• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

The Dark Knight SPOILERS MAJOR SPOILERS FOLLOWING--Did Batman break his one rule?

The case with Ra's in the train, at the end, is not a very different from the case with Two-Face in TDK. In both cases Batman was forced to choose between impossible options. In TDK it was to either push Two-Face off, or risk having a kid get his brains blown off. In BB it was to either left Ra's to die in the train, or risk having another and possibly more dangerous attack over the whole city one day. Batman does the right thing in both cases. I never understood him in the comics, his desire to NEVER kill is absurd when dealing with rabid monsters like the Joker, who has commited so many atrocities and murders, that he should have died long time ago. I guess that the Nolanverse Batman just has more common sense in that matter.
Hey, the joker could attack gotham again. Lets put a bullet in his head. AMIRITE YOU GUYZ?
Batman doesnt kill in the comics because its not heroic and all that jazz, and because you wouldnt be able to read a joker story every few months if batman has killed him. That's also the reason arkham has revolving doors (its a joke) and our favorite criminals escape every few issues.
 
But we, comic book nerds who know a thing or two about batman know that this isnt his code,
Sure, but I we're not talking about the comics.

Putting the villain in a deadly situation and then not saving him is indirectly murder.
No. There's no such thing as "indirect murder." It's either murder, or it's something else--manslaughter or some other crime, but not murder. Batman can be charged with a lot of crimes, including manslaughter, but I don't believe murder is one of them.

And anyway, there have been many instances in the comics where Batman has gone out of his way to save the joker or other villains from certain death. Batman's code is the preservation of life, any life!
Again, we are not talking about the comics. This thread asks whether Batman broke his rule in the film. What his rule is in the comics is irrelevant to that question.

The fact that Dent dies demonstrates the ludicrousness of Batman's rule to not kill when he uses violence to accomplish his goals. Its the bull in a china shop scenario, its ridiculous to put a bull in a china shop and then expect all the items to remain unbroken.
Right. Alfred tries to tell him that there were always going to be casualties.

I think it's open to interpretation whether Nolan's Batman rejects lethal force absolutely, or accepts lethal force but rejects execution or murder. Personally, I prefer to think that his rule is against killing of any kind, and that, in this instance, he simply couldn't live up to that ideal. The problem some people seem to have is that they think if this Batman kills someone, it means he thinks killing is okay--or, alternatively, that it doesn't make sense for him to kill people while saying he doesn't want to. Human beings are hardly that simple. People do things they don't believe in all the time. All the time. We fail to live up to our ideals all the time. If you're reading this, you've probably done it this week.

People break their own rules and fail to meet their own moral standards on a daily basis, and this doesn't mean that they've rejected their ideals, or that their ideals don't really matter to them. It just means that they're human, and they can't always live up to those ideals.
 
^Piece of cake. There are tons of examples where he´s at least dubious about that. Leaving KGBeast locked down to die, that was more cold-blooded than anything he did in the Nolan movies.
Haven't read that issue so I can't comment. Though if it happened like that, I'm not a fan of it either.

Trying to kill The Joker when he killed Jason Todd. It´s very clear he intended to kill Joker in Hush if Gordon hadn´t interferred. That´s just as much "what the writer intended" as anything Nolan did.
Well it wouldn't be terribly interesting if there weren't momentary lapses of judgment, now would there? Considering the context of his actions, and how he didn't do anything (despite being pushed to restraint), I am ok with that.

And I can point tons of non-linear and non-strict ethical decisions, like allowing teenagers to risk their lives fighting crimes
This was more about saving lives more than anything.

using physical and psychological abuse to get information, the satellite surveillance thing, and so on. They can be right by his personal rules, but they´re still morally questionable, and certainly not much of a strict or linear thing.
All these don't go against being Batman. His questionable methods, unrealistic goals against crime, priority of safety over privacy, etc. are what makes him unique. I wouldn't ask any of these to change. :huh:

I was referring strictly to the "no kill" rule. Which as far as I know, is still being upheld. If there is such a case in the comics or otherwise that explicitly violate it, then no, I'm not a fan of it. As far as I'm concerned, it's completely against character.

The point is just doing the best you can, even though you know you can´t always be your best angel and even that won´t ensure anything and you´ll make mistakes. That´s just the way life and people are, plain and simple. Ask any person who actually has to make tough choices on a regular basis, like a cop or a doctor or a firefighter. Neat morals that always pay off only exist in geekland.
What don't you understand about "I get it"? In the film's world, this Batman has a looser definition of his "rule". The Batman I prefer, doesn't. That's what I was getting at.

