The Dark Knight Rises Young Ra's Al Ghul - Does it mean flashback, or something else?

[Blue Sugar]

The last fight between Ra's and Batman is visually decent but symbolically brilliant.

If he returns in current time it would erase that brilliance.

 

[RazAlCool]

Ever consider that Ra somehow did manage to live in BB and was the person who let joker off of his leash in TDK?

Obviously joker was a fail. So now they no longer will put the responsibility of destroying gotham in the hands of anyone else but themselves(LoS).

Just a thought.

 

[Nevincer]

Ever consider that Ra somehow did manage to live in BB and was the person who let joker off of his leash in TDK?

Obviously joker was a fail. So now they no longer will put the responsibility of destroying gotham in the hands of anyone else but themselves(LoS).

Just a thought.

That would be beyond silly. The whole justification for destroying Gotham by the League was so it didn't breed criminals like the Joker. Joker didn't want to destroy Gotham and make the world a better place, he wanted to break it's spirit and make it even more chaotic than it's ever been, why would Ra's let someone like that off a leash?

That's not even going into how much it would undermine the brilliance of the Joker's character in the last movie by making him a pawn, whether knowingly or not.

 

[batbax]

Ever consider that Ra somehow did manage to live in BB and was the person who let joker off of his leash in TDK?

Obviously joker was a fail. So now they no longer will put the responsibility of destroying gotham in the hands of anyone else but themselves(LoS).

Just a thought.

Oh. My. God.

 

[batbax]

Yeah. Plus I really can't see the joker being ra's *****. In fact if anything I'd see it the other way around.

 

[The Joker]

Ever consider that Ra somehow did manage to live in BB and was the person who let joker off of his leash in TDK?

Obviously joker was a fail. So now they no longer will put the responsibility of destroying gotham in the hands of anyone else but themselves(LoS).

Just a thought.

Sorry, but that idea is just

 

[batbax]

Actually, joker succeeded in terrorizing Gotham much netter than ras did. And he did it with just "a couple of drums of gas and some dynamite". Whole ras even with his fancy Los couldn't. Joker>>>>ra's.

 

[Great Mind(s)]

No the Joker CANNOT be Ra's puppet. At all! The Joker was the full on response to Batman entering the scene. Escalation right? Batman took it to the next level and The Joker topped him. Joker is his own man.

 

[joker1524]

ras is an awesome character but in no way should an idea like that even occur, even if the joker decided to work for ras u can expect the joker to double cross ras and leave the los in shambles just like he did to the MOB

 

[joker1524]

hey there...just watched batman begins today. the reason why were gona see a young ras is cuz...

please think about it.

ras is bruce true father.

the scene after wayne falls into cold water during training. how the hell does ras know bruce father? and he talks about a whife he use to have....
in a third movie the first thing you need to do is to destroy something that everybody thought was true since the first movie. BINGO.

why the hell would ras wanna destroy gotham....cuz his lover (bruce mother) got killed there.
why would he come to pik up wayne from prison? cuz its his son.

think just a second how that would destroy bruce/batman..."the man who was kiled in front of you wasnt your father. you killed your real father"

goody i cant wait for this scene to happen in TDKR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwExDG7n7Zg

 

[The_Raganork]

Actually, joker succeeded in terrorizing Gotham much netter than ras did. And he did it with just "a couple of drums of gas and some dynamite". Whole ras even with his fancy Los couldn't. Joker>>>>ra's.

Ra's and Joker shouldn't be equated this way. Ra's didn't want to terrorize Gotham

 

[batbax]

Ra's and Joker shouldn't be equated this way. Ra's didn't want to terrorize Gotham

Yea I suppose. I was using it more to point out the fact that joker actually accomplished his goals(such as they were) much quicker and efficiently than Ra's did, without the fancy LOS,etc. So I was saying that to simply point out that in no way should Ra's ever be pulling the jokers strings or be his puppeteer as was being suggested.

 

[Nevincer]

Ra's and Joker shouldn't be equated this way. Ra's didn't want to terrorize Gotham

Wow, I was thinking of saying this but decided not to. Basically, I agree completely.

