|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 7, 2006 23:01:02 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. Ra's isn't dead..its just not in the character's nature. You know how that is! I find the situations to be very different. Often times questions of morality come down to intent. Ra's walked into Wayne manor, had it lit on fire and left Bruce to die. Bruce made a choice to not save Ra's on the train (for the second time)...HE didn't set the motions into play that caused Ra's "death". Ra's is just as capable as Batman to save himself if he choses...Batman knows this better than anyone, having learned under him.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 7, 2006 23:57:36 GMT -5
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. As I said before, by the time Batman makes the choice to leave Ra's to die, the train is set to derail, which means Gotham is safe. The plan is foiled and Ra's can't do crap to stop that. I would agree with you here if Batman absolutely had to leave Ra's in the train to ensure that Gotham would be safe. But Batman chose to leave Ra's to die after the railway was taken out. I find the situations to be very different. Often times questions of morality come down to intent. Ra's walked into Wayne manor, had it lit on fire and left Bruce to die. Bruce made a choice to not save Ra's on the train (for the second time)...HE didn't set the motions into play that caused Ra's "death". Ra's is just as capable as Batman to save himself if he choses...Batman knows this better than anyone, having learned under him. I can see how Batman's involvement in Ra's's "death" is arguable, but having the train derail was Batman's idea. Gordon took out the railing on Batman's orders and Batman knew that Gordon would do that going into the train fight. There's no question, however, that Batman had Gordon do this to save Gotham so I will have to concede that it wasn't Batman's intention to kill Ra's by putting forward that plan. But once that's done, Batman shows no consideration for Ra's's life. Why shouldn't he have saved Ra's before the train derailed? It was a question of morality rather than what Gotham needed. Batman had the power to save Ra's without endangering Gotham and he chose not to. Doesn't that bother anybody here? If Batman knew that Ra's was capable of saving himself, why didn't Batman take the logical route of saving him and turning him to the authorities rather than give him a chance to escape on his own and be free at large?
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 8, 2006 0:09:24 GMT -5
I find the situations to be very different. Often times questions of morality come down to intent. Ra's walked into Wayne manor, had it lit on fire and left Bruce to die. Bruce made a choice to not save Ra's on the train (for the second time)...HE didn't set the motions into play that caused Ra's "death". Ra's is just as capable as Batman to save himself if he choses...Batman knows this better than anyone, having learned under him. I can see how Batman's involvement in Ra's's "death" is arguable, but having the train derail was Batman's idea. Gordon took out the railing on Batman's orders and Batman knew that Gordon would do that going into the train fight. There's no question, however, that Batman had Gordon do this to save Gotham so I will have to concede that it wasn't Batman's intention to kill Ra's by putting forward that plan. But once that's done, Batman shows no consideration for Ra's's life. Why shouldn't he have saved Ra's before the train derailed? It was a question of morality rather than what Gotham needed. Batman had the power to save Ra's without endangering Gotham and he chose not to. Doesn't that bother anybody here? If Batman knew that Ra's was capable of saving himself, why didn't Batman take the logical route of saving him and turning him to the authorities rather than give him a chance to escape on his own and be free at large?[/quote] There's no question that Batman feels ambivalence towards Ra's at this point...he saved this man's life when he didn't have to back in the temple...now, he's burned down his family home and threatened his city...the only thing he has left to care for. I think we can all agree that his descision is a harsh, but just one. Bottom line: Casually taking a life is very different from neglecting to save one. As for why did he "let Ra's go" ? Well, thats a difficult part of Batman's psyche isn't it? He's let a lot of people go. I don't use the man as my personal moral compass, lol. He has complex issues, and a lot of this is a game to him...he almost wants the villains to be there. I don't want to get too far into that ...its for another thread entirely! lol.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 8, 2006 0:40:45 GMT -5
Bottom line: Casually taking a life is very different from neglecting to save one. Agreed, but I find that both cases show a lack of consideration toward the life of another. Batman's moral compass to not kill, which I think everyone can agree is an important element of the character, is rooted in that consideration and compassion. It's not the same thing, but it goes against the same principle.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 8, 2006 0:54:09 GMT -5
Bottom line: Casually taking a life is very different from neglecting to save one. Agreed, but I find that both cases show a lack of consideration toward the life of another. Batman's moral compass to not kill, which I think everyone can agree is an important element of the character, is rooted in that consideration and compassion. It's not the same thing, but it goes against the same principle. I see what you're saying...but as I said....Batman is far from my own personal moral compass. He does express some questionable descision making skills when it comes to killing...no doubt there...but I honestly feel like not saving a life and taking one are very different in the moral sense.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 8, 2006 1:25:24 GMT -5
We'll have to, as I've said to others before, "agree to disagree" on this. You bring up an interesting point on what goes on in Batman's head, but I personally don't think Batman had Ra's's escape in mind.