I didn´t want that situation to be changed. Because that´s the point of the movie, that sometimes these decisions can be incredibly difficult and even impossible, and it´s a perfectly valid and real point, the last thing it needed was to be compromised and sugarcoated. That´s part of what made TDK a phenomen, being a blockbuster that went far to be true to itself.
Not killing Harvey in that manner would have compromised the story and sugarcoated the ending? In WHAT world? It's all about how you execute the plan. As I've said multiple time, I get it. I'm just not a fan of it and would have preferred a different means of concluding the story.

And if it had to go down like it did, I would have at least wanted some sort of repentance from Bruce. He's helped aided in the deaths of his mentor, and now a trusted ally. Not once did I get the feeling that he regretted the decision. THAT is my real issue. If a rule is broken....fine. But what separates Bourne, Bauer, Bond, etc. from Batman, is the fact that Bruce is going to dwell on it as a result of his personal code.
 
Nice points Saint.

I think that is what Nolan was trying to get across. That although Batman has his code and he is a great crimefighter, he is still human and humans make mistakes or have to make the hard decisions for the greater good.
 
Not once did I get the feeling that he regretted the decision. THAT is my real issue. If a rule is broken....fine. But what separates Bourne, Bauer, Bond, etc. from Batman, is the fact that Bruce is going to dwell on it as a result of his personal code.
I agree. I don't know if this omission was a conscious one, an accidental one, or simply a matter of not being able to fit this content into the remainder of the film, but it's unfortunate all the same. There was no space to explore this conflict in any sort of meaningful way without changing the ending of the film considerably, but I suppose there could have been a hint of something. In the final montage, I think we might have seen a shot of Bruce that somehow communicated his regret over how things went down with Dent. But then, I think the end has a certain quality that might be compromised with such a scene; in the ending, Batman makes his decision and he rides off without complaint, unfazed by his personal sacrifices, including the sacrifice of his ideals.

It is telling, though, that the very first thing Batman does after breaking his rule is to volunteer himself to be a fugitive exile.
 
It is telling, though, that the very first thing Batman does after breaking his rule is to volunteer himself to be a fugitive exile.
It's an interesting way to look at his decision, and they could possibly comment on it with the sequel. However, as it stands, I see it as a secondary motivation at best. The purpose of his move was to prevent the tainting of Dent's image, not to consider the consequences of his actions and ultimately a personal reflection.

But, it's possible. Though I really don't think Nolan will go down that path. Seems to me that at the end of the movie, Batman "found" himself more than he did "lose" himself. Gordon's final worlds really sum that up, and I think in the movie's context, Bruce would agree.
 
Hey, the joker could attack gotham again. Lets put a bullet in his head.
Yup, technically, if we must think from the POV of Gotham, Batman made a mistake when he didn't let him splat on the pavement.

Batman doesnt kill in the comics because its not heroic and all that jazz, and because you wouldnt be able to read a joker story every few months if batman has killed him. That's also the reason arkham has revolving doors (its a joke) and our favorite criminals escape every few issues.
Of course, I know that the reason that Batman doesn't kill his enemies AND they always escape again is that there must be always new stories and issues, but storywise I think that it makes Batman horribly ineffective after a while. There is just no point in what he does. The loonies go around killing and maiming and whatever, ruining people's lives and then Batman swoops down, breaks a few teeth, maybe an arm or a leg, locks the bad guy in Arkham and before you blink, he's out again, causing havoc. A vigilante with a common sence and Batman's martial art skills should have made the Joker, Zsasz, Two-Face and co. vegetables by now if he's so shy on killing.
I realize that this would prevent new stories with awesome villains and is not a right business decision for such popular character with popular villains, but at one point, one can't help, but's start wondering how sane and effective exactly is Batman...

Another, non-violent, solution would be if he byus off Arkham as Bruce Wayne and turns it into some absolutely un-escapebable place with a handpicked staff whom he can trust. But, again, that would prevent the new stories and issues.
 
Haven't read that issue so I can't comment. Though if it happened like that, I'm not a fan of it either.


Well it wouldn't be terribly interesting if there weren't momentary lapses of judgment, now would there? Considering the context of his actions, and how he didn't do anything (despite being pushed to restraint), I am ok with that.


This was more about saving lives more than anything.


All these don't go against being Batman. His questionable methods, unrealistic goals against crime, priority of safety over privacy, etc. are what makes him unique. I wouldn't ask any of these to change. :huh:

I was referring strictly to the "no kill" rule. Which as far as I know, is still being upheld. If there is such a case in the comics or otherwise that explicitly violate it, then no, I'm not a fan of it. As far as I'm concerned, it's completely against character.


