The Dark Knight The DARK Knight: A Hint At Bruce's Decline To The Abyss?

[Crooklyn]

So it's no secret this board has been boring as hell lately. Out of this, I was reading through some fan reviews of when BB was first released, and came across a pretty interesting analysis of it's theme. It became more interesting since that it eerily could fit right in with what Nolan plans to do, given his statements. Might be long for some, but at least it's something new to discuss.

I've been mulling over the theme of this movie, and the more I think about it, the more I'm taken to a place that I don't want to go to. Because, maybe, the people who complain about this being too "dark" have subconsciously picked up on something, but can't articulate. And I think I have.

Basically, this is the scariest Batman I've ever seen portrayed. And that's because unlike or moreso than other Batman's, this one has the potential to become something truly evil. If indulged, this new franchise could take Batman to a place he was never meant to go.

You see, in trying to decipher the theme of this movie, it becomes apparent that FEAR is the theme of this movie. This movie is obsessed with it. Or, to be more precise, this film is about the weaponization of fear. Every major foe in the film uses fear as a weapon. From Joe Chill who uses fear of his gun to pilfer a few paltry dollars from the Wayne's, to Carmen Falcone who rules the city in a grip of fear, to Dr. Crane who induces fear to get the things he wants and needs, to Ra's Al Ghul who is set to use the raw power of fear unfettered to cause Gotham to tear itself apart.

So then, Using fear against others is the theme. But I was wondering, what was the final analysis of this theme? What is the movie actually trying to say about those who use Fear as a weapon? Chill, Falcone, Crane and Ghul are all portrayed as evil and despicable for doing so, for perverting the natural order of things by using fear. Chill by depriving a boy of his parents, Falcone by depriving a city of it's justice, Crane by depriving men of their sanity, and Ghul by trying to deprive the people of a city of their right to live.

Put in that light, it seems exceedingly odd for the movie to portray Bruce's embrace of fear as a weapon in a good light. Sure, Batman has used a fearsome costume since his very inception. But, there seems to be a subtle difference here in how it's applied. Past Batmans have used the costume for tactical advantage, to through thugs off-balance through fear, making them easier to dispense with. Fear was a tool then, to help Batman achieve his ultimate aim of Justice.

But this Batman is different. It's a subtle difference, but an important one. This is a Batman who wants to visit "his fear of Bats onto all criminals of Gotham." This Batman, is one who seems to relish bringing fear to criminals, and making a city fear him. He eagerly seeks the power of fear, to use against his enemies. Here, it's a sort of revenge. He will pay back Falcone for gripping the city in fear by visiting this fear back upon him.

But this begs the question, "Why is it okay for Batman to use fear as a source of power, but not okay for Chill, Falcone, Crane and Ghul?" Part of what makes them evil is that they use fear to gain power. But Batman can't be evil, right? So what is it saying? That fear as a weapon has no moral value, but can be used for good as well as evil? But is that something you can really believe? Is it really okay to hold a human emotion hostage to achieve your ends? In any other case, this would be called "Manipulation," and a rather despicable form of it at that.

However, it seems that Bruce senses the inherent contradiction that using fear has. He knows that people shouldn't use fear against other people. So his solution, (or justification) is to elevate himself to being some sort of god. In the symbol of Batman, he seeks to become "incorruptible, and everlasting." He wishes to visit "his fear upon the criminals of the city," and speaks in such a way reminiscent of God visiting his wrath upon an evil populace. And when Flass happens to exclaim "I swear to God!" Batman makes no bones about it that he rivals the authority of the Almighty.

So that, in this, Batman makes himself above moral authority. He reserves the power of fear for him alone. And he also puts himself in the position to dispense final Justice. "I am no executioner" Bruce says. But as Batman, he becomes something worse. "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you." Ha. Like any other Batman would argue semantics like that. In this action, Batman seems to be saying that while he does not claim to right to visit damnation upon Ra's, he does have the right to refuse Salvation to him. I'm sorry Batman, but you're kidding only yourself. For you have taken on the authority to decide who lives and who dies, no matter what you try to say. And can any man truly be trusted with that authority? Especially if that man deludes himself into thinking he' God?

