|
Post by Batman Prevails on Jan 4, 2006 1:31:28 GMT -5
For years I used to think that he would but after watching the commentary on the SE I'm pretty sure that he doesn't .
Even though this is a Burton movie it's still a comic book movie that utilises cartoonish elements for comic relief. In the scene in which Batman straps the bomb on "Strongman" Batman does not deliberately kill. The explosion caused by the bomb is about as lethal as firecracker. I personally believe that the bomb knocked that guy out but didn't kill him.
As for the Penguin in the finale, his death is caused by an accident. It's not Batman's fault the Penguin acts so stupidly when attacked by the bats and falls into the pool.
One scene in the movie that really bugs me though is the death of the Ice Princess. Batman just stands there, watches and does nothing. The Batman I know would have jumped down the rooftop and used his gadgets to save the Princess and himself, the kinda way he did in the Forever finale when he saved Chase and Robin.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 4, 2006 1:32:39 GMT -5
Don't forget when he lights the member of the Red Circle gang on fire with the back burner on the Batmobile. Burton has NO grasp on Batman. I stand by that.
|
|
|
Post by BullocK on Jan 4, 2006 1:42:45 GMT -5
[shadow=red,left,300]Keep in mind that Batman also killed one of the Joker's goons at the top of the cathedral in the first Batman film. And let's not forget the Batwing scene...missles, machine guns... [/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 4, 2006 2:43:52 GMT -5
In the scene in which Batman straps the bomb on "Strongman" Batman does not deliberately kill. The explosion caused by the bomb is about as lethal as firecracker. I personally believe that the bomb knocked that guy out but didn't kill him. As for the Penguin in the finale, his death is caused by an accident. It's not Batman's fault the Penguin acts so stupidly when attacked by the bats and falls into the pool. I'm not sure about the bomb thing. I'm pretty sure that guy got roasted. In the Batman Returns trailer, it was edited to look like Batman simply punches him and the guy falls over the bridge. That would've been a cool "Get the hell out of my way" kind of move. I like the current scene, though, for comical effect. As for the Penguin, it's the same as Batman's "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" or the monastery fire in Begins. To a certain extent, it could apply to Joker in B89, but in that situation Batman went in with the full intent of killing that clown (if they cut the Jack-killed-the-Waynes twist as well as Batman's statement, "I'm going to kill you," then it would definitely be a comparable situation). Btw, how is the Batman Returns commentary? Is it interesting? And let's not forget the Batwing scene...missles, machine guns... I loved that scene's slightly altered translation of the finale of "Dr Hugo Strange and Mutant Monsters" of Batman #1 with Hugo Strange's goons. In terms of Batman killing in general, it's an extremely unpopular idea to say the very least. Ironically, I think Batman & Robin is the only film in which Batman has no involvement whatsoever with anybody's death. All other examples from B89, Batman Returns, and Batman Begins (arguably more indirect involvement) have been listed, except I must add that Batman pretty much outright kills Two-Face at the end of Batman Forever. But, anyways, we have to acknowledge that Batman (and even Robin) killed in several issues of his early years. It stopped in Detective Comics #40 in 1940. And those early comics are exactly what Burton went to for his films. Michael Uslan himself says in the BOF interview that he had Burton look at those comics (as well as Englehart's and O'Neil's during the seventies, not to mention Miller's TDKR and Moore's TKJ). Burton took inspiration from these early comics just like how Nolan and Goyer took inspiration from Miller's Y1 and Loeb's TLH and DV. Batman's first appearance fighting two goons on a rooftop (Detective Comics #27). Batman's silent ride with his girlfriend in the Batmobile (Detective Comics #31) Batman's Batwing forming a silhouette over the moon (Detective Comics #31). Batman gliding over innocent people, who scream in terror (Detective Comics #31). Macabre and supernatural villains, from the vampires