Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[BatmAngelus]

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.

Look, we can both agree he did this to save the kid. But, based on his reactions afterwards, he had to have considered Harvey was going to get killed in the process.

The fact that he never reacts to Harvey's death with any sort of surprise or remorse is a big indicator that this wasn't an accidental death.

Hell, Batman felt guilt over Rachel dying and Harvey getting scarred, even though neither of those were his fault at all.

If he didn't know Harvey was going to get killed when saving James Jr., wouldn't he have felt guilt, too? Especially considering that this guy was a former ally and that Bruce played a way more direct role in his death than his scarring.

He wasn't trying to kill the driver. For all intents and purposes he didn't even know he was killed at all.

Am I supposed to buy that Batman was directly firing bullets and explosives at the van...and didn't think anyone would actually get killed by them in the process?

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

While I agree that not saving someone isn't the same as killing him, I'm with Travesty in that Batman played way more of a role in Ra's getting killed than just escaping the train. Just because it wasn't his original plan doesn't change the fact that he still made a choice, in those moments, to deliberately leave Ra's on a train that was about to derail and crash, with no means of escaping. To me, that's not the same thing as just "not saving someone."

Batman has never used a batarang to stop someone from using a gun.

Are we talking the Nolan movies or the comics?

'Cause in the comics, one of the primary uses of the batarang is to disarm opponents.

And if we're specifically talking about Batman using a batarang on a villain in a hostage situation, that's still something he did in comics like Under the Hood, where he used a batarang/shuriken on Jason Todd when he had a gun to the Joker's head and stopped him from shooting Joker.

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?

Isn't Talia's whole motivation, based off of blaming Batman for her father's death?

If I were that situation and I didn't feel any responsibility over Ra's al Ghul's death, then "I didn't kill your father" would be the first thing I'd say. Instead, he justifies it.

[Dagenspear]

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.

Look, we can both agree he did this to save the kid. But, based on his reactions afterwards, he had to have considered Harvey was going to get killed in the process.

The fact that he never reacts to Harvey's death with any sort of surprise or remorse is a big indicator that this wasn't an accidental death.

Hell, Batman felt guilt over Rachel dying and Harvey getting scarred, even though neither of those were his fault at all.

If he didn't know Harvey was going to get killed when saving James Jr., wouldn't he have felt guilt, too? Especially considering that this guy was a former ally and that Bruce played a way more direct role in his death than his scarring.

It just doesn't play. Even if he did mean to kill Harvey, how does him not feeling guilt make that true? Wouldn't he feel guilt regardless? I don't know. It just doesn't seem like something that needs to be said.

He wasn't trying to kill the driver. For all intents and purposes he didn't even know he was killed at all.

Am I supposed to buy that Batman was directly firing bullets and explosives at the van...and didn't think anyone would actually get killed by them in the process?

Actually yes. As far as everything plays out, Bruce was trying to redirect the truck, get it to change paths.

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

While I agree that not saving someone isn't the same as killing him, I'm with Travesty in that Batman played way more of a role in Ra's getting killed than just escaping the train. Just because it wasn't his original plan doesn't change the fact that he still made a choice, in those moments, to deliberately leave Ra's on a train that was about to derail and crash, with no means of escaping. To me, that's not the same thing as just "not saving someone."

And how would Batman have given Ra's a means of escaping? He couldn't glide out with Ra's while it was crashing. But I don't agree. It was wrong, yes. But killing? No.

Batman has never used a batarang to stop someone from using a gun.

Are we talking the Nolan movies or the comics?

'Cause in the comics, one of the primary uses of the batarang is to disarm opponents.

And if we're specifically talking about Batman using a batarang on a villain in a hostage situation, that's still something he did in comics like Under the Hood, where he used a batarang/shuriken on Jason Todd when he had a gun to the Joker's head and stopped him from shooting Joker.

I was talking about Nolan Batman. Which, take that as a flaw however you like, but it is something that these films never used.

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?

Isn't Talia's whole motivation, based off of blaming Batman for her father's death?

If I were that situation and I didn't feel any responsibility over Ra's al Ghul's death, then "I didn't kill your father" would be the first thing I'd say. Instead, he justifies it.

