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

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

In fact Batman put himself in danger every time he fights crime on the streets and he will never end his mission.

#

Well that was sort of my point, savings Ra's would have put him in considerable danger, were he could have died or got an injury that would prevent him being Batman. I mean, he needed both hands to hold his wings, and his grapple gun was still attached to the bottom of the train (or it seemed that way to me) therefore i think he made a choice about what was more important, saving this one life of an evil (though understandibly) man, or carrying on and rescuing god knows how many people as Batman.

He could have injuried several people and killed himself and Rachel when she was poisoned but he did what he had to do anyway, so the fact he was in danger doesn't excuse him fpr not helping to save a life.

Well, i didnt consider Batman to be in any considerable danger during that scene, i mean the Batmobile is a tank, and the people chasing him had no means of stopping it IMO. Yes he put people in danger, which Alfred rightly lambasted him for, but Rachel is a very important person to him in BB, other than Alfred, she is probably THE most important person to him.

He left Ra's on the train without not even saying, 'Hey, Ra's, by the way, my friend gordon is going to stoop the train right now, fly away.' No. Batman just went away and left Ra's to die.

Well, Ra's saw the track collapse before Batman did, so he knew what was coming. And i dont think Batman did 'leave him to die' in the sense that he didnt care. He left him to save himself which IMO is different. If Ra's was wounded and couldnt walk/move, and Batman still did the same thing, then i would agree with you that he left him to die.

And that's why he wasn't ready for Batman intervention.

Come on, he had enough time to factor Batman into his plans, otherwise he wouldnt have shown up at Wayne manor and tried to kill him, or he wouldnt have had so many 'pawns' with him.

I do understand what your trying to say, but i have a different outlook on it.

 

[iceberg325]

#

Well that was sort of my point, savings Ra's would have put him in considerable danger, were he could have died or got an injury that would prevent him being Batman. I mean, he needed both hands to hold his wings, and his grapple gun was still attached to the bottom of the train (or it seemed that way to me) therefore i think he made a choice about what was more important, saving this one life of an evil (though understandibly) man, or carrying on and rescuing god knows how many people as Batman.



Well, i didnt consider Batman to be in any considerable danger during that scene, i mean the Batmobile is a tank, and the people chasing him had no means of stopping it IMO. Yes he put people in danger, which Alfred rightly lambasted him for, but Rachel is a very important person to him in BB, other than Alfred, she is probably THE most important person to him.



Well, Ra's saw the track collapse before Batman did, so he knew what was coming. And i dont think Batman did 'leave him to die' in the sense that he didnt care. He left him to save himself which IMO is different. If Ra's was wounded and couldnt walk/move, and Batman still did the same thing, then i would agree with you that he left him to die.




Come on, he had enough time to factor Batman into his plans, otherwise he wouldnt have shown up at Wayne manor and tried to kill him, or he wouldnt have had so many 'pawns' with him.

I do understand what your trying to say, but i have a different outlook on it.

Yes rachel is probably the most important after Alfred. We have to remember that Bruce lost his parents. He'll do anything for rachel because she is closest to family that he has. I think hed do almost anything for alfred if alfred were in danger.

Of course Alfred lambast him for it lol. Bruce is new at this whole superhero thing. Of course he put people in danger, but hes still a "noob" at this point. It just shows his love for rachel. Its his flaw as a hero but he his human capable of making mistakes just as everyone is.

 

[The Kid]

He planned to stop the train, destroying the tracks was a backup plan- which luckily saved Gotham.



And, he's not.



Fine....I'll post in moderation, and make small posts, equaling in more posts. lol.

Chris, Can you drive stick? Lol. Anyway, the main plan was to stop them from loading the train, but the backup was to blow away the tracks to screw up ra's too, yes. What I think I was saying was that batman's the reason ra's will need saving in the first place, so if ra's dies in the falling train, it's on him.

If I recall correctly, you said something about it being beneficial for batman to blow up a bunch of ra's gang so they can't go attack gotham later. I said something about that not being batman's way since he's not an executioner etc.

