Batman's gun policy

[thecolorsblend]

The fact that he does kill makes it puzzling why he'd be so adamant against using guns in the first place. Yeah, he may not aim and fire his guns at people every time he drives a vehicle, but you'd think he'd understand by now that lethal force is inevitable sometimes. And in such moments, a gun - as Selina was implying - is certainly a valuable tool to save lives.

Which once again, it only adds to many contradictory things that this Batman says in this series. It was an unnecessary thing to say.

It's contradictory but not paradoxical. IF Batman has to have some silly moral code against killing (and, again, I submit that a man like him wouldn't) it makes sense to me that he sees it more as a desirable heroic ideal than a non-negotiable moral imperative. His own actions show that he will kill... but not necessarily as a first resort.

In particular he seems to have a distaste for using guns to do the job. If Ra's, Two Face and Talia are to be our object lessons, he seems to want the villain to fall on his own sword (perhaps with an assist from Batman himself). The major exception to that is the Joker, whom Batman made a special effort to save. Looking back at it, you could interpret that as Batman proving a point to himself and to the Joker. If he kills, he'll be the one to decide to do it or not do it. He won't be forced into it, outwitted or driven insane. Saving the Joker was Batman (at least in his own mind) winning the argument.

Of course, the next scene shows him kill Two Face so you have to wonder who really won the argument but, hey, that's what these threads are for, right?

[The Laughing Fish]

It's contradictory but not paradoxical. IF Batman has to have some silly moral code against killing (and, again, I submit that a man like him wouldn't) it makes sense to me that he sees it more as a desirable heroic ideal than a non-negotiable moral imperative. His own actions show that he will kill... but not necessarily as a first resort.

I'd normally agree, but these films keep punching us in the face that he's against killing. Batman doesn't define when killing is okay in some circumstances, he just talks about how bad it is. Once again, it can't be both ways.

If he kills, he'll be the one to decide to do it or not do it. He won't be forced into it, outwitted or driven insane.

Yet, as you already knew, Batman decided to let Ra's die upon setting him up in a death trap.

Of course, the next scene shows him kill Two Face so you have to wonder who really won the argument.

Indeed. That entire "moral argument" was a complete and utter waste of time.

[thecolorsblend]

Yet, as you already knew, Batman decided to let Ra's die upon setting him up in a death trap.

Precisely my point. Batman chose the time, place and manner that Ra's would die. Batman indirectly hoisted him on his pitard. I don't think Batman entered the train with the intention of attempting to stop Ra's (or the train). He was there to jury-rig the train so that it would take Ra's out for good.

[Dagenspear]

I'd normally agree, but these films keep punching us in the face that he's against killing. Batman doesn't define when killing is okay in some circumstances, he just talks about how bad it is. Once again, it can't be both ways.

It isn't. He hasn't killed intentionally.

Yet, as you already knew, Batman decided to let Ra's die upon setting him up in a death trap.

He didn't do that. Ra's did. He stabbed the console. He set himself up.

Indeed. That entire "moral argument" was a complete and utter waste of time.

It's never a waste of time. That's like saying fighting against crime is a waste of time because you'll never fully defeat it all yourself.

God bless you! God bless everyone in your life!

[Dagenspear]

Precisely my point. Batman chose the time, place and manner that Ra's would die. Batman indirectly hoisted him on his pitard. I don't think Batman entered the train with the intention of attempting to stop Ra's (or the train). He was there to jury-rig the train so that it would take Ra's out for good.

This isn't about what we think. That isn't what happens in the movie. Ra's stabs the console. His actions cause his own death. Batman didn't jury rig the train.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[Edd Grayson]

Ra's never would have shown Batman mercy in a similar situation, not after what happened before in the film, anyway.

So, while I don't approve of letting Ra's die entirely, I don't feel too sorry about it. Now, dealing with Joker and Two-Face in TDK is another thing...

[Wayne49]

This is the kind of problem writers/directors run into when they try to psychoanalyze someone who is completely fictional in concept. It's very hard to ground someone who is essentially obsessed with abolishing crime with a code of conduct attached. That in itself is a comic book trait, not something one can really translate into real life. Here Nolan tackles that idea and demonstrates how the results, no matter how well intended, may ultimately contradict the end result.

If we want to look at a moral code, it would be nearly impossible for Batman to account for every person he profiles because he is lumping so many of those people with one crime boss and has no way of knowing if they are there of their own free will or by force. We as readers and observers for the film pretty much give Batman a pass and ASSUME he is making a best-guess judgment because he knows what he is doing. We assume his convictions are not just governed by emotion but a conviction that can somehow tell him the difference between right and wrong. It's very, very subjective. And I think Nolan recognizes that and profiles Batman in several moments of revelation  that maybe his definition of justice is not necessarily as clear as he once thought.

I give Nolan props for trying to flush out the argument that perhaps heroes really can't exist in this fashion. In some ways I think that might ultimately be his point in this series. What defines a hero? And do the definitions of one person ultimately sync with what society desires? In many ways the Dark Knight series might suggest that the idea of a career as a superhero is really not something that is possible or supportable. That this role really takes more than the will of one person, but the collective agreement of many and whether that commitment can be sustained over time.

I enjoyed the trilogy, but if there is one thread of reasoning that grabbed me through this whole process, it was that Nolan believed Batman to be a short term solution for society to examine and reflect on how to better manage itself.

[The Laughing Fish]

I give Nolan props for trying to flush out the argument that perhaps heroes really can't exist in this fashion.

