Why did batman let ras die in batman begins? That was not against hir rule of no killing? Can you answer me. I remember letting Joker crashed with a helicopter when he killed Jason Todd.
My view is that he didn't let him die and he didn't "choose" not to save him either - that train was going down and he barely got himself out.
Oh and btw, please refain from using capital letters in threads - thx
But he said BUT i don't have to save you...
Quote from: MOODY on Wed, 10 Feb 2010, 17:23
But he said BUT i don't have to save you...
I think Ral answered the question quite clearly but to reiterate, the point is that Batman didn't kill Ras himself. He just chose not to help him.
Having stated the above I can also state that in law Batman could possibly be seen as owing Ras a duty of care if he was in fact able to save him. The 'act' of omission can sometimes be held to the same legal standard as an act of commission. Although as Ral also pointed out, Batman barely had enough time to save
himself so irrespective of what he said to Ras, the simple fact was that he was unable to do anything for his nemesis.
Johnny, I'm familiar with that law but there is an exception which apparently you're forgetting about. In the famous case of Roe v. Lazarus the court held that you do not have a duty to save the immortal.
Quote from: phantom stranger on Wed, 10 Feb 2010, 23:22
Johnny, I'm familiar with that law but there is an exception which apparently you're forgetting about. In the famous case of Roe v. Lazarus the court held that you do not have a duty to save the immortal.
Sorry, I was going by English and Welsh law. Roe v Lazaruz must be an American case... ;)
Quote from: ral on Wed, 10 Feb 2010, 17:01
My view is that he didn't let him die and he didn't "choose" not to save him either - that train was going down and he barely got himself out.
He had enough time to give his little statement, though.
If you read Batman Cacophony you will see that batman choose to save the joker and not let him die, by the knife in his heart. Gordon said not to do it but he choose to save him because he said that he is a human being.
All of these remarks about the circumstances overlook the main point. If Nolan had wanted Batman to save Ras, he could've written that into the script.
He chose not to... and then he chose to make a point of not doing it.
First rule of comic book movies: Guy that discovers hero's identity ends up dying.
I guess Riddler was the exception...
Quote from: thecolorsblend on Fri, 12 Feb 2010, 21:54
If Nolan had wanted Batman to save Ras, he could've written that into the script.
He chose not to... and then he chose to make a point of not doing it.
Yep. Bale?s Batman is responsible for two villain deaths. That?s neck and neck with Burton.
Quote from: phantom stranger on Sat, 13 Feb 2010, 01:19
First rule of comic book movies: Guy that discovers hero's identity ends up dying.
I guess Riddler was the exception...
On this point, as far as I know, The Riddler has never died in any medium.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 13 Feb 2010, 04:26
Quote from: phantom stranger on Sat, 13 Feb 2010, 01:19
First rule of comic book movies: Guy that discovers hero's identity ends up dying.
I guess Riddler was the exception...
On this point, as far as I know, The Riddler has never died in any medium.
poison ivy killed him in a story i wrote one time.
Given that TDKR had Batman justifying to Talia that he had to kill her father to save "millions of innocent people", that alone should dismiss any argument that Batman wasn't responsible for Ra's al Ghul's death.
I really couldn't stand the majority of the dialogue in this series, and the line "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" has got to be one of the biggest loads of cop-out nonsense I've ever heard. I really don't see the difference between killing somebody outright with your own bare hands, or setting them up in a death trap without any intent to save them and mercilessly abandon them to be crushed and burned to death. Whatever helps you sleep at night Baleman, you chump.
On the bright side, at least he got to save Gotham City in the end. Too bad he didn't apply that same course of action when dealing with the Joker though.
Best trilogy ever. ::)
Quote from: Catwoman on Sat, 13 Feb 2010, 08:16
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Sat, 13 Feb 2010, 04:26
Quote from: phantom stranger on Sat, 13 Feb 2010, 01:19
First rule of comic book movies: Guy that discovers hero's identity ends up dying.
I guess Riddler was the exception...
On this point, as far as I know, The Riddler has never died in any medium.
poison ivy killed him in a story i wrote one time.
I have no memory of this story. Ugh. I wish I had kept that sh*t in a notebook or something.
lol. As you were.
The only live action movies where Batman doesn't kill anybody are the 1966 Batman movie and Batman and Robin.
Ra's death is the least of my issues with Batman Begins.
Quote from: OutRiddled on Thu, 2 Mar 2017, 02:09
The only live action movies where Batman doesn't kill anybody are the 1966 Batman movie and Batman and Robin.
