The Dark Knight Rises Joseph Gordon-Levitt as John Blake VI

Yes, he did kill him. He knew Ra's was in the train, and he made a premeditated action, by telling Gordon to blow the tracks. Knowing that he had the equipment to get out himself, and knowing full well that the tracks would be blown, he himself caused the very fate for Ra's. Maybe if Gordon blew the tracks on his own accord, without being consulted by Batman, maybe I could see it that way, but seeing as it was all Batman's idea, I can't see it any other way. He lead him into a trap he knew he wouldn't be able to get out of.

Just because he says the 'magic' words of "I'm not going to kill you, but I don't have to save you", doesn't deny the fact that it was a premeditated trap for Ra's.

 

I recently growled "I'm not going to eat you...I'm just not going to leave you uneaten", before helping myself to a cold sausage from the fridge.

Not my fault, y'r honour!

 

Batman didn't lay a trap for him. Ra's did all the work. Ra's went over and stabbed the controls to the train.

 

Yes, Ra's did, but it was never Batman's idea to stop the train. He even said that.

 

Surely it's the equivilent of a main bad guy saying "Anyone comes through these doors. Shoot them" to a henchman before walking off. Who's fault is it if someone does die? The henchman for killing them or the main bad guy for giving the order? The main bad guy doesn't know if anyone would come through the door in the first place. It's just a precaution. You'd still blame the main bad guy for giving the order though right if something does happen?

Much like Batman in BB. He doesn't know that Ra's has stopped the train's controls. But he still tells Gordon to blow up the monorail just in case.

 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Daniel Craig and Seth MacFarlane to Host SNL

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/tvnews.php?id=94190

 

You're still denying the fact that Batman clearly said he never meant to stop the train, and adding to the fact that he told Gordon to blow the tracks, it comes down to it being premeditated. You're the one adding plot points that never happened in the film, just to make it so that Batman never killed anybody. He never said "just in case the train wont stop, blow the tracks". All it shows is that he told Gordon to blow the tracks with The Tumbler, and then he clearly told Ra's that he never meant to stop the train, hence, crashing it with Ra's inside, while he has the equipment to get out.

 

I know they'll be doing it separately, but if they had them all on at once, that would be the most watched thing ever.

 

I'm agreeing with you. I think Batman did (in a very roundabout way) did kill Ra's. It was his actions/orders that led to Ra's death.

I, however don't remember Batman "clearly" saying he was never gonna stop the train I think he initially went there to stop the train but wasn't really fussed as he had plans either way so when Ra's smashed it up he was just like "meh who said anything about stopping it. bye."

Batman's quote to Gordon in BB is -

which to me comes across as "I need you to blow the bridge in case I fail".

...I didn't.

 

I really don't want Levitt as Batman. I think his acting chops could pull it off no doubt. It sucks that the first Justice league movie won't have Wayne in it, but John friggin blake. This is just terrible. I'm pretty sure he'll be in Justice League movie. They love Nolan too much over there at WB.

 

"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you... although... you know I could technically save you, but I don't want to... I want to kill you."

 

1. He didn't actually DO the actions that caused Ra's to die, though. Gordon did. This isn't a military hearing where its Batman's fault for giving Gordon an idea. This is real life, where people have to make moral choices despite the options other people provide them.

2. It wasn’t a trap for Ra’s. It wasn’t about killing Ra’s Al Ghul at all. It was about preventing the train from reaching Wayne Station to save Gotham City. Period.

If you really think Batman just flat out killed Ra's by telling Gordon to do something in case he failed to stop the train, then I don’t think you understand cause and effect. At least in context.

Because if you don’t physically act to kill someone yourself, then you aren’t the one who killed that person.

Now, if you set up a plan to kill that person, or a plan you set up results in that person’s death, did your actions indirectly lead to that person’s death? Possibly. Lots of things can indirectly lead to other things. You want to have that philosophical discussion, we can. But for you to honestly look at the scene in context and say “Batman directly killed Ra’s” is inaccurate.

That’s not what Batman said at all. Look at the scene in context. He said “Who said anything about stopping it”? And why did Batman say that? What was the context of the words in the scene?

He said it in response to Ra’s saying “That’s why you can’t stop this train”. While Batman was getting choked to death.

When Batman says “Who said anything about stopping it”, he’s basically grasping at straws to survive, acknowledging that he knows the train can't be stopped and using that to surprise Ra's with his calm over that fact, simultaneously implying that he has an ace up his sleeve to throw Ra's further. He’s saying that because he’s trying to distract Ra’s, so Ra's will look up and see the towers collapsing and remove his attention from Bruce for that split second. Because otherwise, he’s going to die at Ra’s Al Ghul’s hands.

It’s a ploy to distract Ra's and gain the upper hand, not an admission or a statement of “My plan all along was to derail this train”. Before the event, he clearly says to Gordon "I may need your help". Derailing the train was a backup plan.

 

It doesn't matter because Batman didn't kill Ra's. He was somewhat responsible for his death in that he could have saved him but chose not to. What killed him was the train though. The train Ra's decided to break all controls for... because... hello! Suicide mission anyway.

 

So anytime someone makes up a trap, and that person doesn't actually physically kill someone, they aren't to blame for the killing? So now Gordon killed Ra's? Right...

Of course it was to stop the train from reaching the tower, but seing as he knew the train wouldn't reach the end of the tracks, he knew the demise of Ra's in the train the second he was on. Thinking otherwise is crazy to even think about.

He never said "just in case I can't stop the train, blow the tracks". That was NEVER implied at all. Where can you show me that it was the setup to the plan?

