Batman acknowledges killing Ra's al Ghul.

[The Laughing Fish]

And these are huge plot points for the character arcs, but they're constantly contradicting themselves with no explantation at all, other than to serve the plot of a particular movie.

As I said before, if any other director did this, they would've been crucified. But because Nolan is hyped up as the GOAT director, the so-called "saviour" of the Batman franchise, he's allowed to get away with it. People really need to take off their rose-tinted glasses.

It's not usually any of my business to be a Nolan apologist.

But I'll say that the Joker's situation was different from Ra's. It wasn't possible to arrest Ra's. He was on the train and the police were all trapped in the Narrows. Ra's would never allow himself to be taken alive anyway. Batman made the best choice he could under those circumstances.

With the Joker, the police were already on the scene. To Batman's thinking, locking the Joker securely enough in the right room might be enough to permanently end his threat.

The other thing is that the Joker maybe doesn't WANT Batman to kill him... but would still regard it as a moral victory if Batman did kill him.

So in the short term, I can see where Batman might've thought allowing the Joker to live after TDK might've been the best idea. Not perfect but not terrible under the circumstances.

I completely disagree. The Joker proved himself to be an unstoppable maniac who was capable of anything. Literally, anything. Bloody hell, Batman and the cops couldn't find him when he was running rampant for a year, or however long it was established at the start of the film, and Joker progressively got even more dangerous to the point neither Batman or the cops could handle him. If all else, he actually succeeded a lot more than Ra's al Ghul ever hoped to accomplish.

After all, if this guy could escape from jail AND manipulate people to his own advantage i.e. provoking Gordon's partner in order to escape jail and miraculously brainwashing Two-Face into becoming a murderer, then what's guaranteed to stop him from escaping and killing again? And better yet, how could Batman even consider the thought of taking the fall for Two-Face if the Joker is still alive? As I said, he's a manipulator, and would do anything to finish what he started. If Heath Ledger were still alive today and replayed the role in TDKR, there's no doubt in my mind the Joker would play a prominent role.

And let's not bullsh*t ourselves, Batman was already tainted before he met the Joker. You think it actually makes sense that the same guy who justified his actions for condemning Ra's al Ghul to a death trap in order to save millions of innocent people...now suddenly wants to win some pointless "moral" battle against an even more dangerous threat, which accomplishes nothing but putting an entire city in harm's way? I'll say it again and much louder: BULLSH!T.

If anything, these films drive the point home that being Batman is a terrible idea if he can't be consistent in his approach.

[Dagenspear]

Ahhh, Semantics King, aka, Lord TattleTale. Yes, it would be most unwise, indeed. For he acts of that of a 12 year old, who tries to punish thee, with quips to higher ups, because he can't handle his own. Yes, I have run into him on multiple of forums.

If you don't want consequences, don't commit negative actions. I'm not hostile to you. You have no reason to be to me.

I view the matter in a pretty similar way. If Batman intended to pull Ra's off the train, he would've pulled Ra's off the train. Batman makes a philosophical distinction between actively taking Ghul's life vs. passively taking it... but either way, he's still taking Ghul's life.

It does show Batman learning from his mistakes. He saved Ra's earlier in the movie and that ended up not being such a good idea. So in similar circumstances, he opted not to save him... but the end result is Ghul is just as dead as he would've been if Batman had personally throttled the life from his body.

Batman killed Ra's in Batman Begins. And the hell of it is I think he was right to do it. But I don't see why we can't all acknowledge that's what happened in Batman Begins.

Batman wanted Ras Al Ghul dead. If someone is getting bashed up and you can do something to stop it, but willingly choose to do nothing, you're condoning the violence. That's how I see it. One of the messages of Batman Begins is "what chance does Gotham have when the good people do nothing?"

Batman did nothing.

He wanted to save the murderer at the LOS base. So by that reasoning, he should have wanted to save Ras as well.

No, he didn't. He wanted to not execute him and get out of what he'd just discovered was a terrorist organization that he'd just learned was going to destroy Gotham. The good men statement was against corruption. Not that he could get him out.

While I don't like BB by any means, I consider it as the lesser of the three evils, in the sense that Batman's actions actually saved Gotham. Yes, he was a hypocrite and a reckless buffoon. But the ends justified the means. His justification to kill Ra's for trying to eradicate the city made sense, which is the reason why this thread exists in the first place.