And The blablabla text was just thrown in there since this thing won't allow us to post only quotes.

 

[The Kid]

Well, I think he is a hero.

There's this high morality that people assume must be met to be one, for some reason. I don't think saving a terrorist would win any sympathy or anything.

Letting a bad guy go down in a ship he sank isn't what I believe batman should always do. That's the Punisher's style and Batman's no executioner, thats what makes him better than the punisher to me. He still believes in justice.

 

[raybia]

Letting a bad guy go down in a ship he sank isn't what I believe batman should always do. That's the Punisher's style and Batman's no executioner, thats what makes him better than the punisher to me. He still believes in justice.

Yeah, but give Batman a break. He's a rookie at this point.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I dont believe Batman did that though, if he had wounded Ra's, or knocked him out, and THEN left him on the train, then yes i would say he did let him die. But Ra's was still very able bodied, and therefore DID have chance to escape.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yeah, but give Batman a break. He's a rookie at this point.

And that as well

 

[El Payaso]

Come on!!!! He sucks at it???? Pffft!!!!!! Thats really funny.

The funny part is that you didn't get the obvious sarcasm.

Like I said think about it, if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him. He did the right thing. He didnt kill Ras!!!! Batman chose to turn his back on a terrorist!!! Big frickin deal!!!!!

Change the name for any other villiain and you have the same thing.

As a result, in your words, Batman should kill every villiain - no previous trial - in order to prevent their future crimes and keep Gotham safe and free of danger. Which is the way terrorism works. So Batman should be a little more terrorist in order to fight terrorism.

How about the criminal in the monastery. Under your Pov, Bruce should have been less selfish, think about the next people who were going to be robbed by him, and cut his head off. Turning his back on a thief. Big freaking deal. Or is a theif's life worthier than a terrorist's one?

And please, since long time no one's saying Batman killed Ra's - IF someone told that even once. Just let him die when he could safe him.

Well that was sort of my point, savings Ra's would have put him in considerable danger, were he could have died or got an injury that would prevent him being Batman. I mean, he needed both hands to hold his wings, and his grapple gun was still attached to the bottom of the train (or it seemed that way to me) therefore i think he made a choice about what was more important, saving this one life of an evil (though understandibly) man, or carrying on and rescuing god knows how many people as Batman.

But for that matter any night he goes out, batman is taking the risk of being injuried in such way he couldn't be Batman anymore. This particular case is no different. Except for the fact that he left a man die.

If Batman was in such position that he couldn't save him because he ahd other people to sdave, I think he would have said something very different to Ra's, 'I'm sorry, Ra's, this is the fate you built to yourself' or something. But he stated that "he doesn't have to save him", like in 'I could, but I choose not to.'

Well, i didnt consider Batman to be in any considerable danger during that scene, i mean the Batmobile is a tank, and the people chasing him had no means of stopping it IMO. Yes he put people in danger, which Alfred rightly lambasted him for, but Rachel is a very important person to him in BB, other than Alfred, she is probably THE most important person to him.

Batman oput many other people's lives in danger to save Rachel. He ran the Tumbler over police patrols, etc etc, destroyed buildings, roads, etc.

It seems when it's about Rachel he does whatever it is necessary to safe a life and doesn't care how many other lives are in risk in order to safe that single life.

As you say it is one of the most importants persons for him.

The only possible conclusion is that Batman is not that 'universal symbol of Justice' Bruce is trying to make, but a guy that it seems saves just the people he wants to save. And for selfish reasons, 'who the hell cares for those cops and people when Rachel - the woman I love - life is on the line.'

Well, Ra's saw the track collapse before Batman did, so he knew what was coming. And i dont think Batman did 'leave him to die' in the sense that he didnt care. He left him to save himself which IMO is different. If Ra's was wounded and couldnt walk/move, and Batman still did the same thing, then i would agree with you that he left him to die.

How could Ra's know about the track collapse before Batman when Batman planned it with Gordon long time before? Even before they start fighting, Batman knew that was going to happen.

