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

[raybia]

Nolan is not trying to fit his movies into any era. Why would he do that? He's doing his own thing.

Brothers Grimm, Damon? Um yeah sure. You guys been sniffin glue.

Jason Bourne and Bruce Wayne? Together in one movie?! Heaven help us!

 

[Cosmic]

Grim works for me. It sounds like they know what they're doing.

I don't really get why this is a topic of so much debate. It's not even a question of ambiguity. CLEARLY, Nolan & Goyer wanted Bats to leave Ra's there. Or else they wouldn't have written it in!

And I won't doubt that in a way, Bats did have a hand in Ra's "dying". It's the equivalent of just standing there on the poolside, while watching another person drown.

The analogy doesn't fit. Batman didn't just stand there and watch Ra's die slowly. The problem is that some people are misinterpreting the scene.

 

[Crooklyn]

The analogy doesn't fit. Batman didn't just stand there and watch Ra's die slowly.

Ok, let me rephrase. It's the same as seeing a person fall into the water and splashing around, then going "meh"....and walking away.

Better?

The problem is that some people are misinterpreting the scene.

Explain.

 

[Cosmic]

Ok, let me rephrase. It's the same as seeing a person fall into the water and splashing around, then going "meh"....and walking away.

Better?

No, it isn't. They were both in a position to die. Ra's was responsible for the situation. Batman saved himself from imminent death. Your comparison is false.

Explain.

Just like you say, they're not trying to be ambiguous. If anything, they've spelled out the meaning of the scene to us with Batman's last line to Ra's. There's no need to dig any deeper than that. Batman didn't kill Ra's.

 

[Crooklyn]

No, it isn't. They were both in a position to die. Ra's was responsible for the situation. Batman saved himself from imminent death. Your comparison is false.

Yes, they were both in danger...but c'mon. Batman knew his ass was safe with that cape of his. It's not like it was a case of HAVING to leave immediately, clearly the time was there. They shared a little chat for god's sake.

Just like you say, they're not trying to be ambiguous. If anything, they've spelled out the meaning of the scene to us with Batman's last line to Ra's. There's no need to dig any deeper than that. Batman didn't kill Ra's.

As I said before, he didn't directly kill him, but he had a hand in his death, I don't see how that can be argued. "I don't have to save you" clearly implies "I have the means of rescuing you, but because of your actions...I'll leave you here". He LET him die.

 

[Darkest Knight]

Letting someone die, is killing them? Especially self inflicted death? Ra's blew up the controls to the monorail. Batman wanted to save both of them, by shutting it down.

 

[Cosmic]

Yes, they were both in danger...but c'mon. Batman knew his ass was safe with that cape of his. It's not like it was a case of HAVING to leave immediately, clearly the time was there. They shared a little chat for god's sake.

Well, he had enough time to explain to the audience, in the simplest terms possible, how his decision in no way violates his code, which was established by earlier scenes in the movie. I don't know what else you wanted to see him do, here.

As I said before, he didn't directly kill him, but he had a hand in his death, I don't see how that can be argued. "I don't have to save you" clearly implies "I have the means of rescuing you, but because of your actions...I'll leave you here". He LET him die.

And? You make it sound as if Ra's is some helpless victim, crying out for mercy. Ra's dug his own grave. And besides, Bruce already rescued Ra's once, and just look where that got him!

 

[Rynan]

And? You make it sound as if Ra's is some helpless victim, crying out for mercy. Ra's dug his own grave. And besides, Bruce already rescued Ra's once, and just look where that got him!

Good point. Let him save himself from his own burning house.

 

[StorminNorman]

While I don't have a huge problem with Bruce not saving Ra's - and I certainly don't consider it murder - I would of prefered him to save him.

Hopefully this (as well as his reckless handeling of Police Men during the Tumble chase scene) show the immaturity of this Batman and we will see him change as we continue through this series.

