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

[El Payaso]

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.

Not only that. The Plan B for Batman meant that not only he was aware of this, but that - therefore - he HAD to have a plan for escaping the train himself in time. And therefore again, since he knew Ra's was on the train, he should have considered the certain possibility that - if he succeeded - Ra's was going to be in deep troubles. It was up to Batman to consider either to A) save him (if Plan B succeeded) or B) leaving him to his fate; will he die, will he survive, who knows, who cares.

Even so, if Batman would have considered the possibility of Ra's surviving, he would have been worried about finding his body (if Ra's survives then Gotham City is still in danger). None of this we see.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Batman considered the possibilty that Gotham could be destroyed if he failed to stop the train. I think that was the end of what he had planned.

 

[Phaser]

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

I simply said that pointless discussion over something that's already addressed in the film itself is...annoying. Never proposed to have you people castrated and your corpses paraded through the streets,so keep those useless "calm down"s to yourself.

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. 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.

No it isn't. It's clearly explained in the film that Wayne Tower was sitting right on top of the main hub and the microwave emitter would trigger the blowing up of the main hub which would consequently prove fatally catastrophic. It's exactly why the head engineer had everyone evacuate the building. Now consider this - if the main hub blowing up is such a disastrous outcome to Wayne Tower itself, what would you think would happen to the monorail when it's at the building at that very moment?

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.

You're totally clueless, aren't you? The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading the microwave emitter on the train. What point is there for Batman to have Gordon blow up the tracks if Batman succeeds and the train never even reaches that point to begin with? Think.

If you're still having trouble, let me lay it out for you as regards to what exactly happened:

Batman had Gordon destroy the tracks in case he fails Ra's from loading the train or stopping the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That's exactly why he jumps on the train - heck, you even see him go for the controls...to STOP THE TRAIN and that's when Ra's butts in and jams them. Gordon destroying the tracks was Batman's contingency plan, his ace in the hole, his trump card that was guarenteed to succeed.

"But why would Batman bother with all the trouble of preventing Ra's from loading the microwave emitter and fighting him on the monorail and all that if he had already everything figured out", you ask? Well the answer is obvious - Batman's contingency plan was the most destructive option, which is why he used it as a backup plan and not the main strategy. Batman tries his level best to stop Ra's with the least amount of human and property damage as possible. If he had succeeded in preventing his former mentor from loading the train, the immediate threat to the city would have been neutralized then and there - no casualties, no damage.

 

[Phaser]

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%.

It was a 100% suicidal move on part of Ra's because he would be riding the train full speed into Wayne Tower as a result of which, the main hub blowing up will be lethally devastating to both Wayne Tower and the monorail, since they were both sitting on top of it. Why else do you think the order to evacuate the entire building was given?

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.

...take a look at that paragraph you wrote once again and see if you can try and make any sense of it. As for me, all I see confused jabber.

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, such juvenile remarks. Sure, one can easily be all judgemental and say "yeah he let someone die", but refuse to take into context that "someone" is a twisted fanatic on a suicide mission, ready to slaughter millions to impose his own brand of justice upon the world and that it was to save the life of that very madman that Bruce risked his own for earlier. Take all that account and the justification for Batman saving Ra's in the end becomes that much harder.

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?

Apparently you're naive enough to expect the same treatment to be given to risking the lives of police officers doing their job and risking the life of an idealistic extremist. Bruce didn't need to "ponder over" his decision to leave Ra's in that doomed train. If Ra's hadn't jammed the controls in desperation, he could have stopped the monorail and saved his life. Essentially, Ra's pretty much screwed himself there, and seeing as that Bruce had saved his life once already, I see no strong moral obligation for him to do the same again.

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.

If you lack even the most basic competence of drafting a direct, appropriate and relevant response to the question I posed, then please...shut up. Smart-ass remarks like that will get you nowhere and will only serve to disrupt the flow of this discussion.

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.

Only half-wits would take Batman's last words to Ra's as just a simple "witty line". It very much implies Bruce witnessing the grave consequences of his decision to save Ra's back at the monastery and the phrase "...but I don't have to save you" effectively means "I already saved your life once, hence I am in no obligation to do it again especially seeing what it has brought upon me and my city...which is why I won't be making the same mistake again for you have doomed yourself to this fate and I don't need to save you from it."

