i need batman experts

[angeltread]

im not a huge batman guy...
but i think i know him ok...
me and my friend are having an argument.
so at the end of batman begins.... where batman says "i dont have to save you..." and then lets raz algu (or whatever) drop in the train...
my friend says that is out of character to let him die...
i say its not (my dad says so too)...
so what is it... are there any actual comics instances where batman doesnt save a villian on purpose... any where he does something that probably would kill people...
i seem to remember in a 'wizard' where it showed an really old batman comic (probably 40's) where it shows batman kicking a crook in the head and the thug's neck snapping...
let me know what you experts say.

[Sean Whitmore]

I think it's debated a little among the "experts" too. :)

Lots of people don't seem to have a problem with it, but I found it a little un-Batman-like. Making a distinction between killing someone and not saving their life seems too grey for someone with such strong opinions about right and wrong.

I think Batman would try to save any life, even at the risk of his own, if there were any conceivable way possible. And if there wasn't, I don't think he'd crack wise about it.


SEAN

[yourverysilly]

yeah, this is the only thing that bothered me about Batman Begins.
It was out of character for Batman to let Ras die, Batman believes in the sanctity of all life, no matter how twisted or evil, There's a instance in the Knightfall series of books, where this other guy takes over being batman for awhile while Batman is paralysed, and he becoems very dark and brutal, doing a similar thing. Its one of the many things that means Batman has to come after him and relinquish him of the batman mantle.
As for the batman kicking some guy int he neck? yeah I've seen that too, thats from the golden age, they wrote a different, less good, version of Batman back then. The current, primary version of Batman wouldn't kill anyone.
hope that helps!

[dancj]

Yeah it is out of character for Batman - as pointed out he made it clear in Knightquest that he would never even allow someone to die - even a villain. There was also a graphic novel called The Joker: Devil's Advocate where Joker is on death row for a crime he didn't commit and Bats goes out of his way to save him.

That said it's a film and there's no reason it has to follow the comic's continuity

[Captain Jim]

Yep. I'm with the majority on this one. Out of character, at least as established in modern comics.

[niall mc cann]

i'm no expert, but i didn't sit right with me, that bit.

I love the film, but that particular moment did grate on me a bit.

It seemed OOC for Batman as i know him to let R'as die there, even within the continuity of the film.

[caboose]

I'm not claiming to be a Batman expert, but Batman Begins is a different kettle of fish to DCU Batman.

I'm sure I'll get scolded for this, but after seeing what saving Ducard/Ras in the Himalayas led to, I don't think its unreasonable for Bale's Batman (note the Bale part) to come to the conclusion of leaving Ras to find his own way out of trouble.

[Superheroic]

It seemed OOC for Batman as i know him to let R'as die there, even within the continuity of the film.

Why's that? He caused the whole monastery full of ninjas die just to save one man. I can certainly see him letting Ras al-Ghul die in the movie.

[OverMaster]

I always found odd how, in the 'Bane' animated episode, at the end, Batman leaves a defeated, harmless Bane at Rupert Thorne's mercy after telling Thorne Bane and Thorne's secretary planned to off him. He was practically sentencing them both to death with that action.

[zeroEDGE]

I do think it is very out of character because Batman believes in the justice system so much. But hey, it's just a movie so they probably weren't planning to bring him back anyways so why not have a dramatic ending.

[vazel]

Yea, that scene shocked me considering the Batman characterization from the animated series and comics. But I liked it. I hope the new movie continuity explores a darker Batman.

[The Punished]

It is a movie version giving the character a bit of darker characterization was needed. Likewise, like the Aesop fable of the frog & the scorpion Batman knew that whatever he did it would not change Ras's ideas so he forced Ras to make the decision to live or die himself (Ras). Batman jumped why couldn't Ras? He closed his eyes and meditated it appeared, eh?

[lead sharp]

I can see it within the continuity of the film, in Bale's Batman (nice that lol) I don't quite see how he could have safely saved Ra's and himself also I think he knew Ra's could probably save himself more than adequitley (spelling?) thus also teaching Ra's that there is a third option other than the black and white world Ra's wants to live in.

