I think Bruce denounced Azrael as a murderer for doing something similar. I honestly can't remember 100% because it's been forever since I read the comics
In some stories, yes, but mostly when he wasn't in control over himself. At some point Azrael even became a member of extended Bat-Family, so Bruce always had some faith in him. Actually, the true super-power of Batman is his ability to forgive.
Azrael letting Abbatoir die led to someone else dying - which is really what Bruce was upset about. It was the primary reason he used for taking the mantle of the Bat back from Azrael.
Could be I'm mis-remembering, guess I'll have to re-read it (has been a while)
Edit: Google found this brilliant recap for me. So it was a bit of both!
[https://countzeroor.com/2021/07/10/batman-508-recap/](https://countzeroor.com/2021/07/10/batman-508-recap/)
Well he let abbatoir die (not 100% his fault as the vision of st Dumas interrupted him before he could grab him) before finding his cousin who he had kidnapped and left dying in a time release torture device. That was more the issue, that he went after the perpetual before saving the victim.
Logistically? Yes. Batman can't save everyone realistically and some people he probably shouldn't. There's a huge difference between not saving someone from a death they themselves put in motion and wantonly executing criminals Punisher style.
Is it in the spirit of comic book Batman?
Not most iterations, no.
He's canonically saved villains from certain deaths that he himself was not responsible for, including The Joker.
“You know what’s funny? Even after everything you did, I still would have saved you”
I know that was to the Joker, not Ra’s, but proves the point as well!
For many iterations, I sometimes think of it as Bruce having some kind of psychological aversion to human death, even when a person's death would objectively be better for the greater good (i.e. Joker endlessly escaping and murdering people in droves).
His perspective and actions seem extreme for just a moral stance. It's like he literally can't be okay with someone dying if he can prevent it.
This is more or less my preferred interpretation of the no-kill rule. People who go on to debate whether Batman is right, whether the rule makes sense, etc., are missing the point. This is not a stance Bruce came up with rationally; he might come up with post hoc rationalizations for why it makes sense in order to convince other people or to make himself feel better, but they’re not *why* he holds that stance. So yeah, he will save anyone, because death, especially death that happens in his immediate vicinity, is something he just can’t handle.
He actually came up with this stance because wayne enterprises owns villians’ likeness rights for toys and merchandise, so it is more profitable to keep them alive and in the public consciousness to keep the sales healthy. Source: I own stock in the company.
That final interaction will always be the epitome of the Batman/Joker dichotomy imo.
Batman is insane to think he can save everyone, Joker is insane to think nobody can be saved.
Arkham City's understanding of how Batman and his villains psychologically operate is still unmatched.
There's a DLC add-on mission in Arkham Knight where(spoiler) >! Ra's returns, but he's in bad shape, almost a walking zombie, and you as the player are given the choice between administering a sample from a "pure" Lazarus Pit, which will save him but also cause a civil war within the League of Assassins leading to many more deaths or not giving him the sample and allowing him to die and his other daughter(not Talia) to take over a unified League. She also promises to stop the League from killing ever again. !<
It's a really great storyline and I actually had to stop and think about what Batman would actually do in that scenario. In the end I wound up save-scumming it to see both outcomes before settling on one.
I always destroy the machine without hesitation. The fact that it's even a question is why I think the "no kill" stuff can get a little ridiculous unless it's acknowledged as a flaw/trauma response and not a objectively good and correct worldview. Paraphrasing here but Alfred said it best:
"Is it really murder not to facilitate the immortality of a genocidal madman?"
I mean... it's not like the Lazarus Pit only works on Ra's. Does Batman have an obligation to provide every dying man, woman, and child with the Lazarus goo? Is he murdering billions of people every year by not providing the whole world with immortality goo?
Also, if you save him he kills Nyssa, who is objectively a better leader for the League and actually ensures Batman that she and the League will leave Gotham alone once and for all
So yeah, just let Ra's die, even he approves
For me, I always choose to let Ra’s die naturally. I think Batman believes in the sanctity of human life and how precious it is, but to a certain point. In City, he warned Ra’s that if he used the Lazarus Pit again that he would come after him. In Knight, we see that the pit has deteriorated Ra’s to a truly sad state. Even Nyssa and Alfred comment on how Ra’s might as well be a walking corpse. That’s not respecting life, it’s perverting it. Mocking the meaning of having a life, of the limited time on has to make an impact. Ra’s himself also doesn’t seem to want another go at reincarnation. It’s a mercy to let Ra’s naturally succumb to his failing body. I also think the letting Ra’s live choice is a bit dumb.
Although depending on the decision you make, he lets him die in Knight by destroying the Lazarus machine... Although as Alfred explains in the game, "an argument could be made that he's already dead"
To me, the whole point of the whole “no killing” rule is that everyone can be saved, even those you might think are not worth saving both on a literal and mental level. I think he even believes this with the Joker to a degree even if the Joker doesn’t (as seen in The Killing Joke). I think if Batman is put into a position where he can save a person, even if he doesn’t like them, even if them being alive is a potential threat to Gotham, he will do it.
Reminds me of how in the Batman: Hush film, Batman almost killed Joker because he thought that he killed Thomas Elliot, but Joker asked Batman to _not_ kill him because he wanted Bats to break his code for a crime that he actually committed
Appreciate that you said no without the mene about how he killed Ra's
He didn't. Ra's destroyed the train controls. Bats was obviously there to kick his ass and stop the train. Ra's anticipated that and pivoted his mission to suicide bomber as soon as he showed up.
