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

[iceberg325]

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

Who did he kill in Batman Begins???

 

[Phaser]

Hahaha.

Phaser is right in whatever he wrote.

It's nice to see people on these forums still resorting to the age-old trick of derivative, idiotic and essentially worthless "comebacks" instead of providing a concise, relevant reply or respectfully concede the argument. Nice work, chump.

 

[Phaser]

Here's what I think:

And it's strange, much of the movie stresses the importance of the "will to act," yet Batman defeats his enemy by not acting at all, choosing to leave Ra's to his fate. By comparison, Batman is following in the footsteps of his father by not choosing to act.

Bruce did act. When the monastery was tearing itself apart. And it was exactly his "will to act" that put Gotham in peril near the end of the film. Practically speaking, Ra's actions proved that he was someone who didn't deserve to be saved in the first place, yet Bruce upheld his duty and did it anyway. I see no obligation on Bruce's part to do it again.

But whereas Thomas Wayne didn't accomplish anything in the way of justice, Batman saved Gotham City from destruction. Of course, in a way, Batman's decision could display both a will to act and not act simultaneously.

Exactly.

I suppose placing Batman's words into the greater context of the film justifies his actions (or lack thereof), but I still don't think it is in keeping with Batman's strict codes of conduct and morality; it's a very ambiguous event, at least.

Thank God there's at least one person who understands this. Else, this place is rife with judgemental, juvenile jurists who are ready to crucify everything and everyone in their sights with their ignorant B&W standards.

But I'm talking about Batman in general, which may not be applicable to Nolan's Batman.

Ditto.

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

I've already stated earlier how I find that particular element of the Batman mythos downright absurd. Thank heavens for writers like Azzarello and Loeb who correctly put this irrational ideology to an acid-test with emotionally extreme situations that clearly put it's validity to question and doubt.

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

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

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

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

I believe taking into context all that was said, done and implied in the film, it was a perfectly justifiable action. Sure, it directly contradicts a very well known creed of the character from the comics, but then again, I couldn't care less about that particular fact.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Again.........Batman, he did NOT kill. Jeez. They're saying the same thing about Superman, over at his boards too.....

 

[xxshady]

Who cares if Batman kills if hes ridding the city of the corrupt?

What are you like criminal activists *rolls eyes*

 

[iceberg325]

Who cares if Batman kills if hes ridding the city of the corrupt?

What are you like criminal activists *rolls eyes*

Well hes a hero, he shouldnt kill. The thing is, he didnt kill in BB. I dont know where people get that impression from.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

Again.........Batman, he did NOT kill. Jeez. They're saying the same thing about Superman, over at his boards too.....

He made a decision to NOT prevent death. Whether or not that means he killed him or not depends on your specific understanding of morality. Then again, Batman knew that Ra's had the ability to escape. It's an ambiguous event.

Regardless of the ambiguity, though, I cannot help but feel that it's out of character.

 

[iceberg325]

He made a decision to NOT prevent death. Whether or not that means he killed him or not depends on your specific understanding of morality. Then again, Batman knew that Ra's had the ability to escape. It's an ambiguous event.

Regardless of the ambiguity, though, I cannot help but feel that it's out of character.

You have to look deeper into the character. Look behind the mask, and figure out, given the situation, would bruce question his own morality? I think thats exactly what he did, and IMO he made the right decision.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

You have to look deeper into the character. Look behind the mask, and figure out, given the situation, would bruce question his own morality? I think thats exactly what he did, and IMO he made the right decision.

Interestingly enough, my vision of Batman is one that views Batman as the truth of the man. The man behind the physical mask is also Batman. He is Batman.

Anyway, I think it boils down to whether or not he administered justice himself or brought the criminal to justice. And I think he should have done the latter.

 

[iceberg325]

Interestingly enough, my vision of Batman is one that views Batman as the truth of the man. The man behind the physical mask is also Batman. He is Batman.

Anyway, I think it boils down to whether or not he administered justice himself or brought the criminal to justice. And I think he should have done the latter.

Yeah he is Batman. But Like I said in earlier posts, he is still human. He can contradict himself. He can make mistakes, if thats what you want to call it.

 

[TheGrayGhost]

"It can't be personal. Otherwise, you're just a vigilante."

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It wasnt personal with Ra's, Bruce/Batman just made a choice between the safety of Gotham, or Ra's life and he made the right choice IMO.

 

[iceberg325]

It wasnt personal with Ra's, Bruce/Batman just made a choice between the safety of Gotham, or Ra's life and he made the right choice IMO.