Believe it or not, but I'm not so sure about that. The Penguin had dehydrated his pirate goons into ash and rehydrated them again when tried to ambush Batman and Robin into the Batcave. Little did Penguin know though, he had accidentally mixed the goons with toxic water, which Batman and Robin had evaporated the goons as soon as they touched them.
Quote from: OutRiddled on Thu, 2 Mar 2017, 02:09
Ra's death is the least of my issues with Batman Begins.
I'm not a huge fan of BB myself, but objectively speaking, I can say it's better than the sequels. Which isn't saying much. It's astonishing how people STILL make a big deal about Batman killing whenever it suits them, but ignore how he does in other films despite his no-kill stance is made quite clear.
It would probably seem underwhelming if Ra's hadn't been killed and had just gone to jail, some viewers would probably think he could easily, quickly escape on his own or with his followers helping him.
It's also understandable that Batman wouldn't feel merciful to Ra's, would think it's OK for him to suffer from his own scheme, after he had previously saved his life and that just led to Ra's feeling yet more vengeful.
Quote from: Andrew on Fri, 15 Dec 2017, 19:59
It would probably seem underwhelming if Ra's hadn't been killed and had just gone to jail, some viewers would probably think he could easily, quickly escape on his own or with his followers helping him.
The irony is that's exactly what I felt when he didn't kill the Joker at the end of the second film.
Quote from: Andrew on Fri, 15 Dec 2017, 19:59
It's also understandable that Batman wouldn't feel merciful to Ra's, would think it's OK for him to suffer from his own scheme, after he had previously saved his life and that just led to Ra's feeling yet more vengeful.
Then it goes to show this Batman isn't really that righteous after all, does it? If it turns out that Batman has no issues with killing villains after all, then what is the supposed 'moral conflict'? What makes him any different to any other action hero? There's a massive inconsistency going on there.
Yeah, there's massive inconsistencies within this trilogy, that doesn't make sense to me. And I know I've said this before, but I don't care if Batman kills within the movies. I've been used to it since Burton made B89. My problem, is how he keeps telling us he has these morals(or characters tell us he has a code), but he constantly goes against it. It's just constant contradictions. Or is it not a contradiction, because of "character arcs"? :P
I still find it funny in BB when he's in the monastery, tells them he's no executioner, and then kills most of the people in the temple, lol.
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 00:30
Yeah, there's massive inconsistencies within this trilogy, that don't make sense to me. And I know I've said this before, but I don't care if Batman kills within the movies. I've been used to it since Burton made B89. My problem, is how he keeps telling us he has these morals(or characters tell us he has a code), but he constantly goes against it. It's just constant contradictions. Or is it not a contradiction, because of "character arcs"? :P
It was stupid for people to complain about Batman killing in the Burton films while Nolan revived this trend after Batman & Robin stopped it. But it's even more moronic that people made such a big fuss when Batman did it in BvS. At least the Snyder film raised the point that Batman's brutality was going too far. If BvS was going to be criticised for this aspect, it should've been for continuing the killing streak in live action.
It just goes to show how powerful lip service is, and people really don't understand the phrase "actions speak louder than words". Sorry for always beating a dead horse about this, but I am still astounded to this day by the selective outrage people have when it comes to these films.
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 00:30
I still find it funny in BB when he's in the monastery, tells them he's no executioner, and then kills most of the people in the temple, lol.
You know how it is, people's excuse will be "he didn't mean to do it". Which makes it even worse if you ask me. Especially when he doesn't seem to bothered by the whole experience, nor do we ever see him rescue the guy he refused to execute moments earlier. In fact, we don't even know if that guy even made out of the explosion alive.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Dec 2017, 00:00
Quote from: Andrew on Fri, 15 Dec 2017, 19:59
It would probably seem underwhelming if Ra's hadn't been killed and had just gone to jail, some viewers would probably think he could easily, quickly escape on his own or with his followers helping him.
The irony is that's exactly what I felt when he didn't kill the Joker at the end of the second film.
Yeah, Nolan sure got lucky that a lot of fans didn't complain that that ending was actually pretty/too inconclusive.
Quote from: The Laughing Fish on Sat, 16 Dec 2017, 00:00
Quote from: Andrew on Fri, 15 Dec 2017, 19:59
It's also understandable that Batman wouldn't feel merciful to Ra's, would think it's OK for him to suffer from his own scheme, after he had previously saved his life and that just led to Ra's feeling yet more vengeful.
Then it goes to show this Batman isn't really that righteous after all, does it? If it turns out that Batman has no issues with killing villains after all, then what is the supposed 'moral conflict'? What makes him any different to any other action hero? There's a massive inconsistency going on there.