A very similiar and interesting parallel was also seen in Saving Private Ryan, where Opham fights for the German's life to be spared and convinces Captain Miller to let him go. But in the end, we see Opham witnessing the very same German knocking out Miller with a direct hit on the chest (or perhaps the heart, either way, it was on a critical point of the body which ultimately kills him). Of course, when the battle is over and Opham rounds up the enemy combatants, the very same German tries to be friendly with Opham again, only this time Opham gives him a bullet instead of sympathy.

In very loose and circumstantial terms, pretty much the same situation in BB as well.

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.

There is no way you can possibly justify it with a simple "complexities of the character" blurb considering you'll never be able to elaborate on it with a valid argument, thereby leaving you practically crippled with no leg to stand on

The debate still goes on.

Not for one who has the humble intellectual capacity required to fully comprehend what was shown in the film.

 

[El Payaso]

It was a 100% suicidal move on part of Ra's because he would be riding the train full speed into Wayne Tower as a result of which, the main hub blowing up will be lethally devastating to both Wayne Tower and the monorail, since they were both sitting on top of it. Why else do you think the order to evacuate the entire building was given?

So he was to commit suicide.

For the seventh time: Is being a suicide reason enough for Batman not to save you?

A villiain throws gasoline on himself and he's about to set himself afire... so Batman shouldn't stop him because he was killing himself on purpose being a dangerous villiain?

...take a look at that paragraph you wrote once again and see if you can try and make any sense of it. As for me, all I see confused jabber.

B Begins states what is being Batman. After that the same movie shows us Batman going out of character (by letting someone die, what he's not supposed to do). But then, there's no sign in the movie that this event (Batman letting someone die) is somehow part of the character. No sign of remosrse or reflection about it.

Even Daredevil had a reflection about the 'hero' and the way he shpuldn't kill the criminals as a way for crimefighting.

Again, such juvenile remarks. Sure, one can easily be all judgemental and say "yeah he let someone die", but refuse to take into context that "someone" is a twisted fanatic on a suicide mission, ready to slaughter millions to impose his own brand of justice upon the world and that it was to save the life of that very madman that Bruce risked his own for earlier. Take all that account and the justification for Batman saving Ra's in the end becomes that much harder.

Ok, Batman let a terrorist die. A person who wanted to kill millions.

"A terrorist, a person who wanted to kill millions" describes Ra's and most of Batman main villaiins (Joker, Penguin, etc etc) so the conclusion for you would be he should let all those villiains to die if he could since it's not easily justistifiable.

Apparently you're naive enough to expect the same treatment to be given to risking the lives of police officers doing their job and risking the life of an idealistic extremist. Bruce didn't need to "ponder over" his decision to leave Ra's in that doomed train. If Ra's hadn't jammed the controls in desperation, he could have stopped the monorail and saved his life. Essentially, Ra's pretty much screwed himself there, and seeing as that Bruce had saved his life once already, I see no strong moral obligation for him to do the same again.

His only moral obligation to save him was the one he imposed to himself at the moment of being Batman.

If you lack even the most basic competence of drafting a direct, appropriate and relevant response to the question I posed, then please...shut up. Smart-ass remarks like that will get you nowhere and will only serve to disrupt the flow of this discussion.

Is this another of your replying-to-nothing-with-a-big-fuzz reaction?

You ask me what would have I done as Batman? I am not Batman so what's the point? I'm just pointing out the incoherence inside the movie. I'm not even saying I agree with saving a terrorist.

In fact I prefer the Burton killing Batman. So there.

Only half-wits would take Batman's last words to Ra's as just a simple "witty line". It very much implies Bruce witnessing the grave consequences of his decision to save Ra's back at the monastery and the phrase "...but I don't have to save you" effectively means "I already saved your life once, hence I am in no obligation to do it again especially seeing what it has brought upon me and my city...which is why I won't be making the same mistake again for you have doomed yourself to this fate and I don't need to save you from it."

Oh, again the name calling. Your only true success.

So your personal translation of Batman words should work as an absolute for us?

Nolan should have make that clear so we wouldn't need you.

A very similiar and interesting parallel was also seen in Saving Private Ryan, where Opham fights for the German's life to be spared and convinces Captain Miller to let him go. But in the end, we see Opham witnessing the very same German knocking out Miller with a direct hit on the chest (or perhaps the heart, either way, it was on a critical point of the body which ultimately kills him). Of course, when the battle is over and Opham rounds up the enemy combatants, the very same German tries to be friendly with Opham again, only this time Opham gives him a bullet instead of sympathy.

Cool movie.

So?

Did Opham have a mission about fighting crime and not taking lives as Batman did?

In very loose and circumstantial terms, pretty much the same situation in BB as well.

