As we all know, despite Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing" during the rooftop fight scene, the end of the movie has Catwoman shooting Bane to death in order to save Batman, and Batman himself shooting at Talia's truck to save the town. What always made a huge impression on me was Catwoman telling Batman as soon as she rescued him: "About the whole no guns thing...(shakes her head)...I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do".
So, I suppose Nolan was trying to convey the message that guns are the answer to stop crime and disorder after all? I don't think even he knows, because according to TDK Screenplays Book, he actually admitted having no idea that Batman doesn't normally carry guns OR kill people:
QuoteI didn't know Batman didn't kill people when I signed on for the project. It was David [Goyer] who broke that news. And I was like, 'How do you make that work?' I said to the MPAA on The Dark Knight: 'Do you have any idea how hard it is to make a contemporary action film where the protagonist doesn't carry a gun? Doesn't kill people?' But I think that's an important part of why he's a mythic figure, rather than just a conventional action protagonist. It's actually a very important reason why I've stayed interested for so long in his story, because you have to deal with somebody wrestling that it seems important to wrestle with. So there is great stock placed in life in the way there is in real life.
Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PR9#v=onepage&q=I%20didn't%20know%20Batman%20didn't%20kill%20people&f=false
Yet despite all of this, Nolan decided to include these moral policies into his movies, but didn't bother to address any of them when Batman decides to break them. How typical. And people still regard him as a "cerebral" director. ::)
It's amazing how this guy gets away with a lot of things that other directors would've gotten castrated over. I guarantee you, if it was somebody else introduced a moral code and then have their character break it without exploring the consequences over it, or come to terms that he must break it to rescue others, that director would've been condemned by the critics for poor writing.
While I don't think Nolan's films are unwatchable, I don't understand either why he's treated like some sort of infallible figure in filmmaking.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 3 Oct 2015, 07:17As we all know, despite Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing" during the rooftop fight scene, the end of the movie has Catwoman shooting Bane to death in order to save Batman, and Batman himself shooting at Talia's truck to save the town. What always made a huge impression on me was Catwoman telling Batman as soon as she rescued him: "About the whole no guns thing...(shakes her head)...I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do".
So, I suppose Nolan was trying to convey the message that guns are the answer to stop crime and disorder after all? I don't think even he knows, because according to TDK Screenplays Book, he actually admitted having no idea that Batman doesn't normally carry guns OR kill people:
Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=uwV8rddtKRgC&lpg=PP1&pg=PR9#v=onepage&q=I%20didn't%20know%20Batman%20didn't%20kill%20people&f=false
Yet despite all of this, Nolan decided to include these moral policies into his movies, but didn't bother to address any of them when Batman decides to break them. How typical. And people still regard him as a "cerebral" director. ::)
It's amazing how this guy gets away with a lot of things that other directors would've gotten castrated over. I guarantee you, if it was somebody else introduced a moral code and then have their character break it without exploring the consequences over it, or come to terms that he must break it to rescue others, that director would've been condemned by the critics for poor writing.
The films never seemed to take a stance against guns directly. Even the line you quote says, "No guns, no killing." Which seems to give the idea not to kill with guns. Not not to use guns at all. In every version Bruce is a supporter of the police and a friend to Commissioner Gordon, who uses guns. But there are consequences to him breaking the rule. But the rule in the movies wasn't about the consequences.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
They took a stance against guns. Remember in BB, when he showed Rachel that he was going to kill Joe Chill with a gun, and she kept slapping him, and told him how disappointed his father would be, and then he threw it in the river and ran off to become Batman?
Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, 16:36They took a stance against guns. Remember in BB, when he showed Rachel that he was going to kill Joe Chill with a gun, and she kept slapping him, and told him how disappointed his father would be, and then he threw it in the river and ran off to become Batman?