I don't see why he would try to explain it any other way. She obviously knew he was involved. Him saying that could've just agitated her more and he was trying to keep her from pushing the button. I'm not saying this is the reason, but why would he try to explain it any other way?

[BatmAngelus]

It just doesn't play. Even if he did mean to kill Harvey, how does him not feeling guilt make that true? Wouldn't he feel guilt regardless? I don't know. It just doesn't seem like something that needs to be said.

The movie presents it that Harvey had to die for him to save the kid. From Batman's perspective, I'd say the lack of guilt points to his mindset being "I did what I had to do to save the boy." Similar to his perspective on Ra's's death, that he did what he had to do because Ra's was going to kill thousands of innocent people.

If it was an accident, he would've been surprised and dismayed that Dent was killed. He wasn't.

If the Nolans really wanted to convey that Dent's death was an accident, then they would have found a clear way to convey that. A line of dialogue. A different version of his death where that was clear.

They didn't. I really see no evidence in the film pointing to Dent's death being the result of an accident or that Batman had no idea that Dent would get killed in the process of saving James Jr.

Actually yes. As far as everything plays out, Bruce was trying to redirect the truck, get it to change paths.

Hey, it'd be one thing if he fired bombs a few feet in its path, to force it to stop and change paths, the truck accidentally flipped, and then the guy got killed.

But that's not what happened. He directly fired lethal weapons onto the truck. Yes, he was trying to stop it, that's obvious, but how could he NOT think that someone would die from that in the process? I don't buy it for a second. Nolan's Batman isn't the smartest version of the character, but he can't be that dumb.

And how would Batman have given Ra's a means of escaping? He couldn't glide out with Ra's while it was crashing. But I don't agree. It was wrong, yes. But killing? No.

This actually makes me wonder if we'd be debating this scene so much if he had said, "I won't kill you. But I can't save you."

My thing is...these movies come from the mind of the Nolans and if they wanted Batman to try to enforce his rule, they would've written a way in.

I could be wrong on this, but I believe the original draft actually had the fight on top of the train, in which case, Batman could've used his grappling hook on a building and taken Ra's with him if he wanted to. They could've tried that. They could've tried a bunch of different ways, too, or made it seem that Batman couldn't have taken Ra's out without dying in the train himself.

They didn't do any of this because that's not what they wanted. They wanted Batman to choose to leave Ra's in a deathtrap that he set up. Everything in this and TDK Rises points to Batman being responsible for Ra's al Ghul's death.

I was talking about Nolan Batman. Which, take that as a flaw however you like, but it is something that these films never used.

So he hadn't done it in the films before. That doesn't mean they couldn't have used that option.

I don't see why he would try to explain it any other way. She obviously knew he was involved. Him saying that could've just agitated her more and he was trying to keep her from pushing the button. I'm not saying this is the reason, but why would he try to explain it any other way?

He just got betrayed by a woman he was falling for, with a knife in his ribs and his city about to get blown up. I doubt he'd be thinking that way at all in the moment and again, if the Nolans wanted to clarify that Batman wasn't responsible for the death, they would've had him say so.

Plus there's really nothing he does in the scene itself to keep her from pushing that button, other than ask questions and get exposition from her. She even pushes it and the only reason the city doesn't burn is 'cause of Gordon. So if trying not to agitate her was the main factor and he was trying to stop her from blowing everything up too, then it was really poorly handled.

Look, you already agree with us that Batman broke his rule in the movies, so I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point.

The original point from Laughing Fish was that the Nolans failed to properly explore Batman's hypocritical actions or the potential consequences of the rule-breaking on Batman's character once he does it.

If Batman's one rule was so important to him, how come it never bothers him in any of the three films when he breaks it?

[Dagenspear]

The movie presents it that Harvey had to die for him to save the kid. From Batman's perspective, I'd say the lack of guilt points to his mindset being "I did what I had to do to save the boy." Similar to his perspective on Ra's's death, that he did what he had to do because Ra's was going to kill thousands of innocent people.

If it was an accident, he would've been surprised and dismayed that Dent was killed. He wasn't.

