|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2020 1:40:55 GMT
In the ending fight between Batman and Ras, Batman says "I won't kill you, but that doesn't mean I have to save you" and let's Ras fall to his death, I always thought was kinda odd. I mean he pretty much did still kill him, he left him on the train knowing he was going to die and obiviously with the intention he would die, I don't see how that doesn't count as not killing him.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 14, 2020 1:48:10 GMT
I have 2 minds about this.
On one hand he doesn't save him and could have.
On the other hand Ra's brought this situation on himself and Batman doesn't actually kill him.
I have always felt that he considers Ra's too dangerous to go out of his way to save him.
This is a gray area imo.
I have always found this criticism a bit silly considering the very unethical stuff he does in The Dark Knight. He tortures both Joker and Maroni for information, he illegally extracts someone from another country and sets up a system that can spy on people's cell phones. He has principles, but is willing to break them if they become too inconvenient.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Mar 14, 2020 3:07:01 GMT
Leaving his foe to die is still a bit different for me, & I guess Batman there, than killing him in the moment, before the train derailment.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Mar 14, 2020 10:08:22 GMT
I thought he was giving him what he had coming for him. Like moviemouth said, Ra’s basically brought it on himself. Besides, he actively killed some goons in the Burton movies, and I didn’t have an issue there either. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 14, 2020 14:00:08 GMT
I thought he was giving him what he had coming for him. Like moviemouth said, Ra’s basically brought it on himself. Besides, he actively killed some goons in the Burton movies, and I didn’t have an issue there either. He straight up murders people in Batman Returns though.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Mar 14, 2020 14:17:32 GMT
I thought he was giving him what he had coming for him. Like moviemouth said, Ra’s basically brought it on himself. Besides, he actively killed some goons in the Burton movies, and I didn’t have an issue there either. He straight up murders people in Batman Returns though. I didn’t mind that as much since it was a completely different take on the character, given everything else about that movie was changed up a bit by Tim’s creative choices. What I’m saying is that in Begins it didn’t go as extreme with that scene, which indicates that it could’ve been worse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 14:24:23 GMT
In the ending fight between Batman and Ras, Batman says "I won't kill you, but that doesn't mean I have to save you" and let's Ras fall to his death, I always thought was kinda odd. I mean he pretty much did still kill him, he left him on the train knowing he was going to die and obiviously with the intention he would die, I don't see how that doesn't count as not killing him. It is a slippery slope, to be sure. If Batman can justify that, he could just as easily justify teaming up with a vigilante who does kill people and let them do the dirty work. Or force people into elaborate puzzle dungeons with traps that might kill them if they're not careful and quick. After all, he's not technically the one killing them-- he's just not saving them. At that point, he's not much better than the villains, is he? Food for thought. 
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2020 14:47:48 GMT
Ras is the one who put himself in the situation.
Batman is not under obigation to save anybody but he has placed an obligation to not kill.
There is a big difference between letting death happen and killing someone.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 14, 2020 14:52:51 GMT
He straight up murders people in Batman Returns though. I didn’t mind that as much since it was a completely different take on the character, given everything else about that movie was changed up a bit by Tim’s creative choices. What I’m saying is that in Begins it didn’t go as extreme with that scene, which indicates that it could’ve been worse. I was just pointing out the difference. The reason some people have an issue with Tim Burton's Batman movies and Batman v Superman is that Batman doesn't have an issue with killing. His "code" in Nolan's Batman movies is NO KILLING and he indirectly kills Ra's in Batman Begins. That is why some people have an issue with that part.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 14, 2020 14:57:28 GMT
In the ending fight between Batman and Ras, Batman says "I won't kill you, but that doesn't mean I have to save you" and let's Ras fall to his death, I always thought was kinda odd. I mean he pretty much did still kill him, he left him on the train knowing he was going to die and obiviously with the intention he would die, I don't see how that doesn't count as not killing him. It is a slippery slope, to be sure. If Batman can justify that, he could just as easily justify teaming up with a vigilante who does kill people and let them do the dirty work. Or force people into elaborate puzzle dungeons with traps that might kill them if they're not careful and quick. After all, he's not technically the one killing them-- he's just not saving them. At that point, he's not much better than the villains, is he? Food for thought. I think that is a bad argument imo. He isn't simply looking for ways to kill people and feel justified at the end of Batman Begins. No court in the world would have raised charges against him for not saving Ra's. Him teaming up with The Punisher and letting him do the killing is something much different. He would be an accessory to murder in that case.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesbamesy on Mar 14, 2020 15:00:16 GMT
