The Dark Knight Rises They should bring back Ra's for Batman 3

[Doc Samson]

I can't see how they would bring him back without the lazarus pit and this pushes it outside the realism aspect of this franchise.

I just posted this in another thread in the Begins forum, but it applies to this as well:

When he crashes Bruce's birthday party, when he first reveals himself to be the true Ras he says "isn't Ras Al Ghul immortal, his methods supernatural" or something to that effect. Now Nolan has stated some of Batman's villains won't work because he's going for a realistic approach, but to me, it seems like Ras was admitting to being immortal, just like the comics .

He also goes on about destroying previous civilizations, dating back thousands of years. I don't believe we'll be seeing Ras again, but I always found it interesting that Nolan would use those choice of words. Maybe it was just a nod to fans, who knows, but I do find it odd that Ras himself refers to being immortal and supernatural...

 

[ManofmyWord]

I get what you're saying but I think it was just a nod to the comics. In terms of the story he was just using "Ras" as a metaphor for the league. How they've been around forever and in fact that Ras was a human symbol for their ideals. Much like he said "Ras saved us from our darkest fears". I think he really was Henri Ducard, but took on the Ras idenity. "As a man, I can be ignored, as a Symbol..."etc. Like Batman.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

but I do find it odd that Ras himself refers to being immortal and supernatural...

Don't let Ra's fool you. Theatricality and deception were prime themes in Batman Begins.

Bruce sums it up nicely when he tells Ra's they're cheap parlor tricks.

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

The main reason they can't bring R'as back as far as I can see is that he knows who Batman is and if he wanted to combat him effectively, he would just reveal his identity to the public through a third party.

If he really wants to defeat Batman then he'd be dumb not to say who he is to everyone, I mean you could fix this with making up some kind of warrior's honor bullcrap but It would still seem weak to me. I mean the only reason he didn't do it in the 1st movie is he didn't think it was needed when Gotham was going down the tubes in several hours.

I guess if you wanted to have everyone know that Bruce is Batman in the movies it would be fine, but I don't see them going that route. Thats just me though.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

The main reason they can't bring R'as back as far as I can see is that he knows who Batman is and if he wanted to combat him effectively, he would just reveal his identity to the public through a third party.

How exactly would he go about doing that without making it look like a hoax?

 

[Nepenthes]

it would make no sense at all, by any standard of reasoning

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

How exactly would he go about doing that without making it look like a hoax?

There is dozens of ways> Pictures and video footage of Batman and then comparing that to real life Bruce Wayne for one. I mean their mouthes and eyes still do look exactly the same. And there is also always files from Wayne Enterprises, though that might be harder to infiltrate. But once word got out that Bruce Wayne might be Batman and the evidence seemed like it made sense, then he would be so constantly hounded by the media it would be hard to keep it secret for long. And besides no one in TDK suggested that Coleman Reese was putting out a hoax. All R'as would have to do is make up a fake person with some inside information on him or something.

R'as would also be able to target Alfred, Lucius and anyone Bruce came in contact with at all, which would really flip things too far in his favor for a movie I think....

 

[chaseter]

I don't know how, but I think it'd be badass to bring back Ra's (Liam Neeson) and have him help Two-Face in his vigilante revenge. I mean, they could easily come up with a good way to explain his "death." Afterall, Ra's never really dies, even in the realism of Nolan's Batman, he could have survived. I say this also because I think continuous villains are a good thing in superhero stories (comics and movies). That's one thing that always bugged me about other superhero movies, like Burton's Batman, they just kill off the villains. Thoughts?

This is the lamest idea ever. I bet you hope SM4 has Doc Ock, Venom, Green Goblin, and Goblin Jr. all teaming up to finally get Spider-Man

 

[IceVenom]

Pretty sure that Nolan has stated that he will never kill off his villains.

I think Ra's is alive. Either as somebody else or as himself still. The Laz pit could just be an old league of shadow's method of healing soldiers hurt in battle.

But yea, Ra's said his name is a symbol so some one could always take the mantle of Ra's, thus making him immortal.