and werewolves in Detective Comics #31-32, the man without a face and flowers with human faces in Detective Comics #34, and the giant mutant monsters from Batman #1. Suddenly, Batman Returns's deformed Penguin and undead Catwoman seem normal, huh? Most of all, Burton translated Batman's willingness to kill. In fact, Kane and Finger's Batman did far worse things than Burton's Batman did. Check it out (includes situations like Batman Prevails rationalized above): -In Detective Comics #27, he punches the villain, who loses balance and falls into a vat of acid. Batman merely says, "A fitting end for his kind." Not to mention in that issue he throws a thug off the roof of a house. - He did the same to another goon in #28 - Snapped a henchman's neck with his rope in #29 - Snapped another henchman's neck by kicking him in #30 - Shot- yes shot- the two villains to death in #32 - threw a gas pellet at a villain, causing the man to crash his plane and die in #33 - leaves a villain in a car right before it runs off the cliff in #34 - kicks a henchman into another henchman's sword and throws an idol at the villain's head, causing the villain to fall out the window to his death in #35 - punches a villain into a door with a sword in it, causing the villain to be impaled through the throat by the sword in #37/ - willingly allows a henchman to be punched off a girder by Boss Zucco so that Robin can take a picture of it and use it as evidence to send Boss Zucco to the electric chair in #38. Allow me to add that Robin himself kills at least two of Zucco's goons by throwing them off the barely constructed building. - topples over a giant statue, crushing and killing a large group of Chinese henchmen in #39 - causes two monster henchmen to kill each other, shoots Dr. Strange's goons to death with a machine gun, hangs a monster henchman, and chokes the last monster henchman with gas pellets causing the henchman to fall to his death in Batman #1. Now, I know what's going to come next, so I'll say it for you: Times have changed. This isn't the same Batman that the current fans grew up with. This is a Batman with considerably less value for human life and thus, less heroic. This is a Batman that you guys wouldn't nearly like or respect as much. BUT it was who Batman was in 1939-1940 and those comics heavily influenced Burton. He was being very true to the original Bob Kane/Bill Finger version. And as a filmmaker, that was probably his favorite version of the Batman. It certainly is the most mysterious and enigmatic version as well as had an intriguing ambiguity on Batman's sanity. Kane and Finger's original Batman has Burton material written all over it. Therefore, I hope we can agree that he may not have made our favorite interpretation of Batman, but he was very true to one of many interpretations of Batman. I'm not trying to justify him as being completely faithful to the mythos nor am I trying to justify that Batman should kill. I'm just trying to point out that he chose a comic book interpretation that he liked the most and translated that interpretation to the screen quite well.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 4, 2006 2:57:10 GMT -5
Sorry BatmAngelus, I'm going to have to disagree wtih you on a few points.
Firstly, its the way batman was first written (for not even one year) but the change was made DURING the Kane/Finger era. The Batman we know and love and his respect for human life developed from the creators.
My feelings on Burton extend far beyond the killing point..thats actually one of the minor issues I have with his "interpretation" of Batman. I've gone into this a number of times, so I won't ramble on too long....
*Batman is a minor character in his own films he gets how much screen time? hardly any. Burton showcases the villains and forgets the character development on the Bat..as though he's an afterthought
*Batman's personality is off. He's much like the recent AllStar version that I'm NOT pleased with, personally. He's a jerk. Yes, Bats should be moody at times...but I think Burton takes it too far.
The respect and the elements just aren't there. Don't give me that Burton was staying true to the original..this wasn't a change that happened decades into the character....he picked out the "morbid" aspect of the Bat...the murdering...in his usual pretentious gothy Burton way.