|
|
|
Post by /\/\att on Jan 8, 2006 1:44:44 GMT -5
We'll have to, as I've said to others before, "agree to disagree" on this. Thats quite obvious, lol. It comes down to a matter of personal interpretation at this point..much like the rest of this thread...on what versions of the character are "valid" to you and to I. I recognize all interpretations of Batman..I just don't like one or two quite so much, ie: Burton's Batman. I really don't know if Bruce is naive enough at this point in his career to think that Ra's is dead....its hard to piece that together, given our already extensive knowlege of the character and his ability to survive.
|
|
|
Post by the_killing_joke on Jan 8, 2006 9:53:22 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. I can see now that I did not really explain myself too well. What I should have wrote was they got it as wrong as each other. Batman's not taking lives in his quest is pretty much something that everyone agrees upon as being one of the character's core values despite the examples of the opposite in the early days of the character. I should have stressed this in my post. With this in mind, both Burton and Schumacher "got it wrong" or at least a part of the character wrong as it were but it is still their personal interpretation of the character. Whilst I disagree with some things and agree with others I do remember that each film or book is set within its own version of Gotham with its own version of Batman. Batman leaving Ra's Al Ghul to die in the monorail is a weird one. Bruce had already saved him earlier in the film which Ra's interpreted as being left to die then Ra's left Bruce to die in his own burning house etc. There is a huge ambiguity there and to be honest I will see if Ra's survives before deciding. At face value it looks like he left him to die but Batman knows how resourceful this guy is. Personally, I think he may return.
|
|
|
Post by BatmAngelus on Jan 8, 2006 12:25:06 GMT -5
^ Just wanted that clarified.
Thanks ;D.
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Jan 8, 2006 16:45:11 GMT -5
Bruce had already saved him earlier in the film which Ra's interpreted as being left to die then Ra's left Bruce to die in his own burning house etc. There is a huge ambiguity there and to be honest I will see if Ra's survives before deciding.
the way I interpret this, is that Bruce left who he thought was Ra's to die (i.e. Watanabe), and saved his friend Ducard.
Ra's' feelings towards this, is that had bruce known that he (Ducard) was the real Ra's, he would have left him to die, and possibly saved Watanabe. so in that sense, Bruce did burn his house and leave him to die, with no ambiguity.
straight after watching the film with my parents and my sister, they all wondered why Ra's (Ducard) said that to Bruce ("you burnt my house and left me for dead, consider us even") when we clearly saw Bruce saving Ducard from the monastery.
I had to explain to them that because Bruce left Watanabe to die (who he though was the real Ra's anyway) that this statement by Neeson is correct. in that sense, Bruce was happy for Ra's to be dead, whoever he actually was. and Neeson didn't like this fact, thats why he repays the favour.