If the Nolans really wanted to convey that Dent's death was an accident, then they would have found a clear way to convey that. A line of dialogue. A different version of his death where that was clear.

They didn't. I really see no evidence in the film pointing to Dent's death being the result of an accident or that Batman had no idea that Dent would get killed in the process of saving James Jr.

Hey, it'd be one thing if he fired bombs a few feet in its path, to force it to stop and change paths, the truck accidentally flipped, and then the guy got killed.

But that's not what happened. He directly fired lethal weapons onto the truck. Yes, he was trying to stop it, that's obvious, but how could he NOT think that someone would die from that in the process? I don't buy it for a second. Nolan's Batman isn't the smartest version of the character, but he can't be that dumb.

This actually makes me wonder if we'd be debating this scene so much if he had said, "I won't kill you. But I can't save you."

My thing is...these movies come from the mind of the Nolans and if they wanted Batman to try to enforce his rule, they would've written a way in.

I could be wrong on this, but I believe the original draft actually had the fight on top of the train, in which case, Batman could've used his grappling hook on a building and taken Ra's with him if he wanted to. They could've tried that. They could've tried a bunch of different ways, too, or made it seem that Batman couldn't have taken Ra's out without dying in the train himself.

They didn't do any of this because that's not what they wanted. They wanted Batman to choose to leave Ra's in a deathtrap that he set up. Everything in this and TDK Rises points to Batman being responsible for Ra's al Ghul's death.

So he hadn't done it in the films before. That doesn't mean they couldn't have used that option.

He just got betrayed by a woman he was falling for, with a knife in his ribs and his city about to get blown up. I doubt he'd be thinking that way at all in the moment and again, if the Nolans wanted to clarify that Batman wasn't responsible for the death, they would've had him say so.

Plus there's really nothing he does in the scene itself to keep her from pushing that button, other than ask questions and get exposition from her. She even pushes it and the only reason the city doesn't burn is 'cause of Gordon. So if trying not to agitate her was the main factor and he was trying to stop her from blowing everything up too, then it was really poorly handled.

Look, you already agree with us that Batman broke his rule in the movies, so I feel like we're splitting hairs at this point.

The original point from Laughing Fish was that the Nolans failed to properly explore Batman's hypocritical actions or the potential consequences of the rule-breaking on Batman's character once he does it.

If Batman's one rule was so important to him, how come it never bothers him in any of the three films when he breaks it?

I never said he had no idea. I said that he wasn't thinking about killing Harvey, he was thinking about saving the kid. It wasn't his intention. But it's a result. A result he may have been aware of, but wasn't his direct concern. He knew Harvey. He felt responsible for Harvey's situation. He would feel guilt regardless. The entire film lays out Batman's rule and how he might have to break it. Bruce himself even says that Batman can't endure this and he sees what he would have to become to stop men like him. It's all there. Even Batman at the end looks broken. They wanted him to be put into a position where his rule would be broken.

He wasn't trying to stop it. It was stated that he was trying to redirect it. Lucius told him that he had to get the bomb back to the reactor to keep it from blowing up. He wasn't trying to kill the guy, he didn't know the guy died. It's as simple as that.

Being partially responsible isn't the same thing as killing. He didn't kill. So, it wasn't a real breaking of the rule.

That's exactly why. They've never introduced that as a method of his.

Falling for? Not at all. But I did say that I wasn't saying that that was the reason. It was just a thought.

Yes, he did. But it wasn't something he set out to do.

Because he doesn't do it in all three films. He didn't murder Ra's. He didn't know that that driver was killed and he didn't kill Talia and there was very clear consequences for Harvey in both TDK and TDKR.

[BatmAngelus]

That's exactly why. They've never introduced that as a method of his.

They still introduced Batarangs. I really doubt "We've never had Batman use the batarang in that specific scenario" was what was stopping them, in a movie full of Batman using tactics and gadgets he hadn't used in the previous film.

They did what they did because they wanted Batman to break his rule. You and I both agree on this.

Whether you think it was well done or I think it was contrived is subjective.

A result he may have been aware of, but wasn't his direct concern.

