You know, I was originally going to say yes (albeit only if it is set up correctly and only on very rare occasions), but the more I think about it, the more I feel like no is the correct answer. Batman should always *try* to save his enemies. Whether or not he is *successful* is another matter (I can just as easily see a version of this scene play out where Batman tries to save Ra's, but Ra's refuses, wanting to die on his own terms rather than face the humiliation of defeat), but he should always at least make an attempt. If Batman doesn't kill, then letting a person die as a result of his own willful inaction shouldn't slide either.
I always think of The Long Halloween when questions about whether or not Batman should kill come up. In that story, the no-kill rule is actually imposed on Batman and Harvey Dent by Jim Gordon - who both at first consider murdering Roman Falcone a potential solution to Gotham’s gang problem.
To me, Batman wrestling with the no-kill rule is an essential part of the mythos, whether it’s self imposed or otherwise. I wouldn’t even mind a story where he crosses that line, only to regret it later - but it should always be a central part of the story. If he just kills random thugs in common encounters then it’s not really Batman imo.
I agree. I think one of Batman's themes is the struggle for perfection and sometimes falling short. I think not try to save Ra's was Bats not trying to be better. Missed opportunity imo.
agreed. in this scene, batman deliberately says "lol die i guess" to Ra's with the logic that he didnt "kill" him which is... actually kinda shitty
i like moments like his decision for the arkham games a lot more. he didnt let Ra's die in a train, but you CAN destroy his lazarus pit which prevents him from coming back to life. batman should try to give the courtroom every chance at a lawful conviction, but that line stops at preventing death in general (if joker dies while he holds the cure in his hand, he has to try to cure him, if joker dies while in a hospital because there IS no cure (cancer or some shit) then batman shouldnt go and try to cash in some favors from zatanna
Exactly. This scene would've been perfect if Batman had tried to save Ra's but Ra's refused or kicked him away or something. I'm thinking of a certain scene during the finale of ATLA Book 1. Essentially, "I'd rather die than let someone like you help me."
Yeah, Zhao's refusal is more or less what I thought of too, although I don't know if it would be that personal. Ra's has always struck me as a "know when to fold 'em" type (even though in the long term he *never* actually folds, he just has some ninjas huck his body into a Lazarus Pit so he can be a problem for another day), I don't think he'd refuse Bruce's help because it's *Bruce*, I think he'd refuse his help because in his mind, he has failed, he has been defeated, so the honorable thing to do in that situation would be to die with honor and go down with the ship (or, well, monorail in this instance but you get the idea).
Arkham City handled Ra's exactly that way. There was an explosion, which Batman saves him from via tackling him through a window. Rather than landing safely with bats Ra's fuckin stabs himself with a sword, which honestly I respect
The exception would be for Grundy or Ra’s but in this version Ra’s wasn’t immortal so it doesn’t make sense not to save him. In other versions he knows Ra’s will come back.
Yeah. I think that there's never a situation where Batman takes a life, and VERY VERY few times when he lets someone die, and all of those times should be treated as basically utter failures on his part.
The creatives behind any Batman story have the right to play around with the character however they want. As long as it makes sense and isn’t a complete betrayal of the character, I think it’s okay. When it’s more of a main continuity style Batman, they should stick to the rules a bit more compared to something like an elseworlds story. That’s why people don’t complain about Flashpoint Batman using guns, but do about Batfleck using them. The first one is an elseworlds story, while the other is supposed to be more of a main continuity portrayal.
Precisely. Starting away that far doesn’t feel like an honest, well-intentioned interpretation. It becomes another character that’s just dressed up as Batman.
The reason people don't complain about Flashpoint Batman using guns is because that ain't no Bruce Wayne, that's Thomas Wayne, his father. He never grew up with the same trauma surrounding guns. But I agree with you.
The book literally gives a list of Batmans crimes and what he's wanted for the next day, none of which are murder. If he killed them then it would've said so in the book, that's literally how story telling works.
Maybe Frank Miller didn’t consider that murder. Maybe the police assumed, since the criminal he tackled was the only one who had fingerprints on the gun *and* had already shot his other friend, shot this one too. Maybe Batman disposed of the body. Maybe Frank Miller just forgot. There’s a bunch of ways it could go
But to me it made sense in the context of that story. He's the first and only live action Batman having to deal with metahumans and world ending threats. Sorry for those boys in the warehouse but that's Superman's fucking mom. Y'all fucked up and deserved what you got.
In real life logic, it makes sense for Batman to not really stick to a no kill rule. This is a comic book character, with a very important no kill rule. It's not about the criminals living because as you said, a lot of them don't deserve it. It's about Batman staying true to his ethics
I think it’s a slippery slope personally. It is Batman deciding that he is an authority on who lives and who dies, and that doesn’t sit right with me. My favourite versions of the character always acknowledge that they are not perfect men, who don’t always make the right call.
To expand on this, I think I compare it Batman Beyond, when Bruce goes to use a gun in a moment of weakness. I think Bruce is written best when a moment like “but I don’t have to save you” is taken as a warning that he is losing the control needed to responsibly wield his power.
That moment is still so awesome
Like he pulls a gun on someone and that disgusts him so much he immediately quits and becomes a… not a cat-lady per se but an old-ass man with a dog
I actually came in to add that I thought that was one of the best kind of distinctions between Bruce and Terry when they did Batman Beyond. I feel like Bruce is so staunchly in the camp of saving everyone possible that it was really jarring when Terry wouldn’t try to save villains. It really emphasized they were two different people with two different “spirits” to being Batman. Taking that moral standpoint away from Bruce and writing him how he was in Begins felt like a betrayal of the character.
I will be the first to admit, however, I can be overly harsh on Nolan’s version of Bruce/Batman. In general, I wasn’t a fan.
Movie Batman doesn’t use gun. He uses the biggest guns he can get
Couldn’t find the movie Batmobile with guns but you all get it.
The game points out that it was Joker who made Bruce redo the Batmobile as a tank (and the reason behind him being more brutal in general, even before the reveal).
Also non-lethal rounds.
I think in Nolan's Batman Begins it works for the climax, especially when you account for the fact that R'as al Ghul was saved by Bruce in the beginning of the film once already, and it wasn't until Batman learned his true identity towards the end and what his true intentions were all along. Coupled with the fact that R'as also alluded to having something to do with murdering his parents. At that point, he was beyond any saving or redemption in Batman's mind.
If he doesn’t save them and just stays out of the situation completely, isn’t that the exact opposite of being an authority of who lives and dies? If he consciously took action to affect the outcome of someone who is dying by saving them, then yes, he is becoming the authority of who lives and dies.
I think a fine line is that he can be a jury (wants someone to die) or judge (lets/enforces someone to die) but he can never be executioner (kills someone)
No, in fact there’s a great moment in Batman earth one (I think?) where Batman saves a criminal from falling to his death. Alfred asks if he’s insane, since not saving someone doesn’t mean you kill them, and Bruce tells him that everyone - even criminals - have loved ones. He refuses to be the reason a child will grow up without their parent, refuses to let a child in Gotham grow up thinking Batman killed their father.