Now don't get me wrong..I love Burton's film making...but he never should've been allowed near Batman.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 4, 2006 4:01:18 GMT -5
IMO, it's still an interpretation of the character, no matter how long it lasted. If someone made a film of All Star Batman and Robin, I wouldn't like the characterization of Batman at all, but I would acknowledge that the director was being true to that version and must've been attracted to that version to adapt it onscreen. I'd disagree with his choice, but I could see that he translating the respective comic well. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on what a valid interpretation is. But what I have to refute is that although his change to not killing was made during the Kane/Finger era, it was not Kane or Finger's choice to change him- it was upon the orders of their new boss, DC editor Whitney Ellsworth. This is stated on this site: ourworld.cs.com/argentprime/batman.htmAnd also recounted in Batman: The Complete History. I see this change as more of DC Comics saying, "Clean it up for kids" than Kane and Finger having an epiphany and saying, "Batman really shouldn't kill." It was less of the creators' evolving the character and more of their boss wanting to make it more kid friendly. It was something new that behind-the-scenes politics added to the mythos that evolved into some of the essential elements. I'm not saying it was a bad thing for the editor to interfere (without Ellsworth the Joker would've been dead at the end of Batman #1). It was an (important) aspect of Batman that wasn't actually added as part of a creative process or as the creators' will to evolve the character on their own. Again, we'll have to agree to disagree here, but I still see this original version of Batman as an interpretation that Burton adapted quite well. It may not have lasted for 30 odd years, but it was still a version of Batman and it was the one that Burton thought had the most relation to him again. I'm not attempting to justify his version, I'm just trying to state the fact that he, as the director, made a personal choice to go with a version of Batman that was from the original comics, just not the popular version or even a version that some, like you Matt, would consider valid. A dumb choice to some, but a choice he made, nonetheless. In terms of Batman being a side character, I have to agree with that and it's a big reason why Batman Begins is favored overall. Burton's psychological reasoning for his approach is all over the commentaries and interviews, so I won't go into it here. Overall, I think he had an interesting idea, but very few people prefer a less-screentime approach to protraying the Bruce Wayne character.
|
|
|
Post by SRA on Jan 4, 2006 12:08:29 GMT -5
I believe that Tim Burton did create a very visual batman and created villains with more depth to them {Burton after all is a very skilled artistic director}! BTAS {the best interpretation} was based on the Burton flicks after all - However i do agree that Batman does not get much screentime in Returns - {even though it is my favourite bat film!} - but the question to if he kills or not, it depends on the writers - Bob Kane knew what Burtons vision of the films was like and he liked it! - and from what i read he has killed in the comics but it is down to personal belief - I believe that he if older when his parents were killed could of then and there he would of! SRA
|
|
|
Post by wayneson on Jan 5, 2006 2:33:19 GMT -5
This is a very interesting discussion; I wish there were more threads like this on LoG. I would tend to agree with BatmAngelus on this topic. The success, or even validity of any version of Batman really does depend on your own personal preferences for how the character is portrayed; in 66 years there have been such a wide range of interpretations, from the glad-handing buffoon of the 50's to Miller's gritty avenger, that have left a lot of leeway for directors and other artists and writers to navigate. It's up to you to judge how good, successful or valid those interpretations are; personally, I don't much like watching the old TV shows or serials, but they are also part of what and who Batman is - just as much as DKR, BTAS, or Begins is.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Chargers on Jan 5, 2006 16:49:16 GMT -5
Don't forget when he lights the member of the Red Circle gang on fire with the back burner on the Batmobile. Burton has NO grasp on Batman. I stand by that. Thank you. Everyone always tells me that Shumacker ruined Batman, but in my opinion Burton was worse. His version of Batman/Bruce Wayne was very uninteresting and did so many things that would piss of his comic book counterpart. I personally can't stand to watch any of the old Batman films and I'm glad Nolan has finally gotten it right.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jan 5, 2006 17:08:17 GMT -5
Batman killed. Strongman was toast.
As far as the debate about the fact that he used this interpretation, I don't care that he started with Kane's original Batman. Had it been an interpretation that no one had ever thought off before, would it still get the same respect as if it had a comic of it. Staying true to a certain version shouldn't matter just because it came from a comic. If Batman were played as being a guy that was a lazy procrastinator, he wouldn't get that respect. People wanted to see the first Batman movie since '66 to be the character that they knew. For the most part, they didn't want this killer Batman just like they didn't want the lazy procrastinator Batman.
