The Dark Knight Nolan Describes TDK Plot as 'Grim.'

[Ronny Shade]

It's not murder. That's not the point. Batman didn't murder anybody in Batman Begins.

But Batman wouldn't leave a man on the battlefield and he wouldn't leave a man on a doomed train unless he had no other choice. The dialogue made it very clear that he CHOSE not to save him.

 

[COMPO]

i have a question:

if batman beat up a criminal and found he was just doing it for his family. would he let him go or would he put him in jail.

 

[Ronny Shade]

There's an episode of New Adventures that details how when Dick and Bruce had the falling out and he left to become Nightwing. Watch it.

 

[COMPO]

Oh, yeah. I love that episode. but, i can't remember did he let him go.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Scared him straight and then Bruce Wayne gave him a job.

 

[Rynan]

If Ra's was saved, would he have gave up his genocidal ways and take a job at Wayne Industries too?

 

[COMPO]

that's not what we're saying?

But yeah. He might of. LOL.

 

[Katsuro]

He did have other choices. He could've done everything he did, except also save Ra's.

How? That's my question. How would Batman have gone about saving Ra's? I mean, this series is supposedly all about realism, so how would a real Batman have saved him in that situation. Maybe he had a can of Train-Brake-Repair-Bat-Spray on him? I mean, I honestly cant imagine Ra's holding on tight to Batman like some damsel in distress as he grappled out of the train to safety. "Hold on tight, Ra's" "Oh Batman! you're my hero!!!".

So please, detail how you would've done the fight differently starting from the moment Ra's jams the brakes on the train.

 

[Rynan]

I was going to say something about that most of the material with Ras al Ghul when his plan is thwarted, he either A.) Escapes or B.) Seemingly dies, but now that Katsuro issued this challenge, would rather see Shade's rewrite of the battle than talk about Ra's many fake deaths.

 

[Silver Souper]

How? That's my question. How would Batman have gone about saving Ra's? I mean, this series is supposedly all about realism, so how would a real Batman have saved him in that situation. Maybe he had a can of Train-Brake-Repair-Bat-Spray on him? I mean, I honestly cant imagine Ra's holding on tight to Batman like some damsel in distress as he grappled out of the train to safety. "Hold on tight, Ra's" "Oh Batman! you're my hero!!!".

So please, detail how you would've done the fight differently starting from the moment Ra's jams the brakes on the train.

i agree, but it would've been better having batman fly away without issuing his final line to ra's.

so was the weapon through the window meant as an escape method for ras by batman? that didn't translate well if so, i've never understood that.

 

[Crooklyn]

There's no need to rewrite anything. This wasn't a real-life situation, it's a movie, so they could've done anything they wanted with the scene if an alternative was planned.

Point is, the writers wanted to make Batman NOT choose to save Ra's. That's what the fans are questioning, why they'd want Batman to do that. This being a genesis prolly has a lot to do with it, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Nepenthes]

How? That's my question. How would Batman have gone about saving Ra's?

Picked him up, shot his line out the back of the train and jumped. His line would have held them both. Of course it's not totally *realistic* that he'd be able to snare something out there, but then hey what is.

Although I would've preferred that Batman *tried* to save Ra's and failed.



I think people should remember Crooklyns point here ^ when discussing this. It's not whether 'Batman' should or would've left him there, but why did the writers do this? I think it was a) to kill the villain and b) I honestly don't know. Something about Bruce not listening to Ra's anymore? Bruce cares abou this city? Bah.

Would've habe been better to show that Bruce STILL dosn't give a ***** about Ra's philosophy. 'Have you finally learnt to do what's neccersarry?' yeah I can save you, cos I don't give up on lost causes like you do.

If this scene comes up in later movies it'll make more sense, for the whole genesis thing. But then I honestly think it won't. It wasn't meant to show 'Batman screwing up', it was a just a clean resolution for most audiences. To revisit it is to go off on a whole other tangent in the middle of another story. The cop crushing car chase would be a better occaision to highlight his inexperience. A simple line like 'I don't want a repeat of last time' would do it.

 

[The Batman]

I think Nolan's following the Batman movie tradition of basing the atmosphere of the story to fit a specific of Batman's career in the comics. It's what every major Batman film has done thus far. I mean, think about it:

Batman - 1930's era Batman (He used machine guns, killed criminals, and was more of a grim creature of the night)

Batman Returns - 40's era Batman (This Batman was pretty much the same, except for that it began to go 'out there' in some respects.)

Batman Forever - 50's era Batman (The first real era where Batman did outrageous things, like visit Mars and turn into Giant Apes. While this Batman didn't do that, the sets and the situations speak for themselves)

Batman & Robin - 60's era Batman (Batman and Robin being public figures, over the top villains and situations, ect... Need I say more?)

Batman Begins - 70's era Batman (The era where Batman regained his darker roots, Began journeying outside of Gotham City, and acknowledging a real world outside of Gotham. Also where Ra's Al Ghul first appeared)

So... that said... it's possible TDK will be in line with the 80's era of Batman. Which is damned good, as far as I'm concerned, considering the 80's brought us Year One, The Dark Knight Returns, and The Killing Joke, aswell as the first journeying into Bruce's psychosis.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if TDK was intentionally darker, and Batman was a little meaner in this one. That combined with the characterisations of The Joker by both Alan Moore and Frank Miller of that era is getting me pumped for this, provided my theory is true. (Which I think is in part of Micheal Ulsan producing these films. He's the one that first brought this to my attention in interviews on the B89 special featurettes.)

As long as they dont make wayne the 1 dimnensional ******* he was in the comics....

 

[ultimatefan]

It's not murder. That's not the point. Batman didn't murder anybody in Batman Begins.