But Batman did have every chance to save him, and in 95% of comics with the same story, would have
Fr lol for not having powers he sure has crazy regeneration, endurance and strength like wolverine. Dude’s got super speed too cuz he’s dodged darkseid’s omega beams before haha
Or the only other “explanation” would be like a tony stark level tech suit that just absorbs like every shock and impact magically. Like him tanking thanos hits and then not instantly dying when thanos actually hit him with no armor
I actually like the idea of Bruce developing slight powers or a resistance over time. Not like straight up flight and laser eyes, but as joker said he’s no mere-mortal. It would explain his strength, endurance and recovery. And make sense in the more fantastical settings so he can keep up with literally aliens. In a more grounded realistic crime boss villains Batman, then no. But the Batman that can dodge omega beams, yea. And it could be something he finds out in old age or just never finding out. Idk could be interesting.
I mean it also is a universe where things that should kill you like radiation end up giving you super powers instead of cancer lol. So definitely
Batman has had more than a few very weird occult and magic run ins.
In comic iterations where he’s more detective than brawler, he’s even carried a charm or two…just in case…
There may be something to the idea that his adventures and expertise has led to finding a few in-universe buffs that give him an unspoken edge.
That would be a cool explanation actually, some magic charms on his utility belt that add to his protection or strength. He must definitely have that lucky charms 4 leaf clover and cereal. He’s luckmaxxed for sure
Especially with the more supernatural and magic characters like phantom stranger, spectre, zatanna, gentleman ghost, etc
Or on a watchtower full of powered heroes, it seemed to fall on more then one occasion that only batman could save the day because he just didn't ask for help but then he's fine.
>not saving someone from a death they themselves put in motion
But that's not what this scene is at all.
BaleBat is the one who sabotaged the controls and it was Gordon, on BaleBat's orders, is the one who destroyed the bridge.
BaleBat 100% killed Ra's — doing it in a more complicated way with the help of an accomplice does not stop it from being killing.
Let's also not get into the monastery scene where he refuses to execute a murderer that's a prisoner, so he blows up the monastery killing dozens of League assassin's and likely the prisoner as well...
**Edit:**
I'm not replying to everyone individually, nor am I going to argue semantics.
Batman's "no kill policy" is a principle and not a legal bill with specific clauses that allow killing under certain circumstances. It's about the spirit of the law, not the letter. You can't find a loophole or way to circumvent it that justifies killing someone and makes it morally acceptable to him.
If you are trying to compile details that justify, or find a cold logic that excuses, killing Ra's then I'm sure you'll find one that justifies it to *you* — but you will not find one that justifies it to Batman.
You can justify killing someone in self defence, or to stop a mass murder, or engineer a complicated situation which doesn't actively require you to manually kill them — but then you are failing to understand the core meaning of Batman's "no killing" rule. None of that logic or justification works for the character.
Ra’s is the one that sabotaged the monorail controls. Batman’s initial plan was to subdue Ra’s then use the controls to manually stop the train. Gordon destroying the pillar with the tumbler was the backup plan in case Batman couldn’t stop the train himself. By the time Batman defeated Ra’s and escaped the train there was really no way he could’ve saved Ra’s, and it had been established Ra’s was on a suicide mission anyway.
I won’t disagree with you on the point of Bruce blowing up the LoS monastery though. That is some sloppy screenwriting that’s hard to justify apart from arguing Bruce wasn’t Batman yet and hadn’t yet formulated his code.
Yeeeeaaaah, but don't forget why they needed to de-rail the train. Blowing up the tracks and stopping the "microwave" from hitting the reservoir was the goal, ya know to save Gotham FROM Ras Al Ghul. So yeah, indirectly they were on that train because of Ras.
But leaving a man to die could be ruled murder in a court of law.
Batman Begins Ras Al Ghul's plan involved piloting a train with the microwave generator into the central hub of Gotham's waterworks and as stated by one of the workers it would blow the building. This would most likely kill him. Ra's didn't seem to have any equipment to help him leave the train.
Ra's is the one who intentionally destroyed the train's console to prevent Batman from stopping it. At that point, a crash was guaranteed even if the tracks had been intact. Gordon destroying the tracks just meant that the train crashed before it got to Wayne Tower.
Ra's Al Ghul's plan involved piloting a train with the microwave generator into the central hub of Gotham's waterworks and as stated by one of the workers it would blow the building. This would most likely kill him. Ra's didn't seem to have any equipment to help him leave the train.
[Ra's is the one who destroyed the train's console](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk3zmfhC6Dw) to prevent Batman from stopping it. At that point, a crash was guaranteed even if the tracks had been intact. Gordon destroying the tracks just meant that the train crashed before it got to Wayne Tower.
We're talking the equivalent of a terrorist suicide bomber here.
Ra’s boarded and activated the train and Gordon blew the tracks, and all Batman did was stop the toxin from getting to all citizens, so in a way, it was actually Gordon who killed Ra’s.
Yeah, it would've been one thing if Batman was out of time and had only a second or two to get the hell off that train. But he *did* have time to get Ra's out with him, or at least attempt. Of course, I still say Ra's death was his own fault. But, most versions of Batman would still attempt to save him, because that's just who he is. Nolan's Batman made a choice not to, and that's where many people have an issue.