This isn't the same as tackling Two Face off a ledge. THAT is cause and effect. He didn't know he was going to kill Two Face, but at the same time, he had to save the kid. On the other hand with Ra's, he knew he was dead the second he told Gordon to blow the tracks. He wasn't trying to stop the train, other than derailing it from its tracks. Even the script spells that out clearly.

Ohhhh, so the "underlying context" of it all says something different that what he's actually saying? Kinda like you making up plot points that were never implied in the movie? Gotcha....

He clearly said "who said anything about stopping it", which clearly implies, regardless of the situation, that he was never going to stop it. He could have said anything like "I blew the tracks" if he wanted to 'distract' him. Did it work as a distraction? Sure, but he still told us the truth in that sentence.

So the "context" of the line "I may need your help" actually means "backup plan"?

You know what would have worked the best? Bruce calling up the company and going "hey, I'm Bruce Wayne, I own part of the monorail, why don't you shut off power to the tracks please".

 

If Ra's hadn't jammed the controls, I do believe Bruce would have attempted to stop the train. Once he did jam the controls, Bruce's priority rightfully shifts to getting himself off the the train...regardless of whether Gordon was successful in shooting down the rails. It's a matter of self-preservation at that point.

Now, I understand that in the comics Batman values human life so much that he'd even save a villain on a suicide mission. This was a beginner Batman though, and he'd already saved the man's life once before and it had come back to haunt him.

So, was it consistent with comics Batman? No.
Was it a moral grey area? Yes.
Was it murder? No. IMO

For all we know, Ra's would have downed a poison capsule if Batman had saved his life again, before letting himself be given over to the authorities. The comics Ra's sure would have (I know that's an entirely different scenario, but still). In fact, Ra's could have tried to escape, as that was the point of Batman breaking the windows. The guy is depicted in the film as a world-class ninja, after all. Instead he calmly embraces his death.

 

I agree that Batman can be blamed for Ra's death. However Gordon blowing the bridge was his back up plan IMO. He simply said "I may need your help". Not "I need your help blow up the bridge" or "Stay here I can do this" to me the "may" means do this incase I can't stop this train.

Batman didn't know Ra's would damage the controls. In my opinion he was initially gonna go there and save Ra's but as soon as Ra's did damage to the controls Batman just went "well your fault now". However that doesn't mean Ra's killed himself. I think it is half and half.

 

We wouldn't have gotten the pay off of TDKR if he had saved him... for the second time. So I'm good with it lol

 

Yes. And yes, though Ra's wouldn't have died if he hadn't damaged the controls. And yes, that's right.

No, because Batman was initially trying to stop the train short of the tower in the first place, which likely would have led to the train stopping short of where the tracks were blown out. So the train would not have derailed if he was successful in slowing/stopping it in time.

He didn't need to say it. The film shows that this was the plan. I don't need to show you that this was how it was setup. It's not my job to do this its the films. And the film does show this. Batman initially tries to stop the train, and before he does, he very clearly says to Gordon "I may need your help".

Cause and effect is found everywhere, not in select occurrences of things happening. I'm not going to argue this ridiculous "He didn't know he was going to kill Harvey" nonsense again. A rational person understands that when one tackles someone off an upper story ledge that one can seriously injure or kill that person.

No, he didn't know that Ra's was as good as dead all along...Ra's was only likey going to die if Batman couldn't stop the train. Batman didn't know he couldn't stop the train before he tried to do so.

The script doesn't prove anything. For one thing, the script that most people have read is an earlier draft of the film where the final action sequence was pared down and changed to reduce budget/stunts/effects needed, and not the shooting draft. I'm not sure what the shooting draft has in it in these moments. It ultimately doesn't matter, because the script is not the final film. The film can speak for what is in the film, and nothing else.

Nooooo, the underlying context adds meaning to what he's saying. This is part of how film and literature works.

Lose the sarcasm. Its rude, and its juvenile, and it makes you look desperate.

Yes, he told the truth. Because at that moment, he was no longer trying to stop the train. But he never says anything that can be taken to mean "I never meant to stop the train". Ra's didn't say "That's why you couldn't stop this train". He said "That's why you can't stop this train".

And Batman's actions show that he meant to stop the train.

Batman obviously says a bit more to Gordon to plan their move than "Can you drive stick?" We just don't see it because it would lessen the drama to know their plan before it was unveiled onscreen.

The first thing Batman does, the first time he gains the upper hand in the fight against Ra's is to move toward the train controls of the already speeding train. What's he going to do, press the "derail from tracks" button? No. He's trying to stop the train. Ra's figures that out, assaults him and uses his blade to destroy them so Batman can't stop the train.

Nevermind that if all Batman wanted was to derail the train the whole time, and that was his whole plan, then why did Batman even GO ABOARD the train in the first place, since he and The Tumbler could have just blown the tracks from the safety of below?

 

Jesus Christ, I completely disagree. He killed him: End of story.

 

lol.

 

"But if I did save you, I realize that you will see this as weakness on my behalf and come back from prison because I left you alive."

Saving Ra's al Ghul would only make things go round and round and round as Ra's sees this as weakness in Bruce Wayne. Ra's is different than Joker in the fact that Ra's wants to die in a battle and not be left alive or he will keeping back back until he dies in battle whereas Joker knows he'll never die because even when he tries to corrupt any system he will be caught and locked up. That's why in Arkham City, Joker only dies because of his own machinations.

 

"That's why it's so important, it separates us from them."

I see the whole scenario as a kind of Saw like trap. Bruce is essence built a trap door and tied a noose around Ra's' neck, and Gordon was asked to pull a lever, and that is what makes him fall through and die.

 

Hey Joe is hosting SNL on September 22. Look forward to some TDKR parodies.