BATMAN LET RAS DIE

[The Laughing Fish]

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"? 

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.

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.

[Andrew]

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.

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.

[thecolorsblend]

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.

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...

[The Laughing Fish]

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.

[Dagenspear]

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"? 

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.