Very loose, yes.

There is no way you can possibly justify it with a simple "complexities of the character" blurb considering you'll never be able to elaborate on it with a valid argument, thereby leaving you practically crippled with no leg to stand on

Of course there's no justification over the 'complexities of the character' here. I couldn't give it the same as you couldn't. That's the point.

Not for one who has the humble intellectual capacity required to fully comprehend what was shown in the film.

Yes. Stick to the insult lines. Your best goal so far.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

I've got a lot of reading to do...

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

My input on this is that, ammounted with the point Phaser gave about already saving him once, I just think it's another sign of the times. Ra's isn't just a madman. He's a terrorist mastermind (that word fits here I think), and the global view on them is not sympathy. I feel this is art imitating life, yet again, with the movie fitting the times we live in.

 

[El Payaso]

He's a terrorist mastermind (that word fits here I think), and the global view on them is not sympathy.

We know.

The issue here is Batman view not global or personal.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

But, my point is, that the global view of our current times does have an affect on how these characters are portrayed.

Superman is said to be portrayed as a savior who returns to a post 9/11 world, a world who has been victimized by evil....and now has to learn to re-embrace the Man of Steel.

That, right there, is a sign of the real world having a profound affect on the story and the struggles of that icon, in that story. That's what I'm pointing out here.

 

[El Payaso]

Ok, then B Begins should have had more about anti-terrorism feeling (as in let them die) and less about not taking a life.

 

[Everyman]

Ok, then B Begins should have had more about anti-terrorism feeling (as in let them die) and less about not taking a life.

But Batman does NOT take Ra's life. He lets him in a dangerous situation, a situation Ra's created, and where he might die. And Batman takes the decision on the heat of the moment.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Batman didn't take a life, though.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

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.

So its not the same at all, Batman was in a LOT more danger on the train than he was at any point in the movie except perhaps the monastery. Your telling me on an average night, were he just has to fight a few criminals, he's in the same danger as he was on the train? I dont think so.

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.'

He did have someone else to save, himself. What was more important for the future safety of Gotham? Batman being safe or both Ra's and Batman being safe, i'd go with the first one.

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.'

I'm sorry, i think this part of your argument is ridiculous, Rachel was DYING, you telling me that if someone you loved was on death's door, you wouldnt mind risking a few injuries to some cops you've never met. Thats just stupid. Anyone and everyone in their right mind ( and yes, even those who dress up as bats) would risk anything and everything to save a loved one, to say otherwise is stupid, IMO.

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.

But Ra's did know before Batman, because Ra's saw the track collapse first. Batman had planned to have Gordon blow the tracks out, but he didnt know Gordon had succeeded and couldnt have known while he was pinned on the floor of the train. He only knew when he saw the look on Ra's face AFTER Ra's saw the track collapse.

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.

He also knows that Ra's is a very clever, and scheming person, and that there is a big chance that he would have escaped.

Just out of curiosity i'd like to know how many times you have seen this movie, El, as judging by some of your idea's you need to watch it again.

 

[Phaser]

So he was to commit suicide.

For the seventh time: Is being a suicide reason enough for Batman not to save you?

In the case of Ra's, yes.

A villiain throws gasoline on himself and he's about to set himself afire... so Batman shouldn't stop him because he was killing himself on purpose being a dangerous villiain?

Why should he? Out of all the crooks Batman sent to jail or Arkham, you think not a single one of them ever broke down and decide to end his life then and there? You think Batman should have saved him?

B Begins states what is being Batman. After that the same movie shows us Batman going out of character (by letting someone die, what he's not supposed to do). But then, there's no sign in the movie that this event (Batman letting someone die) is somehow part of the character. No sign of remosrse or reflection about it.

Because there was no need to. And I dare you to show me where the Begins' Batman "cherishes" human life as naively as the Batman from the comics. If you're talking about the prisoner at the monastery, Bruce never said that he will "not take a life". That line was in the leaked script before Ra's burns down the mansion but Nolan cleverly changed it to something a lot more appropriate - Bruce objects that the prisoner should be given fair trial and that he will not execute him in cold blood.

You're expecting Bruce to feel remorse for a crime he didn't commit in the first place. In the case of Ra's, if there's anything Batman's guilty of, it's apathy and not murder. And if he's not guilty of actually "killing" Ra's, why would he need to reflect upon it?

Even Daredevil had a reflection about the 'hero' and the way he shpuldn't kill the criminals as a way for crimefighting.