In "Mask of the Phantasm," Alfred speaks of Bruce walking the edge of the abyss every day, and thanking heaven that Bruce hasn't fallen in. The Batman of Batman Begins isn't the first one to flirt with this sort of sacrilege, nor with the contradiction of using fear for power. But this one seems to be one that has already fallen into the abyss Alfred long ago warned of. Because, as you can see, Batman has already taken on the image of Ra's Al Ghul by the end of the film. Both are men committed to Justice, but with the conviction only they can bring Justice to this corrupt world. Both have no qualms about using the power of fear to impose their will. And both are more than willing to justify the loss of life in reaching those ends. This should be far from comforting.

But, it seems that the film does not let Batman's behavior slide. Because even Gordon points out the folly of this escalation. If Batman has made himself truly "more than a man," something bordering on the divine, the what demonic ghouls are about to come out of the wood work to challenge him? Make no mistake: Batman is about to be punished, by a foe who's own narcissistic ends cannot be phased by Batman's dress-up act, and who will humble the Dark Knight by visiting his own brand of terror upon the city. Those who said that now that he's Batman, there's no where left for his character to go, are wrong. But, it's about to travel into some dark, dark territory, one that even Batman fans may not be able to stomach.

In the end, the film offers and interesting interpretation of Batman, but hardly my preferred one. Because this Batman has the capacity to pervert his mission, and become something worse than anything he's fought.

Now there are things I disagree with here, but for the most part, I think he's nailed it.

BB touched on Bruce perhaps losing grip of his "mission", ala Alfred's speech to him about getting lost inside the "monster" of his. Gordon has also mentioned "escalation" due to the new freaks coming out of the woodworks. No doubt, Batman is one of them. We had always assumed his comments referred to the villains, but what if we applied it to Bats himself as well? Take these Nolan quotes:

Horowitz: Batman Begins dealt with a range of themes from revenge to how we confront fear. What themes will you be exploring in The Dark Knight?
Nolan: I suppose in loose terms I can say it’s about things having to get worse before they get better.
Horowitz: It’s that note the first film ends on of escalation?
Nolan: Very much.
Horowitz: Is there anything to be inferred from the name you’ve chosen for this film, The Dark Knight?
Nolan: Ultimately yes. [Laughs] But I’ll leave that for people to infer.

IGN got the chance to ask Chris Nolan if The Dark Knight would delve further into the themes established in Batman Begins, specifically the idea of justice vs. revenge and the exploration of Bruce Wayne's father issues.

"I haven't finished the script yet. I'm supposed to be doing it right now," Nolan admitted, sparking laughter from the crowd. "It does, absolutely. It's a pretty direct continuation of where the last film left off, and the last scene of Batman Begins suggests a strong direction we wanted to take the story in. It absolutely carries on with a lot of the thematic concerns and hopefully takes it someplace new."

"Coincidence?! I. Think. Not."

 

[Darkest Knight]

Sounds grim as hell, and quite interesting. Can't wait. Push it to the limit...

If I were to attatch a song that I feel represents the tone and pace that the film will take ... listen to Requim for a Dream. That song is a metaphor to how I think things will turn in The Dark Knight. I want to see Batman pushed to his limits on both sides, and see if he can keep his poise and remain the hero that he is supposed to be.

 

[Demon Within]

IMO people need to lighten up....its not that serious.

 

[Darkest Knight]

I can picture Bruce seeking deeper and deeper into depression. I visualize Bruce sitting in the batcave at the computer, and he's slouched brooding, while there is a frame or newspaper clipping article of the Joker and all his heinous crimes from the past few months. How cool would it be to see a Bruce Wayne with dark spots around his eyes, and Alfred saying something to the effect "You haven't slept in three days." and Bruce absolutely snapping on his loved ones.