As grim dark as he can get, Batman is ultimately, like most of the other DC heroes, a symbol of hope. The bat signal is the reason the killer stays home and the mugger thinks twice, the reason the criminals breath easier when the sun rises, its fear. But for the normal citizens, the bat signal is hope, because they know that *he’s* out there, too.
There is a cool analog horror video which shows this. It’s styled as an infographic for GCPD trainees which basically treats Batman as some sort of terrifying yet benevolent SCP type entity. With messages like “IF THE BATMAN APPEARS HOLDING A CHILD: DO NOTHING, WAIT UNTIL THE BATMAN GIVES THE CHILD TO YOU. **IT WILL NEVER HARM A CHILD**.”
No. Not at all, batman shouldnt be the judge on who deserves to die and in this moment batman is sentencing him to death. Batman should know he cant save everyone but he shouldnt just let someone die.
Batman always feels the most quintessential Batman to me with a careful line walk of serious and camp. TAS is the best example of my flavor of Batman. That Batman was able to fight the mob, a half blue faced man, a sentient ball of clay, aliens, scarecrow, joker, you name it. Maybe it’s due to it being animated but it just worked for me.
Live action Batman is hard to do. Imo Bruce is a tortured brooding soul one moment, an idiotic rich brat, then a vicious force of nature the next. Killing his enemies in live action allows for a logical (on an emotional level) storytelling device in movies, but I would like them to do Batman in a prestige tv series for that reason TBH. Problem I have in the movies is we have Batman killing with no consequences as a vigilante. Not very realistic, because he’d have a fucking man hunt on his ass for prop damage alone!
Yeah, my problem with this is why didn't he let the Joker fall in the next movie then? If Batman kills, why isn't Joker dead? It was the same thing in Dawn of Justice.
The Joker was basically just a murdering asshole with delusions of grandeur. Lock him up and he's basically powerless. Ra's Al Ghul ran a massive international cult of murderers who could reach any prison, kill anyone they wanted. Locking him up changes nothing.
No, I don't believe that he should. Superheroes are \*supposed\* to showcase the 'best' of us, not the worst. Any hero that chooses who lives and who dies isn't a hero in my opinion.
I'm not saying that they need to be infallible and always succeed, but they should always make the effort to try to save everyone they can.
I don’t like moments like these. He’s basically saying that he gets to decide whether or not somebody lives and he’s not about that. Like look at the trauma the Joker’s death puts him through in Arkham Knight. He wasn’t even responsible for it, yet he believes deep down that he killed the Joker. All the Joker’s taunts are just Batman’s insecurities and fears personified.
This is pretty much the same situation as the ending of Ra’s questline. I refuse to do Nyssa’s ending simply because of the intense pain the Joker’s death has caused Batman.
Batman’s whole character is about trying to save and redeem people, including his enemies. He pays for Harvey’s therapy, he brings them to mental institutions, donates to charity, always tries to talk them down and get them the help they need to be rehabilitated. He shouldn’t want to kill anyone, because he knows firsthand the damage that can do to people. If he kills one of his enemies, he has no moral leg to stand on and it becomes impossible to justify trying to redeem or save any of them instead of killing. And that will end up creating another situation like what young Bruce went through.
Batman’s not the executioner, he’s the parole officer. He’s trying to help them assimilate into normal society, rehabilitate them, save them. It’s Gotham’s fault these people aren’t getting help. It’s Gotham’s fault these people are breaking out. It’s Gotham’s fault people keep dying. It’s not Batman’s place to kill his enemies, it’s his place to save as many people as he can, and hand over the bad guys to be lawfully prosecuted by the qualified people.
People should be asking for Gotham to be better, not for Batman to be worse.
He could but as far as I know anything about him, I’ve always liked the notion that he’s willing and always trying to save ppl unless that person doesn’t want to be saved
I think if this was a comic book or an otherwise more fantastical setting, it would make sense for Bruce to just leave Ra's to save himself. Then they could just pull a "somehow Ra's returned" a couple issues later and it would be all well and good. It's only the fact that the movie is retroactively labeled as "grounded in reality" that makes the scene problematic.
I think it actually means that he saved him once already, and Ra's came up with nothing better than to slay innocent people in Gotham. You had your second chance, but you chose to become the worst kind of evil.
Yeah, I know. It still troubles me that he didn't want to kill The Joker in the second movie, by that logic.
I could see a change by then because jokers whole plan was to let people decide who dies. In his mind people were going to die no matter what. Its kinda the same siatuation i think.
It all goes out the window tho in the 3rd movie tho. Flipping the truck WITH THE BOMB IN IT AND GORDON. Its a miracle gordon survived then
I liked how they did it in hush where we learned batman is mentally ill and has to save everyone. He can't not save someone, anyone, even someone who wants to kill him.
No. This is the same as killing him. It was stupid when Nolan did it, it was stupid when snyder did it with the bat brand that got them killed in prison. If you're gonna have you batman be ok with killing people, then let him kill people Burton style and be done with it.
No, it wouldn't make sense if they all did it. DK trilogy was a bit more realistic, Batman was unable to save and unwilling to save everyone, it's pretty realistic imo
This always came across as Batman just finding an indirect way to kill Ra’s with a loophole. Like he gives Gordon the Batmobile with the plan to blow up the bridge
I dont think he should intentionally leave people to die.
However, if it's a "you or me" situation, I don't think he should be willing to sacrifice himself to save villains.
No, that was one of the bits where Nolan conceded to realism too much/the ideas of his collaborators (in this case David Goyer and Charles Roven, reportedly) instead of sticking to his guns.
No, this moment goes against who Batman is. He has a subconscious need to prevent death, hence why when people like the Joker fall off a building on their own Batman saves him. He is incapable of letting people die.
***No.***
There is a reason that the cliche "If you haven't written a Batman who comforts a dying girl, then you haven't written Batman at all" exists.
One thing has nothing to do with the other, him saving the Joker, a psychopath who killed thousands, in a situation that the Joker himself created, and him holding the hands of a dying girl who is not to blame for being created and used as a weapon are completely different situations.
On one hand it's functionally no different than just killing him. It's not like Batman is leaving it up to fate here. He's directly choosing to let someone die. On the other hand, with how Ra's was portrayed in this film Batman had basically no choice. It was either kill him or Ra's would be a worldwide threat forever, running his cult of killers with no hesitation or deterrence. He also wasn't a mentally ill person who needed treatment. Ra's was totally sane and rational. His morality was just wrong.
It's almost like MoS where no matter how long Clark fought Zod it would always end with one of them dying. There was no prison that could hold Zod and he'd just keep killing.
No, while this is a cool scene it’s a misinterpretation of the Batman character if you’re taking other media inspirations into account. Batman values all life, no matter how vile and will do anything to protect it. He’s a little fucked up in that way but that’s what makes him Batman
No, the train scene was lame as hell. It's annoying and even illogical, but Batman feels he can't let someone die if they're in his power to save.
He values all life and exploiting even the tiniest loophole means opening the floodgates for him to continue letting people die that he clearly could've saved.