What does NOT make any sense is his refusal to kill the Joker in TDK. If, as you say, Batman understands that keeping deranged mass murderers alive isn't a good idea after all, then where did this  resistance to kill the Joker come from? If you compare that stance to BB, it's very out of character.

Let's face it, the only reason the whole fake moral dilemma was forced in that movie was because Nolan wanted Batman to take the fall for Two-Face. If Batman was more consistent and honest about himself, he would've ran the Joker over with his Batpod, and the second half of the movie would never have happened (shame, the movie actually would've been salvaged otherwise).

And to think people say Zack Snyder is such a worthless director, but claim Nolan films is so much better. Absolute fools, I say.

His issue was with execution, not killing. He's never in the same position with Joker as he was with Ra's.

And that's one reason why these movies are a bit irritating, at times. They keep contradicting themselves, and like you said, do so for plot conveniences. In BB he kills Ra's and a TON of LOS ninjas, but in TDK he keeps talking about his no-kill rule. Or in TDK, he wants to retire, and says Gotham needs a hero with a face, and then cut to TDKR, he tells Blake that he needs to wear a mask if he wants to be doing this hero stuff. In BB he says Gotham  needs to have a theatrical hero be a symbol, and then in TDK, he says that Harvey is more affective, cause he's the symbol he could never be(even though he could as Bruce Wayne). Or when he's talking about not using guns, but keeps using them on all of his vehicles, etc. And seriously, who trains for 7+ years, to then retiring in about a year?

And these are huge plot points for the character arcs, but they're constantly contradicting themselves with no explantation at all, other than to serve the plot of a particular movie.

He's against execution, not killing. He realized the hero with a face didn't work. That was a point of TDK. Another point of TDK is Bruce thinking that Batman does more harm than good. He says that. It's apart of his reflection of the events that occur in the movie. He tells Selina not to use guns to kill people. He never says he's against guns. No one ever said he trained for 7 years. What you call contradictions are just things some don't seem to want to look at.

It's not usually any of my business to be a Nolan apologist.

But I'll say that the Joker's situation was different from Ra's. It wasn't possible to arrest Ra's. He was on the train and the police were all trapped in the Narrows. Ra's would never allow himself to be taken alive anyway. Batman made the best choice he could under those circumstances.

With the Joker, the police were already on the scene. To Batman's thinking, locking the Joker securely enough in the right room might be enough to permanently end his threat.

The other thing is that the Joker maybe doesn't WANT Batman to kill him... but would still regard it as a moral victory if Batman did kill him.

So in the short term, I can see where Batman might've thought allowing the Joker to live after TDK might've been the best idea. Not perfect but not terrible under the circumstances.

Exactly. Thank you. Batman is specific about his rule and his methods in TDKT. He doesn't straight up execute people. But he's willing to kill in situations where he's there's immediate danger otherwise. He never claims to have a no kill rule. His statement rule in BB is, "I will not become an executioner." Have a very great day! God bless you all!

[riddler]

The argument is actually very simple;

add up the number of motor vehicles destroyed by Batman as collateral damage in each batfilm. I guarantee the three batfilms with the most civilian vehicles destroyed by Batman were all in the Nolan trilogy. You could make the argument that maybe there wasn't a single civilian or police officer in the dozens if not hundreds of cars destroyed by Baleman but you can't possibly tell me that Bale ensured that each and every vehicle he pancaked was unoccupied, Therefore Bale assumed the risk of killing civilians and police officers.

At least Keaton and Bales characters should have known by the end of their films how many people they killed and neither killed anyone unintentionally during any of the films. The only people they killed were thugs who meant it.

Bale likely killed plenty of innocent people and the worst part is that his character has no clue how many innocent deaths he has caused.


I kind of like to think that if any of the other Batmen did unintentionally harm a civilian, they would do what they could to protect them. Superheroes aren't just about fighting bad guys, they help people in need from any danger, human or otherwise. Baleman only seemed interested in helping people he knew. The only time I recall Bale's character helping an individual he never met was tossing a coat to a homeless man.
For films which

[Dagenspear]

The argument is actually very simple;

add up the number of motor vehicles destroyed by Batman as collateral damage in each batfilm. I guarantee the three batfilms with the most civilian vehicles destroyed by Batman were all in the Nolan trilogy. You could make the argument that maybe there wasn't a single civilian or police officer in the dozens if not hundreds of cars destroyed by Baleman but you can't possibly tell me that Bale ensured that each and every vehicle he pancaked was unoccupied, Therefore Bale assumed the risk of killing civilians and police officers.