What don't you understand about "I get it"? In the film's world, this Batman has a looser definition of his "rule". The Batman I prefer, doesn't. That's what I was getting at.


Not killing Harvey in that manner would have compromised the story and sugarcoated the ending? In WHAT world? It's all about how you execute the plan. As I've said multiple time, I get it. I'm just not a fan of it and would have preferred a different means of concluding the story.

And if it had to go down like it did, I would have at least wanted some sort of repentance from Bruce. He's helped aided in the deaths of his mentor, and now a trusted ally. Not once did I get the feeling that he regretted the decision. THAT is my real issue. If a rule is broken....fine. But what separates Bourne, Bauer, Bond, etc. from Batman, is the fact that Bruce is going to dwell on it as a result of his personal code.


Regardless of what he did or didn´t - and the fact he didn´t was motivated by external factors - he did have the intention and acted in a way to break his rule; Which is more than can be said for his action in the Harvey case. Of course the result was different, but again in a large extent due to external factors, like them being at the edge of the building, an innocent child in danger, etc.

And I don´t see it that he really broke the rule, not in the sense that he meant it or acted with that purpose. The fact he didn´t do it in those comics I mentioned reflects just the fact the writer came up with a convenient plot contrivance out of it, which is done to a large extent because you need to keep bringing back the villain, which is not such a big concern in movies But in terms of following his own personal beliefs he was more compromised than in the Dent situation. His definition of the "rule" was as loose, if not more, than in TDK.

Of course you can execute a story in a hundred different ways. For THIS particular story and its themes, I´m happy with the conclusion. Nobody can please everyone, and those who try please nobody.

My take is, to a level, Bruce made his sacrifice as a way to make up for what happened to Harvey. He DID go to the hospital to tell him he was sorry about Rachel´s death and his condition, so Batman DOES have repentance for his mistakes. Redemption may not have been his primary goal, but it can easily be interpreted as an ulterior motivation for his final decision.
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting way to look at his decision, and they could possibly comment on it with the sequel. However, as it stands, I see it as a secondary motivation at best. The purpose of his move was to prevent the tainting of Dent's image, not to consider the consequences of his actions and ultimately a personal reflection.
Of course. But, as solutions go, it's pretty unorthodox. I don't think it's a coincidence that criminalizing himself is the solution Batman jumped to.

But, it's possible. Though I really don't think Nolan will go down that path. Seems to me that at the end of the movie, Batman "found" himself more than he did "lose" himself. Gordon's final worlds really sum that up, and I think in the movie's context, Bruce would agree.
Sure, he found himself--and part of that would be accepting responsibility for his failings. I don't think sub-consciously imposing a penance upon himself for that necessarily has to be about losing himself.

Anyways, I think the movies should be allowed to take advantage of the fact that they're finite. Comics have a really hard time moving on to the next part of a character's life--if you were telling the story of Batman's whole life, a singular story, who's to say his conception of killing wouldn't change in the course of it? The films have the advantage of being able to explore that. I say they should. This sort of growth is one of the reasons I think it's really important to introduce Robin in the third film.
 
Regardless of what he did or didn´t - and the fact he didn´t was motivated by external factors - he did have the intention and acted in a way to break his rule; Which is more than can be said for his action in the Harvey case. Of course the result was different, but again in a large extent due to external factors, like them being at the edge of the building, an innocent child in danger, etc.
As I said before, I don't really like discussing factors and whatnot because it's all malleable to the writer's desire. But in both cases, Bats was aware of what he was about to do. Killing Joker, and killing Dent. He'd have to be blind or have no sense to think that nothing would come of tackling Harvey off a two/three-story ledge.

And I don´t see it that he really broke the rule, not in the sense that he meant it or acted with that purpose. The fact he didn´t do it in those comics I mentioned reflects just the fact the writer came up with a convenient plot contrivance out of it, which is done to a large extent because you need to keep bringing back the villain, which is not such a big concern in movies But in terms of following his own personal beliefs he was more compromised than in the Dent situation. His definition of the "rule" was as loose, if not more, than in TDK.
Not necessarily disagreeing. But whether Gordon would have been there to stop it or not, who's to say Bats would have followed through? We've all had moments where we "snap out of it" in the moment of anger. As you said, the real contrivance is keeping these villains alive.

My take is, to a level, Bruce made his sacrifice as a way to make up for what happened to Harvey. He DID go to the hospital to tell him he was sorry about Rachel´s death and his condition, so Batman DOES have repentance for his mistakes.
At that moment, Bats was sorry about Rachel being taken away from Dent. I took it more as a formal thing to say, than an actual personal apology as a result of direct involvement.