I would love to see him in a cameo much like the scarecrow (Time frame of course).

But ultimately i want to see Talia's story.

 

[darkseid26]

i would want ra's to come back to bring the trilogy full circle, but i doubt he will, we always have talia thou...

 

[gwynplaine]

Huh, no... on the other hand Scarecrow...

 

[COMPO]

what if Ra's came back and he was disabled he'd tried to get out of teh train last minute almost did but ended up crippled and has now a machanical lung and voice box so he cabn breath and speak making him more chilling and he sort of works in teh shadows having his minions stealing chemicals to make the lazarus pit.

 

[ThePoisonPuppet]

what if Ra's came back and he was disabled he'd tried to get out of teh train last minute almost did but ended up crippled and has now a machanical lung and voice box so he cabn breath and speak making him more chilling and he sort of works in teh shadows having his minions stealing chemicals to make the lazarus pit.

If you are going to change him that much he is not really Ra's Al Ghul anymore and it just seems kind of pointless.

 

[The Major]

If you are going to change him that much he is not really Ra's Al Ghul anymore and it just seems kind of pointless.

Ra's was already changed in Batman Begins. Compo is just expanding on that foundation.

 

[Melkay]

I just posted this in another thread in the Begins forum, but it applies to this as well:

When he crashes Bruce's birthday party, when he first reveals himself to be the true Ras he says "isn't Ras Al Ghul immortal, his methods supernatural" or something to that effect. Now Nolan has stated some of Batman's villains won't work because he's going for a realistic approach, but to me, it seems like Ras was admitting to being immortal, just like the comics .

He also goes on about destroying previous civilizations, dating back thousands of years. I don't believe we'll be seeing Ras again, but I always found it interesting that Nolan would use those choice of words. Maybe it was just a nod to fans, who knows, but I do find it odd that Ras himself refers to being immortal and supernatural...

This is absurd... Suggesting is not the same thing as admitting... and with Nolan's realism, suggesting is all we will have. Want to bring back Ra's after the Nolan finishes his trilogy? Fine. But AFTER that.

And let's not repeat villains just for repetition's sake. Bring new characters, keep fleshing out the Bat-world, do not los the freshness... this is not a soap opera, this is not endless returns of characters... Gotham must keep on expanding. batman must keep on expanding.

With realism, we will never have a Lazarus Pit. Maybe Ra's is alive, but with Nolan, we will never know. He won't betray himself like this.


And... to the first poster... Two-Face is dead. Deal with it in the best way you can, except denial.

 

[Doc Samson]

This is absurd... Suggesting is not the same thing as admitting... and with Nolan's realism, suggesting is all we will have. Want to bring back Ra's after the Nolan finishes his trilogy? Fine. But AFTER that.

And let's not repeat villains just for repetition's sake. Bring new characters, keep fleshing out the Bat-world, do not los the freshness... this is not a soap opera, this is not endless returns of characters... Gotham must keep on expanding. batman must keep on expanding.

With realism, we will never have a Lazarus Pit. Maybe Ra's is alive, but with Nolan, we will never know. He won't betray himself like this.


And... to the first poster... Two-Face is dead. Deal with it in the best way you can, except denial.

See Melkay, this is where we always run into problems. What's so absurd about repeating what Ras himself said? I wasn't saying he in fact is immortal, I'm saying why would Nolan use those choice of words? It could of very well just been a nod to the fans, thats fine, but its absurd that you would even try to take that and attempt to flip it into something else. I never said to bring him back definitely, I don't care either way, I'm just asking the question of why would Nolan, who is obsessed with this realism as you just pointed out, use that termanology? Since it seems like you thirst for another argument, tell me, why did he say that, in that way, with those words?

 

[The Major]

Doc:

Technically Ra's al Ghul could be immortal, just not in a super natural form.

Its not a secret the League uses trickery and symbols. Ra's is one of their symbols. It's a rank, not a character.

 

[chaseter]

It was said that Ra's is not a single person, he is an idea...a symbol like Batman and that is immortal.