That being said, I would not take back either B89 or BR. The impact that they have had since then has been enormous. Not to mention that B:TAS was allowed to push the boundaries of Batman without stepping over the line.
|
|
|
Post by J-Man on Jan 5, 2006 17:52:33 GMT -5
[shadow=purple,left,300]While the Strongman's death is campy, I'd say it's murder. Even looking back to "Batman," I'd say he intentionally caused the Joker's demise. "Batman Forever" is the same thing, especially at the end when he causes Two-Face to fall down the shaft.[/shadow]
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 6, 2006 17:28:32 GMT -5
As far as the debate about the fact that he used this interpretation, I don't care that he started with Kane's original Batman. Had it been an interpretation that no one had ever thought off before, would it still get the same respect as if it had a comic of it. Staying true to a certain version shouldn't matter just because it came from a comic. If Batman were played as being a guy that was a lazy procrastinator, he wouldn't get that respect. People wanted to see the first Batman movie since '66 to be the character that they knew. For the most part, they didn't want this killer Batman just like they didn't want the lazy procrastinator Batman. My whole point in bringing that up was to bring up facts, not to make Burton or his interpretation look any better in the fans' eyes. It was to refute a common complaint that I've read nearly everywhere that Burton didn't follow the comics at all in his Batman protrayal, which is not true. He just didn't follow the same comics that fans would've wanted him to have followed. His stories and character development were influenced by "The Case of the Chemical Crime Syndicate" and "Batman Vs. The Monk" rather than Year One and The Killing Joke. When it comes to subjectivity, I'm open to any ideas that are executed well and have deep meanings behind them, regardless of how true they may or may not be to the comics. Hence why I can enjoy Batman Returns on the same level as Batman Begins.
|
|
|
Post by Batman Prevails on Jan 6, 2006 22:40:10 GMT -5
I still don't think Strongman was toast. It was thoughtless and cartoonish. As for Batman Forever, Schuhmacher emphasised a lot that he didn't want to make Batman kill (so instead Schuhmacher killed Batman ..haha bad joke). It was not Batman's fault Harvey was so obsessed over the coin that he would rather focus on getting the coin than maintaining his balance. In the Forever commentary Schuhmacher notes that Two-Face's death was indefinate in case they needed to bring him back. While were at the topic my major issue with Forever is that Two-Face often kills without consullting his coin or he simply 'cheats' (Wayne Manor scene). Otherwise I think Forever is the best live action interpretation, with the exception of Begins of course.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jan 6, 2006 23:07:02 GMT -5
I still don't think Strongman was toast. It was thoughtless and cartoonish. As for Batman Forever, Schuhmacher emphasised a lot that he didn't want to make Batman kill (so instead Schuhmacher killed Batman ..haha bad joke). It was not Batman's fault Harvey was so obsessed over the coin that he would rather focus on getting the coin than maintaining his balance. In the Forever commentary Schuhmacher notes that Two-Face's death was indefinate in case they needed to bring him back. While were at the topic my major issue with Forever is that Two-Face often kills without consullting his coin or he simply 'cheats' (Wayne Manor scene). Otherwise I think Forever is the best live action interpretation, with the exception of Begins of course. I never did think that Two Face was dead. As far as not consulting the coin to kill, I don't remember him ever actually killing without the coin. I don't really see the flipping over again as a real big deal. The first time was to Bruce, the second time was to Chase, and the third was for Bruce. I think that because of the one that he did for Chase, a restart to flip to see if he would kill him at that point.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 6, 2006 23:24:30 GMT -5