Redemption may not have been his primary goal, but it can easily be interpreted as an ulterior motivation for his final decision.
We'll see. It's only a hopeful thought at this point, and won't be fulfilled until the film does.


Anyways, I think the movies should be allowed to take advantage of the fact that they're finite. Comics have a really hard time moving on to the next part of a character's life--if you were telling the story of Batman's whole life, a singular story, who's to say his conception of killing wouldn't change in the course of it? The films have the advantage of being able to explore that. I say they should. This sort of growth is one of the reasons I think it's really important to introduce Robin in the third film.
It's part of the reason why I could deal the whole Ra's situation at the end of BB. I was hoping that'd develop into something interesting in TDK. It was touched upon a bit in BB, but I really think the "life is precious" ideal should have been emphasized more. But it never happened. I'm glad Bats saved Joker, but they gave an encore just 5 minutes later to a different conclusion. With seemingly no emotional response. That was frustrating. :funny:

I feel like I'm back to square one again, waiting for this goldmine of a subplot to surface.
 
As I said before, I don't really like discussing factors and whatnot because it's all malleable to the writer's desire. But in both cases, Bats was aware of what he was about to do. Killing Joker, and killing Dent. He'd have to be blind or have no sense to think that nothing would come of tackling Harvey off a two/three-story ledge.


Not necessarily disagreeing. But whether Gordon would have been there to stop it or not, who's to say Bats would have followed through? We've all had moments where we "snap out of it" in the moment of anger. As you said, the real contrivance is keeping these villains alive.


At that moment, Bats was sorry about Rachel being taken away from Dent. I took it more as a formal thing to say, than an actual personal apology as a result of direct involvement.


We'll see. It's only a hopeful thought at this point, and won't be fulfilled until the film does.



It's part of the reason why I could deal the whole Ra's situation at the end of BB. I was hoping that'd develop into something interesting in TDK. It was touched upon a bit in BB, but I really think the "life is precious" ideal should have been emphasized more. But it never happened. I'm glad Bats saved Joker, but they gave an encore just 5 minutes later to a different conclusion. With seemingly no emotional response. That was frustrating. :funny:

I feel like I'm back to square one again, waiting for this goldmine of a subplot to surface.

Everything is malleable to the writer´s desire, there´s a hundred ways to twist character motivations as well. One thing is Batman thinking, "this may kill Harvey, but there´s a child´s life at stake", a pretty different thing is, "I´m gonna kill Joker out of revenge for killing people I cared about". Maybe by a difference of inches Dent wouldn´t have fallen off the building, or would have held to the edge, and Batman would have been happy to just arrest him, he didn´t act to kill Harvey, it was simply a consequence he wasn´t able to prevent as his primary goal was to save the kid.

You follow Batman´s thoughts through the whole issue, his mind seems pretty made up about killing him till Gordon talks him out of it. Point is, at one moment, he had the intention to kill Joker and he acted in order to fullfill that intention - he was no more than a couple blows away from finishing Joker when Gordon interrupted him. In the Jason Todd and Kgbeast cases, there´s no indication he ever meant to change his mind as he acted about it. Whether you like these or not, they´re still part of the comics canon and clearly exemplify the canon is not strict and linear about it.
 
Last edited:
"Seemingly made up his mind" isn't sure of anything. As I said, if Gordon wasn't there, the writer would've found some other way to stop it. That is the point of creating drama and tension, yes? Essentially creating "false dilemmas" which you know in the end will turn out ok. Despite consequences.

Unless Batman's final blow (be it the pull of a trigger, or a fatal hit) is directly stopped, then you can't ever be sure that he wouldn't have kept himself in check, in time.

When I referenced the strict guideline, I mean it hasn't been broken. Never said it wouldn't cross his mind. Joker's origin story in Batman: Confidential would be a good reference point. Batman actively called the hit, but then took it back the last second.
 
"Seemingly made up his mind" isn't sure of anything. As I said, if Gordon wasn't there, the writer would've found some other way to stop it. That is the point of creating drama and tension, yes? Essentially creating "false dilemmas" which you know in the end will turn out ok. Despite consequences.

Unless Batman's final blow (be it the pull of a trigger, or a fatal hit) is directly stopped, then you can't ever be sure that he wouldn't have kept himself in check, in time.

When I referenced the strict guideline, I mean it hasn't been broken. Never said it wouldn't cross his mind. Joker's origin story in Batman: Confidential would be a good reference point. Batman actively called the hit, but then took it back the last second.

In terms of Batman having a code where he won´t act in order to kill someone, yes, it has been broken, or at least twisted, as the examples I mentioned exemplify. The center of the argument isn´t whether Batman´s villains live or not, you can as well kill off a villain without Batman having anything to do with it, the center is what Batman believes and whether he acts according to his beliefs. He doesn´t believe in killing, but his priority above the criminal´s safety always has been to preserve the innocent life, which is what he did.
 