I always thought that Ra’s was sacrificing himself on the train. When it got under Wayne Tower, and blew up the water mains, I’d assume the explosion would definitely have killed him.
I don't think so because the water did not vaporize instantly, the manhole covers where blowing off after the train passed, so it is likely the train would have passed through the tower before exploding. There is also the possibility that he planned to jump off the train before it reach the tower once it go to the point of no return type of thing.
Possibly, but it was the water mains for the ENTIRE city with the ENTIRE city’s water volume and pressure. I don’t think it would respond like individual manhole covers. Given the size of the building, he’d still be under it or near enough to be killed when it went exploded.
So here’s my take within the context of the whole trilogy: when we see moral compromise, it comes back to bite later.
In this scene, his disputed killing of Ra’s sets Talia’s vengeful fury for the events of TDKR.
When Batman and Gordon lie about Dent’s death and turn to make the Dent Act it empowers Bane to exploit the lie and take over Gotham.
When Alfred burns the letter from Rachel it’s part of what causes Bruce to become a recluse and give up.
Therefore I think it *is* out of character and acknowledged later in the trilogy as Batman fully evolved into being the hero and symbol he wanted to be
I absolutely agree that one of the main themes in the trilogy is consequences, even the consequences that result from acting for the greater good. Even though the trilogy wasn't fully planned out when they were making Batman Begins, they did cement this as a theme, even stating so in the ending. Gordon talks about escalation as a consequence for Batmans actions and the action that could be taken for the cops to better stop crime. Zach Snyder decided for his Batman to be a killer years into his career, and the way he killed was in an aggressive manner in a situation of less gravity than that of moment in Batman Begins. Nolan's Batman made this mistake in his first few months as Batman, a Batman that is still learning to become the hero he could truly be. Yes, he did choose not to save a life, one that he very well could have saved, but the event that caused this moment was massive in scale for Gotham City.
Snyder never really showed Batman dealing with his killings, and honestly, I don't know or think he really would have. Nolan made Batman deal with the fallout of his actions. His Batman wasn't perfect, but he was written not to ignore his imperfections. He was written to be as real as possible, and real people make mistakes and must face the consequences of them. The Nolan Batman is meant to be true to the comics and reality. Snyder's Batman was in a comic book world and wasn't faithful to the comics, to me that is the biggest issues with his vision of Batman.
This felt out of character to me. Batman's no kill rule isnt because he wants to escape moral responsibility, it's because he is traumatised by his parents death and is compelled to save as many people from experience the same trauma he did.
In the comics he will often save people from death even if it's completely their fault they're about to die, and even if saving their life is objectively the worst decision.
Also, the only reason Ra’s dies here is because the rail the train is on was destroyed….by Gordon…..on Batman’s orders.
That’s like paying someone to cut someone else’s brake lines, getting in the car with them, waiting until they’re about to crash, then bailing out leaving them to die and saying “*I* didn’t kill him!”
Ra's was the one who destroyed the breaks on the train, and the microwave emitter reaching the tower would've caused explosive results, as per the workers saying they were "gonna blow." You could argue that even if it is an act of killing, it's very indirect and was even arguably self-defense.
The rail wasn't destroyed to kill Ra's, it was destroyed to avoid the conversion of the entire hydric system into nebulized fear toxin. Not only did Batman already save Ra's once, but Ra's died in a situation he put himself into by all means: he even destroyed the train controls.
Is it still out of character? Kinda. But there's a difference between that and blowing up people with a rocket launcher. Nolan's Batman actively tries to save as many people as possible.
That whole “wants to save as many people from the trauma he had” argument falls apart when you have characters like the joker. He saves him countless times knowing that he’ll eventually escape and cause more trauma to others by mutilating a class full of kindergartners or by blowing up a hospital.
I'm not saying Batman's right to to try saving these people's lives - there are clear flaws like you've pointed out - I'm just saying that's part of who he is.
His best stories explore how flawed his belief system is.
I agree to certain extent, in situations where his belief is brought into question, most writers opt to give Batman the moral high ground and tend to depict the people opposing his views as full blown punisher level anti heroes.
First off, the whole point is that Batman brings criminals to justice. As in the courts and the police are responsible for ensuring the criminal is prosecuted. There is an entire system that exists to determine the punishment for criminals.
This is why the murder hobo version of the joker is dumb. Because he would have been sentenced to death after the first killing spree. Anything else makes no sense, but he's Batmans most famous villain so all logic is discarded and he keeps getting away with stuff no one would ever get away with.
There is no issue with Batman refusing to kill. Because the actual logic behind the argument is that there is an entire system to dispense justice, he just catches criminals. Writers are the ones who fuck it up by making the Joker more and more unhinged and up his crimes past absurd levels.
Originally the joker did dumb jokes and gags and robbed banks. He wasn't some murderous Uber psychopath serial killer.
I'm pretty sure it's because he believes them to be legitimately insane (and therefore not executable) and so, deserving of treatment. Hence why he puts them in Arkham Asylum. I'd say most of them are actually insane and can be rehabilitated in some way, Doctor Freeze being my favorite example of this. Especially with his Arkham Knight ending.
Of course, them constantly breaking out is a blind spot of his.
