Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[Travesty]

Heh, Batman very much killed Ra's. He told Gordon to blow the tracks, and when Ra's talked about stopping the train, Batman clearly said, "who said anything about stopping?". He put Ra's in a death trap, and didn't save him on purpose. It was all very much premeditated.

[Dagenspear]

Heh, Batman very much killed Ra's. He told Gordon to blow the tracks, and when Ra's talked about stopping the train, Batman clearly said, "who said anything about stopping?". He put Ra's in a death trap, and didn't save him on purpose. It was all very much premeditated.

If Bruce wanted to kill Ra's he could have pulled to the rails in the Batmobile and shot them out just as the train was coming, but he didn't. Ra's wouldn't have had time to stop. He would have died. The Microwave Emitter would've been stopped. The End. But that isn't what happened, because it was a plan b to Bruce's plan a, which was "Stop the train". He didn't need Gordon at all if all he wanted to do was blow out the rails and kill Ra's.

[Travesty]

I'm going by what the movie has explicitly shown us, and what both the Nolan brothers have acknowledged themselves. What you're doing, is trying your hardest to conform your own ideas of what you think/hope was in the movie, but was never there. Basically, you're filling in the blanks to try and fit your false narrative.

I'm sorry, but all evidence is contradictory to your claims.

[Dagenspear]

I'm going by what the movie has explicitly shown us, and what both the Nolan brothers have acknowledged themselves. What you're doing, is trying your hardest to conform your own ideas of what you think/hope was in the movie, but was never there. Basically, you're filling in the blanks to try and fit your false narrative.

I'm sorry, but all evidence is contradictory to your claims.

I have no idea what they really say. But it doesn't matter. If they say that, then they're wrong. I'm saying what happens in the films.

[Travesty]

[Dagenspear]

I did admit that he broke his when he killed Harvey. But it was accidental. It doesn't negate his rule by any means though. I do this with all Batman movies.

[BatmAngelus]

Personally, I don't see Dent's death as accidental at all.

If Batman did end up killing his former ally without actually intending to, I'd like to think Nolan would have made a huge deal out of it or would've made this clear (i.e. Batman throws batarang, Dent stumbled back towards the edge. Batman tries to save him, but fails. Dent goes over and falls to his death). Then, Batman would feel some sort of guilt over it in the aftermath.

Instead, the movie just shows Batman tackling Two-Face over the side to save the kid. Dent dies. Batman and Gordon stand over his body before he runs off. Not once (in either TDK's ending or any of TDK Rises) does Bruce/Batman express any regret over Dent getting killed in the process of saving James Jr.

Not to mention there's screenwriter Jonathan Nolan's confession in The Dark Knight Trilogy screenwriting book (as seen in Laughing Fish's signature) saying that Batman did break his one rule in the film.

It might not be outright murder, like Keaton shoving a bomb down a clown's pants in Batman Returns, but the movie makes it seem more like a "It was him vs. the kid" situation, as opposed to "I was just trying to save the kid. Dent wasn't supposed to die too."

I side with Laughing Fish on the fickle nature of Batman's one rule in the trilogy- either Batman has a strict moral code and follows it through the movies or, like in the Burton films, he doesn't have that code and kills criminals if he's forced to choose between them and innocent lives.

Instead, we've got Bruce arguing with Ra's over executing criminals...only to abandon him to his death on the train, Batman telling Joker about his one rule...only to kill Dent to save James Jr., and Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing"...only to shoot at Talia's truck, take out her driver at 3:09,

...and cause her fatal crash.

You can't have Batman talk all about his code and then kill people and skirt over the contradictions. If the point in dealing with Ra's, Two-Face, or Talia was for Batman to cross that line, how come there was little to no exploration of that? I don't mind Batman establishing his one rule and then having to break it, so long as the story actually goes into the ramifications of that. Bruce quitting being Batman before TDK Rises would've made way more sense if it was out of guilt for causing Dent's death and breaking his one rule.

Crossing my fingers that Snyder does this better with Affleck's Batman.

[Dagenspear]

Personally, I don't see Dent's death as accidental at all.

If Batman did end up killing his former ally without actually intending to, I'd like to think Nolan would have made a huge deal out of it or would've made this clear (i.e. Batman throws batarang, Dent stumbled back towards the edge. Batman tries to save him, but fails. Dent goes over and falls to his death). Then, Batman would feel some sort of guilt over it in the aftermath.

Instead, the movie just shows Batman tackling Two-Face over the side to save the kid. Dent dies. Batman and Gordon stand over his body before he runs off. Not once (in either TDK's ending or any of TDK Rises) does Bruce/Batman express any regret over Dent getting killed in the process of saving James Jr.