I keep agreeing with you that Batman was doing it to protect the kid. All I'm saying is that Harvey's death just didn't accidentally happen. That's not how the film presents it in the last five minutes.

Batman had to have been aware of the result of what he was doing. You've just acknowledged that.

You've also acknowledged that Batman broke his rule in the ending.

Let's agree on these things and move on.

He knew Harvey. He felt responsible for Harvey's situation. He would feel guilt regardless.

So why doesn't he have guilt in the movies, then? The fact that he doesn't feel guilt is the flaw that Laughing Fish and I have been bringing up.

After a whole movie's build-up, Batman's not shown as having any guilt or personal feelings towards breaking the one rule in taking out Harvey at the end or in any of The Dark Knight Rises.

See my next response for more on this.

there was very clear consequences for Harvey in both TDK and TDKR.

What consequences from killing Harvey?

The ending of TDK and TDK Rises come about because Joker turned Harvey into Two-Face and Batman decided to take the blame for his crimes, with Gordon aiding him.

Harvey being dead plays a role, yes, but the specific action of Batman killing him had nothing to do with those things.

Harvey could've been shot to death by Gordon or committed suicide at the end of TDK and the story still could've gone the same way with Batman taking the blame for his crimes and going on the run, because Gotham's White Knight got corrupted and Batman & Gordon didn't want anyone knowing the truth about Two-Face.

Hell, they were a ton of people who didn't think Two-Face was even dead at the end of TDK, which shows that the Nolans could've even done the same ending with Harvey being alive.

The only thing I can think of that fits your interpretation is that the cops, like Foley, bring up that Batman killed Harvey Dent.

But that's only because they didn't know about his crimes as Two-Face and once Gotham learns what really happened and that Batman did it to save the boy, Batman's no longer considered a menace. Again, what happens in TDK Rises has much more to do with the Two-Face cover-up than with Batman killing him.

If Bruce had quit being Batman because he broke the rule, then that would be a consequence that carried over to the third film.

If Batman spent TDK Rises being haunted by Dent's death and afraid of taking another life, that would be another consequence.

There are probably other scenarios I haven't thought of that would convey this, too, but nothing like this happened. Everything that happened was because of the cover-up.

He wasn't trying to stop it. It was stated that he was trying to redirect it. Lucius told him that he had to get the bomb back to the reactor to keep it from blowing up. He wasn't trying to kill the guy, he didn't know the guy died. It's as simple as that.

My mistake, then- he was trying to redirect it, not stop it. It still doesn't change anything I said. .

If a cop fires on a car with a criminal in it, his primary concern is to stop that criminal from getting away or hurting anyone else, but he knows in the back of his head that the guy inside could get shot and killed from his gun. That's common sense.

And if that guy does get shot and killed, wouldn't you say the cop killed that criminal? He didn't murder him, sure, and he did it for a good cause to protect others, but he still took the other man's life.

What you're arguing is that Batman never committed murder- which is killing with malicious intent.

In which case, I agree. Batman didn't murder Two-Face, the driver, or Talia.

But he did commit manslaughter- which is killing without malicious intent and is what the cops are forced to commit in the scenario I outlined above.

Manslaughter is still killing. People, like Talia and the driver, still lost their lives because of him, even if his intentions were simply to stop the criminals and protect the innocent. Which would be fine...if the movies hadn't beaten us over the head with Batman saying he doesn't kill.

He does. And when he does it, nothing happens, making all the fuss about his "one rule" feel like wasted time.

[Dagenspear]

They still introduced Batarangs. I really doubt "We've never had Batman use the batarang in that specific scenario" was what was stopping them, in a movie full of Batman using tactics and gadgets he hadn't used in the previous film.

They did what they did because they wanted Batman to break his rule. You and I both agree on this.

Whether you think it was well done or I think it was contrived is subjective.

I keep agreeing with you that Batman was doing it to protect the kid. All I'm saying is that Harvey's death just didn't accidentally happen. That's not how the film presents it in the last five minutes.

Batman had to have been aware of the result of what he was doing. You've just acknowledged that.