Exactly!!!

 

[Galactical]

Is it batman's duty to save those in danger indiscriminantly?

 

[darknight7]

In my oponion, it was awesome. A lot is being said about indirect murder. But Batman had to act. If he took that extra second to try and save Ra's, it could have been the end of them both, because Ra's may have fought back. That is one way you can look at it, so his WILL TO ACT was perfect. He knew that Ra's could save himself if he had to (he is a friggin ninja...he TRAINED BATMAN). So Batman knew, either I save myself, or we both go down, he can do whatever the hell he wants. He didn't NOT ACT, he actually did the oposite. He knew what he had to do, and he acted, no hesitation. It was properly done, he did not murder him, he just let him die (and yes Batman doesn't do that, but sometimes he does get pushed over the edge...he is still human, and deals with inner demons).
PLUS: Ra's burnt down the mansion...what an *******...lol

--dk7

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

How could he have brought Ra's to justice? There was no way he could...

 

[raybia]

May I also add that the way the novice Batman responded to this situation is not neccessarily the way the seasoned Batman would respond.

Regardless, it was not murder and he's the Dark Knight, not a Boy Scout.

 

[xxshady]

Lol seriously

1) He hasnt seasoned into the fully established and grown Batman figure that we know

2) He can do whatever he wants

3) If hes ridding the city of the corrupt.. hey.. thats good

4) If he tried to helped Ra's he wouldve died

5) BALE DAMMIT!!!

 

[Galactical]

May I also add that the way the novice Batman responded to this situation is not neccessarily the way the seasoned Batman would respond.

Regardless, it was not murder and he's the Dark Knight, not a Boy Scout.

You can say that but of course we know the truth of it all.

Didn't ra's and his gang know who bruce really was? (why don't some of his ninja gang tell the press?) I believe ra's was allowed to die to solve that little issue of him knowing bruce's secret. It's like how anyone who figures out superman is clark is usually dead by the end of the show. still, ra's ninja goons know everything about bruce anyway. Batman ought to deal with that in the future.

 

[Eros]

comic book Batman would of saved Ra's, and hell the late 90s Batman would of done so. Batman not suppose to be their judge, hes suppose to bring them to justice. How many time has batman saved Joker, even though he could of let him die, or killed him. Letting someone[no matter wo] just die on a train is not what Batman from any decade would do. Thats just one of many downfalls with Batman Begins, let nots get started on the bad fight scene and etc.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Eros, if you think BB has a lot of flaws, you need to watch more movies, he never killed Ra's, if he had left him on the train wounded or knocked out then yes i would say he killed him. Ra's was a ninja for god knows how years more than Bruce, i think he was more than capable of saving himself.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Eros, if you think BB has a lot of flaws, you need to watch more movies, he never killed Ra's, if he had left him on the train wounded or knocked out then yes i would say he killed him. Ra's was a ninja for god knows how years more than Bruce, i think he was more than capable of saving himself.

 

[El Payaso]

It's nice to see people on these forums still resorting to the age-old trick of derivative, idiotic and essentially worthless "comebacks" instead of providing a concise, relevant reply or respectfully concede the argument. Nice work, chump.

Only poorer thing than a bad loser is a bad winner.

Then, there's Phaser. "Convince them or bore them."

 

[Phaser]

Only poorer thing than a bad loser is a bad winner.

Then, there's Phaser. "Convince them or bore them."

The irony of a spineless wretch like you who is simply too incompetent to give an objective reply to arguments in a debate, calling his oppenent a "bad winner" is simply astounding.

I wonder what pretentious, half-wit smartass remark will you retort with next...

 

[Beelze]

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.

Honestly, there was no way Ra's could've survived. You can't just jump out of a train like that, or pull out a grappling gun from nowhere and just fly away. Especially not when you're closing your eyes and seemingly just accepting your fate. We as an audience, or batfans rather, keep thinking that Ra's is alive because we know his character and background. We suspect the possibility of him being able to pull the craziest ninja move and escape from certain doom, or even the possibility of a lazarus pit bringing him back to life. Now, Batman saw a man with little-to-none equipment crash down into a parking garage whereafter an explosion consumed most of that man's body. And who are we to say that Batman didn't check out the wreck afterwards? Sure, the movie fast-forwards, but it's not like the first thing Batman did was to drop down next to Jim and saying, "who's for chinese?", whereafter they both walked, arm-in-arm, towards the setting sun.