Not to mention there's screenwriter Jonathan Nolan's confession in The Dark Knight Trilogy screenwriting book (as seen in Laughing Fish's signature) saying that Batman did break his one rule in the film.

It might not be outright murder, like Keaton shoving a bomb down a clown's pants in Batman Returns, but the movie makes it seem more like a "It was him vs. the kid" situation, as opposed to "I was just trying to save the kid. Dent wasn't supposed to die too."

I side with Laughing Fish on the fickle nature of Batman's one rule in the trilogy- either Batman has a strict moral code and follows it through the movies or, like in the Burton films, he doesn't have that code and kills criminals if he's forced to choose between them and innocent lives.

Instead, we've got Bruce arguing with Ra's over executing criminals...only to abandon him to his death on the train, Batman telling Joker about his one rule...only to kill Dent to save James Jr., and Batman telling Catwoman "no guns, no killing"...only to shoot at Talia's truck, take out her driver at 3:09,

...and cause her fatal crash.

You can't have Batman talk all about his code and then kill people and skirt over the contradictions. If the point in dealing with Ra's, Two-Face, or Talia was for Batman to cross that line, how come there was little to no exploration of that? I don't mind Batman establishing his one rule and then having to break it, so long as the story actually goes into the ramifications of that. Bruce quitting being Batman before TDK Rises would've made way more sense if it was out of guilt for causing Dent's death and breaking his one rule.

Crossing my fingers that Snyder does this better with Affleck's Batman.

I did say that Batman broke his rule. But it just doesn't play for Batman to think "I am going to tackle Harvey to save Jim's son and that will kill Harvey." Not only does that not play with someone's natural thought process, or how the scene plays out, it's also OOC. It was a pretty clear "I have to save the kid" situation. He wasn't thinking about Harvey. It was a completely impulsive action. That's why they had him beaten with a pipe by the Joker, had him attacked by dogs, had him take down a SWAT Team, and then had him shot. It was all to get him into the situation where all he could do was tackle Harvey to save the boy. He wasn't trying to kill the driver. For all intents and purposes he didn't even know he was killed at all. Letting someone die isn't the same as killing them. Neither is someone getting killed accidentally because of something someone else did.

[The Laughing Fish]

Not once (in either TDK's ending or any of TDK Rises) does Bruce/Batman express any regret over Dent getting killed in the process of saving James Jr.

I had an argument with another poster on this forum last year who used a fallacious argument by claiming if Batman killed Dent on purpose, it also would've meant that he tried to kill the boy too. I thought I tried to explain to him that Batman's actions were intentional, not out of vengeance, but he did it to save the kid. It fell on the guy's deaf ears though. The apologist in question had the nerve to argue "Nolan made one mistake in killing Ra's, but it was something he got right in the next two films, yet you still complain. He can't win." What's just as aggravating is he said that it's unfair to condemn Batman's confusing actions all because he killed "deliberately" once killed in BB...which is the biggest load of apologist rubbish I've ever read. It is a flaw if the director fails to address these inconsistencies and make Batman's character change as a result.

Anyway, I even suggested why didn't Batman take a more cautious approach under the situation, hell I even used your Batarang suggestion as an example, and his excuse was that he was too injured and tired following the Joker's assault. Which I find very hard to believe because if his Batsuit can't protect him from bodily harm and gunshot wounds, how the hell can it enable him to survive a fall from a skyscraper building and crash on top of a car when he saved Rachel?!

Another excuse this poster said that Batman did show subtle signs of remorse for killing Dent by calling him a hero, and supposedly looking sad for a moment. To me, it looked more like Batman was breathing heavily from his injuries he sustained from the fall in the end. But even if that was the case, I find it quite odd that he quickly regains composure when talking to Gordon as he frames himself for everything Dent did and then escapes. What annoys me is the poster twisted Batman's remarks in calling Dent a hero as a sign to show he didn't mean to kill him. If that guy was telling the truth, he would've realized that Batman called him that because he decided to take the fall for him and protect his so-called "White Knight" reputation. He took that course of action immediately after listening to Gordon's worries that Dent's work would get dismissed and release all the crooks from jail if the truth was discovered by everybody in Gotham (and with due respect to Dagenspear here, that was exactly what the Joker hoped to achieve in his plan to corrupt Dent in the first place - to create more chaos. Which is why Batman made that decision to frame himself - to prevent that from happening). And like you said, at no point in the end of the film, or in TDKR, did he ever show any regrets over his death. Just like he didn't show any regrets killing Ra's - in fact, his justification to Talia says otherwise! So it makes his handling of the Joker situation that much harder to comprehend.