Batman left Ra's to save himself? How? He knows if you haven't a gliding cape, there's no possibility of survivance there. So it's the same thing. You are in a high train that is crumbling down, come on, you don't have to be crippled to be totally unable to escape from there.

Come on, he had enough time to factor Batman into his plans, otherwise he wouldnt have shown up at Wayne manor and tried to kill him, or he wouldnt have had so many 'pawns' with him.

After all, he had been planning this since before Bruce came to him for training.

I was just going after your words.

 

[iceberg325]

What Im trying to get at is when he saw Rachel in trouble, he was no longer Batman. He became Bruce!!!! His feelings kicked in. Hes human!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a natural reaction to help someone you love.

I didnt say he has to knock off every villian. I dont know where you get that conclusion. He didnt even kill Ras. So thats irrelevant.

Yeah sorry I missed the sarcasm.

 

[El Payaso]

What Im trying to get at is when he saw Rachel in trouble, he was no longer Batman. He became Bruce!!!! His feelings kicked in. Hes human!!!!!!!!!!!! Its a natural reaction to help someone you love.

1.- He was Batman saving Rachel. Suit, mask, in the night, he was in his Batman activities. In fact, he becoming Bruce at that time it's a mere supposition of yours.
2.- Batman is human.
3.- Batman was born to go beyond fear and natural reactions or there is no point in Batman to exist. It would be better to be a good cop.

I didnt say he has to knock off every villian. I dont know where you get that conclusion. He didnt even kill Ras. So thats irrelevant.

I got it from here:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.

Let's talk about Joker:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Joker just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.



Or Penguin:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Penguin just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.


It is the same deal for every evil character if you state that saving a villiain is selfish and wrong because you put the city in danger.

 

[Everyman]

El Payaso, you always implied that Batman killed, or tried to kill, Ra's, in this particular scene, which is NOT the case. He didn't even left him helpless in the train, Ducard could have left the train. There is no indication that he is dead either.

 

[raybia]

Much Ado About Nothing.

Superman Killed Zod In Superman Ii And No One Is Complaining About That.

 

[iceberg325]

1.- He was Batman saving Rachel. Suit, mask, in the night, he was in his Batman activities. In fact, he becoming Bruce at that time it's a mere supposition of yours.
2.- Batman is human.
3.- Batman was born to go beyond fear and natural reactions or there is no point in Batman to exist. It would be better to be a good cop.



I got it from here:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.

Let's talk about Joker:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Joker just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.



Or Penguin:

Like I said think about it, if he saves Penguin just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him.


It is the same deal for every evil character if you state that saving a villiain is selfish and wrong because you put the city in danger.

Yes he had on a suit and a cape, nipples (joking) and a belt. What does that mean. Who is he under neath. This is a scene where we see bruce coming out over the batman persona. Hes new to the whole superhero thing. It shows in many cases in the movie. The rachel/tumbler chase scene for example. Its really obvious. Ok for example, if you were a superhero, and god forbid one of your family members were trouble, you wouldnt do anything to save that family member? You wouldnt rush into action and throw caution to the wind to help the ones you love? Im sorry but if you wouldnt, I feel sorry for you lol. Thats what he did.

What does putting every villians name into my context do?

 

[Everyman]

Much Ado About Nothing.

Superman Killed Zod In Superman Ii And No One Is Complaining About That.

Actually, I think some people did. In SUperman's case, it wasdownright execution, because since Zod was indeed permanently powerless, he was not dangerous anymore.

Hey, I know it's off topic, but I am thinking: had Superman got Zod and co. in jail instead of killing them, that would have made a nice sequel. Zod could have escaped and tried to get his powers back. Maybe he could have fought Superman and tried to go back to the Fortress of Solitude with Krypton technology...

 

[Phaser]

Anyway, the main plan was to stop them from loading the train, but the backup was to blow away the tracks to screw up ra's too, yes.

The backup plan was meant to be used as a contingency fallback option in case all attempts to prevent the monorail from reaching Wayne Tower failed.

The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading thae train, which of course, failed.

The secondary plan was to stop the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That too got ****ed up when Ra's jammed the controls.