Last edited:
Not saving someone doesn't mean he technically killed him. He just didn't save him.

Having the ability to do something and choosing not to is the same an choosing to do wrong.
LOL, I keep seeing this topic and subject pop up but we are discussing BATMAN and Bruce had yet to become Batman at that time nor had he made any promises. he only stated that he was no executioner and in that statement it summons it up. This board was ill conceived because In the movies Nolan upped the anty and took away the words Kill or Murder. he strictly stated that he was no "EXECUTIONER" in that scene with Ras Al ghul. If you look up the word you will see that he in fact never broke his one Rule. He made a mistake by just flipping the fire, but he did what he could in the situation. If he had already had his suit he most likely would have handled the situation differently.

He was not Batman yet. He officially became Batman or the symbol of justice when he stood up in that cave full of Bats. We can debate anything after that technically.

ex·e·cu·tion·er (ěk'sĭ-kyōō'shə-nər) Pronunciation Key
n. One who executes, especially one who puts a condemned person to death. 2. One who puts to death in conformity to legal warrant, as a hangman.
: one who puts another to death in fulfillment of a judicial death sentence

I could debate the text book definition of the word with the most common use of it but I see little point in doing so.

fancy saying, but it isn't the same. letting a guy commit suicide when you could stop him isn't your fault. Ra's got on that train to kill so all Batman did was leave him to face his own consequences. He saved him once and just didn't feel the mistake needed to be repeated so he didn't kill him he just didn't save him.

With this I disagree.....if you have the ability to stop any act of violence/crime with a reasonable amount of certainty that you wont endanger your own life you have an obligation to do so.

If you chose not to then you are as guilty as the perpetrator.

2. the Ninjas - Well, this is where it gets tricky, but I can still see them surviving as well, for a couple of reasons.
A. These Ninjas are supposedly highly trained martial artists, and one of the first things martial artists are taught are techniques to avoid, absorb, and otherwise recover quickly from blows, throws and falls. All those ninjas thrown about by the explosions ( I counted 8, BTW) could easily have survived being thrown about like that, more easily than an average person could.
B. Nolan made a point of focusing on particular individual ninjas at the party, as if he was saying, "see, these are the same ninjas that were at the monastery, none of them died." At least that's the impression I got. And the only for sure dead body we saw was that of Fake Ra's.

Some maybe...but its doubtfull that all survived.
Now as far as the whole "I don't have to save you." business, that is a little more problematic. In the Knightfall storyline, the supposed line that Bruce would never cross was crossed by AzBats when he ALLOWED the villian Abattoir to die. He didn't kill him directly, but he could have saved his life easily but deliberately refused to, and I remember Robin being horrified (this was the "final straw", if you will) because Bruce would haven't allowed it, Bruce would have risked his life to save even as vile a person as Abattoir.

I was going to bring this up myself.
 
In terms of Batman having a code where he won´t act in order to kill someone, yes, it has been broken, or at least twisted, as the examples I mentioned exemplify.
Except it's not the code. Everyone understands it as "I won't kill", not "I won't act to kill". You can argue semantics, but they are two very different things when executed.

The center of the argument isn´t whether Batman´s villains live or not, you can as well kill off a villain without Batman having anything to do with it, the center is what Batman believes and whether he acts according to his beliefs. He doesn´t believe in killing, but his priority always has been to preserve the innocent life, which is what he did.
Yes and no. I personally believe he puts more lives at stake following the "no killing" rule. As Joker said; misguided sense of righteousness.
 
Except it's not the code. Everyone understands it as "I won't kill", not "I won't act to kill". You can argue semantics, but they are two very different things when executed.


Yes and no. I personally believe he puts more lives at stake following the "no killing" rule. As Joker said; misguided sense of righteousness.

One means he will itnentionally kill or attempt to kill, the other means he won´t cause anyone´s death regardless of the circumstance, which would mean he has demigod powers, which he doesn´t. Part of him may even think it out of some God complex, but it´s just not the way things work. The first one is the best he can actually do. He can feel somewhat guilty and responsible for all that happened to Harvey, yes, but doesn´t mean he didn´t do the best he could, as often is the case in the comics.

We all have seen the "Batman causes death by not killing", but again, that´s not the intention, it happens against his will, like Harvey´s death did. but if Batman is forced to choose between saving an innocent and a criminal, I seriously doubt he´d choose the criminal.
 