I've seen it in Batmans character where he's dealing with villains that are (considered) sane and lethal his moral code drifts into the grey area. For example his dealing with the KGBeast in the classic Ten nights of the beast, he chased him into a sewer and locked him in a maintainance room knowing he couldn't take him on and win. Simelar situation with the follow up story with the Demon he effectivly let the KGB agent ( I think he was KGB) shoot the Demon.

I think his sanctity of life idea is still valid I just think sometimes he has to face an unpleasent reality.

As for his relationship with the loony end of his villain spectrum he can't see them die. He doesn't see it as their fault he's trying to save them as well as their victims.

Just some thoughts.

[angeltread]

thanks fellas... it seems i was a bit off.
hes pretty much exactly like spiderman in that regard.

so im thinking in dark knight returns by frank miller... that batman shouldnt be taken as real comic continuty batman... cause in that doesnt he basically paralyze the joker.... but then cant deliever the final blow... so joker breaks his own neck... it seems like in the heat of paralyzing someone... you got no real way of making sure you dont go to the point of killing...

[Mia]

I don't where people are comming up with Batman being pristine and pure. I don't see it. I've seen him torture people and throw them off buildings. I think that if he were such a bleeding heart prone to caring about those who prey on the weak. He would have just become a cop. Or join Amnesty International or somethig like that.

My idea that Batman does not kill because it would make him no better than the man who killed his parents. He's not a butcher. But on the other hand he doesn't wring his hands or weep over the fate of nefarious people who want to harm others. Saving the life of a man who has admitedly bent on millions of people, for his own person 'ethics' is not heroic or noble. That's just self-righteous.

[Sean Whitmore]

You might not approve, but that's really been the case with Batman for some time now. Right off the top of my head, I can think of several instances that prove it.

He let the Joker run away rather than allow him to be killed by an Eclipso monster. He got pissed at Jean Paul for letting Abattoir die (that had the added bonus of letting an innocent die, but Bats was upset about Abattoir as well). He fired the Huntress from the JLA for trying to kill Prometheus. He wouldn't let Pagan take her revenge on the criminals who killed her sister. He defended criminals from being killed by both the Spectre and Etrigan on separate occasions. He worked to prove the Joker was innocent of a crime he was going to be sentenced to death for.

So he may not shed a tear when a killer dies, but that doesn't mean he won't do whatever he has to do to save them first.


SEAN

[niall mc cann]

Why's that? He caused the whole monastery full of ninjas die just to save one man. I can certainly see him letting Ras al-Ghul die in the movie.

I don't recall an awful lot of dead ninjas in that scene.

The entire film was a contest between the hidden, primal urges and higher, noble urges in the soul of one man, and about how that man masters his darker side and harnesses it to serve the loftier goals of his self.

At the very end, just when you think he's finally asserted his control over his shadow, he does something which to me is basically giving in to the will of his shadow; he deliberately lets a man who he might have saved die, because he was angry with him. It's tantamount to him deciding to shoot Joe Chill after all, and consequently a betrayal of the character journey.

Only a small one, but it did happen smack in the middle of the denoument.

[The Xenos]

Well, I'm a bit torn over that line. Is Batman cold blooded? What was running through his head. The scene was far from perfect, but I don't think it was outright wrong.

There are a number of possible reasons. Maybe Batman just didn't trust Ra's and thought if he tried to save him, Ra's would try to take him down. Ra's wasn't to be trusted. They did just have a diffcult fight and Ra's has tried to kill him a number of times.

[mattx110]

he didn't just let him die.
he trapped ra's in there.
he set it up so the monorail car was getting totalled with him in it.


maybe he just read the comics and knew about lazarus pits?
he wasn't killing ra's, just reminding him to take a bath in gooey red stuff.