At least Keaton and Bales characters should have known by the end of their films how many people they killed and neither killed anyone unintentionally during any of the films. The only people they killed were thugs who meant it.

Bale likely killed plenty of innocent people and the worst part is that his character has no clue how many innocent deaths he has caused.


I kind of like to think that if any of the other Batmen did unintentionally harm a civilian, they would do what they could to protect them. Superheroes aren't just about fighting bad guys, they help people in need from any danger, human or otherwise. Baleman only seemed interested in helping people he knew. The only time I recall Bale's character helping an individual he never met was tossing a coat to a homeless man.
For films which

This is completely reaching and not backed up by the films themselves. It's a massive hypothetical. It's like me saying that Batkeaton straight committed a terrorist attack on that chemical plant and showed no regard for the fact that some people there could have simply been civilians just working or that he didn't care about civilian life as he was shooting at the Joker's men in 89, or that Batfleck straight killed Lexcorp's security guards, because we don't see the break in and we don't see that he didn't kill people. That would be completely nonsensical of me to do. If we have to use those kinds of situations, then we don't have an argument. I take what the movies give me. TDKT didn't show me Bruce carelessly killing civilians and didn't show him lacking care for life. It showed him being reckless in his pursuit of saving Rachel, which the movie then crapped on him for and blowing up parked cars with no one in them. The Burton movies didn't show me that Bruce blew up tons of regular workers. It showed him blowing up a chemical plant housing chemicals that the Joker was using to kill people with and had his goons in. BvS didn't show me that Bruce went in and killed anyone in his way to get to the kryptonite. It showed that he had broken in and stolen the kryptonite. It's an assumption that can't be used. But what BvS does show me is that Bruce is completely willing and with pleasure it seemed to kill a for all intents and purposes innocent man of the offchance he could be evil at some point in the future. Have a very great day!

God bless you all!

[The Laughing Fish]

The argument is actually very simple;

add up the number of motor vehicles destroyed by Batman as collateral damage in each batfilm. I guarantee the three batfilms with the most civilian vehicles destroyed by Batman were all in the Nolan trilogy. You could make the argument that maybe there wasn't a single civilian or police officer in the dozens if not hundreds of cars destroyed by Baleman but you can't possibly tell me that Bale ensured that each and every vehicle he pancaked was unoccupied, Therefore Bale assumed the risk of killing civilians and police officers.

At least Keaton and Bales characters should have known by the end of their films how many people they killed and neither killed anyone unintentionally during any of the films. The only people they killed were thugs who meant it.

Bale likely killed plenty of innocent people and the worst part is that his character has no clue how many innocent deaths he has caused.


I kind of like to think that if any of the other Batmen did unintentionally harm a civilian, they would do what they could to protect them. Superheroes aren't just about fighting bad guys, they help people in need from any danger, human or otherwise. Baleman only seemed interested in helping people he knew. The only time I recall Bale's character helping an individual he never met was tossing a coat to a homeless man.
For films which

Haha, I think you forgot to finish a sentence there!

Regarding the collateral damage, the films did make it clear that Bale didn't kill innocent people when he committed collateral damage. Alfred made it clear in BB by saying "It's a miracle that no one was killed". But to me, that's besides the point. My problem with Batman's collateral damage in the first two films* is it goes against his intention to become an "inspiring symbol". How can anyone take that seriously if you're putting innocent bystanders in harm's way? And most importantly, how can anyone call this realistic? You expect me to believe that cops in the real world would want to work with somebody who led them in a violent car chase that nearly had them killed? Never mind the fact that no cop would ever co-operate with a vigilante - especially in a town that's as corrupt as Gotham.

The recklessness is another aspect that's out of character for Bale's Batman. And the worst thing is none of the films, like the inconsistent no-kill stance, ever questions this behaviour, as if we're supposed to ignore this and believe Bale is absolutely all good because we're told to think that way. At least BvS had the media and Clark Kent questioning Batman's methods and reinforce this Batman has become a shadow of his former self.

*NOTE: I say first two films because he hardly appeared in Rises.