Last edited:
One means he will itnentionally kill or attempt to kill, the other means he won´t cause anyone´s death regardless of the circumstance, which would mean he has demigod powers, which he doesn´t. Part of him may even think it out of some God complex, but it´s just not the way things work.
Of course not. I'm just describing how Bruce sees it, and how he justifies the rules to himself.

We all have seen the "Batman causes death by not killing", but again, that´s not the intention, it happens against his will, like Harvey´s death did. but if Batman is forced to choose between an innocent and a criminal, I seriously doubt he´d choose the criminal.
In the literal scenario of where both are physically in front of him, yes. But choosing to "save" said bad guy is still leaving the public open to danger. That's a (indirect) decision in choosing to fulfill one's self morals, than the better good.
 
Of course not. I'm just describing how Bruce sees it, and how he justifies the rules to himself.


In the literal scenario of where both are physically in front of him, yes. But choosing to "save" said bad guy is still leaving the public open to danger. That's a (indirect) decision in choosing to fulfill one's self morals, than the better good.

Like I said, he can have feelings of guilt, but still doesn´t mean he actually, factually broke his code. His guilt isn´t simply the result of the building thing, is the cumulation of all that´s happened, him becoming Two-Face - which also wasn´t a case of breaking his code, he had to choose to save one of them, and neither was a criminal. He couldn´t predict Harvey was going to have half of his face melted and get a visit by Joker and turning around the way he did. Batman feeling guilty for things ultimately out of his control is far from being unheard of in the comics as well.

Batman may even believe, on some level, that he is or should be able to prevent any death around him, but it may be true about Harvey as it may be true to any Joker´s victim, and so on. He wasn´t even around when Joker killed Jason Todd, but he certainly had feelings of guilt about it, and he can really be considered responsible to a degree. If Batman breaks his code whenever he can´t prevent death, he´s done it a thousand times.

The bad guy isn´t supposed to be a cause of danger once Batman catches him. Criminals aren´t all beyond rehabilitation, and the Arkham psychos escape all the time due, again, to a convenient comics contrivance.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, he can have feelings of guilt, but still doesn´t mean he actually, factually broke his code.
Isn't this what I've said?

His guilt isn´t simply the result of the building thing, is the cumulation of all that´s happened, him becoming Two-Face - which also wasn´t a case of breaking his code, he had to choose to save one of them, and neither was a criminal. He couldn´t predict Harvey was going to have half of his face melted and get a visit by Joker and turning around the way he did. Batman feeling guilty for things ultimately out of his control is far from being unheard of in the comics as well.
You're right, the things you mentioned weren't Bruce's fault. Which is why I don't care for any repentance at that moment, whether it's there or not.

The bad guy isn´t supposed to be a cause of danger once Batman catches him. Criminals aren´t all beyond rehabilitation, and the Arkham psychos escape all the time due, again, to a convenient comics contrivance.
Then we'll narrow it down to the people that he knows will escape again, and will kill once he's out. Like the Joker. Contrivances aside, it is part of the mythos. So we have to look at it in the context of that world. Given that the revolving door exists, and Batman knows it, the most efficient method of preserving life would be to get rid of those that take it away.
 
Isn't this what I've said?


You're right, the things you mentioned weren't Bruce's fault. Which is why I don't care for any repentance at that moment, whether it's there or not.


Then we'll narrow it down to the people that he knows will escape again, and will kill once he's out. Like the Joker. Contrivances aside, it is part of the mythos. So we have to look at it in the context of that world. Given that the revolving door exists, and Batman knows it, the most efficient method of preserving life would be to get rid of those that take it away.

You said he had a "loose" atitude about his code, which I don´t think he did. If saving a child´s life isn´t something to be more concerned about than preserving the guy pointing a gun to the kid´s head, I dunno what is.

I care for his repentance, because it´s part of the character that he feels guilty and responsible for things that are ultimately out of control. In Harvey´s case, he may feel guilty that he took a more personal decision by going to save Rachel, an understandable human decision, but one that still had a high cost.

And Batman won´t kill them to preserve that convenient comics contrivance, just like the writers won´t kill the villains by other means. Like I said, writers can twist anything they want. They give him this apparently unshakeable moral code - even though it HAS been shaken to some degree a few times - so they can bring the villains back, the same reason for the revolving door. It´s the old thing, the movie is the movie, the comics is the comics, the movie franchise isn´t monthly, it doesn´t need reasons to bring all the villains back again and again, some can live, some can die.

By the way, considering, as you said, that Batman knows some villains will always escape Arkham and kill innocent people, and the most efficient way to prevent that would be killing them, isn´t he, paradoxally, letting lose on his code that way? He can be considered responsible for those deaths, and worse, the deaths of innocents - or his code means strictly, "I won´t kill criminals?" I don´t recall it being that way either...
 