I think it could make for a good story though if his letting Ra's die really haunts him, causing him a good amount of guilt and personal pain - only for Ra's to rise again.

 

[Crooklyn]

Well, he had enough time to explain to the audience, in the simplest terms possible, how his decision in no way violates his code, which was established by earlier scenes in the movie. I don't know what else you wanted to see him do, here.

His code is "no killing". Technically, he's followed it. But looking at it from another viewpoint, he is playing god by choosing who lives and who dies.

And I'm not expecting him to do anything. As I already said, I had no problem with it, as it can be used in the future as a way of showing Bruce's grief. I'm merely arguing the fact that Batman didn't exactly make a morally good choice either, which leads to...

And? You make it sound as if Ra's is some helpless victim, crying out for mercy. Ra's dug his own grave. And besides, Bruce already rescued Ra's once, and just look where that got him!

That's sorta missing the point. In the comics, anyway, no matter how bad the villain is, Batman will never resort to any means of killing them, even indirectly. It's his choice to bring them down and give 'em off to the authorities. He doesn't play judge & executioner.

But as I say once more, not choosing to do this can make for great conflict in the future.

 

[Darkest Knight]

Batman didn't play 'judge, jury amd executioner'... he washed his hands of the situation. Your comment is insuating Batman deliberetly killed someone. ALA B89 when he drops Napier into the acid, or when he fires missles at the joker, or when he literally punches him off a sky scraper. Or in Returns where he knowingly straps a bomb to a man, and lets him blow to pieces. THAT's killing someone. THAT is being 'judge, jury, and executioner'. He gave Ra's enough chances. Not to mention, we truly don't know if he lived or died. I mean, does Batman really need to save the man that virtually taught HIM everything he knows. If anything, Ra's is more than capable of saving himself. Instead, he rode the train to it's firey pit. Not Batman's fault. And it wasn't Bruce killing someone. Look up the definition of the words "kill" and "murder".

To the point about the cops... NO ONE was killed. They clearly state this. Ontop of that, Batman has been much more brutal to police officers than running and hitting their cars, or blowing their tires out. Batman in Year One alone, maimed several police officers, by hand (without the protection of thousands of pounds of steel to protect them).

All of this is what makes Batman badass. The fact that he wouldn't just avoid the cops. If he had to, he'd get dirty with them. He can't even let police officers jeapordize his mission. That's enthralling characterization and drama. Plus I mean, I think it is known Batman doesn't kill the Joker in TDK. So his morals remain true to the comics. And I'm positive Joker will be executing more heanous, personal, and disturbing crimes than Ra's commited.

 

[Rynan]

Hopefully this (as well as his reckless handeling of Police Men during the Tumble chase scene) show the immaturity of this Batman and we will see him change as we continue through this series.

Hey, with the tumbler chase scene, he had to assume on some things. Racheal NEEDED the antitoxin he had in the bat cave, she couldn't be saved without it. Not to mention he HAD to lose the cops, or not only will Racheal die, he would be exposed, leaving Gotham easy pickings for Ra's. It was delicate situation, one that needed rash action to succeed. Batman couldn't take the time to schuttle around with the cops, he needed them off his tail, NOW, so he could save Racheal. This is why he handled the police in such a manor.

I think it could make for a good story though if his letting Ra's die really haunts him, causing him a good amount of guilt and personal pain - only for Ra's to rise again.

I wonder if he had any guilt about "indirectly killing" fake Ra's...

 

[Eros]

Batman didn't play 'judge, jury amd executioner'... he washed his hands of the situation. Your comment is insuating Batman deliberetly killed someone. ALA B89 when he drops Napier into the acid, or when he fires missles at the joker, or when he literally punches him off a sky scraper. Or in Returns where he knowingly straps a bomb to a man, and lets him blow to pieces. THAT's killing someone. THAT is being 'judge, jury, and executioner'. He gave Ra's enough chances. Not to mention, we truly don't know if he lived or died. I mean, does Batman really need to save the man that virtually taught HIM everything he knows. If anything, Ra's is more than capable of saving himself. Instead, he rode the train to it's firey pit. Not Batman's fault. And it wasn't Bruce killing someone. Look up the definition of the words "kill" and "murder".