As for your last post Batbax, that's arguable considering Ra's only had the final act of Begins dedicated to him executing a plan to destroy/terrorize Gotham, whereas the Joker got a whole film doing it. Plus, through the film's mythology, Ra's and the LOS has a much bigger and historical reputation than the Joker of accomplishing massive destructive goals such as "sacking rome and loading trade ships with plague rats".

Let's not also forget before the story began the fact that Ra's manipulated economics to create the depression in Gotham, which paved the way for the rise of crime, corruption and desperation, more or less spiritually breaking Gotham to no less the extent than Joker aimed to do in TDK, putting it in the sorry state which drives Batman and his allies' whole mission in the first place.

Their one failure in Begins on-screen doesn't make them less efficient than the Joker, that really is debatable, especially when the Joker's plan in TDK is criticized by many as requiring a few too many dues ex machinas to work properly in the first place.

 

[batbax]

Lol you guys gave taken what I was trying to say completely out of context. Perhaps my wording wasn't clear enough. Based upon the post I was responding to which was the idea that rss was somehow pulling the jokers strings and let him off the leash so to speak; I was simply arguing that joker is just as if not more powerful than ra's and certainly wouldn't be playing second fiddle to him in any capacity. And darkhunt, to your point about joker having a whole film , well, yes and no. I mean he basically started off as a bank robber/ murderer who managed in a very very short period of Time to flip Gotham in it's tail much to the same degree If not worse than what ra's/ scarecrow/ Los did. And yes I'd say the joker by himself totally outdid the scarecrow/ ras/ Los combination both Gotham wise and attacking/ toting with Bruce/batman.

 

[Rocketman]

Ra's and Joker shouldn't be equated this way. Ra's didn't want to terrorize Gotham

"And the word is... Panic."

 

[AnneFan]

"And the word is... Panic."

Yep. Watch as Gotham tears itself apart by fear.

 

[Wolverine1988]

Lol you guys gave taken what I was trying to say completely out of context. Perhaps my wording wasn't clear enough. Based upon the post I was responding to which was the idea that rss was somehow pulling the jokers strings and let him off the leash so to speak; I was simply arguing that joker is just as if not more powerful than ra's and certainly wouldn't be playing second fiddle to him in any capacity. And darkhunt, to your point about joker having a whole film , well, yes and no. I mean he basically started off as a bank robber/ murderer who managed in a very very short period of Time to flip Gotham in it's tail much to the same degree If not worse than what ra's/ scarecrow/ Los did. And yes I'd say the joker by himself totally outdid the scarecrow/ ras/ Los combination both Gotham wise and attacking/ toting with Bruce/batman.

Your original post was pretty straight foward, not sure how anyone would have taken what you said out of context....

 

[KRIM]

"And the word is... Panic."

Yep. Watch as Gotham tears itself apart by fear.

Was never the end goal. Ra's was going to use any means necessary to tear up Gotham, but it was to wipe the slate clean and build a better city. Far different initiative than Joker.

 

[batbax]

Your original post was pretty straight foward, not sure how anyone would have taken what you said out of context....

At this point in re- explained myself 3 times. Yes it was taken out of context. The original post was to rebuke the idea that ras would ever be the one responsible for letting joker "off the leash" or "pulling his strings" in tdk. Also in yhe post i was replying to by raz Alcool he stated "joker was a fail". Well no, actually joker succeeded in HIS mission much more succesfully than ras dud. Not sure thats even debatable.Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[The_Raganork]

#1: I understood what you meant Batbax I just wanted to make sure anyone else who read it didn't take it that way. I could have worded my post better as well. In terms of who was more of a villain in the films (not in lore but just in how it was done from a film making view) Joker takes the cake. However from a lore stand point Ra's goal was to never terrorize Gotham.

#2 As Krim and Darkhunt said: "the word is panic" line may seem like a good rebuttal but it isn't. Ra's didn't care if Gotham suffered he wanted it DESTROYED. Terrorizing it and making people uneasy were not his ultimate goals. Destruction through fear was. He cared not about making Gotham suffer but only cleansing it to start anew. This is no different than shooting a horse with a broken leg, it can limp along in pain forever but, Ra's found himself being merciful to Gotham; The Joker found himself to be terrorizing Gotham to prove a point. Ra's wasn't justifying anything anymore he was taking action against the dying city.