That seemed more about that he was going to kill him to me. The throwing it in the river just seemed like a character based thing to me as well.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, 23:34Quote from: Travesty on Tue, 6 Oct 2015, 16:36They took a stance against guns. Remember in BB, when he showed Rachel that he was going to kill Joe Chill with a gun, and she kept slapping him, and told him how disappointed his father would be, and then he threw it in the river and ran off to become Batman?
That seemed more about that he was going to kill him to me. The throwing it in the river just seemed like a character based thing to me as well.
The other thing is Bruce didn't personally design the Batmobile or Batcopter. Yes, the movie uses other names for them but I won't go along with that. Anyway, they were designed for military purposes. It's totally reasonable to think they'd have guns attached to them.
And there are circumstances (such as blowing up a pile of rocks in TDKRises) where that kind of artillery might be needed.
Guns and explosives are tools. The issue isn't the tools; it's how they're used.
That being said, Batman kills people in Nolan's trilogy. There's no getting around it.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 00:12
The other thing is Bruce didn't personally design the Batmobile or Batcopter. Yes, the movie uses other names for them but I won't go along with that. Anyway, they were designed for military purposes. It's totally reasonable to think they'd have guns attached to them.
And there are circumstances (such as blowing up a pile of rocks in TDKRises) where that kind of artillery might be needed.
Guns and explosives are tools. The issue isn't the tools; it's how they're used.
That being said, Batman kills people in Nolan's trilogy. There's no getting around it.
The fact that he does kill makes it puzzling why he'd be so adamant against using guns in the first place. Yeah, he may not aim and fire his guns at people every time he drives a vehicle, but you'd think he'd understand by now that lethal force is inevitable sometimes. And in such moments, a gun - as Selina was implying - is certainly a valuable tool to save lives.
Which once again, it only adds to many contradictory things that this Batman says in this series. It was an unnecessary thing to say.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 09:43The fact that he does kill makes it puzzling why he'd be so adamant against using guns in the first place. Yeah, he may not aim and fire his guns at people every time he drives a vehicle, but you'd think he'd understand by now that lethal force is inevitable sometimes. And in such moments, a gun - as Selina was implying - is certainly a valuable tool to save lives.
Which once again, it only adds to many contradictory things that this Batman says in this series. It was an unnecessary thing to say.
It's not contradictory. He doesn't use guns to kill someone the one time that he does kill someone, and even that was accidental. His stance against using guns to kill can't be contradictory because he's never used them to kill. Basically you want him to realize that he should kill because he killed one person accidentally while saving the kid of his friend from being murdered, which doesn't fit. Killing someone accidentally doesn't automatically mean you'll think killing is necessary.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: Dagenspear on Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 15:10
Which once again, it only adds to many contradictory things that this Batman says in this series. It was an unnecessary thing to say.
It's not contradictory. He doesn't use guns to kill someone the one time that he does kill someone, and even that was accidental. His stance against using guns to kill can't be contradictory because he's never used them to kill. Basically you want him to realize that he should kill because he killed one person accidentally while saving the kid of his friend from being murdered, which doesn't fit. Killing someone accidentally doesn't automatically mean you'll think killing is necessary.
[/quote]
True, but he DOES use the guns on The Bat to flat-out blow away the driver of the truck at the end. No way that was an accident.
Quote from: DocLathropBrown on Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 21:40True, but he DOES use the guns on The Bat to flat-out blow away the driver of the truck at the end. No way that was an accident.
It was actually. Bruce was trying to redirect the truck to get it to go where the fusion bomb could contained. Lucius says that to Bruce.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Tue, 13 Oct 2015, 09:43The fact that he does kill makes it puzzling why he'd be so adamant against using guns in the first place. Yeah, he may not aim and fire his guns at people every time he drives a vehicle, but you'd think he'd understand by now that lethal force is inevitable sometimes. And in such moments, a gun - as Selina was implying - is certainly a valuable tool to save lives.
Which once again, it only adds to many contradictory things that this Batman says in this series. It was an unnecessary thing to say.
It's contradictory but not paradoxical.