Last edited:
You said he had a "loose" atitude about his code, which I don´t think he did. If saving a child´s life isn´t something to be more concerned about than preserving the guy pointing a gun to the kid´s head, I dunno what is.
Of course the priority should be the innocent. I"m saying that preferably, he would have chosen a different method of incapacitating Harvey. Ideally he wouldn't sacrifice any life.

But you and I have already agreed that Nolan obviously didn't plan it this way, because it would dramatically change how the film ends.

I care for his repentance, because it´s part of the character that he feels guilty and responsible for things that are ultimately out of control.
Of course I care about repentance. I'm commenting on repentance that doesn't need to be there because of things not his fault. I could take it or leave it. I care more about actions that Bruce is directly responsible for. That's where I'll look for guilt and redemption.

In Harvey´s case, he may feel guilty that he took a more personal decision by going to save Rachel, an understandable human decision, but one that still had a high cost.
Didn't matter in the end. He still ended up going to Dent.

And Batman won´t kill them to preserve that convenient comics contrivance, just like the writers won´t kill the villains by other means. Like I said, writers can twist anything they want. They give him this apparently unshakeable moral code - even though it HAS been shaken to some degree a few times - so they can bring the villains back, the same reason for the revolving door. It´s the old thing, the movie is the movie, the comics is the comics, the movie franchise isn´t monthly, it doesn´t need reasons to bring all the villains back again and again, some can live, some can die.
I've already discerned this difference posts ago.

By the way, considering, as you said, that Batman knows some villains will always escape Arkham and kill innocent people, and the most efficient way to prevent that would be killing them, isn´t he, paradoxally, letting lose on his code that way? He can be considered responsible for those deaths, and worse, the deaths of innocents - or his code means strictly, "I won´t kill criminals?" I don´t recall it being that way either...
Yes, it's flawed. I'm pointing out the holes in Batman's crusade, which I'm sure any fan can see. Doesn't mean I don't like it that way. Wouldn't be much of an interesting character if he was perfect.
 
Of course the priority should be the innocent. I"m saying that preferably, he would have chosen a different method of incapacitating Harvey. Ideally he wouldn't sacrifice any life.

But you and I have already agreed that Nolan obviously didn't plan it this way, because it would dramatically change how the film ends.


Of course I care about repentance. I'm commenting on repentance that doesn't need to be there because of things not his fault. I could take it or leave it. I care more about actions that Bruce is directly responsible for. That's where I'll look for guilt and redemption.


Didn't matter in the end. He still ended up going to Dent.


I've already discerned this difference posts ago.


Yes, it's flawed. I'm pointing out the holes in Batman's crusade, which I'm sure any fan can see. Doesn't mean I don't like it that way. Wouldn't be much of an interesting character if he was perfect.

I like it too, but I like it in the comics, which need those contrivances due to the format. It´s not something I´ll miss in a movie version.
 
Sure, but I we're not talking about the comics
Sure, but i am complaining about how Nolan's batman strays from the canon. Just like Burton's, only less.
No. There's no such thing as "indirect murder." It's either murder, or it's something else--manslaughter or some other crime, but not murder. Batman can be charged with a lot of crimes, including manslaughter, but I don't believe murder is one of them
I guess i meant manslaughter then.
Personally, I prefer to think that his rule is against killing of any kind, and that, in this instance, he simply couldn't live up to that ideal. The problem some people seem to have is that they think if this Batman kills someone, it means he thinks killing is okay--or, alternatively, that it doesn't make sense for him to kill people while saying he doesn't want to. Human beings are hardly that simple. People do things they don't believe in all the time.
Well i didnt see batman torn up that he didnt live up to his ideals so i assume that Nolan just passed it under the table and hoped that nobody would notice. Like, "Who cares? Batman didnt directly kill Ras and that cape stunt will take the attention away from the ambiguous act of his".
Batman tries to save everyone in the comics. That's his code. There is always a way to save someone and if batman cant, then he cant. It's up to the writer and the situations he puts the character in. But batman has never let anyone die because it was cooler to use the cape or because he didnt have to (on the other hand there are instances where the comic book writers fail. See how Morrison recently treated Batman's encounter with Chill. He practically made him kill himself. Batman even gave him the gun that he killed his parents with and told him "you know what to do". BB's "i dont have to save you" pales in comparison to this because that story makes batman a hypocrite who is out for revenge). Anyway, most of the times comic book writers avoid tricky situations like the 2Face one, or they choose to solve them with some deus ex machina that doesnt load manslaughter on Batman's head. Like, the broken train control panel could explode killing Ras, or maybe he could refuse to be saved and die honourably or whatever.
As i said, its up to the writer. Its obvious that in real life, you'd have to resort to manslaughter at some point, but we are talking about a comic book hero character here, arent we?
All the time. We fail to live up to our ideals all the time. If you're reading this, you've probably done it this week.
What do you mean by that? Is it a hint for something?
Of course. But, as solutions go, it's pretty unorthodox. I don't think it's a coincidence that criminalizing himself is the solution Batman jumped to.
I agree with Crook on this one. The movie made it clear that he did it for the sake of Gotham. Batman is no fool. He wouldnt punish himself, make his job of saving lives harder, only to feel that the punishment would purify him. It doesnt. He clearly did it for gotham.