People being in fear was a byproduct of them ripping Gotham apart and the ultimate 'Death' of the city. So Death not terror was his goal.

I'm sure if Ra's could have dropped a nuke on Gotham he would have.

 

[Batman jr.]

Wow, I was thinking of saying this but decided not to. Basically, I agree completely.

As for your last post Batbax, that's arguable considering Ra's only had the final act of Begins dedicated to him executing a plan to destroy/terrorize Gotham, whereas the Joker got a whole film doing it. Plus, through the film's mythology, Ra's and the LOS has a much bigger and historical reputation than the Joker of accomplishing massive destructive goals such as "sacking rome and loading trade ships with plague rats".

Let's not also forget before the story began the fact that Ra's manipulated economics to create the depression in Gotham, which paved the way for the rise of crime, corruption and desperation, more or less spiritually breaking Gotham to no less the extent than Joker aimed to do in TDK, putting it in the sorry state which drives Batman and his allies' whole mission in the first place.

Their one failure in Begins on-screen doesn't make them less efficient than the Joker, that really is debatable, especially when the Joker's plan in TDK is criticized by many as requiring a few too many dues ex machinas to work properly in the first place.

By whom is it criticzed? It's just fiction, people.

 

[The_Raganork]

By whom is it criticzed? It's just fiction, people.

Critics.

 

[Nevincer]

Critics.

Yup. I don't necessarily agree with it myself but critics do often cite it as a flaw for them.

 

[Dr. Jackstraw]

Let's not also forget before the story began the fact that Ra's manipulated economics to create the depression in Gotham, which paved the way for the rise of crime, corruption and desperation, more or less spiritually breaking Gotham to no less the extent than Joker aimed to do in TDK, putting it in the sorry state which drives Batman and his allies' whole mission in the first place.

Wait, I don't think so. Ra's was trying to purge crime and corruption from Gotham. The economic depression in Gotham was the reason why crime ran rampant and Bruce's parents were murdered. Ra's was telling Bruce that the LOS first sought economic tools to save Gotham (possibly working with Bruce's father). This failed. So, they decided to save Gotham by destroying it through force instead.

 

[Nevincer]

Wait, I don't think so. Ra's was trying to purge crime and corruption from Gotham. The economic depression in Gotham was the reason why crime ran rampant and Bruce's parents were murdered. Ra's was telling Bruce that the LOS first sought economic tools to save Gotham (possibly working with Bruce's father). This failed. So, they decided to save Gotham by destroying it through force instead.

That's incorrect. I'd suggest watching the scene again, Ra's never underwent any peaceful solutions to saving Gotham. When Ra's spoke of economics he referred to it as one of their weapons in the dialogue, in response to Bruce asking if they had "attacked" Gotham before.

Thomas Wayne was already a thorn in Ra's side before he died because he was a "misguided idealist", and Ra's stated he "got in the way", so they were clearly never partners, but when he did die, the siginificance was that it "shocked the wealthy and the powerful into action" as well, or as Ra's puts it "galvanized the city into saving itself and Gotham has limped on ever since. We are back to finish the job." In other words, his plan has always been to destroy Gotham.

I'm pretty sure this isn't just my interpretation of the scene, it's the generally regarded one... here's another source along the same lines:
http://batman.wikia.com/wiki/Henri_Ducard_(Liam_Neeson)

Ra's explains that the League plans to use a fear toxin invented by their partner Dr. Jonathan Crane (alias the Scarecrow) to infect the city with mindless panic, and watch it destroy itself. He claims that the League of Shadows had attempted to use economics as a mean of destruction, which led indirectly to the murder of Bruce's parents when Joe Chill attempted to mug them after losing his job, their deaths subsequently prompting the industries to band together and save the city. He explains that the destruction of Gotham City is merely another mission by the League to correct humanity's recurring fits of decadence and presumably protect the environment. Ra's then has his henchmen burn down Wayne Manor with the intent of killing Bruce, stating "Justice is balance, you burnt my home and left me for dead, consider us even."