It was not Batman's fault Harvey was so obsessed over the coin that he would rather focus on getting the coin than maintaining his balance. Let's say that Two-Face really did die: If what you said were truly the case, wouldn't Batman have been shocked to see Harvey fall down below like that? If it wasn't his true intention to kill him, then he would've been surprised and saddened to see his former friend drop to his death. But Batman doesn't show any sign of remorse whatsoever. It's pretty clear to me that he exploited Harvey's obsession ("Aren't you forgetting something, Harvey? Your coin."). Otherwise, wouldn't he have just skipped the coin reminder and have thrown a Batarang to take out the gun? Now, it could be interpreted that he killed Two-Face to not only save the three of them, but also to save Dick from becoming like him and Catwoman. It certainly would make sense considering that Batman's always telling Robin not to kill Two-Face so that he doesn't become what Batman once was. As well as the close-up of Robin, in shock, as Two-Face falls. (It's like in Road to Perdition when-SPOILERS: the son has a gun on Jude Law, but Tom Hanks is the one who shoots Jude so that his son would never have blood on his hands.) But no matter what reason he may have had for doing it, he still killed Two-Face in my eyes by exploiting his knowledge of Harvey's obsession. Just like how he killed Joker by shooting the bola at his leg, knowing that the gargoyle would give way since Joker had previously demonstrated ("They don't make 'em like they used to!") that the cathedral was breaking apart. I know I brought this up in an earlier post, but I firmly believe now that it was intentional on Batman's part. It's Penguin's death that I think is the most debatable if Batman was at fault. Penguin pressed the button that caused the bats to come out. But one could argue that Batman, the smart man he is, tricked Penguin into doing so. It's not entirely clear and I think it could go either way, but that was most likely the intention since Burton loves to put in that ambiguity. Some argue that in the first film, Batman let Jack Napier fall into the chemicals while others believe that Batman simply couldn't hold on and it was an accident. It's up to audience interpretation. Personally, judging from my own interpretation of the film's study of Batman's character, I think Batman set the bats as a trap to attack Penguin and leave the criminal to fend off the suckers as he goes to find Selina/Catwoman and stop her from killing Max like he tried at the party. The intention was not to kill Penguin, but to stop him quickly so he could get to his girlfriend and stop her from doing something she'll regret. I find it hard to argue that Batman would know that the bats would lead Penguin through the glass and down into the sewer water especially since Batman had not been in the Gotham Zoo before the final sequence. IMO, Batman has more of a hand in Ra's Al Ghul's death by having Gordon take out the bridge and leaving Ra's on the train in Batman Begins (that is, if he believe he died in that film) than in Penguin's. I never did think that Two Face was dead. As far as not consulting the coin to kill, I don't remember him ever actually killing without the coin. I don't really see the flipping over again as a real big deal. The first time was to Bruce, the second time was to Chase, and the third was for Bruce. I think that because of the one that he did for Chase, a restart to flip to see if he would kill him at that point. Interesting interpretation, but why would Two-Face want to kill Chase? Throughout the film he has his eye set on killing Batman. The way many saw it, including Batman Prevails and myself, is Two-Face desperately wanting to get a chance to kill Batman. It's him being completely evil and it completely ignores the good side that Two-Face has when he flips repeatedly like that (not to mention his frustration whenever it comes up clean). I don't think any interpretation of Two-Face besides this film has protrayed him as an all-around bad apple like that.
|
|
|
Post by Batman Prevails on Jan 7, 2006 4:04:09 GMT -5
I can't deny that Batman fullly intended to kill the Joker but then again I remember when I watched B89 for the first time, which was my first ever Batman experience, I knew that killing the Joker would be the only right thing to do. Someone like the Joker can't be locked up. By killing him you're saving everyone else in Gotham. I know this issue has been touched a lot of times in the comic books. However the thing is in B'89 the Joker does not really as a human being at all. Jack has stated before "I've been dead once." Batman's job was to ensure it would stay that way.
Surely Two-Face's death is ambigous. But my POV is that Batman used the coin trick to distract him (as he did in BTAS Two-Face Part 2). That Two-Face loses balance was not his fault.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 7, 2006 11:10:26 GMT -5
My understanding is that Batman wouldn't kill unless he had too. I can understand him killing Joker in 89. I have no idea why he killed Penguin's goons in Returns. As for Two-Face, was the coin trick really an accident, or did he know what he was doing? Robin was shocked at this as he fell into the pit. Nobody dies in Batman and Robin, but what happened to Bane?