How is this even relevant? Batman never "kills" in Begins, so what's the point?

Ok, Batman let a terrorist die. A person who wanted to kill millions.

"A terrorist, a person who wanted to kill millions" describes Ra's and most of Batman main villaiins (Joker, Penguin, etc etc) so the conclusion for you would be he should let all those villiains to die if he could since it's not easily justistifiable.

Ask me, sometimes the whole "I will not take a life" angle in the comics that is Batman is portrayed in is simply foolish idealism taken to extremes and downright absurd in a few cases. I think it's nothing but a cheap ploy by writers to give Batman an inane excuse to not permanently kill off the kind of villains that shouldn't be allowed to live anymore. Take for example, the case of the Joker - he killed countless number of people (including Jason Todd) without so much as a whim and crippled Barbara. And he's been sent to Arkham for rehabilitation so many times, it's impossible to keep count anymore. In spite of this, he still goes on the same usual routine of kill, get caught, escape and then kill again and on and on. Realistically speaking, no government on the face of the Earth would ever let the Joker's seemingly never-ending homicidal spree slide for so long and so many times. It's an established fact that the criminals like the Joker are nothing but an uncontrollable hazard to the lives of the citizens of Gotham who, regardless of his insanity, should finally be put to death.

His only moral obligation to save him was the one he imposed to himself at the moment of being Batman.

And what was that exactly? Please, do try and elaborate - with actual quotes or instances from the film. Otherwise, don't even bother.

Is this another of your replying-to-nothing-with-a-big-fuzz reaction?

You ask me what would have I done as Batman? I am not Batman so what's the point? I'm just pointing out the incoherence inside the movie. I'm not even saying I agree with saving a terrorist.

I asked what would you rather have Batman do. Take a risky chance to save his childhood friend's life, or forego that risk altogether and let her die a certain death? The manner in which you could have answered this question was painfully simple, yet you have your back against the wall trying to avoid it.

"I am not Batman so what's the point" you say? If that's the case, then your incompetence in involvedly commenting on the situation of the character also strips you all right of passing any kind of judgement on him.

In fact I prefer the Burton killing Batman. So there.

Yet here you are hypocritically taking the Begins' Batman to task simply for leaving a man to his fate and not blatantly killing him like Burton's Batman often did. Double-standards much?

Oh, again the name calling. Your only true success.

Good. Now that we're done passing the blame torch, how about an actual, substantial reply to my argument?

So your personal translation of Batman words should work as an absolute for us?
Nolan should have make that clear so we wouldn't need you.

Clear as in spoonfeeding everything to you ad-nauseum? Say, wasn't that a big problem many so-called critics had with Begins? That it doesn't think the audience is smart enough to figure things out on it's own?

Tell me something - out of what you know of the film, what exactly are the reasons for Batman leaving Ra's to his fate in the end of Begins?

Just show me where, even a single goddamned instance where I've inserted an interpolation, something NOT shown or said in the film to back my interpretation of the film. If there isn't any, then how the hell does it make it make my "translation" of the film "personal" instead of "factual"?

Cool movie.

So?

I used that parellel as an example of how morality works in any given story or film. I'm sure there are many other similiar examples with similiar outcomes.

Did Opham have a mission about fighting crime and not taking lives as Batman did?

What part of my post that said "in very loose and circumstantial terms" didn't you understand?

Of course there's no justification over the 'complexities of the character' here. I couldn't give it the same as you couldn't. That's the point.

Please. Either show me the errors in my argument or shut up.

Yes. Stick to the insult lines. Your best goal so far.

Yes, stick to avoiding addressing my points directly and making even more vague, meaningless statements. Your best goal so far.

 

[El Payaso]

In the case of Ra's, yes.

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

Why should he? Out of all the crooks Batman sent to jail or Arkham, you think not a single one of them ever broke down and decide to end his life then and there? You think Batman should have saved him?

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.

Because there was no need to. And I dare you to show me where the Begins' Batman "cherishes" human life as naively as the Batman from the comics. If you're talking about the prisoner at the monastery, Bruce never said that he will "not take a life". That line was in the leaked script before Ra's burns down the mansion but Nolan cleverly changed it to something a lot more appropriate - Bruce objects that the prisoner should be given fair trial and that he will not execute him in cold blood.

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?

You're expecting Bruce to feel remorse for a crime he didn't commit in the first place. In the case of Ra's, if there's anything Batman's guilty of, it's apathy and not murder. And if he's not guilty of actually "killing" Ra's, why would he need to reflect upon it?