Which was exactly when the backup plan came into effect.

So considering all of the above, if either the main or the secondary plan worked out, then blowing up the tracks would have been an inconsequential element since the train never would have gone that far to begin with. What I'm meaning to ask you is...since Batman never intended to outright kill Ra's in the first place, how and why the hell did he decide to change his mind to "screw up" Ra's halfway through after his first two plans failed?

Oh and...why do the peanut-brains on this forum ALWAYS overlook he fact that Ra's was on a suicide mission when he jammed the controls and planned to ride the monorail full speed into Wayne Tower? I know it's a bit...unusual to get annoyed by something so trivial, but when pages upon pages of discussions continue over something that's clearly explained in the film and not even a real issue to begin with, it starts to get quite bothersome.

 

[raybia]

The backup plan was meant to be used as a contingency fallback option in case all attempts to prevent the monorail from reaching Wayne Tower failed.

The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading thae train, which of course, failed.

The secondary plan was to stop the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That too got ****ed up when Ra's jammed the controls.

Which was exactly when the backup plan came into effect.

So considering all of the above, if either the main or the secondary plan worked out, then blowing up the tracks would have been an inconsequential element since the train never would have gone that far to begin with. What I'm meaning to ask you is...since Batman never intended to outright kill Ra's in the first place, how and why the hell did he decide to change his mind to "screw up" Ra's halfway through after his first two plans failed?

Oh and...why do the peanut-brains on this forum ALWAYS overlook he fact that Ra's was on a suicide mission when he jammed the controls and planned to ride the monorail full speed into Wayne Tower? I know it's a bit...unusual to get annoyed by something so trivial, but when pages upon pages of discussions continue over something that's clearly explained in the film and not even a real issue to begin with, it starts to get quite bothersome.

End of discussion. Thanks Phaser.


Mods close thread.

 

[Phaser]

How about the criminal in the monastery. Under your Pov, Bruce should have been less selfish, think about the next people who were going to be robbed by him, and cut his head off. Turning his back on a thief. Big freaking deal. Or is a theif's life worthier than a terrorist's one?

Bruce did not mean to kill all those ninjas. Out of desperation, he took the only option he had of creating an explosive distraction that could have hopefully given both the prisoner as well as himself (and anyone else who wished to live) a chance to escape. Again, blaming Bruce for any possible deaths of the ninjas in the monastery is absurd. All of them had ample time to escape and save their lives, and many did. Not to mention Bruce was in a significantly more riskier position than everyone else.

And please, since long time no one's saying Batman killed Ra's - IF someone told that even once. Just let him die when he could safe him.

Question is, should Batman have saved Ra's, especially considering that it was Ra's who had doomed himself to a suicide mission in a desperate attempt to stop Batman from foiling his plan, not to mention the fact that is it really appropriate for Batman to save the man again realizing what it had already cost him for doing so?

The problem here is that a couple of you are being increasingly juvenile for judging such a morally complex action in simpleton black and white terms.

Batman oput many other people's lives in danger to save Rachel. He ran the Tumbler over police patrols, etc etc, destroyed buildings, roads, etc.

It seems when it's about Rachel he does whatever it is necessary to safe a life and doesn't care how many other lives are in risk in order to safe that single life.

As you say it is one of the most importants persons for him.

The only possible conclusion is that Batman is not that 'universal symbol of Justice' Bruce is trying to make, but a guy that it seems saves just the people he wants to save. And for selfish reasons, 'who the hell cares for those cops and people when Rachel - the woman I love - life is on the line.'

Again, being prematurely judgemental. What you're ignoring here is that you have a hero who's just starting out and very much susceptible to recklessness and mistakes, with his first major run-in with the cops and his childhood friend taking her possibly her last breaths on the seat of his car unless he does something about it. Fact of the matter is that even though the cowl and the cape is symbol of fear, the man inside still has human emotions and those very emotions incited Bruce to make the questionable decision of irresponsibly blowing through the city to get to the cave in the available time at all costs. He took a dangerous chance - either play rough with the police exposing tailing patrol officers to possible serious-injury or even death...OR...doom his childhood friend to a certain death.

Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would you risk? Possibility or certainty?

 

[Phaser]

3.- Batman was born to go beyond fear and natural reactions or there is no point in Batman to exist. It would be better to be a good cop.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Batman was created to go beyond the limits imposed by conventional law and order. To terrify criminals and hunt them down in places where the police and other enforcement agencies can't touch them. To become a dark knight of fear and justice not bound in the chains of rules in books written down by men. To be infallible, immortal, untouchable - an urban legend that knows no pity nor remorse.

Batman is an idea.

But technically, Batman doesn't exist. It is just a manifestation of that idea by Bruce Wayne. Like I said in my last post, the cowl and the cape, being symbols, are invincible...but not the man underneath. Like any human being, extreme situations can break even the strongest of heroes and lead them into acting emotionally instead of rationally.

This was shown in Loeb's Hush series where Batman almost killed the Joker in rage when he had supposedly "shot" Thomas Elliot. With the shocking "death" of his close friend, Bruce once again had to deal with his greatest fear of losing the ones dearest to him and that fear took over his sense of justice. And if Gordon hadn't knocked some sense into him, then the Joker would have breathed his last.

There's also a similiar occassion in Azarello's Broken City, where Bruce contemplates or dreams on what he should have, could have or would have done on the fateful night of his parents' death. One was where he hoped for a "third" shot for himself so that he could be together with his parents forever. As for the other, here's how it goes -

"...or before the 'bang bang' I act. I know exactly the right bundle of nerves I need to squeeze to make him drop the gun...which he does, but I keep squeezing, more pressure, more pressure...waiting for the nauseating pop...when it comes, I know he'll never be able to hold a gun ever again...and I'll be held by arms that I've never been held by since."

I simply love the irony of comicbook fanboys screaming bloody murder over the dumbing down of their favorite characters that strip them of their intriguing complexity, yet when a filmmaker captures something as deep and meaningful as the emotional outbursts that expose the human frailties of a hero on celluloid, they dismissively cry of it being "out-of-character" and whatnot. Wonderful world we live in, eh?

 

[JLBats]

Wrong. Dead wrong. Batman was created to go beyond the limits imposed by conventional law and order. To terrify criminals and hunt them down in places where the police and other enforcement agencies can't touch them. To become a dark knight of fear and justice not bound in the chains of rules in books written down by men. To be infallible, immortal, untouchable - an urban legend that knows no pity nor remorse.

Batman is an idea.

But technically, Batman doesn't exist. It is just a manifestation of that idea by Bruce Wayne. Like I said in my last post, the cowl and the cape, being symbols, are invincible...but not the man underneath. Like any human being, extreme situations can break even the strongest of heroes and lead them into acting emotionally instead of rationally.

This was shown in Loeb's Hush series where Batman almost killed the Joker in rage when he had supposedly "shot" Thomas Elliot. With the shocking "death" of his close friend, Bruce once again had to deal with his greatest fear of losing the ones dearest to him and that fear took over his sense of justice. And if Gordon hadn't knocked some sense into him, then the Joker would have breathed his last.

There's also a similiar occassion in Azarello's Broken City, where Bruce contemplates or dreams on what he should have, could have or would have done on the fateful night of his parents' death. One was where he hoped for a "third" shot for himself so that he could be together with his parents forever. As for the other, here's how it goes -

"...or before the 'bang bang' I act. I know exactly the right bundle of nerves I need to squeeze to make him drop the gun...which he does, but I keep squeezing, more pressure, more pressure...waiting for the nauseating pop...when it comes, I know he'll never be able to hold a gun ever again...and I'll be held by arms that I've never been held by since."

I simply love the irony of comicbook fanboys screaming bloody murder over the dumbing down of their favorite characters that strip them of their intriguing complexity, yet when a filmmaker captures something as deep and meaningful as the emotional outbursts that expose the human frailties of a hero on celluloid, they dismissively cry of it being "out-of-character" and whatnot. Wonderful world we live in, eh?