IF Batman has to have some silly moral code against killing (and, again, I submit that a man like him wouldn't) it makes sense to me that he sees it more as a desirable heroic ideal than a non-negotiable moral imperative. His own actions show that he
will kill... but not necessarily as a first resort.
In particular he seems to have a distaste for using guns to do the job. If Ra's, Two Face and Talia are to be our object lessons, he seems to want the villain to fall on his own sword (perhaps with an assist from Batman himself). The major exception to that is the Joker, whom Batman made a special effort to save. Looking back at it, you could interpret that as Batman proving a point to himself and to the Joker.
If he kills, he'll be the one to decide to do it or not do it. He won't be forced into it, outwitted or driven insane. Saving the Joker was Batman (at least in his own mind) winning the argument.
Of course, the next scene shows him kill Two Face so you have to wonder who
really won the argument but, hey, that's what these threads are for, right?
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 05:03
It's contradictory but not paradoxical. IF Batman has to have some silly moral code against killing (and, again, I submit that a man like him wouldn't) it makes sense to me that he sees it more as a desirable heroic ideal than a non-negotiable moral imperative. His own actions show that he will kill... but not necessarily as a first resort.
I'd normally agree, but these films keep punching us in the face that he's against killing. Batman doesn't define when killing is okay in some circumstances, he just talks about how bad it is. Once again, it can't be both ways.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 05:03
If he kills, he'll be the one to decide to do it or not do it. He won't be forced into it, outwitted or driven insane.
Yet, as you already knew, Batman decided to let Ra's die upon setting him up in a death trap.
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 05:03
Of course, the next scene shows him kill Two Face so you have to wonder who really won the argument.
Indeed. That entire "moral argument" was a complete and utter waste of time.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 10:31Yet, as you already knew, Batman decided to let Ra's die upon setting him up in a death trap.
Precisely my point. Batman chose the time, place and manner that Ra's would die. Batman indirectly hoisted him on his pitard. I don't think Batman entered the train with the intention of attempting to stop Ra's (or the train). He was there to jury-rig the train so that it would take Ra's out for good.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 10:31I'd normally agree, but these films keep punching us in the face that he's against killing. Batman doesn't define when killing is okay in some circumstances, he just talks about how bad it is. Once again, it can't be both ways.
It isn't. He hasn't killed intentionally.
QuoteYet, as you already knew, Batman decided to let Ra's die upon setting him up in a death trap.
He didn't do that. Ra's did. He stabbed the console. He set himself up.
QuoteIndeed. That entire "moral argument" was a complete and utter waste of time.
It's never a waste of time. That's like saying fighting against crime is a waste of time because you'll never fully defeat it all yourself.
God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 16 Oct 2015, 23:06Precisely my point. Batman chose the time, place and manner that Ra's would die. Batman indirectly hoisted him on his pitard. I don't think Batman entered the train with the intention of attempting to stop Ra's (or the train). He was there to jury-rig the train so that it would take Ra's out for good.
This isn't about what we think. That isn't what happens in the movie. Ra's stabs the console. His actions cause his own death. Batman didn't jury rig the train.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Ra's never would have shown Batman mercy in a similar situation, not after what happened before in the film, anyway.
So, while I don't approve of letting Ra's die entirely, I don't feel too sorry about it. Now, dealing with Joker and Two-Face in TDK is another thing...
This is the kind of problem writers/directors run into when they try to psychoanalyze someone who is completely fictional in concept. It's very hard to ground someone who is essentially obsessed with abolishing crime with a code of conduct attached. That in itself is a comic book trait, not something one can really translate into real life. Here Nolan tackles that idea and demonstrates how the results, no matter how well intended, may ultimately contradict the end result.