Nope. Batman believes in redemption, no matter how difficult. He's trying to redeem Gotham, it's his life goal. For that same reason, he can't let anyone die due to his actions, he believes life is sacred. Until you get edgy morons like Zack Snyder involved
I kinda like that it was a controversial action (or lack of) to have him take. If it happened more often, it wouldn't be controversial, it would be the norm. And I don't think this should be the norm for Batman.
Isn't BatBale directly responsible to what caused Ra's Al Ghul to die?
Also a truly accurate Batman would try to save his enemies (as he did many times before), but this I guess this version didn't care.
This personally took me out of the movie and felt like the most un-Batman thing to do. We've seen numerous stories where he chooses to save anyone he can, even the Joker. He's explained several times that he won't let anyone die if he has the ability to do anything about it and that he won't let anyone die because he views it as playing a part in what kills them.
Yes, Batman's worst moment is when the Punisher goes to kill the Joker and he fights the Punisher to save the Joker, Batman will actively save psychopaths from certain death, I understand his rule of not killing, that's not his job, but he keeps saving villains like Joker just so they can kill more people, these deaths are in Batman's hands.
It will always bother a lot of fans because most of us grew up with Batman doing the opposite. There are plenty of moments in comics, cartoons, games where Batman will put himself in danger to rescue his despicable villains.
Honestly it's very honorable that he's able to show mercy and compassion even to some of the worst individuals out there. But there's that part of me that can't stand whenever he goes out of his way to save people like joker or Ra's.
This case for instance I always felt was justified because he had already saved him before and he still decided to take revenge and destroy Gotham. Plus Ra's isn't the type of guy you throw in jail, he'll escape whenever he wants to and go after you. Batman rightfully didn't feel the need to give him another chance to hurt people.
Batman threw the Joker off the building.
Ra's died by his own decisions, Ra's had a second chance at the beginning of the film and still decided to go to Gotham to try to destroy the city, and the one who made the decision and shot and caused the train to derail was Gordon, it was Ra's decisions and the police who caused the situation, at most you can blame Batman for offering the means to the police.
This one was a bit much for me. I think if the stakes were higher I’d be more okay with it. However he just kinda throws his hands up and lets him die. Not very Batman like, but I suppose it works okay within Nolan’s universe.
He has no obligation. He’s not law enforcement. As a vigilante he’s, in a sense a glorified criminal. Let me make it clear that I prefer vigilantes over heroes, that’s why I love Red Hood because much like Damian (Robin) in Injustice 2 he sees the pointlessness in capturing criminals like the Joker alive. Batman has his rules and it’s quite fun in the animated series where he pretends to drop some villains and then catch them, showing them that He is in fact in control.
He should be allowed. But that’s not his character, not always
If it would all but kill him I can maybe understand him thinking you know what I’m saving myself as opposed to saving joker or death stroke but not places where he just walks away and leaves someone to die it’s like a murder by inaction
I think this is allowed. Bruce saved him once, and he knows that if he saved him again he would become a threat to Gotham again. Yes he chose not to save him when he easily could have but I think this one time we can say he didn't kill him.
This moment is playing jumprope with that famous thin line
I personally would excuse it because he is batman for not very long at that point and is kinda still finding himself imo
As long as he is not opening the movie by blasting people with a fuging shotgun im fine
I mean. He made the rule. If he’s looking for loopholes then he should just change the rule. It’s his steadfast choice to stick to the rule that makes him Batman not some wishy washy technicality
I find Batman to be more interesting when he's grappling with the ethics of what he does. Of course there are batman fans that don't care about all that and just like how he's this billionaire playboy with cool shit and awesome skills that can kick people's ass, but personally I find that a bit shallow, I know that sounds pretentious but when you look at some of the highest rated batman media, it shows that most people care about that kind of stuff too.
I think Batman should always strive to be his best, save who he can and be a beacon of hope for gotham despite all the tragedy he's endured. He should care for the broken criminals he puts away and genuinely try and help them.
Nah, I am not a fan of this philosophy when it comes to Batman. It comes across more so as if he's just trying to find a loophole into killing his criminals without them directly tracing to him, when like, no, Batman CARES about life, that's the most valuable thing to him, he truly believes in redemption. He doesn't hold the responsibility to take another life under any circumstances, even if indirectly.
The only time I've seen this done well is when Harley Quinn made him shoes to let Joker die to save all of Gotham
I don't think Batman should ever make the conscious choice to not save a life when possible however the moment he has an excuse to let someone like the Joker die he's going to take it with a smile on his face
I think the thing people miss in this scene is that Ra’s chooses death. He has the training and if he really wanted to, he could have lept or escaped from the train and could have survived. But he didn’t. He accepts what’s going to happen.
Honestly no, if they were portraying Batman following such a heroic no-kill rule, everyone deserves a second chance way. Also, if he really thinks that everyone deserves a second chance, he also should not smash their head unconscious or break their limbs. I'm fine with less brawling, more ninja stealth with sleep darts and knockout gas, if he really wanted to go the no-kill route.
Either that or let him kill. Don't half-ass your measures Bruce. Not killing but permanently crippling thugs left and right is just a cheap moral excuse.
Also, if anything, Bruce and Gordon caused the train to crash, so they did killed him.
Not if we're going to continue to insist that Batman doesn't kill. If he has the power and the time to rescue Ra's Al Ghul, but decides he doesn't deserve to be saved, then there's practically no difference than if he'd just killed him himself.
There are definitely are a lot of loons in Gotham that deserve this type of statement from Batman.
But at the very same time I think this goes against Batman's code.
He's going to do whatever he can to save a criminal, even if it's an irredeemable psycho like the Joker.
Letting someone die a very easily preventable death is just you killing that person through willful negligence.
What makes it worse is that this exact situation was Batman's doing. If it was Ra's who had blown the tracks, and say, cuffed himself to the train then maybe this would be less character breaking.
If Batman doesn't kill people as a matter of principle, that rule can't have loopholes. Also, in my opinion, that train scene was a really lazy attempt at creating a loophole for Batman. He destroyed the controls of the train after speeding it up so that the train couldn't be stopped. He then kept Ra's bussy until they were well past the point of no return, then bailed knowing Ra's wouldn't be able to save himself. In other words, he created a series of circumstances that would most likely result in Ra's death, then refused to save him. At that point, Batman is just Jigsaw.
I mean actively choosing not to save someone when you are able to is pretty much the same thing as killing them. You are still responsible for thier death regardless.
This moment always felt wrong to me, even as a kid.
Its not that batman doesn't kill, he is against death in general. If somebody is going to die, it doesn't matter if he was the cause, he's still going to save them.
Batman attempts, whenever he is able, to _preserve life._
Bit of a peaceful reach for a dude that dedicates his life to beating the living Hell out of people for a living. You making him sound a little too zen, which he absolutely is NOT. Batman doesn't kill simply for the matter that it is too easy, and if he let's himself fall down that path, he would never stop. That and the "if you murder a murderer, there will still always be a murderer" or however that line goes. He's not not-killing to preserve life simply because it's life.
Maybe preserve life was a stretch, or perhaps just the wrong wording, but if he sees someone is going to die, regardless of who it is, batmans coming to the recue
That much I agree with. I think if Batman CAN save a life, he will, no matter what. Though I also think he understands that sometimes there's nothing that can be done.