In short, the old movies were ****ed up with Burton and Schumacher running things. Thank god for Begins.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 7, 2006 12:16:18 GMT -5
Surely Two-Face's death is ambigous. But my POV is that Batman used the coin trick to distract him (as he did in BTAS Two-Face Part 2). That Two-Face loses balance was not his fault. I'll use the term "agree to disagree" here. It's film, man, so whatever interpretation you have, go with it. I believe that his death is ambiguous (I haven't seen Batman & Robin in a while, but I have heard that we see his costume in Arkham, which points to him being alive) but Batman's intentions are not. From my POV, his intentions are much less ambiguous than those in Batman Returns with the Penguin's death. The fact that Harvey is his former friend makes it more likely that he would've saved the man if he didn't intend to kill him. If he didn't want to kill Two-Face, he would've found a different way to stop him (i.e. throw a Batarang to get the gun out of his hands) or he would've attempted to save Two-Face after watching his former friend slip and fall (which is what he did for Chase and Robin). He didn't do either. I'd gather he'd be smart enough to know that the coin trick wouldn't work in such a precarious location if he just wanted to distract Two-Face. From my perspective he intended to take him out to save Robin and Chase. But I guess we can all agree that...Batman failed or refused to save him. Just like with Penguin. And Ra's Al Ghul in Batman Begins. Just a general question for some of you out there, but: If Batman killing people bothers so many, why doesn't it bother them that Bruce/Batman is responsible for the deaths of some of the League of Shadows members and both "Ra's Al Ghul"s? One could argue that the monastery fire was an accident, but leaving Ra's to die in the train certainly was not.
|
|
|
Post by the_killing_joke on Jan 7, 2006 13:06:08 GMT -5
I agree with an earlier comment that both Burton and Schumacher got it wrong. I always look at the movies the same way as I look at the TV show. They are all just different versions of the same thing. It is all down to interpretation. Personally, I think Batman intended to cause The Joker's death. Burton really intensified the relationship between the two and it all smacked of revenge in the end. The Penguin's death is a little more ambiguous but personally I believe that Batman is responsible albeit indirectly. As for the strongman, well with a small stack of dynamite (It sure looked like sticks of dynamite) attached to his gut I do not rate the guy's chances of survival so Batman was directly responsible for his death. The guy whom he set alight with the Batmobile could have rolled in the snow and put himself out so I am not including him in this. As for Two Face, he hardly fell onto a heap of straw did he! Batman caused his fall and I am sure I remember spikes at the landing point. However Harvey's clothes turn up again at Arkham so I do not think he actually died. I like to think that Ra's al Ghul survived the mono-rail smash too. It would be so coll to see Liam Neeson reprise that role. Great topic too. I am heroing the person who started it.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 7, 2006 13:22:05 GMT -5
I think we're forgeting someone. Whatever happened to Bane?
The continuity thing was screwed up in these movies. I think Schumacher just threw it in there with Riddler's for the hell of it.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 7, 2006 13:23:39 GMT -5
I agree with an earlier comment that both Burton and Schumacher got it wrong. I always look at the movies the same way as I look at the TV show. They are all just different versions of the same thing. It is all down to interpretation. While I somewhat agree with the rest of your post, I have to point out that I find your first sentence to be a bit contradicting: If it's all down to interpretation, then how is it that Burton and Schumacher "got it wrong"? What makes an interpretation "wrong" and another one "right"? Is it that Nolan had the "right approach" or just an approach that others liked more? I see it as a pretty subjective thing that's not about right or wrong but rather what interpretation one likes the best. Many like Nolan's film. Others I have encountered still prefer Burton's low-key approach. Surely you and I can agree that the latter group shouldn't be considered "wrong" for liking Burton's films better. I agree that Liam Neeson should return. It's unlikely it'll be in the next couple films, though. Whether he survived or not, I find it clear that it was Batman's intention to leave him for dead because he wanted vengeance. And if we're going to complain about Batman being responsible for killing criminals in Burton and Schumacher films, we may as well bring that situation from Nolan's film in here too. I find it wrong to criticize something in the previous films when something quite similar occured in the recent film.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 7, 2006 13:28:20 GMT -5
If your talking about Ra's Al Ghul, BatmAngelus, remember he didn't kill him, but he didn't have to save him either. I don't think Batman wanted vengeance. He just wanted to put a stop to the League of Shadows from destroying Gotham, or any other city for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 7, 2006 14:16:00 GMT -5
Batman had already succeeded in stopping Ra's's plan by the time he said that line. The train couldn't stop from derailing since Ra's took out the controls.