[singoalla]

I'm not sure this Batman, in Batman Begins has quite figured out how he feels about killings vs letting someone die. In the beginning he was vengeful, willing to murder for justice. "Graduating" from the League, he'd decided killing wasn't the way, but beyond that I'm not sure where he is yet.
It's not the same Batman as in the comics or the animated series, where he's been active for a long time and has decided that he won't commit murder. On the other hand he does have a fondness for breaking desks, threatening and hauling people off buildings.

This is similar to the scene on Mount Doom: Does Frodo push Gollum off the cliff, or do they fall by accident?

[Doesitmatter]

That I can answer.

They fall by accident. Frodo and Gollum were both focused only on the Ring and not trying to kill each other. If Frodo meant to push Gollum off, he would have had the Ring first.

Of course in the book Gollum is free and clear and falls in.

Off topic but I got confidence!

As for Batman begins, my guess is the studio demanded the villain die at the end (as in the earlier Batman movies). This was the line they walked to keep Batman from killing Ghul. I'm not crazy about it but it bothers me less than any of the other Bat movies (guns on the Batmobile!)

[David Walton]

I thought it worked. Ra's was responsible for the deaths of entire civilizations...I mean the Bubonic plague, for crying out loud! It was a clever and fitting way for Batman to avoid cold blooded murder without going out of his way to save a guy who would kill countless innocents. I'm not for Batman killing in cold blood, but the comics get a little ridiculous sometimes.

Eventually Bats alerted authorities to the KGBeast's location, I believe. Dick confronted him about it in "Year Three".

I say Batman should be more like his "Batman Begins" self sometimes.

[David Walton]

A final note on this. Anyone who wants to know 'why' Batman would allow Ra's to die in "Batman Begins" should notice that in the original script Batman doesn't. Instead, Ra's is about to beat Bats and he says, "Are you afraid, Bruce?" to which Bruce responds, "Yes..." and then proceeds to begin his escape, and says, "but not of you" and leaves Ra's to die.

I think the way it plays out in the movie works better dramatically. Movies are a more compressed medium than comics and require more closure. That's the real reason why you see so many heroes kill their villains in movies who wouldn't in comics. To a certain extent the morality of comic books has actually been dictated by the politics of the medium and not moral concerns. Batman did kill villains (and Superman tortured low life thugs) until it became apparent that comics would be around for a while and recurring villains would become necessary. That's my theory, at any rate.

[BatKnight89]

That bothered me a bit, Batman wouldn't let anyone die, but there have been times where he couldn't save someone, but he didn't do it on purpose, in way it was bad ass, 'cause Ra's is such an evil jerk you want him to get what's coming to him, but still not right, especially when at the end he comes off all pure when thanking Rachel about not letting him shoot Chill. :rolleyes:

But, when it comes to what you saw in a 40's comic, Batman back then was still under development, he had a gun at one time, he would kill his enemies at times, but that was way back when.

[David Walton]

But I think you have to look at the context. The example I'd give is this:

In comic books, vigilantism is represented differently than in reality. So in the comic book universe, a person who we would call a vigilante such as Batman is more an extension of law enforcement. A vigilante in comic terms is one who crosses a certain line, such as the Punisher.

The world of movies is different, and I think that at the end of Batman Begins Bruce makes a good moral decision. It's certainly different than the Burton movies where Batman vows to kill Joker. And Ra's initiated the bubonic plague and burned London, so that kind of gives Bats a pass in my mind.

And if you read the original script, the change works better dramatically. And let's not forget that we'd probably all prefer that "Batman Begins" stay truer to the rules of good drama than the comic book Batman's rigid code of ethics. Besides, in the original O'Neil Ra's stories Bats basically says that he's never intentionally killed anyone but he is willing to kill Ra's if he must. So it's true to the original source as well.

[Choppa]

It wasn't out of character at all and it's not as black and white as you guys are putting it. Remember how Ra's remarks that he is immortal? That scene was playing to the idea that Ra's wouldn't really "die" and Bruce knew that, as he already came back to life once (figurately of course). If it was anybody else I doubt he would have done the same thing.