You've also acknowledged that Batman broke his rule in the ending.

Let's agree on these things and move on.

So why doesn't he have guilt in the movies, then? The fact that he doesn't feel guilt is the flaw that Laughing Fish and I have been bringing up.

After a whole movie's build-up, Batman's not shown as having any guilt or personal feelings towards breaking the one rule in taking out Harvey at the end or in any of The Dark Knight Rises.

See my next response for more on this.

What consequences from killing Harvey?

The ending of TDK and TDK Rises come about because Joker turned Harvey into Two-Face and Batman decided to take the blame for his crimes, with Gordon aiding him.

Harvey being dead plays a role, yes, but the specific action of Batman killing him had nothing to do with those things.

Harvey could've been shot to death by Gordon or committed suicide at the end of TDK and the story still could've gone the same way with Batman taking the blame for his crimes and going on the run, because Gotham's White Knight got corrupted and Batman & Gordon didn't want anyone knowing the truth about Two-Face.

Hell, they were a ton of people who didn't think Two-Face was even dead at the end of TDK, which shows that the Nolans could've even done the same ending with Harvey being alive.

The only thing I can think of that fits your interpretation is that the cops, like Foley, bring up that Batman killed Harvey Dent.

But that's only because they didn't know about his crimes as Two-Face and once Gotham learns what really happened and that Batman did it to save the boy, Batman's no longer considered a menace. Again, what happens in TDK Rises has much more to do with the Two-Face cover-up than with Batman killing him.

If Bruce had quit being Batman because he broke the rule, then that would be a consequence that carried over to the third film.

If Batman spent TDK Rises being haunted by Dent's death and afraid of taking another life, that would be another consequence.

There are probably other scenarios I haven't thought of that would convey this, too, but nothing like this happened. Everything that happened was because of the cover-up.

My mistake, then- he was trying to redirect it, not stop it. It still doesn't change anything I said.

If a cop fires on a car with a criminal in it, his primary concern is to stop that criminal from getting away or hurting anyone else, but he knows in the back of his head that the guy inside could get shot and killed from his gun. That's common sense.

And if that guy does get shot and killed, wouldn't you say the cop killed that criminal? He didn't murder him, sure, and he did it for a good cause to protect others, but he still took the other man's life.

What you're arguing is that Batman never committed murder- which is killing with malicious intent.

In which case, I agree. Batman didn't murder Two-Face, the driver, or Talia.

But he did commit manslaughter- which is killing without malicious intent and is what the cops are forced to commit in the scenario I outlined above.

Manslaughter is still killing. People, like Talia and the driver, still lost their lives because of him, even if his intentions were simply to stop the criminals and protect the innocent. Which would be fine...if the movies hadn't beaten us over the head with Batman saying he doesn't kill.

He does. And when he does it, nothing happens, making all the fuss about his "one rule" feel like wasted time.

Everything in fiction is contrived. Everything is constructed to reach a conclusion in the story. I just don't see Batman being able to use that in this scenario because that is not what the character or story dictated. Batman's physical state, his methods, the scenario, Harvey's placement of the gun.

Breaking the rule doesn't negate the rule or the importance of it. And him being aware of it doesn't mean that was his intention.

As I understand it, and forgive me if I misinterpreted your meaning, you've said that his lack of guilt is a reasoning for why he killed him on purpose. And I don't see how those two connect. With the intention or not he would still feel guilt. Him, to you, not feeling guilt doesn't mean he did or didn't do it on purpose. I do think that's what he felt though. But guilt, I don't believe in these movies, is the reason he doesn't kill. I think it's a rejection of the idea that killing is acceptable, because his parents were killed. Even if he does it unintentionally, I don't think that means he believes that any less.

Batman has stated the he's not an executioner. That's his goal. I just don't think that someone getting killed because of your unintentional actions and killing are the same thing. It's why I don't believe Batman killed the Joker really in Batman 89.

[BatmAngelus]

It's why I don't believe Batman killed the Joker really in Batman 89.

I'll give you props for being consistent in your views. Most of the time, I see people saying that Batman killed in the Burton films and didn't in the Nolan movies.