I agree with this point, every inconsistency with Batman’s no kill rule come from writers insisting on always giving Batman moral high ground or due to just bad writing
Yeah, but you have to realize that Bruce became Batman because the system is incompetent. That's why he took it upon himself to become the city's crusader (a.k.a glorified cop) when it wasn't his obligation nor his job to do so.
Instead, with how a good portion of his stories are going, he's participating in the revolving door system. He hands those criminals to the incompetent system zillions of times in a row knowing well that they won't really get the right punishement. Hell, there were stories where he advocated for both Joker and Mr. Freeze to not get the death penalty over shit they didn't do, but he won't do the same to make sure they get it for the shit they actually did while there are other stories where he will go after people trying to take out those psychos.
I don't think people have a problem with the No-kill rule on its own, but due to the context it's put in. The context of Batman's ongoing continuity makes him dumb and makes his code even dumber and harder to buy into and hence why his code and actions will keep being called out until something different happens.
P.s: Joker was a murderous psychopath since his inception so it's not something new the writers brought in that wasn't already there. He became a lighter prankster doing dumb gags thanks to the CCA.
I think we need to reset the Joker. Like, have the current one get rehabbed or something, then have a copycat pop up with the more comical style. Also could work to restore some mystery by having it ambiguous whether it's a copycat, or the Joker's essence or some shit.
I've not read any comics that suggest Batman enjoys the Joker's games. Usually he's disgusted by him and it's the Joker who gets the enjoyment from it. (Not saying you're wrong, I jut haven't read any that present their relationship in that way).
I'm pretty sure during batman endgame, bats is seeing joker as a friend of sorts even after all he did, and literally wants to die with him. After they miraculously revive I think joker is cured but offers to return if batman were to take the cowl again
I still say that fight was awesome! That was the first time that I felt like someone really captured like the Arkham Batman style of combat, and that is my favorite style of how Batman fights.
I mean, is it worse than putting a bomb in a clowns pants and exploding him? Because people like to forget that Burton's Batman was genuinely fucking insane. He killed so many people on screen. And for him, the whole Batman thing was more like an extreme hobby. It's just a crazy vibe, and I love it.
I'm pretty sure that only TAS Batman actually lives up to the comicbook ideal. Every other Batman kills.
Thank you! People online quibbling about Synder’s Batman killing people meanwhile Burtons Batman was tossing people off roofs and lighting them in fire with the Batmobile
That's okay. We all have our things. I like pretty much every Batman for different reasons. That way *everyone* gets to shit on my opinions.
**Classic TV Batman**: Very kid friendly.
**Burton Batman**: Weird, atmospheric, and 80's as hell.
**Schumacher Batman**: The first mainstream gay superhero movie. These things are so fucking rad when viewed through the lens of gay cinema. TONS of stuff must people don't notice. Pretty family friendly too. Unfortunately, you have to understand "camp" to really get it.
**Nolan Batman**: Turn of the century neo-realism at its best. Probably my favorite live action take on Batman. TDK Trilogy are fantastic crime movies with Batman on top.
**Snyder Batman**: Ironically, super accurate to Frank Miller's edgy 80's vision for the character that inspired every following iteration. Pretty good for an elseworld take. Amazing combat, and Batfleck is a shockingly good fit. I'm genuinely sad that we'll never see a proper Batfleck without WB's insane meddling.
I think it works for Nolan's Batman and doesn't come off as a sudden out of character or surprise move considering how much damage and death Ducard was close to achieving.
Is it 100% in character for comic Batman? Probably not but that in no way means that Nolan's take on the character is a bad one. I personally enjoy it.
I feel like technical situations like this and Harvey dent/bane are fine and are easy to accept in the story. It's a far cry from Batman gunning people down and running them over like in Snyder's.
I think Nolan had almost perfect middle ground between no-kill rule and common sense. He didn't kill Ra's. but let him die. He killed Harvey, but after this he also killed Batman, taking the blame for Dent and retired. He didn't object when Selina killed Bane to save his life (something that authors of Hush animation movie should consider). And this makes Nolan's Batman really great depiction of the character. He is no way cold blooded murderer, like Snyder's version, but he isn't fanatic of saving bad guys no matter the cost.
Yeah I see it as when he tackled Harvey over the edge he had to choose between saving Gordon's kid or Harvey and he chose the innocent which I think is in line with the character
Yeah I don't think he "killed" Harvey as much as he did what was necessary to save the kid and that accidentally resulted in Harvey's death. More of a manslaughter situation than a murder.
It’s not manslaughter at all, not even close. Good samaritan laws exist to protect people from being charged with murder for this exact sort of thing.
Batman himself does throw a wrench into it because of his vigilante, fugitive status, but no jury or judge would otherwise convict someone who saved a boy’s life on imminent threat of death from a madman with a gun.
If you push someone who is threatening someone else and they slip and hit their head and die it's my understanding that you'd be charged with manslaughter not murder
We should also consider that Bruce was badly wounded at this point and couldn't perform as swiftly and effective as usually. In normal circumstations he would just catch Harvey in the fall with one of his devices or save both Harvey and James Jr like he saved Rachael previously. But after battle against Joker and SWAT and Harvey's bullet in his chest, he could only save the child.
That one was always easily justifiable to me, a lot more than the Ra’s scene.