[The Dark Knight]

Sure, Danny Elfman's music plays a big part, but I never saw Batman blowing up Axis Chemicals or mopping up Joker's goons with the batwing guns as horrific acts. I've always seen them as heroic acts...hell, triumphant acts. The last act of B89 is Batman being the alpha male. He's protecting the public from a situation that got out of control. Axis is blown up, Joker's balloons are taken away and Joker's goons are dispatched. He takes his girl back from The Joker, and finally, The Joker is defeated once and for all. There's nothing left of the Joker or his criminal empire by the end of the film. For a film that apparently was still being written on the fly, it's incredible how well B89 turned out.

[thecolorsblend]

Sure, Danny Elfman's music plays a big part, but I never saw Batman blowing up Axis Chemicals or mopping up Joker's goons with the batwing guns as horrific acts. I've always seen them as heroic acts...hell, triumphant acts.

They were necessary. The poisons had to be destroyed. Simply stopping production wouldn't be enough. The factory had to be destroyed.

The goons were legally and morally cooperative in the poisoning of Gotham City, a terrorist act which claimed hundreds or even thousands of innocent lives. Their fiery punishment was just... and very probably a preview of what waited for them in the afterlife.

Had the police possessed the intel and the means, they might've stormed the factory... and dozens of them would've been killed in the ensuing shootout. Batman saved the city the cost of a full-scale SWAT operation (which is no small consideration considering the dire circumstances Gotham faced in B89) and also saved police lives (an issue even more relevant today than ever). He did the job bigger, better, faster and cheaper than the police probably would've been able to do. And the only casualties were no loss to society.

Heroic? Triumphant? Yeah, those sound just about right.

[The Dark Knight]

I think Batman has to offer something the police force doesn't. He's not a cop. He's not part of the system. He's his own man operating outside of the law. So if he's just going to do the same old thing as the police force, he may as well join the police force. As you rightly say, the police would've probably raided Axis Chemicals again, ala the beginning of the film, which resulted in the death of Eckhart and others. Batman must have different equipment and methods compared to the police force to justify his existence. He will often do what they can't or won't. The police wouldn't get authorization to level a facility that size. But Batman doesn't need anyone's permission. He just does it and nobody can stop him.

[Dagenspear]

Haha, I think you forgot to finish a sentence there!

Regarding the collateral damage, the films did make it clear that Bale didn't kill innocent people when he committed collateral damage. Alfred made it clear in BB by saying "It's a miracle that no one was killed". But to me, that's besides the point. My problem with Batman's collateral damage in the first two films* is it goes against his intention to become an "inspiring symbol". How can anyone take that seriously if you're putting innocent bystanders in harm's way? And most importantly, how can anyone call this realistic? You expect me to believe that cops in the real world would want to work with somebody who led them in a violent car chase that nearly had them killed? Never mind the fact that no cop would ever co-operate with a vigilante - especially in a town that's as corrupt as Gotham.

There's a point where realism in a movie about Batman can only apply so far. It being realistic in its most basic levels doesn't mean it can be in every way. Though property damage doesn't take away from being a hopeful symbol either way.

The recklessness is another aspect that's out of character for Bale's Batman. And the worst thing is none of the films, like the inconsistent no-kill stance, ever questions this behaviour, as if we're supposed to ignore this and believe Bale is absolutely all good because we're told to think that way. At least BvS had the media and Clark Kent questioning Batman's methods and reinforce this Batman has become a shadow of his former self.

Literally no one questioned Batman killing criminals in BvS. But it isn't OOC for Baleman. His actions have collateral is very in line with the flawed human approach his character is given. And when he does make huge mistakes like the recklessness in the batmobile situation that crushed the fronts of some police cars and flooded into traffic, the movie does take him to task for it with Alfred's lines. Baleman's character never had a no kill rule. His behavior is questioned all throughout TDK. Harvey literally calls him an outlaw and says that he will have to answer for his crimes one day. There are people up in arms to have him brought in. Rachel directly questions him, saying that his actions in letting Harvey take the fall aren't heroic at all. Batman directly questions himself in TDK quite a bit as well.

[The Dark Knight]

Baleman's character never had a no kill rule.

Nonsense.

Batman: I have one rule.
The Joker: Oh, then that's the rule you'll have to break to know the truth.
Batman: Which is?
The Joker: The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules.
The Joker: And tonight you're gonna break your one rule.
Batman: I'm considering it.