|
|
|
Post by the_killing_joke on Jan 13, 2006 13:21:59 GMT -5
Bruce had already saved him earlier in the film which Ra's interpreted as being left to die then Ra's left Bruce to die in his own burning house etc. There is a huge ambiguity there and to be honest I will see if Ra's survives before deciding. the way I interpret this, is that Bruce left who he thought was Ra's to die (i.e. Watanabe), and saved his friend Ducard. Ra's' feelings towards this, is that had bruce known that he (Ducard) was the real Ra's, he would have left him to die, and possibly saved Watanabe. so in that sense, Bruce did burn his house and leave him to die, with no ambiguity. straight after watching the film with my parents and my sister, they all wondered why Ra's (Ducard) said that to Bruce ("you burnt my house and left me for dead, consider us even") when we clearly saw Bruce saving Ducard from the monastery. I had to explain to them that because Bruce left Watanabe to die (who he though was the real Ra's anyway) that this statement by Neeson is correct. in that sense, Bruce was happy for Ra's to be dead, whoever he actually was. and Neeson didn't like this fact, thats why he repays the favour. I do not remember Ra's or Ducard as Bruce then believed him to be making it exlicit that he felt that had bruce known that he (Ducard) was the real Ra's, he would have left him to die, and possibly saved Watanabe. Perhaps I have missed this piece of dialogue? I do not mean that to be confrontation, I genuinely wonder if I missed it. The way I saw it was that Bruce thought that Ra's was already dead or at least beyond help underneath the large beam of burning wood. His attention was focussed on saving Ducard. The ambiguity for me is that whilst we saw Bruce save him, Ra's saw it that Bruce had destroyed his home and left him for dead. Bruce did not stick around to find out after all. In short my personal take on it is that Bruce left Ra's (the decoy) because there was no way to help him and that Ra's may have survived the crash (as Bruce might have suspected) I know it is a bit thin but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Jan 13, 2006 15:21:32 GMT -5
there was no explicit dialogue about what i wrote, but i think its all implied.
Bruce knows of someone called Ra's Al Ghul from his travels, but doesn't know what he looks like.
the real Ra's introduces himself as Ducard to train Bruce without giving anything away that he is a bad man. he acts like just another of the lost souls that Ra's (Watanabe) saved and "gave a path to".
Ra's (decoy) tells Bruce they want/need to destroy Gotham, so obviously this is where the tables turn, and Bruce no longer wants to be a student of Ra's, whereas he was happy to go along with them before he knew their plan.
Ra's (Ducard) planned this decoy story all the way to test Bruce, to see how he reacts and conducts himself. he (Ducard) can get under his skin, get to know what drives Bruce, by being (pretending to be) just someone else in his position.
so when the decoy and Bruce are fighting, Bruce knocks Ducard out to ultimately protect him, so he (Bruce) can destroy who he believes is the real Ra's, the one behind the plot to destroy Gotham.
when he dies, he is happy about it, and saves who he thinks is his friend, Ducard.
now when Ducard recovers and remembers/finds out what happened, he takes it as an insult that Bruce would go against Ra's when he has trained him and given him these skills.
so when the real Ra's says to Bruce "you burnt my house and left me for dead", he is correct, because Bruce assumed that Watanabe was Ra's, so fought him and he got killed.
if Ducard/the real Ra's had told the truth from the beginning, then when the plan was revealed to destroy Gotham, Bruce would have gone against him instead. Imagine Neeson in the position of Watanabe. Bruce would have tried to beat the leader, Ra's (Neeson), and not agree with the plan.
it doesn't matter which person had pretended to be Ra's, Bruce would have tried to fight and defeat him, so in that sense, Ra's is insulted that Bruce didn't agree with him or the plan.
Bruce planned to save Ducard all along, thats why he knocked him out at the start of the fight, so he wouldn't interfere with Bruce taking on who he though was Ra's.
Bruce can only have felt happy at seeing the decoy dead, thinking their plan wouldn't come into action.
if Ra's (Neeson) had made it known from the very beginning who he was, Bruce would have taken him on and tried to kill him, and Watanabe probably wouldn't have even been in the movie (or he may have been in it as Ubu).
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Jan 13, 2006 15:32:50 GMT -5
i've not read the whole thread, but i feel that Batman intentionally killed Joker in BM'89, he killed the strongman with the bomb in Returns, and he killed Two Face in Forever (Harvey may have lived, but we don't know, but surely Batmans intention was for him to lose his balance and fall down the shaft onto the jagged rocks, killing him?).
and he sort of knew Ra's (Neeson, in the train) would die in Begins, and chose not to save him (which could amount to the same thing). could he not have saved Ra's and handed him over to the police to put him in jail?