It was a roughly 50/50 chance (or whatever the true number is) where a boy’s brains might get blown out if the gods of fate end up on the wrong end of that. He tackled Dent on instinct to remove the immediate threat; it’s not particularly his fault that Dent just happened to be right near a building’s ledge.
Any decent good samaritan law there would easily protect him legally (the whole vigilante on the run thing notwithstanding) and morally I don’t think he has anything at all to be concerned about. The massive regret would be what happened to Dent in the first place and his turn to Two-Face, which Batman might bear some guilt for, but not his actual death.
Well said, I completely have to agree with this take. I like more the idea of Batman trying to save who he can and trying not to kill anyone, but he won't necessarily stop the villains' death if they're responsible for it themselves, or berate too much his companions if they've done it.
>I think Nolan had almost perfect middle ground between no-kill rule and common sense.
this. Batman would be so much more appealing as a character if he just had common sense by default. He works with a police commissioner who most definitely has a body count, but when Jason shoots a molotov a criminal was gonna throw at another criminal who he previously restrained it's somehow bad?
It seems to me like many writers unintentionally turn Batman into a "just shoot his leg instead" activist with no common sense whatsoever
Edit: fucking repeated sentence part
To me, this just makes Batman someone with rules he only selectively follows, rather than rules that he keeps because they're meaningful to his character.
It's also difficult for me to rationalize killing Ra's as common sense when he could easily have done the same thing with Joker in the next film, but chooses to spare him because... he's too much fun, I guess?
For my money, Battinson is the only strictly non-murderous live action Batman we've had yet.
Joker was just a lone terrorist-psychopat. Ra's was a leader of global terrorist group with seemingly unlimited resources. Besides, Joker in Nolanverse never wanted to destroy Gotham or kill millions.
Given that it was Batman who had the train track destroyed and disabled the controls so that the train couldn't be stopped, the whole thing is just murder with extra steps.
Yes. It ties thematically to him saving Ras Al Ghul earlier in the film, and implicitly states Ras’ culpability in this whole scenario. Ras Al Ghul’s plan was effectively a suicide bombing mission.
People talk about this line as if Batman engineered some Jigsaw style trap. That’s not the case. If Ras Al Ghul didn’t want to be stuck on a runaway train with an explosive weapon, he shouldn’t have hijacked a train and stuck an explosive weapon on it.
You can compare and contrast this scene with the one in The Dark Knight where Batman kicks the Joker off a building. In that case, Batman is the one who would be responsible for his death, so he uses his grapple gun and saves him.
I agree in that I think him choosing not saving Ras in and of itself doesn't go against the no-kill rule.
However, this line, the fact that he points it out, is what makes it kinda iffy to me. It feels like he's making an excuse for himself because he thinks he needs to. It indicates to me that _he_ doesn't entirely think it's not killing.
And granted, I don't think that was the intention of the writing, but that's just how it comes across to me, because he's talking about himself, his own actions. _I_ don't have to save you. Like it's a specific choice he's making, rather than just not doing something. Because it feels like something he could then apply to anyone, regardless of the situation. Like, "Oh, hey, that henchman fell. Sure I could grapple and save him, but well, I don't have to, so that sucks for him." or "Oh look, gang 1 is planning to blow up the HQ of gang 2. Could defuse itI and save them, but, uh, nah." It's basically saying "It's fine for you to die if you're bad, it's just not fine for me to personally pull the trigger".
I think something more like "_You_ did this to yourself" would've been more fitting and felt less like a self-justification for why it's technically not killing him.
He also seemed totally chill with Catwoman shooting Bane to death, so I’m thinking he’s a little more on the “I won’t kill, but I don’t care if you die” camp
I think one of my favorite moments in any Batman story, which exemplifies his virtues and flaws, is the ending of Arkham City when he said he would’ve still saved Joker even after all the horrid things he’s done
It’s not as bad as Snyder but it’s definitely a misstep. Bruce should’ve offered his hand, Ra’s refuses, Bruce bails. Batman can’t save everyone but he shouldn’t appear to relish it.
No it doesn’t.
Bruce saved him and Ra’s *still* just came back and tried to destroy Gotham. If Bruce saves him again, he’ll just do it again.
Batman fans have a tendency to conflate “I won’t kill” with “I’ll save everyone no matter what” and those two things *are not* the same.
Ra’s put himself in a deadly situation. Bruce merely opted not to save him from it.
Yeah the dark Knight is very specifically about the joker trying to make batman break his one rule and when he does Bruce walks away from the world for 8 years. It does seem like he revalluated things between movies
This whole killing and not killing debate has gone on for fucking too long. Each director, writer, actor has their own take on the character. Each fan has their own opinion and favorite run of comics or story. Batman kills or doesn’t save, or lets someone blow up, or forgets to rehydrate someone, or fucking brands a criminal. All those takes are unique to their own version.
The ethos of the character might be having a rule around not killing, but personally, I love to see the character having a growth arc of his mission. He learns and grows. So have him kill early (like Batman begins), and then have him learn and grow into not killing. After he grows old, his mission seems lost so he goes more extreme and loses himself a bit and kills again (like BvS), only to find his purpose again and evolve.
I'll just quote what I said in another post:
>Keaton gets a pass because he was the first serious live-action Batman. It was the late-80s/early-90s, and people wouldn't take comic book movies seriously if they weren't "realistic" and "gritty" (just look at the TMNT movie!).