If we want to look at a moral code, it would be nearly impossible for Batman to account for every person he profiles because he is lumping so many of those people with one crime boss and has no way of knowing if they are there of their own free will or by force. We as readers and observers for the film pretty much give Batman a pass and ASSUME he is making a best-guess judgment because he knows what he is doing. We assume his convictions are not just governed by emotion but a conviction that can somehow tell him the difference between right and wrong. It's very, very subjective. And I think Nolan recognizes that and profiles Batman in several moments of revelation that maybe his definition of justice is not necessarily as clear as he once thought.
I give Nolan props for trying to flush out the argument that perhaps heroes really can't exist in this fashion. In some ways I think that might ultimately be his point in this series. What defines a hero? And do the definitions of one person ultimately sync with what society desires? In many ways the Dark Knight series might suggest that the idea of a career as a superhero is really not something that is possible or supportable. That this role really takes more than the will of one person, but the collective agreement of many and whether that commitment can be sustained over time.
I enjoyed the trilogy, but if there is one thread of reasoning that grabbed me through this whole process, it was that Nolan believed Batman to be a short term solution for society to examine and reflect on how to better manage itself.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 13:36
I give Nolan props for trying to flush out the argument that perhaps heroes really can't exist in this fashion.
I don't, because for me, it doesn't tell me anything that I don't know already - that Batman and other superheroes can never exist in the real world. But what's worse is Nolan is inconsistent in adapting Batman's morals, and Batman doesn't reflect his own actions. Keeps saying he won't kill and that's supposed to be key to the whole Joker dilemma, but then he justifies killing Ra's al Ghul to save Gotham when confronted by Talia. And there's the hypocritical lecture at Catwoman against guns. It just doesn't match. What's the point of having a rule if he's not bothered by breaking them? Thematically, it all comes across as pointless.
These films would be much so better if we saw Batman recognize what he has done, and decides to take a more consistent approach. That way, we actually see a change in him as a character. In Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, an aging Batman vowed to never fight crime ever again after he was ashamed for merely aiming a gun at a goon, even though he did it in self-defence. And as much as I don't care too much for Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, I liked that Superman stayed true to his principle about taking lives by relinquishing his own powers after killing Mr. Mtzlkzplk. I might not agree that Superman has a
strict policy against deadly threats to begin with (especially when in the case of Mr. Mtzlkzplk, he was about to exterminate the universe), but at least Superman backs up what he says.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 13:36
I enjoyed the trilogy, but if there is one thread of reasoning that grabbed me through this whole process, it was that Nolan believed Batman to be a short term solution for society to examine and reflect on how to better manage itself.
Too bad he undermined that message by having Blake take the mantle as Batman (or whatever alias he'd go by) in the end.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 14:15I don't, because for me, it doesn't tell me anything that I don't know already - that Batman and other superheroes can never exist in the real world. But what's worse is Nolan is inconsistent in adapting Batman's morals, and Batman doesn't reflect his own actions. Keeps saying he won't kill and that's supposed to be key to the whole Joker dilemma, but then he justifies killing Ra's al Ghul to save Gotham when confronted by Talia. And there's the hypocritical lecture at Catwoman against guns. It just doesn't match. What's the point of having a rule if he's not bothered by breaking them? Thematically, it all comes across as pointless.
He isn't inconsistent. He didn't kill Ra's. It wasn't against guns. It was against killing with guns. Rules aren't about being bothered by breaking them, but about doing the right thing, whether we're bothered or not.
QuoteToo bad he undermined that message by having Blake take the mantle as Batman (or whatever alias he'd go by) in the end.
It wasn't undermined, because the assessment of @Wayne49 is his/her perception, not fact. The idea of being temporary though doesn't mean that someone can't become Batman as well, even if it's just as temporary as before. It's not a contradiction to say that that may be a possibility.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 14:15
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 13:36
I give Nolan props for trying to flush out the argument that perhaps heroes really can't exist in this fashion.