God, for that last paragraph, if nothing else, I love you.

 

[iceberg325]

Bruce did not mean to kill all those ninjas. Out of desperation, he took the only option he had of creating an explosive distraction that could have hopefully given both the prisoner as well as himself (and anyone else who wished to live) a chance to escape. Again, blaming Bruce for any possible deaths of the ninjas in the monastery is absurd. All of them had ample time to escape and save their lives, and many did. Not to mention Bruce was in a significantly more riskier position than everyone else.



Question is, should Batman have saved Ra's, especially considering that it was Ra's who had doomed himself to a suicide mission in a desperate attempt to stop Batman from foiling his plan, not to mention the fact that is it really appropriate for Batman to save the man again realizing what it had already cost him for doing so?

The problem here is that a couple of you are being increasingly juvenile for judging such a morally complex action in simpleton black and white terms.



Again, being prematurely judgemental. What you're ignoring here is that you have a hero who's just starting out and very much susceptible to recklessness and mistakes, with his first major run-in with the cops and his childhood friend taking her possibly her last breaths on the seat of his car unless he does something about it. Fact of the matter is that even though the cowl and the cape is symbol of fear, the man inside still has human emotions and those very emotions incited Bruce to make the questionable decision of irresponsibly blowing through the city to get to the cave in the available time at all costs. He took a dangerous chance - either play rough with the police exposing tailing patrol officers to possible serious-injury or even death...OR...doom his childhood friend to a certain death.

Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would you risk? Possibility or certainty?

Exaclty what I was saying, but you said it using bigger words lol

 

[The Kid]

Intimidating isnt it. Oh noooooooooooooooo everybody run!

 

[iceberg325]

Intimidating isnt it. Oh noooooooooooooooo everybody run!

lol

 

[The Kid]

The backup plan was meant to be used as a contingency fallback option in case all attempts to prevent the monorail from reaching Wayne Tower failed.

The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading thae train, which of course, failed.

The secondary plan was to stop the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That too got ****ed up when Ra's jammed the controls.

Which was exactly when the backup plan came into effect.

So considering all of the above, if either the main or the secondary plan worked out, then blowing up the tracks would have been an inconsequential element since the train never would have gone that far to begin with. What I'm meaning to ask you is...since Batman never intended to outright kill Ra's in the first place, how and why the hell did he decide to change his mind to "screw up" Ra's halfway through after his first two plans failed?

Oh and...why do the peanut-brains on this forum ALWAYS overlook he fact that Ra's was on a suicide mission when he jammed the controls and planned to ride the monorail full speed into Wayne Tower? I know it's a bit...unusual to get annoyed by something so trivial, but when pages upon pages of discussions continue over something that's clearly explained in the film and not even a real issue to begin with, it starts to get quite bothersome.

chill, deep breath, babe, it's only movie discussion, and people have different points of view... no bones are broken.

I want to know now how you come to the conclusion that the train would have exploded KABOOM blam!! if ra's finally came to his destination. It seems like an assumption to me.

there were only two plans. 1. stop them from loading the train. 2. Blow up the tracks. that next plan you wrote of seemed more like a whim than something actually planned. Judging by how things went, batman didn't need to jump into the train at all but did so for whatever reason. His actions ultimately had no impact on the result of the train tracks destruction. It was checkmate for ra's long before batman arrived or the jamming of the controls.

I think the fact remains that batman's responsible for the track's destruction and therefore did considered the possibility that he might not stop the loading of the train. Which tells me that yeah, he's very much did mean to outright kill ra's if it came to that. that wasnt my point though. My point to chris was that batman's the reason ra's needed saving. But as an openminded individual, I'll view the movie again to see if indeed what you say is true about the train crashing into wayne tower anyway. To me it seemed like it'd have passed right through. As a son of a transit worker, I'm not convinced that the train would have derailed or anything of that sort for quite a while as long as it has a means of passing through wayne tower.

Now call me names and make me feel like my penis fell off. Do it! come on! Lets get nuts!

salted nuts

 

[The Kid]

lol

WRONG!!!!