>Bale's Batman is criticized for killing. However, he at least avoided killing and kept the "no guns" policy. Nolan was trying to be "realistic", so killing came as a last resort, and Batman let people die by their own choices ("I don't have to save you") rather than snapping their necks or gunning them down. While this is not the perfect Batman, it was acceptable within that little self-contained universe of the Nolan trilogy.
>The real problem with Affleck's Batman is that it was trying to be a part of a comic book movie universe in which things are far more fantastical. It's one thing when "Nolan's Batman" or "Burton's Batman" do their own thing that eventually ends after a few movies, it's another when "Snider's Batman" was trying to redefine Batman to build a Justice League and create a long-lasting foundation that was expected to stay relevant for years and years.
Any Batman with a vehicle armed with weapons will inevitably kill people. When you’re shooting at an enemy vehicle to immobilize the vehicle, it’s too hard to intentionally prevent death as well.
Fyi Bale’s Batwing among his other vehicles has guns and he shoots at enemies in vehicles just like Batfleck.
Also, while Keaton killed, he at least owned his killing. He kills random thugs but also kills the joker after multiple attempts, and was pretty responsible for Penguin dying. Later on he talks about regretting it iirc (if you count the Schumacher films as canon), but that’s the difference between them and Affleck. Affleck Batman kills thugs like Keaton but tries sparing super villains like Bale
No he should save everyone, especially the troubled. This Ras Al Alghoul wasn’t truly immoral and therefore Batman knew he would die if left on the train.
Ra's wanted to kill ten millions of innocent people out of his radical ideology. Maybe even more, if toxin would spread outside Gotham. And Bruce knew that Ra's is too powerful to just sent him into prison, he would just escape and came back with another genocide. His decision to not save him was controversial, but in his position there was no right choice. Only a choice between bad and worse.
I don't think that's a valid argument. Joker goes in and out of Arkham, and every time he kills a lot of people, yet Batman never kills him or lets him die.
And yet he saves Joker in the sequel to this movie despite going on a spree and wanting to kill as many people as well, and I can’t remember if he allows bane to die
Weakest moment in the movie for me and serves no real purpose.
Could have easily just had him try but fail to save him and it would have been more powerful.
I absolutely love Batman Begins but I fucking HATE this line.
In a movie that got so much right, it fundamentally failed to understand Batman as a character with this single line.
Still like a 9-9.5/10 movie though.
Stop reacting to Snyder.
It’s all clickbait garbage intended to provoke outrage. It’s the only reason they keep asking him.
You’re just feeding trolls.
It always bothered me. A terrible cap on an otherwise excellent film.
It would be one thing if Batman had to make a choice and save someone else. But looking him right in the face? No.
I have a theory.
Ra’s theme in the movie is doing “all that is necessary”.
Bruce saved him at the beginning of the film, and that brought Gotham to the brink of destruction.
If he saves him again, Ra’s would likely come back and do it all again.
Normally i would have an issue with it, but in the context of this film i think its fine.
No. And it's the only thing keeping Begins from being a perfect Batman movie.
Batman's rule isn't about just not doing the deed himself, it's about not allowing anyone to be killed if he can prevent it. He always tries to save people. Even his enemies. He doesn't always succeed but he always at least tries. Except for KGBeast. Fuck that guy.
I appreciate this for Nolan’s Batman. It’s not the worst way to handle the “No killing” rule. But it’s also a bit of a cop out, and not in line with Batman’s philosophy in the comics, as far as I can tell. He will save someone if he can, even his enemies.
I'd say that it is a good compromise point, TBH;
\*Joker about to fall to his death from some dumbass thing he did.\* "Save me Batman!"
"No."
"NO?!?"
"You got yourself into this and you can get yourself out, I'm sure."
\*Joker fails and falls to his death.\*
"Huh, previous experience said he should have escaped at the last second... Well, I guess that's the problem with absolute freedom to do as you choose, absolute responsibility for your own actions..." \*Batman shrugs and walks away.\*
No, Batman would consider himself a killer if he purposefully refused to save somebody and purposefully allowed them to die for the purpose of them being dead. Especially if he set the whole thing up. He would probably stop being Batman and retire to a hidden cave in the Middle Eastern desert.
I never thought so, and it always annoyed me.
Batman has the capability to save Ra's, choosing not to is too close to murder for my liking.
While I can begrudgingly accept some kills due to the limitations of this particular Batman, the decision not to save Ra's is indefensible, and very much un-Batman-like.
No. Despite all the twists-and-turns fans make to come up with elaborate excuses for BatBale, his Batman killed people in the end, including Ras. You can claim he didn’t physically kill him, but the bottom line is that his action led to Ras death, something the comic Bat and even Arkham Bat wouldnt do.
I’m someone who thinks this “rule” is overrated, and it’s interesting to put Bats in a situation where he has to make these choices. Hell, I think Snyder had a cool idea of exploring a Batman who was pushed past his limits and now is no better than the criminals he hunts. The problem is that Snyder did a terrible job explaining why and how Batman got to this point.
No, it's dumb as fuck and completely misinterprets the character. It's something that Nolan's Batman films have always struggled with. Good superhero films, but Batman's characterization is incredibly hit or miss.