I don't, because for me, it doesn't tell me anything that I don't know already - that Batman and other superheroes can never exist in the real world. But what's worse is Nolan is inconsistent in adapting Batman's morals, and Batman doesn't reflect his own actions. Keeps saying he won't kill and that's supposed to be key to the whole Joker dilemma, but then he justifies killing Ra's al Ghul to save Gotham when confronted by Talia. And there's the hypocritical lecture at Catwoman against guns. It just doesn't match. What's the point of having a rule if he's not bothered by breaking them? Thematically, it all comes across as pointless.
These films would be much so better if we saw Batman recognize what he has done, and decides to take a more consistent approach. That way, we actually see a change in him as a character. In Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, an aging Batman vowed to never fight crime ever again after he was ashamed for merely aiming a gun at a goon, even though he did it in self-defence. And as much as I don't care too much for Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, I liked that Superman stayed true to his principle about taking lives by relinquishing his own powers after killing Mr. Mtzlkzplk. I might not agree that Superman has a strict policy against deadly threats to begin with (especially when in the case of Mr. Mtzlkzplk, he was about to exterminate the universe), but at least Superman backs up what he says.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 13:36
I enjoyed the trilogy, but if there is one thread of reasoning that grabbed me through this whole process, it was that Nolan believed Batman to be a short term solution for society to examine and reflect on how to better manage itself.
Too bad he undermined that message by having Blake take the mantle as Batman (or whatever alias he'd go by) in the end.
I see your points and if Nolan and his writers were putting together something in novel form, maybe more of these ideas could get flushed out. But you really can't do that when the final game plan is to sell toys and make something the studio can make a ton of money off of. It has to be about spectacle first and foremost because you only get a captive audience for so long. What Nolan delves into would require so much more process than what can be delivered in the normal running time for a movie (or in this case even a trilogy). When you're talking about a high-end license like Batman with so many vendors looking at you, there's going to be more than a few cooks in the kitchen playing with that recipe. The fact that we got anything that even took on the idea was a pretty bold move since you didn't really have any movie prior to that which really brandished those ideas as boldly as this one did. Nolan absolutely walked out on a limb for Batman and tackled the story from some unique viewpoints. And for that, I give him props for being able to do so and clearly deliver a story that connected with people worldwide. That was an impressive achievement.
But when it comes down to personal preferences and what we ultimately want out of our hero, this can be a long and arduous task trying to find common ground to appeal to everyone. Personally I enjoy watching the lightweight material the most. I respect what Nolan did, but as entertainment I absolutely have to be in a specific mood to watch this series. Something like B&R I can watch when I've had a bad day and that more than fits the bill. So I guess perhaps the best thing we should be thankful for is that Batman has a broad enough appeal that he can be expressed in an infinite number of ways to satisfy the appetites of many different perspectives. That in itself is pretty impressive as a general concept.
Quote from: Max Shreck on Fri, 4 Dec 2015, 07:09
Ra's never would have shown Batman mercy in a similar situation, not after what happened before in the film, anyway.
So, while I don't approve of letting Ra's die entirely, I don't feel too sorry about it. Now, dealing with Joker and Two-Face in TDK is another thing...
Ras actually has a philospophy in line with me, when I think about it. But he's too extreme for my liking. Fear gassing an entire city is over the top. It's segments inside a city that allows it to become corrupt and decayed. Innocent people who go about their daily lives have nothing to do with it.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 19:58
I see your points and if Nolan and his writers were putting together something in novel form, maybe more of these ideas could get flushed out. But you really can't do that when the final game plan is to sell toys and make something the studio can make a ton of money off of. It has to be about spectacle first and foremost because you only get a captive audience for so long.
I really don't see what marketing has to do with getting in the way of character development. Especially since these films waste a lot of time on unnecessary and redundant plot twists, political references and explaining how Batman's equipment works and where they came from. In my opinion, I'd trade all of those for even five minutes in exploring what Batman does after breaking his rules, and the personal consequences they bring.
As a matter of fact, you could even look to Ben Affleck's Daredevil as an example. As much as many people like to trash that movie, I have to give it credit that it showed Daredevil beginning as a vengeful, deadly vigilante at the start of the movie, but then he changes over time and refuses to kill Kingpin in the end, because he knows that simply beating him was enough to avenge his father and believes Kingpin needs to answer for his crimes.