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Jan 13, 2006 16:33:38 GMT -5
Clearly in Batman Forever he let Two-Face fall and by tossing the coins is actually the one who made him fall. Based on the movie, you'd have to think that the director made it so that it would look as if the bad guy died.
You gotta think, that's what producers do, they try to make a good movie and in doing so need some sort of climax, and thus, is usually the fall of the bad guy.
I think Batman's opinion on death is mixed. His only priority as Batman is to serve and protect Gotham and in doing so, sometimes he has to push the limits a little further to reach that goal.
I think while in Begins, wanting Gotham to stay safe, had to fight off the fake Ra's and unintentionally killed him in the explosion. Once someone turns on Gotham, Batman's got another enemy to deal with. I do know one thing do, he does want to 'punish' those who do evil things upon Gotham, and because he was younger (Batman Begins) he probably didnt know how to deal with the fake Ra's and fought him and thereon though "This is what I should do when enemies start taking over Gotham. This is how I am going to handle things, through my own hands"
It's all really complicated, you would never really know what goes on in Batman's mind but we can only discuss...
|
|
|
Post by MuksC on Jan 13, 2006 19:02:47 GMT -5
just to point out, I mean Ra's as in Neeson, in my last post. I've edited it now anyway.
oh, and in BM'89, when Batman's in the Batwing ready to confront Joker after getting rid of the balloons, we see him get the targetting equipment out of the overhead console and he looks through it and locks right onto Jokers face, then proceeds to shoot guns and rockets.
why does nothing actually hit Joker if he targetted it directly onto his face? the bullets make a trail in front of him and the rockets hit his parade float.
I don't have a problem with Batman killing, if thats what it takes to ensure the safety of Gotham. I don't think in todays world that its practical to try to be a goody two-shoes superhero, when the villains he's up against are quite prepared to kill millions of people. sometimes Batman has to cross the line and play them at their own game, which includes killing.
And when Two-Face falls in Forever, I think Robin is not so much surprised, but more relieved, or gratified, as he has wanted to kill him himself, but what Batman did got Robins goal achieved, without turning Dick into what Bruce didn't want him to turn into: a murderer. he got what he wanted while remaining innocent, so Bruce took that burden, instead of allowing Dick to take it. Thats what I think.
and yes, Two-Face's clothes are in the storeroom in Arkham in B&R, but I think that was more of an afterthought by Schumacher after he made Batman kill Harvey in Forever. following the no doubt negative press he would have got from fans after Forever for Batman killing him, and also because he didn't know whether or not they needed Harvey in the future, having his clothes in the storeroom hints that he is not dead, thus getting him out of the bad books of the fans, only to go straight back into them by making B&R!
|
|
wetstereorebel
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
"Oh, sweet Jesus. It's the goddamn Batman."
Posts: 206
|
Post by wetstereorebel on Jan 14, 2006 14:49:58 GMT -5
This is probably one of the best threads I've ever seen on LoG. This is what makes me proud to be a member. Sure, to most people, this must seem like a very trivial point (I know my wife thinks so LOL!), but there's been enough intelligent and thought-provoking arguments here that I've started to question my own thoughts.
The Batwing machinge gun assault always bothered me, as did the attack on Axis Chemicals. Wasn't that plant full of people? What about the hubcap bombs? Holy crap! Now that I really sit and think about it, Burton's Batman was a cold blooded killer!
|
|
wetstereorebel
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
"Oh, sweet Jesus. It's the goddamn Batman."
Posts: 206
|
Post by wetstereorebel on Jan 14, 2006 14:52:50 GMT -5
Oh yeah, and Batman Prevails gets a hero point from me for this thread! Let's have more like them!!
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Knight on Jan 14, 2006 22:34:47 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with Batman killing, if thats what it takes to ensure the safety of Gotham. I don't think in todays world that its practical to try to be a goody two-shoes superhero, when the villains he's up against are quite prepared to kill millions of people. sometimes Batman has to cross the line and play them at their own game, which includes killing. Yes! That's exactly my point, it's cool we see sort of eye to eye
|
|