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

He needs to reflect on that.

How is this even relevant? Batman never "kills" in Begins, so what's the point?

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).

Ask me, sometimes the whole "I will not take a life" angle in the comics that is Batman is portrayed in is simply foolish idealism taken to extremes and downright absurd in a few cases. I think it's nothing but a cheap ploy by writers to give Batman an inane excuse to not permanently kill off the kind of villains that shouldn't be allowed to live anymore. Take for example, the case of the Joker - he killed countless number of people (including Jason Todd) without so much as a whim and crippled Barbara. And he's been sent to Arkham for rehabilitation so many times, it's impossible to keep count anymore. In spite of this, he still goes on the same usual routine of kill, get caught, escape and then kill again and on and on. Realistically speaking, no government on the face of the Earth would ever let the Joker's seemingly never-ending homicidal spree slide for so long and so many times. It's an established fact that the criminals like the Joker are nothing but an uncontrollable hazard to the lives of the citizens of Gotham who, regardless of his insanity, should finally be put to death.

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.

And what was that exactly? Please, do try and elaborate - with actual quotes or instances from the film. Otherwise, don't even bother.

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

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.

I asked what would you rather have Batman do. Take a risky chance to save his childhood friend's life, or forego that risk altogether and let her die a certain death? The manner in which you could have answered this question was painfully simple, yet you have your back against the wall trying to avoid it.

"I am not Batman so what's the point" you say? If that's the case, then your incompetence in involvedly commenting on the situation of the character also strips you all right of passing any kind of judgement on him.

"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.

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.

Yet here you are hypocritically taking the Begins' Batman to task simply for leaving a man to his fate and not blatantly killing him like Burton's Batman often did. Double-standards much?

No.

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

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.

Good. Now that we're done passing the blame torch, how about an actual, substantial reply to my argument?

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

Clear as in spoonfeeding everything to you ad-nauseum? Say, wasn't that a big problem many so-called critics had with Begins? That it doesn't think the audience is smart enough to figure things out on it's own?

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?

Tell me something - out of what you know of the film, what exactly are the reasons for Batman leaving Ra's to his fate in the end of Begins?

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

Just show me where, even a single goddamned instance where I've inserted an interpolation, something NOT shown or said in the film to back my interpretation of the film. If there isn't any, then how the hell does it make it make my "translation" of the film "personal" instead of "factual"?

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

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

I used that parellel as an example of how morality works in any given story or film. I'm sure there are many other similiar examples with similiar outcomes.

What part of my post that said "in very loose and circumstantial terms" didn't you understand?

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

Please. Either show me the errors in my argument or shut up.

Your arguments are debatable and I'm doing that.

I won't shut up because you got angry.

Yes, stick to avoiding addressing my points directly and making even more vague, meaningless statements. Your best goal so far.

I always replied to your points directly.

And with no name calling until you started.

 

[The Kid]

I simply said that pointless discussion over something that's already addressed in the film itself is...annoying. Never proposed to have you people castrated and your corpses paraded through the streets,so keep those useless "calm down"s to yourself.

Calm down. Just relax and in a non-condescending way explain what you want and maybe you'll get it. OK, babe? I won't pretend to know you or why it's bothersome to you that "Us people" want to talk about batman from our respective points of view, all I know is that it isn't pointless to me and well I have the right to discuss whatever I want unless a mod says otherwise.

No it isn't. It's clearly explained in the film that Wayne Tower was sitting right on top of the main hub and the microwave emitter would trigger the blowing up of the main hub which would consequently prove fatally catastrophic. It's exactly why the head engineer had everyone evacuate the building. Now consider this - if the main hub blowing up is such a disastrous outcome to Wayne Tower itself, what would you think would happen to the monorail when it's at the building at that very moment?

Like I said, I have an open mind and am willing to view that as a possibility. Although that doesn't defeat the fact, FACT I SAY, that batman's the reason the train will be destroyed. If we think abou tit, the microwave machine might have run out of power or any number of possibilities before entering the station. Hell, maybe it'd have had a delay time enough for the train to pass through the hub point before the building exploded... 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. 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

You're totally clueless, aren't you? The main plan was to stop Ra's from loading the microwave emitter on the train. What point is there for Batman to have Gordon blow up the tracks if Batman succeeds and the train never even reaches that point to begin with? Think.

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...