To the point about the cops... NO ONE was killed. They clearly state this. Ontop of that, Batman has been much more brutal to police officers than running and hitting their cars, or blowing their tires out. Batman in Year One alone, maimed several police officers, by hand (without the protection of thousands of pounds of steel to protect them).

All of this is what makes Batman badass. The fact that he wouldn't just avoid the cops. If he had to, he'd get dirty with them. He can't even let police officers jeapordize his mission. That's enthralling characterization and drama. Plus I mean, I think it is known Batman doesn't kill the Joker in TDK. So his morals remain true to the comics. And I'm positive Joker will be executing more heanous, personal, and disturbing crimes than Ra's commited.

well since TDK is gonna be more grim, maybe Bats will do to Joker as he did to Ra's, leave him in a impposible to escape situation, and then glide off to safety.

 

[Cosmic]

Batman didn't play 'judge, jury amd executioner'... he washed his hands of the situation. Your comment is insuating Batman deliberetly killed someone. ALA B89 when he drops Napier into the acid, or when he fires missles at the joker, or when he literally punches him off a sky scraper. Or in Returns where he knowingly straps a bomb to a man, and lets him blow to pieces. THAT's killing someone. THAT is being 'judge, jury, and executioner'. He gave Ra's enough chances. Not to mention, we truly don't know if he lived or died. I mean, does Batman really need to save the man that virtually taught HIM everything he knows. If anything, Ra's is more than capable of saving himself. Instead, he rode the train to it's firey pit. Not Batman's fault. And it wasn't Bruce killing someone. Look up the definition of the words "kill" and "murder".

Exactly. ^


Quote:
And? You make it sound as if Ra's is some helpless victim, crying out for mercy. Ra's dug his own grave. And besides, Bruce already rescued Ra's once, and just look where that got him!

That's sorta missing the point. In the comics, anyway, no matter how bad the villain is, Batman will never resort to any means of killing them, even indirectly. It's his choice to bring them down and give 'em off to the authorities. He doesn't play judge & executioner.

Basically everything the viewer needs to know about who Batman is and how he operates is in Batman Begins. You don't have to be familiar with the comics to understand how the final fight scene stays consistent with the rest of the film. And since Batman didn't resort to any means of killing anyone in BB, there is no question of him ever playing judge & executioner...unless you equate abandoning Ra's in the train to beheading a prisoner.

 

[Crooklyn]

Batman didn't play 'judge, jury amd executioner'... he washed his hands of the situation. Your comment is insuating Batman deliberetly killed someone.

No, my comment insinuates Batman deliberately LET someone die. There's a difference.

ALA B89 when he drops Napier into the acid, or when he fires missles at the joker,

This was more of an accident.

or when he literally punches him off a sky scraper. Or in Returns where he knowingly straps a bomb to a man, and lets him blow to pieces. THAT's killing someone. THAT is being 'judge, jury, and executioner'.

Judge & Jury: knowing saving Ra's may cause future problems, he decides to leave Ra's on the train, because it's "for the better good"
Executioner: leaving the train w/o Ra's

The DECISION to leave him there does in a way make him, at least..PARTLY, responsible for Ra's fate.

He gave Ra's enough chances.

Yeah, that's a wonderful reason. We should really integrate that type of thinking into the legal system. It'd work wonders...

Instead, he rode the train to it's firey pit. Not Batman's fault.

Bruce told Gordon to take down the rails.

And it wasn't Bruce killing someone. Look up the definition of the words "kill" and "murder".

I don't know how many ways I can say "he wasn't directly responsible for his death". I really don't.

