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

[Heretic]

The real question is this...

Is Razz better than Cran-apple?

 

[The Sage]

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".

Let's see...in the comics, Batman doesn't kill Joker but sends him to the prison. Joker escapes and cripples Barbara Gordon. Batman could've killed him, but chose to put him in jail.

Joker escapes and kills Jason Todd (second Robin), and Batman doesn't kill him.

Years later, Joker kills Commissioner Gordon's wife, and Batman doesn't kill him.

My point? Batman doesn't determine whether he should help someone if he's given them enough chances. He just helps them because that's who he is. Leaving someone to die when you have the ability to help them makes you partially responsible for their death.

Bringing B89 and BR is pointless since Burton based them on the early Bob Kane Batman stories when Batman did kill, while Batman Begins is supposed to be based on the 70s and modern comics. And unless I'm mistaken, Batman nor Bruce Wayne ever established a code against killing in those movies such as the Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins.

 

[The Sage]

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.

You've got proof of that?

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.

Sure, it was more justice-oriented...Frank Castle justice that is. And a lot of times, justice and compassion go hand in hand. Deciding not to kill a criminal but take him to jail is justice.


If Nolan's Batman isn't a creature of compassion, then there's a problem. Because its compassion that drives him to fight for his city.

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.

He's also not Frank Castle either.

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?)

No it doesn't. By your thinking, shouldn't that mean that Batman should leave the Joker to die in TDK instead of not killing him or saving his life?

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.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

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."

An ordinary man would've given into his impulses and emotions by letting Ra's die. An extraordinary man would've put his feelings aside and saved him. It's easy to let someone you hate die. It's hard to help someone you hate.

 

[ultimatefan]

to quote El Payaso "If that were Rachel on that train, you'd be damn sure he'd figure out a way to get her off"

I'm paraphrasing.

Your point being? Of course he´d take a greater risk for saving Rachel, but it could still cost his own life and there would be no guarantees to save her either. I´m not saying he did the most noble thing, but he didn´t commit murder either. Batman is not The Punisher, but he´s not Superman either.

 

[ultimatefan]

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.



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.



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.




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.

Still doesn´t make him a murder. And Batman is not a boy scout, he´s constantly walked a fine line between hero and vigilante. The secret is keeping that fine line, where he never completely crosses it yet constantly remains on the edge of it.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Your point being? Of course he´d take a greater risk for saving Rachel, but it could still cost his own life and there would be no guarantees to save her either. I´m not saying he did the most noble thing, but he didn´t commit murder either. Batman is not The Punisher, but he´s not Superman either.

Superman saves villains because he believes in the american justice system. Batman saves them because he's sworn to stop death and killing. The reason he fights crime is to stop any kid from going through what he went through. Ra's? Guess what. Had a kid.

 

[Beelze]

Problem is, Ra's wouldn't have been found guilty for anything in Batman Begins, as he is so elusive and as Batman was pretty much the only witness. Plus, even if he was jailed, the League of Shadows would save him ("we have infiltrated every level of [Gotham's] infrastructure"). Batman letting Ra's slip away like that wouldn't have been very compassionate towards Gotham's citizens, who he would surely try to kill again. First and foremost, Batman wants to protect the innocent. He decided that Ra's life wasn't worth all the lives in Gotham (not to mention those of other regions Ra's may choose to terrorize).

The only other option I see at the moment would've been for Batman to actually make his own prison, in the Batcave or wherever, and it's not like he had time to do that in Begins. With such an establishment, he wouldn't have to hand the villains over to "corrupt bureaucrats", and they wouldn't have to stay in a prison, or an asylum, from which they continually manage to escape from. Of course, how long time would it take till it becomes too much for him to manage, and how many could he let in on such a secret in order to receive help in magaging it?