I didn’t mind that as much since it was a completely different take on the character, given everything else about that movie was changed up a bit by Tim’s creative choices. What I’m saying is that in Begins it didn’t go as extreme with that scene, which indicates that it could’ve been worse. I was just pointing out the difference. The reason some people have an issue with Tim Burton's Batman movies and Batman v Superman is that Batman doesn't have an issue with killing. His "code" in Nolan's Batman movies is NO KILLING and he indirectly kills Ra's in Batman Begins. That is why some people have an issue with that part. I guess that makes more sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 15:09:01 GMT
It is a slippery slope, to be sure. If Batman can justify that, he could just as easily justify teaming up with a vigilante who does kill people and let them do the dirty work. Or force people into elaborate puzzle dungeons with traps that might kill them if they're not careful and quick. After all, he's not technically the one killing them-- he's just not saving them. At that point, he's not much better than the villains, is he? Food for thought. I think that is a bad argument. He isn't simply looking for ways to kill people and feel justified at the end of Batman Begins. No court in the world would have raised charges against him for not saving Ra's. Him going along with The Punisher or something would be a crime. I'm exaggerating, of course. But it's an argument that is central to the themes of the film and the one that followed. I admit I did not see the final Batman film in the Nolan trilogy because I was getting sick of Batman. Batman cannot in theory kill because he wants to restore order to Gotham and that would go against his principles. He acts as a force against lawlessness so it would be contrary to his goals to kill. But there's a snag-- by his actions, he is acting outside of the law. He is just as lawless as the gangsters but he justifies it because he believes he is acting for a good cause. This is one of the great contradictions of the character. If Batman can justify his lawlessness in his own mind, could he justify letting people die as well? Batman doesn't kill-- at least, most Batmans don't kill-- but are there times where his actions lead to deaths just the same as if he had killed them? And if he's not willing to save somebody who is about to die, even if he's able to, is that the same as killing them? It's not meant to have a clear cut answer, I think. That's what makes him a compelling character.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Mar 14, 2020 15:43:41 GMT
I think that is a bad argument. He isn't simply looking for ways to kill people and feel justified at the end of Batman Begins. No court in the world would have raised charges against him for not saving Ra's. Him going along with The Punisher or something would be a crime. I'm exaggerating, of course. But it's an argument that is central to the themes of the film and the one that followed. I admit I did not see the final Batman film in the Nolan trilogy because I was getting sick of Batman. Batman cannot in theory kill because he wants to restore order to Gotham and that would go against his principles. He acts as a force against lawlessness so it would be contrary to his goals to kill. But there's a snag-- by his actions, he is acting outside of the law. He is just as lawless as the gangsters but he justifies it because he believes he is acting for a good cause. This is one of the great contradictions of the character. If Batman can justify his lawlessness in his own mind, could he justify letting people die as well? Batman doesn't kill-- at least, most Batmans don't kill-- but are there times where his actions lead to deaths just the same as if he had killed them? And if he's not willing to save somebody who is about to die, even if he's able to, is that the same as killing them? It's not meant to have a clear cut answer, I think. That's what makes him a compelling character. Okay, then we are on the same page.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2020 16:51:43 GMT
Ras is the one who put himself in the situation. Batman is not under obigation to save anybody but he has placed an obligation to not kill. There is a big difference between letting death happen and killing someone.
Well no, Batman told Gordon to use the Batmobile to destroy the bridge that led to the train crash, Batman (and to a lesser extent Gordon) put Ras in that situation.
"There is a big difference between letting death happen and killing someone."
Not really, imagine if someone is tied to a train track, you have plenty of time to save them, but (for whatever reason) you decided not to and let the train hit them. Imagine how that would hold up in court.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2020 17:01:49 GMT
Ras is the one who put himself in the situation. Batman is not under obigation to save anybody but he has placed an obligation to not kill. There is a big difference between letting death happen and killing someone.
Well no, Batman told Gordon to use the Batmobile to destroy the bridge that led to the train crash, Batman (and to a lesser extent Gordon) put Ras in that situation.
"There is a big difference between letting death happen and killing someone."
Not really, imagine if someone is tied to a train track, you have plenty of time to save them, but (for whatever reason) you decided not to and let the train hit them. Imagine how that would hold up in court.
Batman did not have plenty of time. Plus you ignore the danger factor. The better analogy is a train is coming and the guy on the track is shooting at you. Are you supposed to warm him about the train? I would take my chances in court. Blowing out the train track was a direct reaction to the city being destroyed since the train was going to crash into the water supply. Again Was created the danger he put himself into.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2020 17:12:23 GMT
"Ras is the one who put himself in the situation."