 

[StorminNorman]

Hey, with the tumbler chase scene, he had to assume on some things. Racheal NEEDED the antitoxin he had in the bat cave, she couldn't be saved without it. Not to mention he HAD to lose the cops, or not only will Racheal die, he would be exposed, leaving Gotham easy pickings for Ra's. It was delicate situation, one that needed rash action to succeed. Batman couldn't take the time to schuttle around with the cops, he needed them off his tail, NOW, so he could save Racheal. This is why he handled the police in such a manor.



I wonder if he had any guilt about "indirectly killing" fake Ra's...

You can't tell me that he couldn't of found a way to get away from the cops that did not involve running over police cars and blowing them up with mines.

Little blame can be laid on Bruce for the death of fake Ra's, F Ra's decided not to flee the flaming building and, instead, engaged Bruce (while at the same time telling his own men not to flee as well). F Ra's died because he put himself in that situation.

Ra's only died because Bruce called for the destruction of the train, knew that the train was going to blow and still did nothing. A different situation.

 

[raybia]

In the beginning of the Batman mythos, he used a gun to kill.

In Batman Begins, he didn't save the archvillian from a speeding train though it was of no certainty that he would have been successful.

Nolan intentionallly bookended this.

When the monastry blew up, Bruce risked his life trying to save Ras/Ducard.

When Ras when in Wayne Manor, Bruce told him that he saved his life.

Ras remarked, "And I warned you about compassion."

So clearly Nolan's Batman is not a creature of compassion. Sure, Bruce Wayne is but his Batman creation learn in BB to be less compassionate and more justice oriented.


Nolan has Batman say on the train,"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you. Guess what? He's right. Batman is not a police officer, not a boy scout, and not Superman.

Bruce knew he saved Ras before and as a result, many in Gotham almost died. If he saved him from the train, Batman knew that next time Ras may be successful. Bruce's goal is to show the people of Gotham their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt , to save the people of Gotham...even at the expense of not saving those who would destroy Gotham. (Kinda makes sense doesn't it?)

But make no mistake, Batman is not an executioner. Even Nolan reminds the audience of this.



The character was not originally invented to serve that role, he was created to be a vengenful ceature of the night that criminals feared. Maybe the Batman character has evolved from this origins since then AND maybe Nolan's Batman will evolve too as the series progress. But I think its appropriate the Nolan has in many ways started this series at the character's roots.

But is Nolan saying that his Batman represents Venengence? NO. He starts out that way, just like the character did in the comics, but he grows from that into a symbol of Justice. Why did Batman leave Ras on the train?

Justice.

Nolan's Ras states, "Justice is balance. You burned down my house and left me for dead. Consider us even." after Bruce is knocked unconscious and left for certain death in a burning house.

Well, now Batman flees a train headed for destruction and leaves Ras for certain death (?) (Of course nothing is certain in a comic book movie).

An ordinary man would have saved Ras because of our compassion. Even he said, "You are just an ordinary man in a cape! That's why you couldn't fight injustice and that's why you can't stop this train!" It took an extraordinary man to do what Batman did."

Now you may not agree and call B.S. on this. You may say that, 'Right is right and wrong is wrong and Batman should have saved Ras.

Well, even Bruce said in the movie, "The first time I stole so that I wouldn't starve, yes. I lost many assumptions about the simple nature of right and wrong.

And Ducard told him, "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."


Also throughout the movie its clear that Nolan is demonstrating the Bruce/Batman is being moulded into the legendary Dark Knight we all know and love. Moulded by Rachel, by Falcone, Ducard, Alfred, and thru trial and error.

Alfred states, "Well, we both care for Rachel, but what you're doing has to be beyond that. It can't be personal, or you're just a vigilante.

If Bruce would have taken it personally, he would have saved Ras because in spite of everything, he still has a father figure to him that he cared about.

Saving him would have been the easy thing to do, but like a Judge who admininsters Justice, he put away his personal feelings (his compassion) and made sure that Justice was served, because Ras asked Bruce, "Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?"