Bruce Wayne, unlike other heroes when times get difficult, this was Bruce's choice ... he is motivated, obsessed, and extremely focused. So as things get worse in Gotham, as new levels of corruption emerge, new sick psychopaths who look to bring more terror to Gotham than Batman, and as his friend's life is destroyed and things get dark and grim ... Bruce doesn't contimplate his purpose or whether or not he should be this vigilante. Bruce buckles down and bring himself down a darker hole of obsession, trying at all costs to end this reign of terror, but in his efforts he becomes irritable towards his friends and starts spreading himself too thin in an attempt to solve these problems. I can picture Batman going down a dark road, and becoming even more violent with his foes because of his frusterations.

This would definetely be an interesting interpretation of the character. Something I think they had planned from the start. Bale always said he was interested in a really dark Batman story. BEGINS was dark, but it wasn't as dark and gloomy as the area in which "The Dark Knight" will take things. Bale was sold on doing 3 films. So he must have heard a pitch for a brief summary of all three films from Nolan and Goyer. B/C I specifically remember on the BEGINS dvd commentary, Bale said Nolan sold him on the part by saying "he'd be a much more volatile character than potrayed in past movies." This is what interested him. And I mean really, in BEGINS he was no more than the Burton Batman. Maybe Bale was reffering to where they plan on taking this character AFTER Batman Begins. And for me, know one I know would be able to play a horrifying, consumed, and overly obsessed Bruce Wayne / Batman than Christian Bale. Bale could play this character as frightening as possible. And they still have plenty of room to push this character. But the light at the end of the tunnel is, that for as dark as Batman will get in up coming chapters to the story, rest assured in Nolan's "it has to get dark, before it gets better." Ultimately Bruce will probably check himself, via others, and he will balance out and become the classic Knight we all know and love.

 

[NoName86]

I just wanted to mention something having to do with what was said in the original post. I know a lot of folks speak of "Nolan's Gotham" and "Nolan's Batman" to be realistic, but there is one tiny thing a lot of folks over look that I think will turn out to be a huge thing in the future movies. Right now his take on the whole Batman story is realistic, and people fear what things they may add/take away from the next movie (particularly the Joker's character", but I think that, what he generally is going for a realism, once things "escalate" it is then you will see Gotham come to life with more "fantasy". I think that Gotham is just a city right now, but once the freaks show up and things escalate it will become anything but what some consider "real". I hope I'm clear about what I'm saying here. There was no real big reason to go all out in the first one, as Nolan seems to like for things to evolve. Take for instance the scarecrow. He was toned down in the first one, but that last seen showed a very different scarecrow, and I think things will just start to get out of control in Gotham come "The Dark Knight"

Sorry if this seems too off topic, but I do personally feel it is relevant

 

[Miranda Fox]

I just wanted to mention something having to do with what was said in the original post. I know a lot of folks speak of "Nolan's Gotham" and "Nolan's Batman" to be realistic, but there is one tiny thing a lot of folks over look that I think will turn out to be a huge thing in the future movies. Right now his take on the whole Batman story is realistic, and people fear what things they may add/take away from the next movie (particularly the Joker's character", but I think that, what he generally is going for a realism, once things "escalate" it is then you will see Gotham come to life with more "fantasy". I think that Gotham is just a city right now, but once the freaks show up and things escalate it will become anything but what some consider "real". I hope I'm clear about what I'm saying here. There was no real big reason to go all out in the first one, as Nolan seems to like for things to evolve. Take for instance the scarecrow. He was toned down in the first one, but that last seen showed a very different scarecrow, and I think things will just start to get out of control in Gotham come "The Dark Knight"

Sorry if this seems too off topic, but I do personally feel it is relevant

*offers up a slice of Word Pie*

Exactly. Nolan has said time and again he choose Blade Runner as a basis for his take on Batman because it was a relatable world that had no boundries - therefore, Nolan's Batman can totally have a Joker with his iconic look etc because this world isn't supposed to have boundries either.