But Batman wouldn't leave a man on the battlefield and he wouldn't leave a man on a doomed train unless he had no other choice. The dialogue made it very clear that he CHOSE not to save him.

He had a level of personal issue with Ra´s he usually doesn´t have with his enemies. Plus the dialogue didn´t say he CHOSE not to save him. He said "I don´t HAVE to save you" because his own safety was in danger too and Ra´s represented an extra risk or even impossiblity of saving himself. Plus I don´t mind Batman doing something morally ambiguous, he has had morally ambiguous moments in comics. It make the character more interesting to me, it´s part of his appeal, the contrast of light and dark. You want a hero who never does anything remotely questionable, stick with Superman.

 

[Eros]

He had a level of personal issue with Ra´s he usually doesn´t have with his enemies. Plus the dialogue didn´t say he CHOSE not to save him. He said "I don´t HAVE to save you" because his own safety was in danger too and Ra´s represented an extra risk or even impossiblity of saving himself. Plus I don´t mind Batman doing something morally ambiguous, he has had morally ambiguous moments in comics. It make the character more interesting to me, it´s part of his appeal, the contrast of light and dark. You want a hero who never does anything remotely questionable, stick with Superman.

so i guess he will be leaving joker to die in a burning bulding in the sequel.

Batman-"I dun have to save you Joker."

Joker- "HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA...why not Bats?"

Batman- "Because im Morally ambigous"

 

[Rynan]

so i guess he will be leaving joker to die in a burning bulding in the sequel.

Harvey and Gordon won't let him. Ra's was killed, but since that didn't bring anyone to trail or subdue the fears of the people, an exception must be made with The Joker. He has to be brought in and made an example of.

 

[ultimatefan]

so i guess he will be leaving joker to die in a burning bulding in the sequel.

Batman-"I dun have to save you Joker."

Joker- "HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA...why not Bats?"

Batman- "Because im Morally ambigous"

How many times has Batman been on the edge of killing Joker in comics? A ton. If Batman was the boy scout you people try to make him look like, in Hush he´d have given him a quick punch to knock him out and handed him to the authorities, instead he beat him almost to a bloody pulp. Not to mention when he almost snapped his spine in DKR, etc. If you think there´s nothing morally ambiguous about Batman, you need to read your entire collection again.

 

[COMPO]

Picked him up, shot his line out the back of the train and jumped. His line would have held them both. Of course it's not totally *realistic* that he'd be able to snare something out there, but then hey what is.

Although I would've preferred that Batman *tried* to save Ra's and failed.

Actually, when Batman threw the batarang at the window i think what he meant was "I won't save you. You can save yourself".

But, i also think that in Batman's view Ra's was already dead. You know, the man he knew was dead.

 

[WeaponXProject]

How many times has Batman been on the edge of killing Joker in comics? A ton. If Batman was the boy scout you people try to make him look like, in Hush he´d have given him a quick punch to knock him out and handed him to the authorities, instead he beat him almost to a bloody pulp. Not to mention when he almost snapped his spine in DKR, etc. If you think there´s nothing morally ambiguous about Batman, you need to read your entire collection again.

Good point. Batty's no happy go-lucky-goody-two-shoes Cyclops or anything. That's more Superman than anyone else. I would not be surprised at all if Batman kills the Jokster.

 

[El Payaso]

Good point. Batty's no happy go-lucky-goody-two-shoes Cyclops or anything. That's more Superman than anyone else. I would not be surprised at all if Batman kills the Jokster.

^ I wasn't surprised at all when he went too far in that sense back in the previous franchise for a starter.

 

[raybia]

so i guess he will be leaving joker to die in a burning bulding in the sequel.

Batman-"I dun have to save you Joker."

Joker- "HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA...why not Bats?"

Batman- "Because im Morally ambigous"

Exactly!! However that dialogue sucks.

 

[ultimatefan]

Exactly!! However that dialogue sucks.

It´s not funny and it´s not true. It surprises me that anyone who ever read Batman comics is bothered by the notion that he isn´t a total boy scout.

 

[ultimatefan]

^ I wasn't surprised at all when he went too far in that sense back in the previous franchise for a starter.

There´s a difference between being ambiguous and going too far. The character is more interesting being ambiguous than going all the Punisher way, IMO.

 

[Fenrir]

He had a level of personal issue with Ra´s he usually doesn´t have with his enemies. Plus the dialogue didn´t say he CHOSE not to save him. He said "I don´t HAVE to save you" because his own safety was in danger too and Ra´s represented an extra risk or even impossiblity of saving himself. Plus I don´t mind Batman doing something morally ambiguous, he has had morally ambiguous moments in comics. It make the character more interesting to me, it´s part of his appeal, the contrast of light and dark. You want a hero who never does anything remotely questionable, stick with Superman.

Not to mention the fact that in Hush, Batman would have very well killed the Joker if Gordon hadn't arrived on the scene and talked some sense into him. He had already made up his mind to end it then and there. Otherwise, the whole ordeal was about Batman counting the number of ways in which he can kill the Joker, contemplating only on what would be the most painful and deserving end to the clown prince of crime.

 

[Ronny Shade]

He had a level of personal issue with Ra´s he usually doesn´t have with his enemies. Plus the dialogue didn´t say he CHOSE not to save him. He said "I don´t HAVE to save you" because his own safety was in danger too and Ra´s represented an extra risk or even impossiblity of saving himself. Plus I don´t mind Batman doing something morally ambiguous, he has had morally ambiguous moments in comics. It make the character more interesting to me, it´s part of his appeal, the contrast of light and dark. You want a hero who never does anything remotely questionable, stick with Superman.

If you didn't read that line as Batman choosing not to save Ra's, I'm gonna go ahead and say you read it wrong. It was very straightforward.