Well yes, Batman has.



Not that it matters in this discussion but Ras clearly had a deathwish.

Batman: It ends here.
Henri Ducard: For you and the police, maybe. My fate however lies with the rest of Gotham.

 

[Rynan]

^*Applaudes*

 

[Ronny Shade]

In the beginning of the Batman mythos, he used a gun to kill.

In Batman Begins, he didn't save the archvillian from a speeding train though it was of no certainty that he would have been successful.

Nolan intentionallly bookended this.

When the monastry blew up, Bruce risked his life trying to save Ras/Ducard.

When Ras when in Wayne Manor, Bruce told him that he saved his life.

Ras remarked, "And I warned you about compassion."

So clearly Nolan's Batman is not a creature of compassion. Sure, Bruce Wayne is but his Batman creation learn in BB to be less compassionate and more justice oriented.


Nolan has Batman say on the train,"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you. Guess what? He's right. Batman is not a police officer, not a boy scout, and not Superman.

Bruce knew he saved Ras before and as a result, many in Gotham almost died. If he saved him from the train, Batman knew that next time Ras may be successful. Bruce's goal is to show the people of Gotham their city doesn't belong to the criminals and the corrupt , to save the people of Gotham...even at the expense of not saving those who would destroy Gotham. (Kinda makes sense doesn't it?)

But make no mistake, Batman is not an executioner. Even Nolan reminds the audience of this.



The character was not originally invented to serve that role, he was created to be a vengenful ceature of the night that criminals feared. Maybe the Batman character has evolved from this origins since then AND maybe Nolan's Batman will evolve too as the series progress. But I think its appropriate the Nolan has in many ways started this series at the character's roots.

But is Nolan saying that his Batman represents Venengence? NO. He starts out that way, just like the character did in the comics, but he grows from that into a symbol of Justice. Why did Batman leave Ras on the train?

Justice.

Nolan's Ras states, "Justice is balance. You burned down my house and left me for dead. Consider us even." after Bruce is knocked unconscious and left for certain death in a burning house.

Well, now Batman flees a train headed for destruction and leaves Ras for certain death (?) (Of course nothing is certain in a comic book movie).

An ordinary man would have saved Ras because of our compassion. Even he said, "You are just an ordinary man in a cape! That's why you couldn't fight injustice and that's why you can't stop this train!" It took an extraordinary man to do what Batman did."

Now you may not agree and call B.S. on this. You may say that, 'Right is right and wrong is wrong and Batman should have saved Ras.

Well, even Bruce said in the movie, "The first time I stole so that I wouldn't starve, yes. I lost many assumptions about the simple nature of right and wrong.

And Ducard told him, "Criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's understanding."


Also throughout the movie its clear that Nolan is demonstrating the Bruce/Batman is being moulded into the legendary Dark Knight we all know and love. Moulded by Rachel, by Falcone, Ducard, Alfred, and thru trial and error.

Alfred states, "Well, we both care for Rachel, but what you're doing has to be beyond that. It can't be personal, or you're just a vigilante.

If Bruce would have taken it personally, he would have saved Ras because in spite of everything, he still has a father figure to him that he cared about.

Saving him would have been the easy thing to do, but like a Judge who admininsters Justice, he put away his personal feelings (his compassion) and made sure that Justice was served, because Ras asked Bruce, "Have you finally learned to do what is necessary?"

Well yes, Batman has.



Not that it matters in this discussion but Ras clearly had a deathwish.

Batman: It ends here.
Henri Ducard: For you and the police, maybe. My fate however lies with the rest of Gotham.

I disagree. I think the reason Batman is an extraordinary man is because he would have saved him.

 

[Crooklyn]

All this bickering is really just a means of justifying our preference.

If this were the 3rd film in the series, or if it was a blatant kill by Bats, then I'd see the reasoning for all the discussion. Oddly enough, I fell into this very trap myself.