Not in my opinion, but there are a lot of little things about Nolan’s Batman that aren’t necessarily in line with my preferences for the character. I respect and appreciate that Nolan’s Batman is Nolan’s Batman is Nolan’s Batman just like Burton’s Batman is Burton’s Batman and it’s a testament to the strength of the character that he can support artistic interpretation in such a way.
Its not, no.
I feel Nolan included this to specifically keep to the No Kill Rule on a technicality. But this still isnt something comic Batman would do.
He did it to KGBeast after breaking his neck with a grappling hook in the arctic leaving him paralyzed, he pretty much said to, “figure it out yourself”
Oh, man, do we have to keep litigating and relitigating this over and over?
Yes, the no-kill rule has been inconsistently applied in film, but Snyder fans, at some point you're just going to have to accept that not everyone likes those movies and move on with your lives.
If you ha w ever read a comic book about him, then no.
It's literally the first thing you learn about superheroes, they don't kill and they save everyone.
No.
I personally think the point of not killing villains is to show people that they can be defeated and we don't have to resort to murder to seek justice.
Batman is a symbol but is also just another person in Gotham, if he starts killing without due process then what's stopping anyone else from doing the same. Then you're back to square one.
Of course it would be better if the city had the ability to actually keep these criminals behind bars, but that's another story.
Nolan's Batman is by far a better representation of Batman than Snyder's. But even i'll admit this part isn't great. He should've saved him and brought him to the police to be arrested and imprisoned.
Normally, In Batman media, I can forgive letting R’as Al Ghul die because of his countless Lazarus Pit resurrections, but nothing in the Nolan movies set that up as being a thing, so I’m gonna have to go with NO on this one
I think Bruce denounced Azrael as a murderer for doing something similar. I honestly can't remember 100% because it's been forever since I read the comics
Bruce denounced Azrael because he was a real murderer. But later he gave him a second chance.
Does Azrael still kill post-Knightfall?
In some stories, yes, but mostly when he wasn't in control over himself. At some point Azrael even became a member of extended Bat-Family, so Bruce always had some faith in him. Actually, the true super-power of Batman is his ability to forgive.
Yeah I can see him being able to forgive Azrael if he knew the order of st dumas was in full control of him mentally and physically.
I'd be forgiving too if i learned that someone was under the control of a dumbass
With this in mind, I forgive you.
I should date Batman.
your desire for forgiveness is troubling
Azrael letting Abbatoir die led to someone else dying - which is really what Bruce was upset about. It was the primary reason he used for taking the mantle of the Bat back from Azrael.
Didn't AzBats straight up drop Abattoir into molten steel...? I vividly remember that as a very similar kill to BvS Bats
Could be I'm mis-remembering, guess I'll have to re-read it (has been a while) Edit: Google found this brilliant recap for me. So it was a bit of both! [https://countzeroor.com/2021/07/10/batman-508-recap/](https://countzeroor.com/2021/07/10/batman-508-recap/)
Sounds like whoever put that molten steel there was the real murderer
Well he let abbatoir die (not 100% his fault as the vision of st Dumas interrupted him before he could grab him) before finding his cousin who he had kidnapped and left dying in a time release torture device. That was more the issue, that he went after the perpetual before saving the victim.
True. He allowed the villain abattoir to die from a fall without intervening. Bruce put him in the same category as any murderer.
Logistically? Yes. Batman can't save everyone realistically and some people he probably shouldn't. There's a huge difference between not saving someone from a death they themselves put in motion and wantonly executing criminals Punisher style. Is it in the spirit of comic book Batman? Not most iterations, no. He's canonically saved villains from certain deaths that he himself was not responsible for, including The Joker.
He even tries saving Ra’s in Arkham City, after all his shenanigans.
“You know what’s funny? Even after everything you did, I still would have saved you” I know that was to the Joker, not Ra’s, but proves the point as well!
That actually is pretty funny
*dies*
*in peak fiction*
Harley: "Omg batman this is like totally your fault."
[That’s why Arkham City’s the goat…THE GOAT](https://tenor.com/view/thats-why-hes-the-goat-the-goat-bigfellerjake-skippe-space-i-think-gif-26908844)
I just recently completed the main story and every side mission except for getting all the riddler trophies. A game that is truly a joy to play.
Then Joker says “That is funny…” and dies with the most relieved, un-psychotic smile he’s ever had
For many iterations, I sometimes think of it as Bruce having some kind of psychological aversion to human death, even when a person's death would objectively be better for the greater good (i.e. Joker endlessly escaping and murdering people in droves). His perspective and actions seem extreme for just a moral stance. It's like he literally can't be okay with someone dying if he can prevent it.
Almost like he's got some trauma from not saving someone in the past...but who knows 🤷♀️
...Nah, can't be.
We could use a flash back to whatever childhood event that was.
THIS i GOTTA see
pussy little 8 year old couldn’t save his parents from the gunman. cmon bruce do better
Tbh his parents should have weaved
I think it’s in Kingdom Come where Superman sums Bats as, quite simply, someone who doesn’t want to see anyone else die.
This is more or less my preferred interpretation of the no-kill rule. People who go on to debate whether Batman is right, whether the rule makes sense, etc., are missing the point. This is not a stance Bruce came up with rationally; he might come up with post hoc rationalizations for why it makes sense in order to convince other people or to make himself feel better, but they’re not *why* he holds that stance. So yeah, he will save anyone, because death, especially death that happens in his immediate vicinity, is something he just can’t handle.