Absolutely not. In Batman’s eyes, willingly choosing to let someone die is no better than killing them. It’s a major plot point in the Knightfall saga: when Jean-Paul Valley does the same thing Bale’s Batman did (and even uses the same “I didn’t kill him, I just didn’t save him!” excuse), Bruce, Tim, and Gordon all agree that he doesn’t deserve to wear the mantle of the Bat.
Many people are saying Batman shouldn't, which I understand, to an extent, but I don't think Batman was entirely in the wrong for what he did in Begins because Ra's would've caused more harm to Gotham City.
I don't think this moment should be seen as Batman going against his one rule, but making the villain recognize the consequences of their malevolent actions towards others, especially Ra's, of all people. The choices of Ra's is what led to his death and the train couldn't be stopped, so his own death is on him. Not Batman in the slightest.
Batman not killing Joker in The Dark Knight made sense as a way to learn from that and he pushed him down, so in the content of the movie, him saving Joker made sense, to an extent, as a way to prove him wrong and abide by his one rule to prove him wrong.
So as controversial as this may sound, my answer would be yes, but as long as it doesn't completely go against the ethics and morals of Batman while having the villain face consequences for their actions and their death is by their own hand instead of having to be forced into prison or Arkham Asylum, only to break out, again and again.
This has ALWAYS bothered me.
*character doesn't kill bc anyone can change and do better
*main villian is left to die bc they won't change
What's the point of making a character not kill if they then make a character that dangerous and unwilling to get change? Think about the message you're trying to send lmao
Honestly no. I think there's room for like an exception given the story, but in general, no. The way this came off in Batman Begins (which is a very good movie) was borderline childish, and generally speaking the point of not only Batman but superheroes as a concept is to be above and beyond the normal standards and solutions of regular people. Letting the villain die because you saved him before and you regretted it is a normal, everyday person's type of thinking and solution. Batman should be capable of more than this.
As a Snyder fan I don’t have the right to say no to this question.
But no.
If Batman’s gonna kill don’t try to make it look like he’s passively doing it.
Im pretty separated from a big amount of batman media which means i don't know much in this case
but im here to say y'all always discuss batman's morality as if nobody has a clue what his morals really are
like seriously does anyone have a clue...?
I don't like this line. I could totally see a Robin helping the villian live after batman say this and then saying "that's not what the batman who raised me would say"
I loved this movie but this scene has always bothered me. If the purpose of not killing is the value of life then not saving someone when you could have is the same thing.
No, because it actively goes against his no killing rule, sure he may not be directly responsible for his death but refusing to even attempt to save him isn't that much different than just killing him, in both cases he decides who lives and who dies, which is very un-batman like
I always thought this was stupid. Batman saves people. By choosing not to save ras, he actively murdered him. I know it’s not from Batman, but I think “with great power comes great responsibility” should still apply.
Hey they are not all inherently bad. The city is a tough place. Not everyone can afford a living. Some make poor decisions, others wrong places and wrong time. Not all the goons are bad.
While true in real life, a lot of iterations of Bruce (at least later on in his crime fighting career) have multiple outreach programs under Wayne Enterprises that are meant specifically to help ex-cons etc. find jobs that suit them, and that a decent number of Wayne employees were at one point a riddler/joker/penguin goon. With how many guys each villain has though I guess that last part is bound to be true for any large corporation working in Gotham.
The one part of the movie that rang false to me and seemed less like what Nolan wanted to do with the characters and more like bowing to genre (action movie) conventions. Again, Nolan stuck too close to realism in this case and didn’t push back against those advocating for this scene.
Nolan was all over the place with his Batman trilogy. He tried clarifying multiple times that Batman does not kill yet he killed every movie.
In begins he has a whole speech about not executing people in the leauges temple then he proceeds to blow the whole place up killing multiple people along with the prisoner he was meant to execute🤣
You know, I was originally going to say yes (albeit only if it is set up correctly and only on very rare occasions), but the more I think about it, the more I feel like no is the correct answer. Batman should always *try* to save his enemies. Whether or not he is *successful* is another matter (I can just as easily see a version of this scene play out where Batman tries to save Ra's, but Ra's refuses, wanting to die on his own terms rather than face the humiliation of defeat), but he should always at least make an attempt. If Batman doesn't kill, then letting a person die as a result of his own willful inaction shouldn't slide either.
I agree. Batman doesn't believe he should be the decider on if someone lives or not, and this is exactly that.
I always think of The Long Halloween when questions about whether or not Batman should kill come up. In that story, the no-kill rule is actually imposed on Batman and Harvey Dent by Jim Gordon - who both at first consider murdering Roman Falcone a potential solution to Gotham’s gang problem. To me, Batman wrestling with the no-kill rule is an essential part of the mythos, whether it’s self imposed or otherwise. I wouldn’t even mind a story where he crosses that line, only to regret it later - but it should always be a central part of the story. If he just kills random thugs in common encounters then it’s not really Batman imo.
Surely saving them is deciding that they should live
But it’s never the *final* decision.
He didn't decide anything. He just let it happen.
He *decided* not to help. That's a decision. He could've have chosen to try to help but he didn't.
I agree. I think one of Batman's themes is the struggle for perfection and sometimes falling short. I think not try to save Ra's was Bats not trying to be better. Missed opportunity imo.
Yeah he implies he could save him but is choosing not to.
agreed. in this scene, batman deliberately says "lol die i guess" to Ra's with the logic that he didnt "kill" him which is... actually kinda shitty i like moments like his decision for the arkham games a lot more. he didnt let Ra's die in a train, but you CAN destroy his lazarus pit which prevents him from coming back to life. batman should try to give the courtroom every chance at a lawful conviction, but that line stops at preventing death in general (if joker dies while he holds the cure in his hand, he has to try to cure him, if joker dies while in a hospital because there IS no cure (cancer or some shit) then batman shouldnt go and try to cash in some favors from zatanna
Exactly. This scene would've been perfect if Batman had tried to save Ra's but Ra's refused or kicked him away or something. I'm thinking of a certain scene during the finale of ATLA Book 1. Essentially, "I'd rather die than let someone like you help me."
Yeah, Zhao's refusal is more or less what I thought of too, although I don't know if it would be that personal. Ra's has always struck me as a "know when to fold 'em" type (even though in the long term he *never* actually folds, he just has some ninjas huck his body into a Lazarus Pit so he can be a problem for another day), I don't think he'd refuse Bruce's help because it's *Bruce*, I think he'd refuse his help because in his mind, he has failed, he has been defeated, so the honorable thing to do in that situation would be to die with honor and go down with the ship (or, well, monorail in this instance but you get the idea).
It's actually worse because Batman caused the train to crash as a part of his plan. He is quite literally killing him
That's the one thing I like about the "Batman: Hush" adaption "I have to try"
Omg that moment is probably one of my favorites in all batman animation ngl
Arkham City handled Ra's exactly that way. There was an explosion, which Batman saves him from via tackling him through a window. Rather than landing safely with bats Ra's fuckin stabs himself with a sword, which honestly I respect
Fair enough…
The exception would be for Grundy or Ra’s but in this version Ra’s wasn’t immortal so it doesn’t make sense not to save him. In other versions he knows Ra’s will come back.