 

[Beelze]

I don't see what's so "far from comforting" with a man protecting innocents, putting ordinary criminals in jail, and refraining from saving another, near unstoppable man, who was about to kill millions of innocents (and would've tried again). Plus, Batman has outright killed people at the shrug of a shoulder before. Anyway, decent analysis, but it's nothing new, and not much to get riled up about. Now - Let's get back to being bored!

 

[Crooklyn]

I don't see what's so "far from comforting" with a man protecting innocents, putting ordinary criminals in jail, and refraining from saving another, near unstoppable man, who was about to kill millions of innocents (and would've tried again).

That's sorta the point though. That last half isn't what Batman is about anymore. If that was the case, the Joker would've been killed off ages ago. I'd say it'd be pretty damn interesting if we get a Hush-type scenario in which we do see Batman almost crossing the line once again.

 

[Castlewood]

I really love the first post. I hope this happens!!

 

[BurtonBat]

Although the original post makes some interesting points, overall I think this is a case of over analyzing a theme to the point of absurdity. Batman uses fear against those who prey on the fearful, he has done this from his inception throughout all his incarnations, even the campy ones to an extent. This does not go to say that he feels himself to be a god, he is a man who feels the need to control what occurs in his city, to dispense justice upon those whom he feels the system fails to act upon (although Batman does respect the system in so much as he works with it ie. Gordon to achieve his ends in protecting his city). The original post mentions fear being a weapon that can be used for both good and evil and coming to the conclusion that it is a bad thing to manipulate this human emotion for the sake of achieving an objective. If that objective is saving the lives of millions of people because he has faith in Gotham as he repeatedly mentioned in Begins, then imo, Batman can use fear as much as damn well pleases to achieve his objectives. What makes Batman so interesting to me as a superhero is that fine line that he resides on, what makes him a true hero is that he battles his inner demons for the sake of his city, for the sake of the promise he made to his parents. This is what I got from Batman Begins more than anything else, not that Batman thinks himself to be some God like superbeing who is above it all. He mentions to Rachel at the end that it is about the pursuit of justice, when he talks about an everlasting symbol this is not a reference to being god like this is him talking about becoming something beyong a man in the hearts and minds of his enemies and the good people of Gotham. A symbol that people can rally around, even if it is a scary one, but the difference is the scary symbol fights for the side of good and not evil for a change.

 

[Paste Pot Pete]

Fun essay. Lot's of nice thoughts.

I think it's safe to assume TDK will be the Empire Strikes Back of the series (which has just about become cliche`, as every sequel is touted as that).

But in the sense that, Begins ended optimistically, despite the sense of foreboding with the Joker card and the talk of escalation.

Bruce in Begins, despite his vicious, no-nonsense act as Batman, is still very much the optimist. He truly believes he can save Gotham. He assures Gordon at the end "We can bring Gotham back."

At this point, he has every reason to be confident and optimistic. He took down the city's biggest crime lord in his first night out. And mere days later, he foiled a plot to destroy the entire city. He's kickin' ass. He's driven...but he's not obsessed. Cause there's really no reason to be; things have been going gangbusters. We see hints of his obsessive nature when he's in a true pinch - saving Rachel - "getting lost in that monster" of his. At the end, talking with Rachel, Bruce still claims that "Batman is just a symbol." Rachel calls him out on it; I think he's sort of lying to himself too.

But I bet TDK will find a Batman bogged down in "work" and becoming more jaded about the state of Gotham. The exploits of the Joker and the loss of Harvey will be massive blows. He's really going to be under pressure, with his work truly cut out for him, and we'll see how he handles it.

 

[NoName86]

*offers up a slice of Word Pie*

Exactly. Nolan has said time and again he choose Blade Runner as a basis for his take on Batman because it was a relatable world that had no boundries - therefore, Nolan's Batman can totally have a Joker with his iconic look etc because this world isn't supposed to have boundries either.