So basically, Gotham was saved once Gordon followed Batman's instructions and took out the railing. Sticking with his principles from the beginning of the film, Batman could've dragged Ra's out of there with him, but he didn't. He still holds responsibility on Ra's's death.
I would argue that he did want vengeance. This is the man who caused the Depression, which led to the Wayne murders (in fact, Ra's has even more of a hand in creating Batman than Joker ever did in B89. Somehow, Joker's involvement bothers one more than Ra's's). He insults his father constantly and his father's legacy. He basically shames Bruce in many of their scenes of the film. But most of all, this man burns down his father's house and leaves him for dead under the rubble after quipping that Bruce never learned to mind his surroundings.
And what does Bruce/Batman do? He quips that Ra's never learned to mind your surroundings and leaves Ra's for dead in the train. That's payback and giving the man a taste of his own medicine (for lack of a better phrase). That's using Ra's's own philosophy ("Your compassion is a weakness your enemies will not share." "I warned you about compassion, Bruce.") against him. That's vengeance.
If Bruce Wayne died in Wayne Manor when it burned around him, would you consider Ra's responsible? I would. I see the train situation to be practically the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 7, 2006 21:08:45 GMT -5
Oh, yeah. I forgot about Ra's kind of being responsible for his parent's deaths. When you put it that way, I'd say Batman did want vengeance. But I still think that Batman was still putting an end to the League of Shadows as well.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 7, 2006 22:25:13 GMT -5
^ Yes, I believe that was another reason, too. One could give it the term "the selfless reason."
And one could use a similar reason for Batman in the previous films to have been responsible for the deaths of other characters. Take out Joker to prevent him from killing anyone else or harming anybody he loves. Take out Penguin to prevent him from endangering Gotham's children. Take out the Red Triangle Circus Gang to lessen Penguin's army of criminals. Take out Two-Face to prevent him from causing any further tragedies.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 7, 2006 22:27:18 GMT -5
Whatever happened to Bane in Batman & Robin?
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 7, 2006 22:29:51 GMT -5
^ Sorry if it looks like I've been ignoring you on this issue, but I honestly can't answer that. I haven't seen the film since 1997, so I barely remember any of it. It's the one film from the previous films that I don't own (can you blame me?). What I do remember, though, is that Batman wasn't the one who had to face him in the climactic battle.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jan 7, 2006 22:31:53 GMT -5
Whatever happened to Bane in Batman & Robin? I never thought about what happened to him. I assume that he was still alive, but not beefed up. I wonder if that is on the Anthology.
|
|
|
Post by Batman Prevails on Jan 7, 2006 22:37:08 GMT -5
If Bruce Wayne died in Wayne Manor when it burned around him, would you consider Ra's responsible? I would. I see the train situation to be practically the same thing. Have to disagree here. Ra's direct intentions were to kill Bruce. Batman's intentions were to save Gotham. Besides I think Ra's could have saved himself if he wanted to but because he got beaten by a former student he accepts his death.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jan 7, 2006 22:39:05 GMT -5
But was it his true death? Though unmentioned, Ra's Al Ghul has the Lazarus Pit.
|
|