

Most people who try and save a drowning person end up drowning with them.

Yeah, I'd be fine.....since I can swim.

You don't understand, feelings has nothing to do but a superior cause.

If for feelings, Batman would be killing every terrorist and future terrorist (why not?) Bruce's feelings are for revenge. After Chill's murder, he goes after justice, not revenge. That is, he goes after justice, not feelings.

A terrorist is a human being no matter our feelings.

You and me? We'd be probably killing those guys. We're not Batman.

That's my point....the real world does affect what goes on with these characters. In today's world, this country does not view Terrorists as human beings. They are viewed as animals. That's why when we bomb one, we...as a nation.....celebrate it. I'm not saying it's right.....I'm just saying that's how the world is.

I must clear up that Batman is not a presidential candidate. He didn't even decide to be a cop. He also doesn't make polls amongst people so he can decide how to act like Batman according to what majorities say.

Now what you say is a high defense for demagogy, "candidates are elected by how many popular promises they can make and thus they should make those popular promises in order to win." I can't agree on that.

Let's not get back on time with Superman making popular but racist comments on japanese people because they're the US enemies of the moment.

Exactly......that was the feeling of the times. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying that's how it is. Superman fighting "Japs" and making fun of them....it's a sign of the times. And, I feel, in a subtle way....Batman not saving Ra's is a sign of the times in how we deal with terrorists.

I don't see how that is some "law" for a character.

You're just trying to make Batman a messenger of your own personal views.

Even so, what's the message this 'icon' is giving?

Let terrorists die? Well, I dunno what would be the idea behind that.

Kill terrorists? I thought we were talking about a movie that states for 2 hours that he doesn't kill for revenge or to make justice.

He didn't kill anyone.

But, I feel the message is to leave a terrorist like Ra's to his own fate....to the terror he set for himself. That's all.

He didn't kill anyone.

Audiences don't need to remember Batman is fictional and that he does just what some writer wants.

That's why they make those movies, to make us believe as much as possible that he is real, not some propaganda spreader.

But, it's a work of art....and art imitates life. It's not propaganda, I think...just a a sign of the times we all live in.

The fact of the matter is, though, that since Batman is in an ongoing series.....where it's always neverending......Batman NEEDS to save thes people, or else he'll have no one to fight.

That thief in Ra's monastery wasn't innocent either. But he saved him.

Your taking Ra's word for it, the same psycho path who was willing to kill millions of innocent Gothamites for his "purification" and "fate"........so, isn't it conceivable that perhaps the man wasn't actually a thief....or a murder?

Beyond your feelings, do you have an argument for that.

You means facts?

These are opinions, although I'm giving reasons for them.

I thought these were just opinions we were all sharing here......of course, including feelings that go into those....

In fact in that fire he left the one who was supposed to be Ra's to die. But in that case was ok, because in that case he went after the 'good guy' aka Ducard instead. In that case he had a conflict between saving one of the other.

How'd he "leave" him to die? They were fighting, Bruce was on the floor, and a giant beam fell on him. How the hell is that "leaving" him to die?