For me, it's either Batman has a strict principle and enforces it or he doesn't. It can't be both, and trying to have it both only makes the entire plot contrived, and Batman's moral dilemma completely meaningless. That's the complete opposite of "deep" and "complex", which are words lots of people use to describe these films.
If this issue persisted in any other superhero film or action film, lots of people would've complained about them. Luckily for Nolan, Batman is a huge pop culture icon and probably the biggest in comics, and will always be popular in theatres. I really do believe his films get away with damning flaws because lots of people people were desperate to embrace how "dark" they are, because expectations got really low following B&R and the backlash surrounding it.
Quote from: Wayne49 on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 19:58
Personally I enjoy watching the lightweight material the most. I respect what Nolan did, but as entertainment I absolutely have to be in a specific mood to watch this series. Something like B&R I can watch when I've had a bad day and that more than fits the bill. So I guess perhaps the best thing we should be thankful for is that Batman has a broad enough appeal that he can be expressed in an infinite number of ways to satisfy the appetites of many different perspectives. That in itself is pretty impressive as a general concept.
Very well. You're right that Batman has a vast appeal in terms of tone, whether it's Adam West, Tim Burton, or BTAS. Even Schumacher to an extent, because his films did have positive messages despite the issues they had. While I do like bits and pieces in these three films, I'm simply not fond of Nolan's stuff at all. Never mind - can't always agree on everything.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Thu, 28 Jan 2016, 09:58
For me, it's either Batman has a strict principle and enforces it or he doesn't. It can't be both, and trying to have it both only makes the entire plot contrived, and Batman's moral dilemma completely meaningless. That's the complete opposite of "deep" and "complex", which are words lots of people use to describe these films.
He does have a principle and he does embrace it, but that doesn't mean he always perfectly executes it. No human is perfect.
QuoteI really do believe his films get away with damning flaws because lots of people people were desperate to embrace how "dark" they are, because expectations got really low following B&R and the backlash surrounding it.
I really like both, so that's not really the case.
God bless you! God bless everyone!
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Wed, 27 Jan 2016, 22:10Ras actually has a philospophy in line with me, when I think about it. But he's too extreme for my liking. Fear gassing an entire city is over the top. It's segments inside a city that allows it to become corrupt and decayed. Innocent people who go about their daily lives have nothing to do with it.
That's kind of the point. The cancer infected everybody. Even the innocent bystanders were guilty by association inasmuch as they did not overthrow the corruption around them. So while they weren't actually guilty of perpetrating it, they were guilty in a sense of
perpetuating it. The cancer affected everything so the whole had to be destroyed.
That's an extreme view, as you say, but I can't fault his logic.
Innocent bystaders don't have the means to overthrow a corrupt, powerful force. I think its very much like today's current climate. There are people out there who know what is going on, what the problems are and what should be done. But what can we really do? Not much, except talk about it with other people. The politicians and police are the authority, and unless we have another French revolution, nothing really changes. So in that sense, I don't see the innocent people as blameworthy. I'd rather empower these people by removing the problem that exists.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Fri, 29 Jan 2016, 02:28Innocent bystaders don't have the means to overthrow a corrupt, powerful force. I think its very much like today's current climate. There are people out there who know what is going on, what the problems are and what should be done. But what can we really do? Not much, except talk about it with other people. The politicians and police are the authority, and unless we have another French revolution, nothing really changes. So in that sense, I don't see the innocent people as blameworthy. I'd rather empower these people by removing the problem that exists.
Well, I'd never be one to advocate mob justice. But there were cases aplenty in, say, the American Old West when murderers, thieves and whatnot were lynched by the town. They had a shared morality and were ready, willing and able to rise up and act outside the law if the law was not available. Or sometimes they had to take sides against corrupt officials. It was known to happen.