 

[Ronny Shade]

Problem is, Ra's wouldn't have been found guilty for anything in Batman Begins, as he is so elusive and as Batman was pretty much the only witness. Plus, even if he was jailed, the League of Shadows would save him ("we have infiltrated every level of [Gotham's] infrastructure"). Batman letting Ra's slip away like that wouldn't have been very compassionate towards Gotham's citizens, who he would surely try to kill again. First and foremost, Batman wants to protect the innocent. He decided that Ra's life wasn't worth all the lives in Gotham (not to mention those of other regions Ra's may choose to terrorize).

The only other option I see at the moment would've been for Batman to actually make his own prison, in the Batcave or wherever, and it's not like he had time to do that in Begins. With such an establishment, he wouldn't have to hand the villains over to "corrupt bureaucrats", and they wouldn't have to stay in a prison, or an asylum, from which they continually manage to escape from. Of course, how long time would it take till it becomes too much for him to manage, and how many could he let in on such a secret in order to receive help in magaging it?

That's the WHOLE POINT of Batman. He doesn't kill. If he did, the Joker would have been dead a long time ago. The corrupt system DOESN'T function. That's why Batman is necessary. BUT he doesn't kill. He ALSO doesn't let anyone die if he can help it. His whole pledge isbecause he doesn't want anybody else to have to suffer the death of a loved one.

even if he does "not kill" but he's okay with letting people die, here's some logic for ya:
1) Batman doesn't kill
2) Batman jammed the train, creating the deathtrap in which Ra's Al Ghul "died"
3) Batman did not save Ra's Al Ghul from the doomed train
4) Trapping someone in an inescapable environment headed for an explosion is murder.
5) Therefore, Batman killed Ra's Al Ghul (or tried to)

 

[LadyMoira]

Problem is, Ra's wouldn't have been found guilty for anything in Batman Begins, as he is so elusive and as Batman was pretty much the only witness. Plus, even if he was jailed, the League of Shadows would save him ("we have infiltrated every level of [Gotham's] infrastructure"). Batman letting Ra's slip away like that wouldn't have been very compassionate towards Gotham's citizens, who he would surely try to kill again. First and foremost, Batman wants to protect the innocent. He decided that Ra's life wasn't worth all the lives in Gotham (not to mention those of other regions Ra's may choose to terrorize).

The only other option I see at the moment would've been for Batman to actually make his own prison, in the Batcave or wherever, and it's not like he had time to do that in Begins. With such an establishment, he wouldn't have to hand the villains over to "corrupt bureaucrats", and they wouldn't have to stay in a prison, or an asylum, from which they continually manage to escape from. Of course, how long time would it take till it becomes too much for him to manage, and how many could he let in on such a secret in order to receive help in magaging it?

Well said. There weren't many reasonable alternatives for him to pursue in the case of Ras there except murder; which he wasn't willing to do. Personally, I agreed with him deciding that while he won't play executioner he doesn't have to help someone who will try to kill him the minute he's out of there-not saving someone isn't the same as actually murdering them...in the case of the Joker Batman can argue he really should just leave him to the mercies of Arkham Asylum, (though, given how often the Joker escapes I'm leery of this thinking,) but there's nothing in the criminal justice system meant to handle Ras. What I'm really thinking Nolan might mean by grim has a lot to do with the Joker's notoriously heinous crimes; more innocent lives perhaps that Bruce can't save. More casualties of the war that erupts between him and the Joker...

 

[ultimatefan]

Superman saves villains because he believes in the american justice system. Batman saves them because he's sworn to stop death and killing. The reason he fights crime is to stop any kid from going through what he went through. Ra's? Guess what. Had a kid.

We don´t know yet if he had a daughter in this version. Batman´s on to stop kiling, and he didn´t kill, but not necessarily death. Otherwise he´d stop legal executions too..

 

[Cinemaman]

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.

One of the best posts I ever read TOTALY AGREED

 

[Cinemaman]

I think Damon would be great Dent, but does he have enough time for TDK in his shedule?

 

[I Am The Knight]

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.