The whole gist of the guy's point was that Batman accidentally killing Dent was supposed to represent Batman's greatest failure. That's all well and good, but Nolan failed to adapt that according to the rules he set for the character. If Batman sees himself as a soldier, then he needed to be more consistent in his stance towards killing. Don't look for lame loopholes and hope nobody in the audience will call out on your hypocrisy. Nolan may have fooled the average movie public desperate for darker attempt at a Batman film, but some of us are smart enough to understand that these are legitimate flaws to complain about.

Crossing my fingers that Snyder does this better with Affleck's Batman.

Speaking of BvS, it really makes me wonder if Snyder's decision for Superman to kill Zod in MOS in that manner was his way of one-upping Nolan. I'm eager to see if they will fulfill their promise that Superman will further develop from that incident and his reaction to stopping Zod won't be swept under the rug, as Goyer claimed immediately after MOS was released.

Now with that out of the way, I'm going back to my self-imposed exile from this thread.

[Dagenspear]

Not once (in either TDK's ending or any of TDK Rises) does Bruce/Batman express any regret over Dent getting killed in the process of saving James Jr.

I had an argument with another poster on this forum last year who used a fallacious argument by claiming if Batman killed Dent on purpose, it also would've meant that he tried to kill the boy too. I thought I tried to explain to him that Batman's actions were intentional, not out of vengeance, but he did it to save the kid. It fell on the guy's deaf ears though. The apologist in question had the nerve to argue "Nolan made one mistake in killing Ra's, but it was something he got right in the next two films, yet you still complain. He can't win." What's just as aggravating is he said that it's unfair to condemn Batman's confusing actions all because he killed "deliberately" once killed in BB...which is the biggest load of apologist rubbish I've ever read. It is a flaw if the director fails to address these inconsistencies and make Batman's character change as a result.

Anyway, I even suggested why didn't Batman take a more cautious approach under the situation, hell I even used your Batarang suggestion as an example, and his excuse was that he was too injured and tired following the Joker's assault. Which I find very hard to believe because if his Batsuit can't protect him from bodily harm and gunshot wounds, how the hell can it enable him to survive a fall from a skyscraper building and crash on top of a car when he saved Rachel?!

Another excuse this poster said that Batman did show subtle signs of remorse for killing Dent by calling him a hero, and supposedly looking sad for a moment. To me, it looked more like Batman was breathing heavily from his injuries he sustained from the fall in the end. But even if that was the case, I find it quite odd that he quickly regains composure when talking to Gordon as he frames himself for everything Dent did and then escapes. What annoys me is the poster twisted Batman's remarks in calling Dent a hero as a sign to show he didn't mean to kill him. If that guy was telling the truth, he would've realized that Batman called him that because he decided to take the fall for him and protect his so-called "White Knight" reputation. He took that course of action immediately after listening to Gordon's worries that Dent's work would get dismissed and release all the crooks from jail if the truth was discovered by everybody in Gotham (and with due respect to Dagenspear here, that was exactly what the Joker hoped to achieve in his plan to corrupt Dent in the first place - to create more chaos. Which is why Batman made that decision to frame himself - to prevent that from happening). And like you said, at no point in the end of the film, or in TDKR, did he ever show any regrets over his death. Just like he didn't show any regrets killing Ra's - in fact, his justification to Talia says otherwise! So it makes his handling of the Joker situation that much harder to comprehend.

The whole gist of the guy's point was that Batman accidentally killing Dent was supposed to represent Batman's greatest failure. That's all well and good, but Nolan failed to adapt that according to the rules he set for the character. If Batman sees himself as a soldier, then he needed to be more consistent in his stance towards killing. Don't look for lame loopholes and hope nobody in the audience will call out on your hypocrisy. Nolan may have fooled the average movie public desperate for darker attempt at a Batman film, but some of us are smart enough to understand that these are legitimate flaws to complain about.

He didn't kill Ra's. Someone not saving someone else isn't killing.

I didn't say that the Joker didn't want to cause chaos. I think I said exactly that.

Batman has never used a batarang to stop someone from using a gun. That also carries the risk of the kid being shot, because Harvey had the gun at the kid's head and any kind of action like that could cause the gun to go off.

I said that Bruce did probably see it that way. It doesn't change the fact that allowing someone to die isn't the same as killing. And now that I think about it, why would Bruce even try to argue with Talia about it? Like, "I didn't kill him, I just didn't save him" would suddenly change her mind?