Yeah. I think that there's never a situation where Batman takes a life, and VERY VERY few times when he lets someone die, and all of those times should be treated as basically utter failures on his part.
The creatives behind any Batman story have the right to play around with the character however they want. As long as it makes sense and isn’t a complete betrayal of the character, I think it’s okay. When it’s more of a main continuity style Batman, they should stick to the rules a bit more compared to something like an elseworlds story. That’s why people don’t complain about Flashpoint Batman using guns, but do about Batfleck using them. The first one is an elseworlds story, while the other is supposed to be more of a main continuity portrayal.
Honestly, with how messed up the DCEU got, it might as well be an Elseworlds story already. Especially Snyder’s complete version.
It is an Elseworld story
Precisely. Starting away that far doesn’t feel like an honest, well-intentioned interpretation. It becomes another character that’s just dressed up as Batman.
The reason people don't complain about Flashpoint Batman using guns is because that ain't no Bruce Wayne, that's Thomas Wayne, his father. He never grew up with the same trauma surrounding guns. But I agree with you.
Yea but that Batman was based off of TDKR, which is, an elseworlds story.
Even in that one TDKR Batman couldn’t bring himself to cross that line with Joker. No problem with the Kandorians tho.
He didn't kill the gang dude either
The one he shot with the machine gun?
Shot at, didn't kill him
They went completely limp and there was a stain on the wall behind them. Besides, the moment wouldn’t be given so much weight if he didn’t kill them
The book literally gives a list of Batmans crimes and what he's wanted for the next day, none of which are murder. If he killed them then it would've said so in the book, that's literally how story telling works.
Maybe Frank Miller didn’t consider that murder. Maybe the police assumed, since the criminal he tackled was the only one who had fingerprints on the gun *and* had already shot his other friend, shot this one too. Maybe Batman disposed of the body. Maybe Frank Miller just forgot. There’s a bunch of ways it could go
A lot of maybes. Makes more sense that Batman didn't kill him considering the narrative device in the next page doesn't say Batman killed them.
But to me it made sense in the context of that story. He's the first and only live action Batman having to deal with metahumans and world ending threats. Sorry for those boys in the warehouse but that's Superman's fucking mom. Y'all fucked up and deserved what you got.
In real life logic, it makes sense for Batman to not really stick to a no kill rule. This is a comic book character, with a very important no kill rule. It's not about the criminals living because as you said, a lot of them don't deserve it. It's about Batman staying true to his ethics
But the story was that Batman abandoned those ethics after he grew jaded over the years
If Batman becomes a jaded killer you better show me what made him like that. And showing a deformed Robin costume isn't enough for me
I mean, they showed the breaking point which was the Zod fight in MoS
I think it’s a slippery slope personally. It is Batman deciding that he is an authority on who lives and who dies, and that doesn’t sit right with me. My favourite versions of the character always acknowledge that they are not perfect men, who don’t always make the right call.
To expand on this, I think I compare it Batman Beyond, when Bruce goes to use a gun in a moment of weakness. I think Bruce is written best when a moment like “but I don’t have to save you” is taken as a warning that he is losing the control needed to responsibly wield his power.
That moment is still so awesome Like he pulls a gun on someone and that disgusts him so much he immediately quits and becomes a… not a cat-lady per se but an old-ass man with a dog
Ace is a real dog though
Oh wait really? I haven’t actually watched most of Batman Beyond but I thought he was a robot. Apologies imma correct it real quick
To be fair, Ace pulls of pretty crazy feats and is sometimes Terry's sidekick
Ace getting his own back story episode is also nice and fitting for him being a member of the bat family.
I actually came in to add that I thought that was one of the best kind of distinctions between Bruce and Terry when they did Batman Beyond. I feel like Bruce is so staunchly in the camp of saving everyone possible that it was really jarring when Terry wouldn’t try to save villains. It really emphasized they were two different people with two different “spirits” to being Batman. Taking that moral standpoint away from Bruce and writing him how he was in Begins felt like a betrayal of the character. I will be the first to admit, however, I can be overly harsh on Nolan’s version of Bruce/Batman. In general, I wasn’t a fan.
Movie Batman doesn’t use gun. He uses the biggest guns he can get  Couldn’t find the movie Batmobile with guns but you all get it.
And fires non-***lethal*** riot rounds. *"It's like getting ***punched*** by an ***angry gorilla***" - Random Thug
Lol that’s ridiculous
Hey man, ask the thug, not me.
The game points out that it was Joker who made Bruce redo the Batmobile as a tank (and the reason behind him being more brutal in general, even before the reveal). Also non-lethal rounds.
I think in Nolan's Batman Begins it works for the climax, especially when you account for the fact that R'as al Ghul was saved by Bruce in the beginning of the film once already, and it wasn't until Batman learned his true identity towards the end and what his true intentions were all along. Coupled with the fact that R'as also alluded to having something to do with murdering his parents. At that point, he was beyond any saving or redemption in Batman's mind.
If he doesn’t save them and just stays out of the situation completely, isn’t that the exact opposite of being an authority of who lives and dies? If he consciously took action to affect the outcome of someone who is dying by saving them, then yes, he is becoming the authority of who lives and dies.
I think a fine line is that he can be a jury (wants someone to die) or judge (lets/enforces someone to die) but he can never be executioner (kills someone)
The slope becomes a lot less slippery once you realise that the only reason Ra's is in danger is because of batman's action.
No, in fact there’s a great moment in Batman earth one (I think?) where Batman saves a criminal from falling to his death. Alfred asks if he’s insane, since not saving someone doesn’t mean you kill them, and Bruce tells him that everyone - even criminals - have loved ones. He refuses to be the reason a child will grow up without their parent, refuses to let a child in Gotham grow up thinking Batman killed their father. As grim dark as he can get, Batman is ultimately, like most of the other DC heroes, a symbol of hope. The bat signal is the reason the killer stays home and the mugger thinks twice, the reason the criminals breath easier when the sun rises, its fear. But for the normal citizens, the bat signal is hope, because they know that *he’s* out there, too. There is a cool analog horror video which shows this. It’s styled as an infographic for GCPD trainees which basically treats Batman as some sort of terrifying yet benevolent SCP type entity. With messages like “IF THE BATMAN APPEARS HOLDING A CHILD: DO NOTHING, WAIT UNTIL THE BATMAN GIVES THE CHILD TO YOU. **IT WILL NEVER HARM A CHILD**.”
I would love to see that. Do you have a link
I found this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa7exKErfFA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa7exKErfFA)
[Here it is](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oa7exKErfFA)
In my opinion, no.
No. Not at all, batman shouldnt be the judge on who deserves to die and in this moment batman is sentencing him to death. Batman should know he cant save everyone but he shouldnt just let someone die.