 

[Ronny Shade]

I overlooked it initially. Then I got used to having BB in my life and stopped thinking it was perfect. Honestly, exploding the monastery gets to me more than the train scene.

 

[Darkest Knight]

No, my comment insinuates Batman deliberately LET someone die. There's a difference.

Uhh, technically, there is no difference, based off your argument.

This was more of an accident.

Re-watch the scene. Batman, realizes it is Jack Napier the man who killed his parents, and he lets go ... dropping Jack into the acid. We learn this later in retrospect. Watch Batman's face as he begins to let go. He is pissed, and realizes who he is holding. He drops him.

"You made me, remember?"

Batman never refutes this... He made him, by DROPPING him into the acid. In the comics, Batman doesn't drop the red hood into the acid. He tries to catch him, and the red hood gets scared by his looks and precense and falls backwards, by himself.

Judge & Jury: knowing saving Ra's may cause future problems, he decides to leave Ra's on the train, because it's "for the better good"

Where does it say this? This is you taking a meaning that may not even be there. What Batman does is in specific reference to their "quarrel", and their pas situations.

Executioner: leaving the train w/o Ra's

Executioner is someone who has the intent to kill someone, and does. Once again, you just said Batman kills Ra's. When, he didn't.

The DECISION to leave him there does in a way make him, at least..PARTLY, responsible for Ra's fate.

Ummm, no. All of that entire situation, was brought on by Ra's Al Ghul.

Yeah, that's a wonderful reason. We should really integrate that type of thinking into the legal system. It'd work wonders...

Who says we're talking about a legal system? Or real life? Batman the concept and actualization is a criminal activity in itself. He techinically would be just as big of a criminal. What's your point? I'm just giving an alternative reason. He saved him before, and it bit him in his ass.

Bruce told Gordon to take down the rails.

You didn't watch the movie, or understand it... did you? This, like Batman in the comics, was his CONTINGENCY PLAN. Exact quote:

Batman: "I'm going to stop that train, but I may need your help."

Gordon: "What do you need?"

Batman: "Can you drive stick?!"

He had him blow off the rails as a backup, in case he wasn't able to shut the train off, forcefully through Ra's. He wasn't planning on killing anyone.

I don't know how many ways I can say "he wasn't directly responsible for his death". I really don't.

Yet your post, and argument is going in the complete opposite direction.

 

[Darkest Knight]

Batman: It ends here.
Henri Ducard: For you and the police, maybe. My fate however lies with the rest of Gotham.

Exactly. Great post. We are seeing Batman being molded. Thus "Beginning". As for the quote above, dead on. Nolan and Goyer very much incorporated a modernistic social dilemma and fear in terrorism. Ra's is very much a terrorist who was willing to die for what he believed in, as evident in this quote, and by blowing the controls to the monorail so it couldn't be stopped. He was a suicide bomber.

 

[Nepenthes]

nepenthes...you are leaving out another core element of Batmans character...lapses in judgement..

Not only did batman intentionally try to shoot and otherwise kill his enemies back in the early years of the comics, but even recently his poor judgement helped create the entire Infinite Crisis disaster...

Lapses in judgement?...yeah cool. But I don't think that was the point of the scene, for the audience to go 'oooh Batman messed up!'.

Poor judgement could've been portrayed in other ways. And actually come to think of it it wasn't really an obvious element in the film...but you're right it shoulda been.

Also the arguement about Batmans early days dosn't hold up. He used to do alot of strange things in the early days.

Saving him would considerably reduce his chances of leaving the train, which was very hard and risky as it was. His cape was designed for him would most likely not hold Ra´s weight. When your own safety is at risk, you don´t have any obligation to save the other person.

That's exactly the point. That Batman will go to extraordinary, even insane lengths to preserve human life, even his enemies'. Trying to save Ra's was just such a good opportunity portray a most INTREGRAL aspect of Batman. He tries, he fails, Ra's dies....also much more dramatic than just leaving him there.