Yes yes yes, I realize "lynching" has certain negative connotations but those are not the persons or circumstances I'm referring to above.
It isn't like America is unique in that regard. Citizen justice is an age old practice. If the people see systemic corruption that The System protects, history shows that the people can and will rise up against it.
All of this is to say that the people of Gotham never did that.
Ghul's view was the reason they didn't was that they were in some way involved in (or at least complicit to) Gotham's corruption. Therefore they needed to be destroyed.
Bruce's view was they didn't because they needed a symbol to believe in and then they could take action but if there a Batman out there fighting the mobsters, crooked cops and corrupt judges, the rest of the city would follow suit.
On that basis, you could view electing Harvey Dent as Gotham making a stand and choosing justice over corruption... which Ra's himself might've seen had he given Bruce the extra time he requested.
Anyway...
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 3 Oct 2015, 07:17
As we all know, despite Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing" during the rooftop fight scene, the end of the movie has Catwoman shooting Bane to death in order to save Batman, and Batman himself shooting at Talia's truck to save the town. What always made a huge impression on me was Catwoman telling Batman as soon as she rescued him: "About the whole no guns thing...(shakes her head)...I'm not sure I feel as strongly about it as you do".
So, I suppose Nolan was trying to convey the message that guns are the answer to stop crime and disorder after all?
Well guns are usually considered part of the answer in the sense that it's OK for the police to have and use them and Batman doesn't object to that in general.
With Batman himself, it is very provocative, although very underexplored, that he wasn't able to himself defeat Bane, Catwoman using a tactic he dislikes was necessary and so I guess he does become more accepting of it in some cases. With Catwoman in general he seems to feel that some of his old principles were too stringent and myopic although not worth completely abandoning.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 3 Oct 2015, 07:17
I guarantee you, if it was somebody else introduced a moral code and then have their character break it without exploring the consequences over it, or come to terms that he must break it to rescue others, that director would've been condemned by the critics for poor writing.
I don't know, I think a lot of protagonists commit dubious or inconsistent actions without the filmmakers getting a lot of criticism.
Quote from: Andrew on Mon, 27 Nov 2017, 17:27
Well guns are usually considered part of the answer in the sense that it's OK for the police to have and use them and Batman doesn't object to that in general.
With Batman himself, it is very provocative, although very underexplored, that he wasn't able to himself defeat Bane, Catwoman using a tactic he dislikes was necessary and so I guess he does become more accepting of it in some cases. With Catwoman in general he seems to feel that some of his old principles were too stringent and myopic although not worth completely abandoning.
The thing is, we have this Batman who supposedly holds a higher moral standard for himself, but is never consistent with it. The idea that Batman is becoming accepting about using guns because of Catwoman doesn't really hold much water, because he had already been using guns with every vehicle he drives long before he met her. You might say he never shot anybody before, but that still doesn't matter because he knows what he does is a matter of life and death. Sooner or later, he'll eventually have to use a gun to stop somebody, whether he likes it or not. Sometimes, there's no getting it, i.e. Batman shooting Knyazev's flamethrower tank to save Martha Kent in BvS. So it's disappointing to hear him take a no-gun stance, when he already knows it's impossible to avoid lethal force.
Quote from: Andrew on Mon, 27 Nov 2017, 17:27
I don't know, I think a lot of protagonists commit dubious or inconsistent actions without the filmmakers getting a lot of criticism.
To tell you the truth, I'm starting to see that with Iron Man in the MCU. I used to think he was great in IM1, IM3 and Avengers 1. But ever since Age of Ultron, the writing for him has been going downhill, he hasn't learned any of his mistakes and he is starting to do a lot things that don't add up to me i.e. involving a teenage Spider-Man in a post-Sokovia Accords era. But he's still the quipping smartass, which seems most people only care about nowadays.
With that said, I still maintain what I said in my original post. I can't image critics giving somebody like Zack Snyder a pass for applying a flimsy and inconsistent gun policy.