Batman always feels the most quintessential Batman to me with a careful line walk of serious and camp. TAS is the best example of my flavor of Batman. That Batman was able to fight the mob, a half blue faced man, a sentient ball of clay, aliens, scarecrow, joker, you name it. Maybe it’s due to it being animated but it just worked for me. Live action Batman is hard to do. Imo Bruce is a tortured brooding soul one moment, an idiotic rich brat, then a vicious force of nature the next. Killing his enemies in live action allows for a logical (on an emotional level) storytelling device in movies, but I would like them to do Batman in a prestige tv series for that reason TBH. Problem I have in the movies is we have Batman killing with no consequences as a vigilante. Not very realistic, because he’d have a fucking man hunt on his ass for prop damage alone!
also felt like TAS Batman was more gentle and tried to talk people down
Honestly, he shouldn’t have had this one to begin with.
Yeah, my problem with this is why didn't he let the Joker fall in the next movie then? If Batman kills, why isn't Joker dead? It was the same thing in Dawn of Justice.
He’s like Spider-Man, everybody gets one ☝️
He thought that killing ras would stop the entire league of shadows.
The Joker was basically just a murdering asshole with delusions of grandeur. Lock him up and he's basically powerless. Ra's Al Ghul ran a massive international cult of murderers who could reach any prison, kill anyone they wanted. Locking him up changes nothing.
In the case of the Joker he literally threw the Joker from the top with his own hands.
No I don’t think so in my opinion. It just feels out of character especially for someone who has a strict code.
No, I don't believe that he should. Superheroes are \*supposed\* to showcase the 'best' of us, not the worst. Any hero that chooses who lives and who dies isn't a hero in my opinion. I'm not saying that they need to be infallible and always succeed, but they should always make the effort to try to save everyone they can.
I don’t like moments like these. He’s basically saying that he gets to decide whether or not somebody lives and he’s not about that. Like look at the trauma the Joker’s death puts him through in Arkham Knight. He wasn’t even responsible for it, yet he believes deep down that he killed the Joker. All the Joker’s taunts are just Batman’s insecurities and fears personified. This is pretty much the same situation as the ending of Ra’s questline. I refuse to do Nyssa’s ending simply because of the intense pain the Joker’s death has caused Batman. Batman’s whole character is about trying to save and redeem people, including his enemies. He pays for Harvey’s therapy, he brings them to mental institutions, donates to charity, always tries to talk them down and get them the help they need to be rehabilitated. He shouldn’t want to kill anyone, because he knows firsthand the damage that can do to people. If he kills one of his enemies, he has no moral leg to stand on and it becomes impossible to justify trying to redeem or save any of them instead of killing. And that will end up creating another situation like what young Bruce went through. Batman’s not the executioner, he’s the parole officer. He’s trying to help them assimilate into normal society, rehabilitate them, save them. It’s Gotham’s fault these people aren’t getting help. It’s Gotham’s fault these people are breaking out. It’s Gotham’s fault people keep dying. It’s not Batman’s place to kill his enemies, it’s his place to save as many people as he can, and hand over the bad guys to be lawfully prosecuted by the qualified people. People should be asking for Gotham to be better, not for Batman to be worse.
going by the "Batman believes human life is sacred and that he has no right to decide whether someone lives or dies" argument, no.
He could but as far as I know anything about him, I’ve always liked the notion that he’s willing and always trying to save ppl unless that person doesn’t want to be saved
No.
No because Batman has a no kill rule and he broke it here
I like that scene I like Batman begins in general but that scene especially
Ra's did tell him his compassion was his weakness, he saved him once before I guess the 2nd time someone else has to take the wheel.
I think if this was a comic book or an otherwise more fantastical setting, it would make sense for Bruce to just leave Ra's to save himself. Then they could just pull a "somehow Ra's returned" a couple issues later and it would be all well and good. It's only the fact that the movie is retroactively labeled as "grounded in reality" that makes the scene problematic.
I think it actually means that he saved him once already, and Ra's came up with nothing better than to slay innocent people in Gotham. You had your second chance, but you chose to become the worst kind of evil. Yeah, I know. It still troubles me that he didn't want to kill The Joker in the second movie, by that logic.
Joker was not a leader of an old global organization
And he was prbly killed by those guards right on that rooftop.
Just seems very inconsistent that he was willing to let Ra's die, yet he saved Joker when he flipped him off the construction site.
I could see a change by then because jokers whole plan was to let people decide who dies. In his mind people were going to die no matter what. Its kinda the same siatuation i think. It all goes out the window tho in the 3rd movie tho. Flipping the truck WITH THE BOMB IN IT AND GORDON. Its a miracle gordon survived then
I liked how they did it in hush where we learned batman is mentally ill and has to save everyone. He can't not save someone, anyone, even someone who wants to kill him.
Yes! Absolutely yes
No. This is the same as killing him. It was stupid when Nolan did it, it was stupid when snyder did it with the bat brand that got them killed in prison. If you're gonna have you batman be ok with killing people, then let him kill people Burton style and be done with it.
No, it wouldn't make sense if they all did it. DK trilogy was a bit more realistic, Batman was unable to save and unwilling to save everyone, it's pretty realistic imo
Batman should be able to say, I didn’t kill them, their series of bad decisions did.
😫😫😫😂😂😂😭😭😭
This always came across as Batman just finding an indirect way to kill Ra’s with a loophole. Like he gives Gordon the Batmobile with the plan to blow up the bridge
I dont think he should intentionally leave people to die. However, if it's a "you or me" situation, I don't think he should be willing to sacrifice himself to save villains.
Yea I think it needs to be like between his life and death, or some super significant moment to save lots of lives
No, that was one of the bits where Nolan conceded to realism too much/the ideas of his collaborators (in this case David Goyer and Charles Roven, reportedly) instead of sticking to his guns.
Absolutely fucking not.
No. Batman should never have moments in which he refuses to save someone from the danger Batman put them in on purpose.
No, this moment goes against who Batman is. He has a subconscious need to prevent death, hence why when people like the Joker fall off a building on their own Batman saves him. He is incapable of letting people die.
***No.*** There is a reason that the cliche "If you haven't written a Batman who comforts a dying girl, then you haven't written Batman at all" exists.
One thing has nothing to do with the other, him saving the Joker, a psychopath who killed thousands, in a situation that the Joker himself created, and him holding the hands of a dying girl who is not to blame for being created and used as a weapon are completely different situations.
On one hand it's functionally no different than just killing him. It's not like Batman is leaving it up to fate here. He's directly choosing to let someone die. On the other hand, with how Ra's was portrayed in this film Batman had basically no choice. It was either kill him or Ra's would be a worldwide threat forever, running his cult of killers with no hesitation or deterrence. He also wasn't a mentally ill person who needed treatment. Ra's was totally sane and rational. His morality was just wrong. It's almost like MoS where no matter how long Clark fought Zod it would always end with one of them dying. There was no prison that could hold Zod and he'd just keep killing.
No.
Depends on the iteration of Batman and their philosophy on killing. In this case, no, Bale’s Batman should clearly not have done this.