And to go back to the ambiguous ending of TDK, in the comics, batman blames himself over not being able to save Dent. In the movie, he should blame himself (or maybe Nolan thinks that its natural and within the rule of not killing. Hey the guy had half a face, he took bruce's gal and he was scaring a child. He should burn in hell!:woot:) for pushing him to his death. There is a big difference here and like Crook, i would prefer the comics way of resolving things. Batman cant headshot every thug that holds a hostage with a gun in the temple.
 
Last edited:
It's part of the reason why I could deal the whole Ra's situation at the end of BB. I was hoping that'd develop into something interesting in TDK. It was touched upon a bit in BB, but I really think the "life is precious" ideal should have been emphasized more. But it never happened. I'm glad Bats saved Joker, but they gave an encore just 5 minutes later to a different conclusion. With seemingly no emotional response. That was frustrating. :funny:

I feel like I'm back to square one again, waiting for this goldmine of a subplot to surface.
I still maintain that for Nolan, Ras' death was no big deal. Or maybe he realised his mistake and chose not to give it more substance and try to hide it under the carpet. But then he pulled another one by killing Dent the way he did. So i guess he has no clue? He thinks we wont notice? What's certain is that the average viewer that saw the movie without being hardcore about it (and talking about it furiously for months over the internet) probably didnt notice.
In the literal scenario of where both are physically in front of him, yes. But choosing to "save" said bad guy is still leaving the public open to danger. That's a (indirect) decision in choosing to fulfill one's self morals, than the better good.
I agree to this only to a point. If the law allowed batman or policemen to deliver justice by shooting supervillains, if the established morality of our civilization at this current time reckoned it was ok to kill people that have done too much harm, then batman would be cowardly and arrogant not to. But he doesnt kill only because of his sense of morality, he also doesnt kill because he recognises that he cant act as a judge and executioner. Everyone has the right to be trialled. He only saves lives and stops crime. That's what he does. He would jump into anyone's rescue, be it TwoFace or Alfred, and thus his decision to let Ras die was simply out of character (at least to the canon batman).
 
Sure, but i am complaining about how Nolan's batman strays from the canon.
I know what you're doing.

Well i didnt see batman torn up that he didnt live up to his ideals so i assume that Nolan just passed it under the table and hoped that nobody would notice.
If he was trying to "pass it under the table," why would he write a line where Batman directly explains that while he won't kill Ra's, he doesn't feel obligated to save him. Wait a second: that's not "passing it under the table" at all... that's bringing it right out in the open so everyone knows it's happening. That's Batman explaining his moral standard pretty clearly.

Hilariously, if the original draft had been used, I bet nobody would have complained. In Goyer's original script, Ra's doesn't ask if Bruce will do what is necessary and Bruce doesn't respond that he won't save Ra's. Instead, as they are wrestling with each other, Ra's asks if Bruce is afraid. Bruce says "Not of you," and triggers his cape, escaping the train as it crashes, with Ra's inside. I doubt many people would have thought twice about it. That would have been passing it under the table.

What do you mean by that? Is it a hint for something?
No. I meant exactly what I wrote: people fail their own moral standards all the time. All people. Too use a ludicrously oversimple example, I bet everybody here believes that the world has a moral obligation to feed starving children. But how many of us fed starving children this week?

I agree with Crook on this one. The movie made it clear that he did it for the sake of Gotham.
I never said he didn't do it for Gotham. Of course he did it for Gotham. I already said that. Conveniently, he can do things for more than one reason--and he doesn't need to be conscious of all the reasons he's doing something.

He wouldnt punish himself,
Are you kidding? Batman punishes himself constantly. That's who he is. That's one of his compulsions.

Batman cant headshot every thug that holds a hostage with a gun in the temple.
Don't waste my time by distorting the issue. I wouldn't say "Fah, Batman shouldn't be giving criminals group hugs!" so don't give me this "Batman shouldn't be shooting people in the head!" nonsense.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"