Personally, I think the Burton Batman had less of a direct hand in Joker and Penguin's deaths than Nolan's Batman did in the deaths we're discussing.

Breaking the rule doesn't negate the rule or the importance of it.

What? What's the point of the rule if nothing happens or affects him when he breaks it? If it's not a big deal for him to break it, then yes, that completely negates the rule and the importance of it.

just don't think that someone getting killed because of your unintentional actions and killing are the same thing.

Then I hope you don't work in law because someone getting killed because of your unintentional actions is the exact definition of involuntary manslaughter, which is still a form of killing.

involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of another human

Someone was killed as a result of act by the defendant.
The act either was inherently dangerous to others or done with reckless disregard for human life.
The defendant knew or should have known his or her conduct was a threat to the lives of others.

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/involuntary-manslaughter-overview.html

In the cases of Two-Face and Talia and the driver- were they killed? Yes.

Was Batman tackling Dent off the edge of a building dangerous to Dent? Was shooting bullets and explosives at Talia and the driver dangerous to them? Absolutely.

Did Batman know those acts would be a threat to them? He had to, unless he actually has no basic understanding of the fact that tackling someone off a building or shooting at someone's truck would put them at risk. In which case, he's pretty much this parody:

Again, your argument is that Batman commits involuntary manslaughter in these movies.
And involuntary manslaughter, by definition, is a form of killing.

And even if you don't agree that it was involuntary manslaughter (even though that's exactly what you outlined), you already agreed that Batman broke his rule in the trilogy.
And his rule is "no killing."

So, essentially, you've already agreed that Batman killed.

In which case, I don't see what else we have to argue about. I've said everything I wanted to say in this thread anyway.

[Dagenspear]

I'll give you props for being consistent in your views. Most of the time, I see people saying that Batman killed in the Burton films and didn't in the Nolan movies.

Personally, I think the Burton Batman had less of a direct hand in Joker and Penguin's deaths than Nolan's Batman did in the deaths we're discussing.

What? What's the point of the rule if nothing happens or affects him when he breaks it? If it's not a big deal for him to break it, then yes, that completely negates the rule and the importance of it.

Then I hope you don't work in law because someone getting killed because of your unintentional actions is the exact definition of involuntary manslaughter, which is still a form of killing.

In the cases of Two-Face and Talia and the driver- were they killed? Yes.

Was Batman tackling Dent off the edge of a building dangerous to Dent? Was shooting bullets and explosives at Talia and the driver dangerous to them? Absolutely.

Did Batman know those acts would be a threat to them? He had to, unless he actually has no basic understanding of the fact that tackling someone off a building or shooting at someone's truck would put them at risk. In which case, he's pretty much this parody:

Again, your argument is that Batman commits involuntary manslaughter in these movies.
And involuntary manslaughter, by definition, is a form of killing.

And even if you don't agree that it was involuntary manslaughter (even though that's exactly what you outlined), you already agreed that Batman broke his rule in the trilogy.
And his rule is "no killing."

So, essentially, you've already agreed that Batman killed.

In which case, I don't see what else we have to argue about. I've said everything I wanted to say in this thread anyway.

If you want to take the films without any real desire to see Batman or superheroism in them, then yes, Batman killed in the Burton films. He pulled that guy into the belltower and he put a bomb on that guy and he got blown up. Which is worse than anything Nolan's Batman does. Personally, I don't want to do that.

The point of a rule isn't that there's a consequence to it. It's that it's what's right.

Something being a form of killing isn't direct killing.

Yeah. Batman broke his rule by getting Harvey killed accidentally. Which was the point. But I don't agree that he actively killed him.

[thecolorsblend]

It is interesting how we're reduced to arguing over intent and squabbling over degrees. The very fact of that concedes the point.

Batman kills in the Nolan films in spite of taking moral stands against doing so.

[Dagenspear]

It is interesting how we're reduced to arguing over intent and squabbling over degrees. The very fact of that concedes the point.

Batman kills in the Nolan films in spite of taking moral stands against doing so.

It doesn't negate his rule. Having a moral stance, doesn't mean it's something that you end up doing inadvertently.