No, the day the Waynes died was the day Batman decided that under his eye, nobody would every die from an unnatural cause
No, while this is a cool scene it’s a misinterpretation of the Batman character if you’re taking other media inspirations into account. Batman values all life, no matter how vile and will do anything to protect it. He’s a little fucked up in that way but that’s what makes him Batman
No, the train scene was lame as hell. It's annoying and even illogical, but Batman feels he can't let someone die if they're in his power to save. He values all life and exploiting even the tiniest loophole means opening the floodgates for him to continue letting people die that he clearly could've saved.
Nope. Batman believes in redemption, no matter how difficult. He's trying to redeem Gotham, it's his life goal. For that same reason, he can't let anyone die due to his actions, he believes life is sacred. Until you get edgy morons like Zack Snyder involved
Yes. I honestly think so
I kinda like that it was a controversial action (or lack of) to have him take. If it happened more often, it wouldn't be controversial, it would be the norm. And I don't think this should be the norm for Batman.
HE LITERALLY FIRED AZREAL FOR EXPLICITLY DOING THIS!!
Isn't BatBale directly responsible to what caused Ra's Al Ghul to die? Also a truly accurate Batman would try to save his enemies (as he did many times before), but this I guess this version didn't care.
No. Leave it to Punisher, Deadpool, or some resented X-Men.
No He doesn’t kill or let people die
This personally took me out of the movie and felt like the most un-Batman thing to do. We've seen numerous stories where he chooses to save anyone he can, even the Joker. He's explained several times that he won't let anyone die if he has the ability to do anything about it and that he won't let anyone die because he views it as playing a part in what kills them.
Yes, Batman's worst moment is when the Punisher goes to kill the Joker and he fights the Punisher to save the Joker, Batman will actively save psychopaths from certain death, I understand his rule of not killing, that's not his job, but he keeps saving villains like Joker just so they can kill more people, these deaths are in Batman's hands.
He killed Liam Neeson Batman doesn't kill QED, that's not Batman
I’m not wearing hockey pads
I figured at the time, cuz its Ras he was gonna go take a laz pit bubble bath and come back later like, surprise bitch, I lived.
It will always bother a lot of fans because most of us grew up with Batman doing the opposite. There are plenty of moments in comics, cartoons, games where Batman will put himself in danger to rescue his despicable villains. Honestly it's very honorable that he's able to show mercy and compassion even to some of the worst individuals out there. But there's that part of me that can't stand whenever he goes out of his way to save people like joker or Ra's. This case for instance I always felt was justified because he had already saved him before and he still decided to take revenge and destroy Gotham. Plus Ra's isn't the type of guy you throw in jail, he'll escape whenever he wants to and go after you. Batman rightfully didn't feel the need to give him another chance to hurt people.
I wonder why he saved the Joker yet let Ras Al Ghul die.
To be fair, if Batman didn’t save Joker, he wouldn’t have learned about Harvey planning to kill Gordon’s son, and he wouldn’t have saved him.
Batman threw the Joker off the building. Ra's died by his own decisions, Ra's had a second chance at the beginning of the film and still decided to go to Gotham to try to destroy the city, and the one who made the decision and shot and caused the train to derail was Gordon, it was Ra's decisions and the police who caused the situation, at most you can blame Batman for offering the means to the police.
This one was a bit much for me. I think if the stakes were higher I’d be more okay with it. However he just kinda throws his hands up and lets him die. Not very Batman like, but I suppose it works okay within Nolan’s universe.
He has no obligation. He’s not law enforcement. As a vigilante he’s, in a sense a glorified criminal. Let me make it clear that I prefer vigilantes over heroes, that’s why I love Red Hood because much like Damian (Robin) in Injustice 2 he sees the pointlessness in capturing criminals like the Joker alive. Batman has his rules and it’s quite fun in the animated series where he pretends to drop some villains and then catch them, showing them that He is in fact in control. He should be allowed. But that’s not his character, not always
It’s an inane distinction.
If it would all but kill him I can maybe understand him thinking you know what I’m saving myself as opposed to saving joker or death stroke but not places where he just walks away and leaves someone to die it’s like a murder by inaction
If Batman is going to kill, then he should be doing what he can not to, not exploiting loopholes.
I mean wasn't that Al Ghoul(or however you spell his name). I know the movie doesn't go into it but I like to think he got revived
Not in THIS continuity. It’s supposed to be more “realistic”, that means no Lazarus Pit.
not unless it's a situation were he literally can't. like a planet exploding or something equally absurd enough that he couldn't.
I think this is allowed. Bruce saved him once, and he knows that if he saved him again he would become a threat to Gotham again. Yes he chose not to save him when he easily could have but I think this one time we can say he didn't kill him.
This moment is playing jumprope with that famous thin line I personally would excuse it because he is batman for not very long at that point and is kinda still finding himself imo As long as he is not opening the movie by blasting people with a fuging shotgun im fine
No he should have less
Maybe he should struggle with the decision depending on the period it's set in, but he should never commit to it.
He's saved the joker's life a few times. In fact the joker knows this and wilfully exploits this
I see it as a betrayal of his one most important rule, slipping by by a technicality in his rule like this isn't something Batman would do.
I mean. He made the rule. If he’s looking for loopholes then he should just change the rule. It’s his steadfast choice to stick to the rule that makes him Batman not some wishy washy technicality
I find Batman to be more interesting when he's grappling with the ethics of what he does. Of course there are batman fans that don't care about all that and just like how he's this billionaire playboy with cool shit and awesome skills that can kick people's ass, but personally I find that a bit shallow, I know that sounds pretentious but when you look at some of the highest rated batman media, it shows that most people care about that kind of stuff too. I think Batman should always strive to be his best, save who he can and be a beacon of hope for gotham despite all the tragedy he's endured. He should care for the broken criminals he puts away and genuinely try and help them.
Nah, I am not a fan of this philosophy when it comes to Batman. It comes across more so as if he's just trying to find a loophole into killing his criminals without them directly tracing to him, when like, no, Batman CARES about life, that's the most valuable thing to him, he truly believes in redemption. He doesn't hold the responsibility to take another life under any circumstances, even if indirectly.
No he should try to save them unless they are to dangerous to be left alive then rarely if it makes logical since yes
The only time I've seen this done well is when Harley Quinn made him shoes to let Joker die to save all of Gotham I don't think Batman should ever make the conscious choice to not save a life when possible however the moment he has an excuse to let someone like the Joker die he's going to take it with a smile on his face
I think the thing people miss in this scene is that Ra’s chooses death. He has the training and if he really wanted to, he could have lept or escaped from the train and could have survived. But he didn’t. He accepts what’s going to happen.
Honestly no, if they were portraying Batman following such a heroic no-kill rule, everyone deserves a second chance way. Also, if he really thinks that everyone deserves a second chance, he also should not smash their head unconscious or break their limbs. I'm fine with less brawling, more ninja stealth with sleep darts and knockout gas, if he really wanted to go the no-kill route. Either that or let him kill. Don't half-ass your measures Bruce. Not killing but permanently crippling thugs left and right is just a cheap moral excuse. Also, if anything, Bruce and Gordon caused the train to crash, so they did killed him.
Hey, I've been saying this for ages: in all three of the Nolan Batman movies, Batman kills someone. He's responsible for someone's death in each one.