No, he says: "MY FIGHT, however, lies with the rest of Gotham."

 

[Ronny Shade]

does he? That makes the movie way better, IMO. I didn't really like that line when it was "fate"

 

[raybia]

You've got proof of that?

Yeah I do, its in a movie called Batman Begins. Watch it. Those scenes where intentionally written, filmed, and edited into the movie for a reason.



Sure, it was more justice-oriented...Frank Castle justice that is.

Frank Castle justice? Don't insult our intellegence.

And a lot of times, justice and compassion go hand in hand. Deciding not to kill a criminal but take him to jail is justice.

Yeah, if you are a cop, but not if you are CIA, nor if you are Batman. If you want straight reality, then forgo watching Nolan's Batman and watch an re-run of Cops instead.


If Nolan's Batman isn't a creature of compassion, then there's a problem. Because its compassion that drives him to fight for his city.

Not to say that the man under the mask isn't a compassionate fello because its that compassion that drives him to become Batman, but while he is performing the job, then justice becomes more of an priority at that moment.

Bruce challenge is to maintain a balance between his compassion and what is necessary to win his war on crime.

By the way, do you think a creature of compassion would try to instill fear and terror? That what Bruce states as his goal in BB.

He's also not Frank Castle either.

No he is not, nor did Nolan even remotely demonstrate Batman as such in BB.


No it doesn't. By your thinking, shouldn't that mean that Batman should leave the Joker to die in TDK instead of not killing him or saving his life?

Ras put himself into the situation to die, and in fact it was a suicide mission.

If Joker puts himself in a similar situation (which the Joker is much too vain to sacrifice himself for any cause) then who knows, may Nolan will write it that way. It not my thinking that matters, its Nolans.


HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Maturity Begins.

An ordinary man would've given into his impulses and emotions by letting Ra's die. An extraordinary man would've put his feelings aside and saved him. It's easy to let someone you hate die. It's hard to help someone you hate.

Who said that Bruce hated Ra's? I think Nolan made it clear that Ra's/Ducard became a surrogate father to Bruce. Was he at odds with Ra's? Clearly. Was he angry at him for trying to destroy Gotham? Certainly. But none of this erased the love and compassion that Bruce had for the man, that in spite of everything, is directly responsible for saving his life and putting him on the path of his destiny. Bruce will always owe Ra's that.

 

[I Am The Knight]

does he? That makes the movie way better, IMO. I didn't really like that line when it was "fate"

Yes he does. Activate the subtitles.

Of course, then comes that hideous line about destroying the city.

 

[raybia]

No, he says: "MY FIGHT, however, lies with the rest of Gotham."

Its possible that you are right but until I have proof, I am standing by that quote.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Yes he does. Activate the subtitles.

Of course, then comes that hideous line about destroying the city.

That line's fine. It fits with the character. "fate," however, doesn't

 

[I Am The Knight]

Its possible that you are right but until I have proof, I am standing by that quote.

Proof? just watch the DVD. It's there.

 

[raybia]

Back to the topic, this movie being described as grim along with Nolan's early quote about TDK representing "thinks having to get worst before they get better" envokes The Original Star Wars trilogy, specifically "Empire".

So is TDK Nolan's Empire? As long as the third movie isn't his ROTJ. I don't think Batman and Ewoks would be a good combo.

 

[Ronny Shade]

Maybe Etrigan will show up and shoot lightning out of his hands

 

[raybia]

Proof? just watch the DVD. It's there.

That is what I was going to do...when I go home this evening.

 

[raybia]

Maybe Etrigan will show up and shoot lightning out of his hands

Whats up with you and Etrigan? t:

 

[Ronny Shade]

I :heart: etrigan

 

[raybia]

I :heart: etrigan

Wasn't there a comic with Batman and etrigan, where Etrigan was trying to kill him and Bats was holding him off and then when finally backed into a corner, instead of killing Batman, he kissed him? Am I dreaming this?