Exactly. (By the way, sorry for my slightly bad grammar there folks, I was half asleep when I wrote that).

I don't see (nor do I think Nolan ever really said) why you can't have a Joker running around squirting Acid out of a flower, with his green hair and red lips. I don't see any reason why you cannot have a guy with a scarecrow mask on, riding a horse throughout Gotham terrorizing people with his fear toxin. I agree with what nolan does, he wasn't even about to just let the scarecrow pop up out of nowhere on a horse with a mask on, the charchter needed to "become". This is the beginning after all, and i'm sure even in the comics Gotham was a pretty normal place where the scariest folks were just criminals and mob bosses. Gotham is pretty much that in the first half of the BB, but in the second half you see it becoming something completely different. It will eventually come to a point to where it will be out of hand.

I sort of like what the original poster had in mind too. I think we will see Bruce fall deeper into "that monster of his". Even if he didn't push Joker into a vat of chemicals, he will almost surely have his part in creating him. As we seen at the end of Begins, maybe if it never were for Bruce dressing up like a bat and fighting crime then you would never have this man running around dressed like a clown doing the exact opposite of Batman. This is why Joker is so loved in the whole Hero genre, because he has soo much more depth than most other villains. He has a deep connection with Batman. So yea, I think Batman will struggle to not become what the Joker is(a murderer), and refrain from killing the Joker himself so he never does become that. This is exactly where I think they'll take it, and that is why Nolan seems to have chosen the title "The Dark Knight". I imagine Batman chasing Joker around, unable to stop him or even catch up with him throughout the most of the movie, the fact that he knows he is partly responsible for the creation of the Joker, and the fact that he is causing so much destruction will almost surely frustrate/depress Batman.

 

[Nepenthes]

it doesn't sound possible but I agree with everything in this thread. but then i thought most of these theories were pretty much a given for TDK. no-brainer stuff

 

[Steyin]

Honestly, while this is all interesting and I can agree with a lot, I think people here read TOO deep into things most of the time.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

Honestly, while this is all interesting and I can agree with a lot, I think people here read TOO deep into things most of the time.

It´s because people are bored to death right now.

 

[BmAaTn3625]

I agree that a lot of people on the boards are really reading to much into a lot of what is said and heard. I think Nolans words of placing Batman in a more realistic world has been very over disected over the years. He has stated that the film is grounded in "a heightened reality" giving the wiggle room to make characters and situations fit into his vision. I really have no concerns about the Joker on screen. Nolan has gone and looked at the very origins of the character as well if you listen to some reports has brought the co-creator of the Joker as a consultant on the film. He is doing his homework as needed. I really hope they do show Bruce and Batman on the breaking point. I think both Bruce and Batman will be assaulted non-stop on both fronts from various parties. I want to see Batman pushed close to crossing that line that he drew when he refused to kill the murderer in Begins. I think it would show a lot if a hero or a person that matter can be taken to their breaking point, getting lost in their mission and pull themselves back into focus and realize what needs to be done. Pushing Batman to the emotional edge has yet to be done on film. I think it can make a fantastic story and should be done.

 

[LionHeart]

The London Paper just conducted a interview with Chris Nolan, mostly about the Prestige but he does mention a tidbit about the Dark Knight.

"Its going to be very exciting--we're doing things on a really grand scale this time. And Heath Ledger as the Joker is going to be extraordinary."

Not much but something, and its on the comingsoon.net website if you don't believe me.

 

[Nepenthes]

^ we believe you

 

[Beelze]

That's sorta the point though. That last half isn't what Batman is about anymore.

It's been explained before why saving Ra's would've been a particularly dumb move, one that would've gone against another tenet of Batman, that of protecting the innocent. It was regrettable thing he had to do, but he was still Batman afterwards.

 

[Nepenthes]

^ what a load that is. Why has Batman never killed the Joker then?

 

[itsthebatman]

^ what a load that is. Why has Batman never killed the Joker then?