Well no, Batman told Gordon to use the Batmobile to destroy the bridge that led to the train crash, Batman (and to a lesser extent Gordon) put Ras in that situation.
"There is a big difference between letting death happen and killing someone."
Not really, imagine if someone is tied to a train track, you have plenty of time to save them, but (for whatever reason) you decided not to and let the train hit them. Imagine how that would hold up in court.
Batman did not have plenty of time. Plus you ignore the danger factor. The better analogy is a train is coming and the guy on the track is shooting at you. Are you supposed to warm him about the train? I would take my chances in court. Blowing out the train track was a direct reaction to the city being destroyed since the train was going to crash into the water supply. Again Was created the danger he put himself into. "Batman did not have plenty of time." Hmm, nah he had enough time to give the "I don't have to save you speech" he probably he had enough time to save him. That fact that he said that means Batman knew he could have saved him, but chose not to. "The better analogy is a train is coming and the guy on the track is shooting at you" Well no, Ras was unarmed and defeated. If Batman took him with him as he's flying, what's Ras gonna do? Try and stab him and fall to his death?
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 14, 2020 18:14:58 GMT
Batman did not have plenty of time. Plus you ignore the danger factor. The better analogy is a train is coming and the guy on the track is shooting at you. Are you supposed to warm him about the train? I would take my chances in court. Blowing out the train track was a direct reaction to the city being destroyed since the train was going to crash into the water supply. Again Was created the danger he put himself into. "Batman did not have plenty of time." Hmm, nah he had enough time to give the "I don't have to save you speech" he probably he had enough time to save him. That fact that he said that means Batman knew he could have saved him, but chose not to. "The better analogy is a train is coming and the guy on the track is shooting at you" Well no, Ras was unarmed and defeated. If Batman took him with him as he's flying, what's Ras gonna do? Try and stab him and fall to his death? Ras was going to say thank you after the save? Iirc ras was still very conscious and prepared to die. Maybe we watched different movies but that would seem to suggest he was still a danger. Again you are working off the premise that Batman is supposed to save him. I don’t and this Ras could have prevented his death by not trying to destroy a city or maybe even asking Batman to save him. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 14, 2020 18:36:31 GMT
"Batman did not have plenty of time." Hmm, nah he had enough time to give the "I don't have to save you speech" he probably he had enough time to save him. That fact that he said that means Batman knew he could have saved him, but chose not to. "The better analogy is a train is coming and the guy on the track is shooting at you" Well no, Ras was unarmed and defeated. If Batman took him with him as he's flying, what's Ras gonna do? Try and stab him and fall to his death? Ras was going to say thank you after the save? Iirc ras was still very conscious and prepared to die. Maybe we watched different movies but that would seem to suggest he was still a danger. Again you are working off the premise that Batman is supposed to save him. I don’t and this Ras could have prevented his death by not trying to destroy a city or maybe even asking Batman to save him. "Ras was going to say thank you after the save?" Huh? Obviously not, I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. "Again you are working off the premise that Batman is supposed to save him." I'm working off the premise that Batman claims he doesn't believe in killing. He still technically killed him by choosing to let him die, I don't see how anyone could argue otherwise. Inaction is still action, you're choosing not to do anything about it knowing what the consequences are. Are you a Breaking Bad fan by any chance *spoilers*? There's a pretty similar scene where Walter sees Jesse's girlfriend passed out on heroin and choking on her vomit. He could have saved her, he chose not to (she was being nuisance and her being dead was beneficial to him). By your reasoning did he also not kill her? You could use the same basic arguments (Walter didn't put her in that position, she did it to herself).
|
|
|
|
Post by Lux on Mar 15, 2020 0:08:12 GMT
You just need a class in badassery that's all. Ras's death was perfect and probably one of the best villain deaths in my opinion in my top three villain deaths of all time. It wasn't odd I'd actually argue that it made Batman even more interesting than ever before.
|
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Mar 15, 2020 5:53:14 GMT
Batman won't actively murder someone, but that does not mean he necessarily considers himself to be under an obligation to save everyone who needs saving. And he's not averse to endangering (bad) people. How many people died back in Tibet when he destroyed Al Ghul's base, for example?
The truth is that Batman is always morally compromised. He breaks many laws and injures many people (often brutally). If necessary, he's shown himself willing to torture his opponents. And he is aware of his morally compromised position, as is made evident by his strong desire to have Harvey Dent succeed him as Gotham's true "White Knight" in The Dark Knight.
|
|