 

[Melkay]

See Melkay, this is where we always run into problems. What's so absurd about repeating what Ras himself said? I wasn't saying he in fact is immortal, I'm saying why would Nolan use those choice of words? It could of very well just been a nod to the fans, thats fine, but its absurd that you would even try to take that and attempt to flip it into something else. I never said to bring him back definitely, I don't care either way, I'm just asking the question of why would Nolan, who is obsessed with this realism as you just pointed out, use that termanology? Since it seems like you thirst for another argument, tell me, why did he say that, in that way, with those words?

Doc, why do you pressume so many things? Instead of answering your questions, let me ask you some other... why did Ra's said what he said... in that way? See, he wasn't making any sort of statements about whether or not he was inmortal? He was asking rethorical questions (because he knows the answer to this) and his choice of words was a nod to the fans ONLY. To the memebers of the audience that don't know about Ra's inmortality in the comics, he was just talking about the tradition of having a Ra's Al Ghul in the League, and protecting him. That's why we get Bruce's opinion on the matter... "just cheap parlos tricks to conceal your true identity"... and that's all we got. Ra's doesn't even deny it. All the moviegoers (the ones unfamiliar with the comics) got was that Ra's was taunting Bruce and that's it.

Nolan's world is rooted in realism. Nobody expects him to break that in such a drastic way, but to change completely the inmortality aspect without giving some space to give the source material the respect it deserves... that would have been too much. That's why we got that moment and the other one where he closes his eyes trance-like before going down with the train. That, and never showing the body. That's all, those were the moments that were made entirely for the comic fans wihtout spoiling the consistent realism for the movie-goers. That's it. Each side had expectations and Nolan and Goyer made sure that there was space for both of them... but never gave any hint beyond that. He won't return with Ra's and you know it, that's why I find so absurd that you are willing to give the idea some thought.

The terminology, as you say, was just a nod to the fans. There's nothing puzzling about it, that's how it is. If he had chosen some other words, then it WOULDN'T be a NOD to the FANS. What is puzzling here is how you are not seeing that.

 

[Doc Samson]

Doc, why do you pressume so many things? Instead of answering your questions, let me ask you some other... why did Ra's said what he said... in that way? See, he wasn't making any sort of statements about whether or not he was inmortal? He was asking rethorical questions (because he knows the answer to this) and his choice of words was a nod to the fans ONLY. To the memebers of the audience that don't know about Ra's inmortality in the comics, he was just talking about the tradition of having a Ra's Al Ghul in the League, and protecting him. That's why we get Bruce's opinion on the matter... "just cheap parlos tricks to conceal your true identity"... and that's all we got. Ra's doesn't even deny it. All the moviegoers (the ones unfamiliar with the comics) got was that Ra's was taunting Bruce and that's it.

Nolan's world is rooted in realism. Nobody expects him to break that in such a drastic way, but to change completely the inmortality aspect without giving some space to give the source material the respect it deserves... that would have been too much. That's why we got that moment and the other one where he closes his eyes trance-like before going down with the train. That, and never showing the body. That's all, those were the moments that were made entirely for the comic fans wihtout spoiling the consistent realism for the movie-goers. That's it. Each side had expectations and Nolan and Goyer made sure that there was space for both of them... but never gave any hint beyond that. He won't return with Ra's and you know it, that's why I find so absurd that you are willing to give the idea some thought.

The terminology, as you say, was just a nod to the fans. There's nothing puzzling about it, that's how it is. If he had chosen some other words, then it WOULDN'T be a NOD to the FANS. What is puzzling here is how you are not seeing that.

Jesus christ, people need to relax, I never said Ras was immortal, I was just bringing up the notion that he said it that way. In my original post, I said myself, that it was probably just a nod to fans but I found it odd that he would still use the words immortal in a realistic based film. I also said myself that the title of Ras Al Ghul could be more like a symbol, passed down through generations, I got all that. It was more of a rhetorical question in another thread in the first place, I only posted that here because, like I said above, it applies to this thread and IMO was an interesting choice of words that I wanted to discuss, period. I'm willing to give anything thought, thats the point of a messageboard.