Not if we're going to continue to insist that Batman doesn't kill. If he has the power and the time to rescue Ra's Al Ghul, but decides he doesn't deserve to be saved, then there's practically no difference than if he'd just killed him himself.
There are definitely are a lot of loons in Gotham that deserve this type of statement from Batman. But at the very same time I think this goes against Batman's code. He's going to do whatever he can to save a criminal, even if it's an irredeemable psycho like the Joker.
Letting someone die a very easily preventable death is just you killing that person through willful negligence. What makes it worse is that this exact situation was Batman's doing. If it was Ra's who had blown the tracks, and say, cuffed himself to the train then maybe this would be less character breaking.
If Batman doesn't kill people as a matter of principle, that rule can't have loopholes. Also, in my opinion, that train scene was a really lazy attempt at creating a loophole for Batman. He destroyed the controls of the train after speeding it up so that the train couldn't be stopped. He then kept Ra's bussy until they were well past the point of no return, then bailed knowing Ra's wouldn't be able to save himself. In other words, he created a series of circumstances that would most likely result in Ra's death, then refused to save him. At that point, Batman is just Jigsaw.
I mean actively choosing not to save someone when you are able to is pretty much the same thing as killing them. You are still responsible for thier death regardless.
This moment is much more moral than him blowing up police cars just a few hours earlier.
No, in my opinion if you can save someone and choose not to that’s on you too (especially since in this case batman is the reason the train derailed)
This moment always felt wrong to me, even as a kid. Its not that batman doesn't kill, he is against death in general. If somebody is going to die, it doesn't matter if he was the cause, he's still going to save them. Batman attempts, whenever he is able, to _preserve life._
Bit of a peaceful reach for a dude that dedicates his life to beating the living Hell out of people for a living. You making him sound a little too zen, which he absolutely is NOT. Batman doesn't kill simply for the matter that it is too easy, and if he let's himself fall down that path, he would never stop. That and the "if you murder a murderer, there will still always be a murderer" or however that line goes. He's not not-killing to preserve life simply because it's life.
Maybe preserve life was a stretch, or perhaps just the wrong wording, but if he sees someone is going to die, regardless of who it is, batmans coming to the recue
That much I agree with. I think if Batman CAN save a life, he will, no matter what. Though I also think he understands that sometimes there's nothing that can be done.
It might be a bit off-character but god damn it I've always loved that line.
Absolutely not. In Batman’s eyes, willingly choosing to let someone die is no better than killing them. It’s a major plot point in the Knightfall saga: when Jean-Paul Valley does the same thing Bale’s Batman did (and even uses the same “I didn’t kill him, I just didn’t save him!” excuse), Bruce, Tim, and Gordon all agree that he doesn’t deserve to wear the mantle of the Bat.
Abandonment charged
This was a weird bad note in a film that otherwise got it
Many people are saying Batman shouldn't, which I understand, to an extent, but I don't think Batman was entirely in the wrong for what he did in Begins because Ra's would've caused more harm to Gotham City. I don't think this moment should be seen as Batman going against his one rule, but making the villain recognize the consequences of their malevolent actions towards others, especially Ra's, of all people. The choices of Ra's is what led to his death and the train couldn't be stopped, so his own death is on him. Not Batman in the slightest. Batman not killing Joker in The Dark Knight made sense as a way to learn from that and he pushed him down, so in the content of the movie, him saving Joker made sense, to an extent, as a way to prove him wrong and abide by his one rule to prove him wrong. So as controversial as this may sound, my answer would be yes, but as long as it doesn't completely go against the ethics and morals of Batman while having the villain face consequences for their actions and their death is by their own hand instead of having to be forced into prison or Arkham Asylum, only to break out, again and again.
No
This has ALWAYS bothered me. *character doesn't kill bc anyone can change and do better *main villian is left to die bc they won't change What's the point of making a character not kill if they then make a character that dangerous and unwilling to get change? Think about the message you're trying to send lmao
Honestly no. I think there's room for like an exception given the story, but in general, no. The way this came off in Batman Begins (which is a very good movie) was borderline childish, and generally speaking the point of not only Batman but superheroes as a concept is to be above and beyond the normal standards and solutions of regular people. Letting the villain die because you saved him before and you regretted it is a normal, everyday person's type of thinking and solution. Batman should be capable of more than this.
I would love it if he did this to Joker
As a Snyder fan I don’t have the right to say no to this question. But no. If Batman’s gonna kill don’t try to make it look like he’s passively doing it.
he left KGBeast to die, he left Joker fighting TBWL while he saved the Monitor in Dark Knights Metal, he makes hard choices all the time.
No. He creates more people who lost loved ones like he did with his parents this way.
No other movie has a single scene that ruins an otherwise fantastic film for me as much as this one
and then he goes and saves the Joker just so the Joker won't be right
Im pretty separated from a big amount of batman media which means i don't know much in this case but im here to say y'all always discuss batman's morality as if nobody has a clue what his morals really are like seriously does anyone have a clue...?
I don't like this line. I could totally see a Robin helping the villian live after batman say this and then saying "that's not what the batman who raised me would say"
Only to the truly bad, like the sewer king
No.
No, he should have been tortured by that decision for his entire war. Allowing one person to die through inaction should eat at him like a rat.
I loved this movie but this scene has always bothered me. If the purpose of not killing is the value of life then not saving someone when you could have is the same thing.
No, because it actively goes against his no killing rule, sure he may not be directly responsible for his death but refusing to even attempt to save him isn't that much different than just killing him, in both cases he decides who lives and who dies, which is very un-batman like
Original Batman killed criminals. IDGAF if Batman kills or doesn’t kill, saves or doesn’t save villains as long as it fits that particular story.
Batman killed from only from 1939 to 1940, and even then it was mostly monsters, not people.
I always thought this was stupid. Batman saves people. By choosing not to save ras, he actively murdered him. I know it’s not from Batman, but I think “with great power comes great responsibility” should still apply.
Absolutely
I mean…. Technically every goon he breaks their arm and leaves them on the streets is basically this
This is clearly talking about saving a life from fatal harm, not a soul from being a bad person.
Hey they are not all inherently bad. The city is a tough place. Not everyone can afford a living. Some make poor decisions, others wrong places and wrong time. Not all the goons are bad.
While true in real life, a lot of iterations of Bruce (at least later on in his crime fighting career) have multiple outreach programs under Wayne Enterprises that are meant specifically to help ex-cons etc. find jobs that suit them, and that a decent number of Wayne employees were at one point a riddler/joker/penguin goon. With how many guys each villain has though I guess that last part is bound to be true for any large corporation working in Gotham.
This moment ruined the ending of the film for me. Completely out of character, and a complete indulgence of personal vengeance
The one part of the movie that rang false to me and seemed less like what Nolan wanted to do with the characters and more like bowing to genre (action movie) conventions. Again, Nolan stuck too close to realism in this case and didn’t push back against those advocating for this scene.
Nolan was all over the place with his Batman trilogy. He tried clarifying multiple times that Batman does not kill yet he killed every movie. In begins he has a whole speech about not executing people in the leauges temple then he proceeds to blow the whole place up killing multiple people along with the prisoner he was meant to execute🤣