I don't, because for me, it doesn't tell me anything that I don't know already  - that Batman and other superheroes can never exist in the real world. But what's worse is Nolan is inconsistent in adapting Batman's morals, and Batman doesn't reflect his own actions. Keeps saying he won't kill and that's supposed to be key to the whole Joker dilemma, but then he justifies killing Ra's al Ghul to save Gotham when confronted by Talia. And there's the hypocritical lecture at Catwoman against guns. It just doesn't match. What's the point of having a rule if he's not bothered by breaking them? Thematically, it all comes across as pointless.

These films would be much so better if we saw Batman recognize what he has done, and decides to take a more consistent approach. That way, we actually see a change in him as a character. In Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, an aging Batman vowed to never fight crime ever again after he was ashamed for merely aiming a gun at a goon, even though he did it in self-defence. And as much as I don't care too much for Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, I liked that Superman stayed true to his principle about taking lives by relinquishing his own powers after killing Mr. Mtzlkzplk. I might not agree that Superman has a strict policy against deadly threats to begin with (especially when in the case of Mr. Mtzlkzplk, he was about to exterminate the universe), but at least Superman backs up what he says.

I enjoyed the trilogy, but if there is one thread of reasoning that grabbed me through this whole process, it was that Nolan believed Batman to be a short term solution for society to examine and reflect on how to better manage itself.

Too bad he undermined that message by having Blake take the mantle as Batman (or whatever alias he'd go by) in the end.

[Dagenspear]

I don't, because for me, it doesn't tell me anything that I don't know already  - that Batman and other superheroes can never exist in the real world. But what's worse is Nolan is inconsistent in adapting Batman's morals, and Batman doesn't reflect his own actions. Keeps saying he won't kill and that's supposed to be key to the whole Joker dilemma, but then he justifies killing Ra's al Ghul to save Gotham when confronted by Talia. And there's the hypocritical lecture at Catwoman against guns. It just doesn't match. What's the point of having a rule if he's not bothered by breaking them? Thematically, it all comes across as pointless.

He isn't inconsistent. He didn't kill Ra's. It wasn't against guns. It was against killing with guns. Rules aren't about being bothered by breaking them, but about doing the right thing, whether we're bothered or not.

Too bad he undermined that message by having Blake take the mantle as Batman (or whatever alias he'd go by) in the end.

It wasn't undermined, because the assessment of @Wayne49 is his/her perception, not fact. The idea of being temporary though doesn't mean that someone can't become Batman as well, even if it's just as temporary as before. It's not a contradiction to say that that may be a possibility.

God bless you! God bless everyone!

[Wayne49]

I give Nolan props for trying to flush out the argument that perhaps heroes really can't exist in this fashion.

I don't, because for me, it doesn't tell me anything that I don't know already  - that Batman and other superheroes can never exist in the real world. But what's worse is Nolan is inconsistent in adapting Batman's morals, and Batman doesn't reflect his own actions. Keeps saying he won't kill and that's supposed to be key to the whole Joker dilemma, but then he justifies killing Ra's al Ghul to save Gotham when confronted by Talia. And there's the hypocritical lecture at Catwoman against guns. It just doesn't match. What's the point of having a rule if he's not bothered by breaking them? Thematically, it all comes across as pointless.

These films would be much so better if we saw Batman recognize what he has done, and decides to take a more consistent approach. That way, we actually see a change in him as a character. In Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, an aging Batman vowed to never fight crime ever again after he was ashamed for merely aiming a gun at a goon, even though he did it in self-defence. And as much as I don't care too much for Alan Moore's Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow, I liked that Superman stayed true to his principle about taking lives by relinquishing his own powers after killing Mr. Mtzlkzplk. I might not agree that Superman has a strict policy against deadly threats to begin with (especially when in the case of Mr. Mtzlkzplk, he was about to exterminate the universe), but at least Superman backs up what he says.

I enjoyed the trilogy, but if there is one thread of reasoning that grabbed me through this whole process, it was that Nolan believed Batman to be a short term solution for society to examine and reflect on how to better manage itself.

Too bad he undermined that message by having Blake take the mantle as Batman (or whatever alias he'd go by) in the end.

I see your points and if Nolan and his writers were putting together something in novel form, maybe more of these ideas could get flushed out. But you really can't do that when the final game plan is to sell toys and make something the studio can make a ton of money off of. It has to be about spectacle first and foremost because you only get a captive audience for so long. What Nolan delves into would require so much more process than what can be delivered in the normal running time for a movie (or in this case even a trilogy). When you're talking about a high-end license like Batman with so many vendors looking at you, there's going to be more than a few cooks in the kitchen playing with that recipe. The fact that we got anything that even took on the idea was a pretty bold move since you didn't really have any movie prior to that which really brandished those ideas as boldly as this one did. Nolan absolutely walked out on a limb for Batman and tackled the story from some unique viewpoints. And for that, I give him props for being able to do so and clearly deliver a story that connected with people worldwide. That was an impressive achievement.

But when it comes down to personal preferences and what we ultimately want out of our hero, this can be a long and arduous task trying to find common ground to appeal to everyone. Personally I enjoy watching the lightweight material the most. I respect what Nolan did, but as entertainment I absolutely have to be in a specific mood to watch this series. Something like B&R I can watch when I've had a bad day and that more than fits the bill. So I guess perhaps the best thing we should be thankful for is that Batman has a broad enough appeal that he can be expressed in an infinite number of ways to satisfy the appetites of many different perspectives. That in itself is pretty impressive as a general concept.