When Ras when in Wayne Manor, Bruce told him that he saved his life.

Ras remarked, "And I warned you about compassion."


So clearly Nolan's Batman is not a creature of compassion. Sure, Bruce Wayne is but his Batman creation learn in BB to be less compassionate and more justice oriented.

Nice arguments, but you also highlighted how much nicer it would've been if Bruce had stuck to his ideals. Bruce and Batman ARE the same person, for instance Bruce demonstrated the moral strength that defines Batman waaay before he ever put on the suit. He saved Ra's on the cliff, the peasant, saving Ra's again. He dosn't flinch. This is in the bedrock of the character.

And that Ra's could eventually bend Bruce's thinking to his own way, especially on such an integral issue...is just wrong. Apart from a wasted narrative oppurtunity.

If Bruce would have taken it personally, he would have saved Ras because in spite of everything, he still has a father figure to him that he cared about.

Father figure dosn't matter, I think Bruce has realised by this point that Ra's is a jerk. It's an issue of morality that Bruce applies to everyone, however where it get's personal is in proving Ra's wrong. Continuing what he begun with the peasant.

"Have you learnt what is neccersary?" yeah well, Ra's thinks it is neccersary to ruin Gotham. Not the kinda guy Batman takes lessons from. Ra's tries to destroy what is imperfect, Batman tries to save it; they are polar opposites. That should've been reinforced with Batman trying to save Ra's.

 

[Crooklyn]

Uhh, technically, there is no difference, based off your argument.

And why is that?

KILLING someone is completely different from LETTING someone die. One involves a direct action between you and the other person. The other involves viewing the person being killed, choosing not to prevent it.

Re-watch the scene. Batman, realizes it is Jack Napier the man who killed his parents, and he lets go ... dropping Jack into the acid. We learn this later in retrospect. Watch Batman's face as he begins to let go. He is pissed, and realizes who he is holding. He drops him.

"You made me, remember?"

This is an argument I've seen taken both sides. And really, both are valid. I believe Burton made this ambiguous on purpose.

Where does it say this? This is you taking a meaning that may not even be there. What Batman does is in specific reference to their "quarrel", and their pas situations.

Ok...which influences what Bats does next, which is to leave him there. It wasn't blatantly stated, but what other reason would he have? I haven't seen anyone state otherwise, from either sides of the argument.

Executioner is someone who has the intent to kill someone, and does. Once again, you just said Batman kills Ra's. When, he didn't.

The executioner has the person's life in his hands. And that was the case here. We all know what happened next.

Ummm, no. All of that entire situation, was brought on by Ra's Al Ghul.

Last I checked, falling off the rails wasn't part of Ra's plan. But that's besides the point. Batman could have tried to save Ra's, but didn't. Not trying to argue whether this is right or not, cause I frankly don't care.

Who says we're talking about a legal system? Or real life? Batman the concept and actualization is a criminal activity in itself. He techinically would be just as big of a criminal. What's your point? I'm just giving an alternative reason. He saved him before, and it bit him in his ass.

My point was it's not in Batman's hands to decide whether or not he should live. But as I've said ad nauseum, it really doesn't bother me because this is something that has potential in the future.

You didn't watch the movie,

You got me.

or understand it... did you?

Man, you're good.

He had him blow off the rails as a backup, in case he wasn't able to shut the train off, forcefully through Ra's. He wasn't planning on killing anyone.

If his Plan A worked, Ra's probably would have been taken in by Batman to the police of whatever. Who knows. Plan B was what came to pass, and that involves a big train carrying both of them....crashing to the streets below. Obviously this is something he expected if it came to that. And when the situation presented itself, he chose to leave by himself.

Yet your post, and argument is going in the complete opposite direction.

No, the problem seems to me, is that you cannot understand what I'm trying to say. I do not think that Batman is a killer in this scenario, but at the same time I refuse to believe Batman was a complete saint here either.