It's HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

 

[El Payaso]

Bruce did not mean to kill all those ninjas. Out of desperation, he took the only option he had of creating an explosive distraction that could have hopefully given both the prisoner as well as himself (and anyone else who wished to live) a chance to escape. Again, blaming Bruce for any possible deaths of the ninjas in the monastery is absurd. All of them had ample time to escape and save their lives, and many did. Not to mention Bruce was in a significantly more riskier position than everyone else.

Yes, blaming Bruce for those deaths is absurd. As much as replying me about the ninja's death when I haven't said Bruce had anything to do with that. So you're basically replying to nothing. At leaast nothing I said on the quoted paragraph.

I replied to someone who stated : "if he saves Ras just for his own piece of mind then hes selfish. Yeah put the city in more danger just to make urself feel better. What a great hero that would make him. (...) Batman chose to turn his back on a terrorist!!! Big frickin deal!!!!!. So I said that from THAT POV - Bruce must think of future damage first than the villiain's life - he should kill every villiain that could mean any future danger for community.

You see if you reply to what people actually say, this will be less complex.

Question is, should Batman have saved Ra's, especially considering that it was Ra's who had doomed himself to a suicide mission in a desperate attempt to stop Batman from foiling his plan, not to mention the fact that is it really appropriate for Batman to save the man again realizing what it had already cost him for doing so?

The question is, Did Ra's know about the train being blasted by Gordon aka Plan B? Because if he didn't know about it it was a risky move but not suicidal 100%.

The problem here is that a couple of you are being increasingly juvenile for judging such a morally complex action in simpleton black and white terms.

The problem is what the movie stated as being the Batman character and then it seems that Batman itself went out of characyter - which could be fine - but there's no sign in the movie that it is part of the total vision of Batman exposed in this specific movie.

Batman let Ra's die and - I repeat myself for the 5th time - there's no sign in the movie that Batman gave that a second thought, a reflection after doing that. The movie states for 2 hours that Batman preserves human life and then he let someone die. After that, there's no sign of a thought about the issue. Which can be read as a, 'that action by Batman was totally ok under our vision.'

I wish it was the way you say.

Again, being prematurely judgemental. What you're ignoring here is that you have a hero who's just starting out and very much susceptible to recklessness and mistakes, with his first major run-in with the cops and his childhood friend taking her possibly her last breaths on the seat of his car unless he does something about it. Fact of the matter is that even though the cowl and the cape is symbol of fear, the man inside still has human emotions and those very emotions incited Bruce to make the questionable decision of irresponsibly blowing through the city to get to the cave in the available time at all costs. He took a dangerous chance - either play rough with the police exposing tailing patrol officers to possible serious-injury or even death...OR...doom his childhood friend to a certain death.

Yes and at least Nolan showed us Alfred talking firmly about it to Bruce, reproaching him for that. Then Bruce tells him (and us) that he HAD to do it. That way we can see Bruce was against the wall in this. He shouldn't have, he did, but he CARES about what he did, because it wasn't right.
Where is that moment for what he did to Ra's?

Looking at those odds, tell me - which one would you risk? Possibility or certainty?

What do we care about what I would have done since I'm not Batman?
Me? I take the girl and quit defending people I know.
Me? I put terrorists inside a container and throw it inside a volcano.

I simply love the irony of comicbook fanboys screaming bloody murder over the dumbing down of their favorite characters that strip them of their intriguing complexity, yet when a filmmaker captures something as deep and meaningful as the emotional outbursts that expose the human frailties of a hero on celluloid, they dismissively cry of it being "out-of-character" and whatnot. Wonderful world we live in, eh?

If that filmmaker tells us it is on purpose then it's ok. If he doesn't we have the right to doubt, think and debate about it. Nolan exposing the human frailties of a hero is what it should have been. Nolan showing Batman letting Ra's die with a witty line before he did it and then not a word about it is doubtfully what you say.

Otherwise I can go back to the Burton movies and claim Batman didn't kill that clown in Returns. It was the complexities of the character.

The debate still goes on.