Absolutely. there's a scene in Knightsend, when Bats is battling AzBats, where Batman goes out of his way to save two bad guys trapped in a helicopter on top of a suspension bridge. Catwoman is watching him, and the dialogue bubble says (I'm paraphrasing here) 'She felt a tingle going through her. Batman risking his life to save two scum bags. There was no doubt, the real Batman was back'.

If there was one thing that really bugged me about BB, it was that. It goes against one of the most fundamental aspects of Batman's character - he does not kill, or allow others to die if he has anything to do with it.

 

[Beelze]

^ what a load that is. Why has Batman never killed the Joker then?

Because from the beginning, Batman has had a place to put The Joker. He was already known to the police for his schemes, and his insanity was an obvious one. Once captured, Batman could simply deliver him to the proper authority. Hell, with Joker's ego, he'd probably admit to the deeds without anyone needing to gather up the evidence. This is how it has been in the comics, and how it seems to be in Begins/The Dark Knight (Jim Gordon remarked on The Joker's taste for theatricality, so they know a bit about him already).

Ra's al Ghul is a different story. He is much more elusive than The Joker, and has many more, resourceful, people backing him. Due to how the story played out, what the circumstances became, in Begins, Batman had nothing on Ra's al Ghul. All he had was less than 20 minutes to figure out the details of Ra's plan, figure out various counter-plans, gear up, meet up with Jim Gordon, set his plans into motion and thus stop the deaths of millions. There was no time to think of gathering any evidence. All Batman could possibly count on would be the insane ramblings of Crane and Falcone, who weren't even in custody at the moment. Even so, if Ra's al Ghul was to be found guilty of perpetrating the attack on Gotham, the League of Shadows would still rescue him, and he'd be free to attack Gotham another day. And if they somehow failed to rescue him, he'd likely be executed anyway.

This is what can possibly make Batman Vs. The Joker darker and more interesting than Batman Vs. Ra's al Ghul. This time, Batman will be fully able to hand in the villain to the proper authorities, know that he'll stay put, and hope that there's a chance for redemption (which Ra's seemed to be beyond. It almost even seemed like he wanted Batman to kill him at the end)... the question is, will he want to? Will The Joker be such a monster that Batman will actually want to outright kill him when he could easily incapacitate him?

It's a question of resolution. Sometimes Batman has come close to killing someone, has even wanted to kill someone... And sometimes he did kill someone. He almost killed The Joker back in the old days, just like he almost killed him in the "newer" days.

 

[Crooklyn]

Because from the beginning, Batman has had a place to put The Joker. He was already known to the police for his schemes, and his insanity was an obvious one. Once captured, Batman could simply deliver him to the proper authority. Hell, with Joker's ego, he'd probably admit to the deeds without anyone needing to gather up the evidence. This is how it has been in the comics, and how it seems to be in Begins/The Dark Knight (Jim Gordon remarked on The Joker's taste for theatricality, so they know a bit about him already).

Ra's al Ghul is a different story. He is much more elusive than The Joker, and has many more, resourceful, people backing him. Due to how the story played out, what the circumstances became, in Begins, Batman had nothing on Ra's al Ghul. All he had was less than 20 minutes to figure out the details of Ra's plan, figure out various counter-plans, gear up, meet up with Jim Gordon, set his plans into motion and thus stop the deaths of millions. There was no time to think of gathering any evidence. All Batman could possibly count on would be the insane ramblings of Crane and Falcone, who weren't even in custody at the moment. Even so, if Ra's al Ghul was to be found guilty of perpetrating the attack on Gotham, the League of Shadows would still rescue him, and he'd be free to attack Gotham another day. And if they somehow failed to rescue him, he'd likely be executed anyway.

Ra's isn't the only villain that keeps escaping from confinement. We've had 60+ years of Batman lore, almost every single one relies on the villain coming back because they've escaped. The point is it's not Bruce's place to decide if it's "safe" to hand them over to the authorities, or if they're "too risky", hence their lives are expendable. Batman has always been about redemption, no matter who it is.