I think a character can be righteous despite killing villains but aside from that there does seem to be a relevant difference between not saving someone, especially from the scheme or action they started, and killing them (even in a provoked fight/confrontation). Even Batman for example running into the Joker on his bike, as he refused to do in TDK, would certainly feel more brutal than just letting the Joker crash his own bike or car.
Quote from: Andrew on Wed, 27 Dec 2017, 18:01I think a character can be righteous despite killing villains but aside from that there does seem to be a relevant difference between not saving someone, especially from the scheme or action they started, and killing them (even in a provoked fight/confrontation). Even Batman for example running into the Joker on his bike, as he refused to do in TDK, would certainly feel more brutal than just letting the Joker crash his own bike or car.
The principle here seems to be a reluctance on some people's part for Batman to morally judge his enemies. I gather that it's well and good for Batman to view things in objective terms: The Joker is breaking the law so therefore the Joker must be apprehended. That seems readily acceptable to nearly everybody.
But my view is that someone who does what Batman does wouldn't arbitrarily draw the line at never killing his enemies. He's already granted himself the moral authority to beat the tar out of people using explosives and batarangs. I don't see how it's a much bigger jump for him to morally judge his enemies and give them the highest punishment. I think he would view it in fairly practical terms; death isn't necessarily an appropriate punishment for everybody. Mr. Zsasz deserves it; the Penguin doesn't. The Joker deserves it; the Ventriloquist doesn't. Two-Face deserves it... but Batman just can't bring himself to kill what's left of his best friend even though his best friend "died" the day his face was scarred.
To me, it opens up new moral paradigms for Batman to work within. It creates greater levels of contrast and contradiction within the character.
Of course, the real reason Batman can't kill the Joker is because he's a marquee character that DC can't do without. But after all the damage the Joker has inflicted on Gotham City generally and Batman personally, it doesn't scan for me that Batman would let him live. So the easy way out is to give Batman some nonsense code against taking life even though it makes no sense whatsoever.
A conundrum...
Quote from: Andrew on Wed, 27 Dec 2017, 18:01
I think a character can be righteous despite killing villains but aside from that there does seem to be a relevant difference between not saving someone, especially from the scheme or action they started, and killing them (even in a provoked fight/confrontation). Even Batman for example running into the Joker on his bike, as he refused to do in TDK, would certainly feel more brutal than just letting the Joker crash his own bike or car.
I disagree. I think it's a cop out to suggest that because the whole idea established in these films is Batman is supposed to be against taking lives. Some people might suggest Bruce saying "I'm not an executioner" means he won't outright kill somebody, but it overlooks the fact that he's implying he doesn't have the right to decide who lives or dies. And yet, he decides to condemn Ra's to a fiery death, even though it was really unnecessary because Ra's had already lost when the train tracks got derailed.
To make matters worse, Batman later justifies killing Ra's to his daughter in Rises, because "he was trying to kill millions of people". Well, the Joker was another mass murderer and nearly killed many more, why didn't he deserve to die? It would not only be a justifiable action if he had let him fall to his death after nearly blowing up the boats, but I'd argue he could've been justified doing so when he was one-on-one with the bike because Joker had just murdered several cops and more than likely murdered people passing by in their cards when he stood there armed with a rifle. And besides, what would've happened if Gordon didn't make it to arrest the Joker? Batman might've been killed.
The whole thing is an extremely poorly written mess. Let's face it, the only reason Batman didn't kill Joker in TDK is because the filmmakers wanted the villain to return for the third film. Tragically, real life circumstances prevented that from happening.
Quote from: Travesty on Sun, 17 Dec 2017, 00:30Yeah, there's massive inconsistencies within this trilogy, that doesn't make sense to me. And I know I've said this before, but I don't care if Batman kills within the movies. I've been used to it since Burton made B89. My problem, is how he keeps telling us he has these morals(or characters tell us he has a code), but he constantly goes against it. It's just constant contradictions. Or is it not a contradiction, because of "character arcs"? :P
I still find it funny in BB when he's in the monastery, tells them he's no executioner, and then kills most of the people in the temple, lol.
Executing and killing in defense isn't the same thing. He's not trying to kill. It's just what happens in that scene. Bruce has to escape, they just said Gotham must be destroyed and they want to attack it and there's no going back for Bruce. Superman killed Zod to save a family too. Bruce has a rule, but that doesn't mean he'll always keep it. He's capable of failing to keep to it. That's what makes him a flawed character. I wouldn't hold incidentally killing in battle of defense against Batfleck either, if that was the worse thing he'd done. Same with Burton and Schumacher Batman.