If you're still having trouble, let me lay it out for you as regards to what exactly happened:

Batman had Gordon destroy the tracks in case he fails Ra's from loading the train or stopping the train in it's tracks before it reaches Wayne Tower. That's exactly why he jumps on the train - heck, you even see him go for the controls...to STOP THE TRAIN and that's when Ra's butts in and jams them. Gordon destroying the tracks was Batman's contingency plan, his ace in the hole, his trump card that was guarenteed to succeed.

"But why would Batman bother with all the trouble of preventing Ra's from loading the microwave emitter and fighting him on the monorail and all that if he had already everything figured out", you ask? Well the answer is obvious - Batman's contingency plan was the most destructive option, which is why he used it as a backup plan and not the main strategy. Batman tries his level best to stop Ra's with the least amount of human and property damage as possible. If he had succeeded in preventing his former mentor from loading the train, the immediate threat to the city would have been neutralized then and there - no casualties, no damage.

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! ha ha I bet that stung.

Now Let's go watch star trek and kill some klingons instead. Pew Pew pew!

 

[Beelze]

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

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

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

... So, in the end, delivering a cool one-liner was the most heroic thing he could do.

If Bruce said "I won't kill you, but I can't save you" it would've left a lot of people wondering what he meant by "can't". If he gave a full explanation it would've been a bit too much talk in a situation like that. I know that "I don't have to" makes it seem like as if Batman could, but I don't see how he had the means. Perhaps he could've given Ra's some grapple gun. I'm not sure if Batman got it on the train though, or if he had more than one on him...

... Heh, well at least he didn't say, "I won't kill you, but I don't feel like saving you, nya-ha! "

 

[raybia]

Now Let's go watch star trek and kill some klingons instead. Pew Pew pew!

Wesyeed, who is that in your avatar?

 

[Nightwing92]

Now Let's go watch star trek and kill some klingons instead. Pew Pew pew!

HAHAHA... klingons.....

 

[Nightwing92]

Duplicate....

 

[raybia]

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

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

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

... So, in the end, delivering a cool one-liner was the most heroic thing he could do.

If Bruce said "I won't kill you, but I can't save you" it would've left a lot of people wondering what he meant by "can't". If he gave a full explanation it would've been a bit too much talk in a situation like that. I know that "I don't have to" makes it seem like as if Batman could, but I don't see how he had the means. Perhaps he could've given Ra's some grapple gun. I'm not sure if Batman got it on the train though, or if he had more than one on him...

... Heh, well at least he didn't say, "I won't kill you, but I don't feel like saving you, nya-ha! "

Yeah, I can imagine: I won't kill you, but I can't save you because of the design of my glider and the lack of equipment to properly !#$@$% BOOM BOOM CRASH!!! AGHHH! Ra's- I TOLD YOU TO BE AWARE OF YOUR SURROUNDINGS!

 

[The Kid]

Wesyeed, who is that in your avatar?

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

 

[raybia]

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

Wow, I didn't recognize the little Pimp.

Enjoy the limelight while you can kid!

Hey maybe he can be in the sequel to the Sixth Sense.

 

[The Kid]

Not only that. The Plan B for Batman meant that not only he was aware of this, but that - therefore - he HAD to have a plan for escaping the train himself in time. And therefore again, since he knew Ra's was on the train, he should have considered the certain possibility that - if he succeeded - Ra's was going to be in deep troubles. It was up to Batman to consider either to A) save him (if Plan B succeeded) or B) leaving him to his fate; will he die, will he survive, who knows, who cares.

Even so, if Batman would have considered the possibility of Ra's surviving, he would have been worried about finding his body (if Ra's survives then Gotham City is still in danger). None of this we see.

exactly. yeah i know.... to me it seems like too much thought was put into this entire plan for it to have been a rookie mistake... "I won't kill you. but I don't have to save you." Yes you do have to save him, not only because it's your personal belief, but to save yourself too. I'm not saying it absolutely wasn't a mistake but considering how dangerous ra's is to gotham's safety and to batman's plan to save it, to not give a thought to ra's being alive and planning another attack or even GASP exposing his identity, just seemed like too much of an oversight for this to simply be a mistake a rookie batman would make. He can't afford either of those things to happen so giving ra's a chance to be free is... well you get the idea.

Now that I think about it. It'd have been troublesome for batman to save ra's since ra's would just tell the police who batman was. whether they'd believe him or not, I can't say.

Maybe that's why he let ra's "die".

Oh goyer...

 

[The Kid]

Wow, I didn't recognize the little Pimp.

Enjoy the limelight while you can kid!

Hey maybe he can be in the sequel to the Sixth Sense.

or omen 2.