This is what can possibly make Batman Vs. The Joker darker and more interesting than Batman Vs. Ra's al Ghul. This time, Batman will be fully able to hand in the villain to the proper authorities, know that he'll stay put, and hope that there's a chance for redemption (which Ra's seemed to be beyond. It almost even seemed like he wanted Batman to kill him at the end)... the question is, will he want to? Will The Joker be such a monster that Batman will actually want to outright kill him when he could easily incapacitate him?

It's a question of resolution. Sometimes Batman has come close to killing someone, has even wanted to kill someone... And sometimes he did kill someone. He almost killed The Joker back in the old days, just like he almost killed him in the "newer" days.

This I can somewhat agree with, as that's what the original post was alluding to. It will definitely be interesting to see Batman in a similar position of putting an end to a villain's actions indefinitely. Whereas with BB, Bats seemed to leave Ra's without much thought or emotion, maybe in TDK they can show Bats in full out rage against the Joker, just to switch it up a bit.

 

[Beelze]

Ra's isn't the only villain that keeps escaping from confinement. We've had 60+ years of Batman lore, almost every single one relies on the villain coming back because they've escaped. The point is it's not Bruce's place to decide if it's "safe" to hand them over to the authorities, or if they're "too risky", hence their lives are expendable. Batman has always been about redemption, no matter who it is.

Once again it's about the realism, but also perception. Going by Begins, Ra's al Ghul is the first supervillain Batman has come into contact with (Crane doesn't really count). He proved way more dangerous and resourceful than any other person Bruce had ever met in his entire life. All those 60+ years of Batman lore isn't very realistic. Sometimes when a villain escapes, he just escapes because the writer wanted him to, and it's not really shown how the escape took place. In addition to this, nothing is really shown prior to or after this which makes you think that this or that villain would definitely escape from confinement. It's similar to the whole deal with calling Batman "The World's Greatest Detective", a title given to him when he didn't really do that much great detective work. It's closer to being a gimmick than the actual truth (unless I've missed out on some really good Batman detective stories). Ra's al Ghul, however, does strike you as one capable of performing such escapes (with aid from the outside), and Bruce likely perceived as much. Indeed, Ra's al Ghul isn't really the person to get caught in the first place. When The Joker comes along, Batman will perceive him as one man who should be easy to bring in and contain. He doesn't have our 60+ years of hindsight. If he did, he'd build his own prison for the guy and make sure he didn't get out.

I perceive Batman more as a "save as many as possible, and preferably the innocent ones first" kinda guy rather than a "never forget to save the villains as well, even if it'll cost the lives of innocents" kinda guy. By choosing to save a villain, he may indirectly be choosing to allow innocents to die. Just as by choosing to let a villain die, he may indirectly be choosing to allow innocents to live. In both situations he does something which many consider, by definition, bad. It's about choosing between the lesser of two evils.

This I can somewhat agree with, as that's what the original post was alluding to.

Hey, all I originally wanted to do was to point out that I thought the article writer was overreacting - not say that all his thoughts were wrong. Like someone else pointed out, I already saw all this as no-brainer material. It seems like the obvious development of it all.

It will definitely be interesting to see Batman in a similar position of putting an end to a villain's actions indefinitely. Whereas with BB, Bats seemed to leave Ra's without much thought or emotion, maybe in TDK they can show Bats in full out rage against the Joker, just to switch it up a bit.

Making too much of a sentimental/emotional moment during that train sequence would've made it a bit ridiculous. Bats has to think about saving himself too, so his mission can go on. He can't stay behind to reminisce about old times and how he regrets that it all came down to this in the end. With less than 20 minutes best spent on saving millions of people, I can't blame him. I hope he broods a bit about it in the sequel though... but I have this feeling that Goyer/The Nolan bros will have forgotten about Ra's al Ghul and the League of Shadows.

I feel your desire to experience something different in the sequel though, and hopefully the circumstances will allow it.