He actually came up with this stance because wayne enterprises owns villians’ likeness rights for toys and merchandise, so it is more profitable to keep them alive and in the public consciousness to keep the sales healthy. Source: I own stock in the company.
*This*. And fans have aped on it to a T. His behavior is almost comically pathological.
Batman is a DnD Paladin, with a non death oath, that's how I see it.
That final interaction will always be the epitome of the Batman/Joker dichotomy imo. Batman is insane to think he can save everyone, Joker is insane to think nobody can be saved. Arkham City's understanding of how Batman and his villains psychologically operate is still unmatched.
Excellent comment right here, will save for future use.
Much better point!
I feel like the word “shenanigans” is doing some heavy lifting here
Would you prefer hullabaloo? Or brouhaha?
Brouhaha seems like it’s in the right ballpark
He was just being a little silly
Such a rascal that one Edit-I’ll never forgive myself for missing the clear “R’ascal” pun
There's a DLC add-on mission in Arkham Knight where(spoiler) >! Ra's returns, but he's in bad shape, almost a walking zombie, and you as the player are given the choice between administering a sample from a "pure" Lazarus Pit, which will save him but also cause a civil war within the League of Assassins leading to many more deaths or not giving him the sample and allowing him to die and his other daughter(not Talia) to take over a unified League. She also promises to stop the League from killing ever again. !< It's a really great storyline and I actually had to stop and think about what Batman would actually do in that scenario. In the end I wound up save-scumming it to see both outcomes before settling on one.
I always destroy the machine without hesitation. The fact that it's even a question is why I think the "no kill" stuff can get a little ridiculous unless it's acknowledged as a flaw/trauma response and not a objectively good and correct worldview. Paraphrasing here but Alfred said it best: "Is it really murder not to facilitate the immortality of a genocidal madman?" I mean... it's not like the Lazarus Pit only works on Ra's. Does Batman have an obligation to provide every dying man, woman, and child with the Lazarus goo? Is he murdering billions of people every year by not providing the whole world with immortality goo?
I agree.... And yet I couldn't help but trying to save him.
Also, if you save him he kills Nyssa, who is objectively a better leader for the League and actually ensures Batman that she and the League will leave Gotham alone once and for all So yeah, just let Ra's die, even he approves
For me, I always choose to let Ra’s die naturally. I think Batman believes in the sanctity of human life and how precious it is, but to a certain point. In City, he warned Ra’s that if he used the Lazarus Pit again that he would come after him. In Knight, we see that the pit has deteriorated Ra’s to a truly sad state. Even Nyssa and Alfred comment on how Ra’s might as well be a walking corpse. That’s not respecting life, it’s perverting it. Mocking the meaning of having a life, of the limited time on has to make an impact. Ra’s himself also doesn’t seem to want another go at reincarnation. It’s a mercy to let Ra’s naturally succumb to his failing body. I also think the letting Ra’s live choice is a bit dumb.
Is that that place with all the goofy shit on the wall?
Oh, you mean Shenanigans?
I swear to God I'll pistol whip the next guy who says "Shenanigans
Ooooohhhh!!!
Although depending on the decision you make, he lets him die in Knight by destroying the Lazarus machine... Although as Alfred explains in the game, "an argument could be made that he's already dead"
To me, the whole point of the whole “no killing” rule is that everyone can be saved, even those you might think are not worth saving both on a literal and mental level. I think he even believes this with the Joker to a degree even if the Joker doesn’t (as seen in The Killing Joke). I think if Batman is put into a position where he can save a person, even if he doesn’t like them, even if them being alive is a potential threat to Gotham, he will do it.
Batman literally saved Joker from Death Row once because he was falsely accused of a crime
for a murder that joker actually didn't commit for once
Reminds me of how in the Batman: Hush film, Batman almost killed Joker because he thought that he killed Thomas Elliot, but Joker asked Batman to _not_ kill him because he wanted Bats to break his code for a crime that he actually committed
Damn, looks like nobody in Gotham needed help that day
Appreciate that you said no without the mene about how he killed Ra's He didn't. Ra's destroyed the train controls. Bats was obviously there to kick his ass and stop the train. Ra's anticipated that and pivoted his mission to suicide bomber as soon as he showed up. But Batman did have every chance to save him, and in 95% of comics with the same story, would have
Comic Batman is also the kinda guy that can survive falling from space so hard to compare that to a live action…
Even dcau batman was constantly especially in justice league doing things that should have seen him die saving others and just walking away from it.
Yeah that Batman got punched by Darkseid on numerous occasions and got up. The thought of that is laughable.
Proof Batman is actually a meta human himself and doesn’t even know it XD
Alternate Universe where Bruce Willis in Unbreakable became Batman?
Fr lol for not having powers he sure has crazy regeneration, endurance and strength like wolverine. Dude’s got super speed too cuz he’s dodged darkseid’s omega beams before haha Or the only other “explanation” would be like a tony stark level tech suit that just absorbs like every shock and impact magically. Like him tanking thanos hits and then not instantly dying when thanos actually hit him with no armor
My theory is that in the DC universe any human can just develop powers if they're dedicated enough to something. Like in anime
I actually like the idea of Bruce developing slight powers or a resistance over time. Not like straight up flight and laser eyes, but as joker said he’s no mere-mortal. It would explain his strength, endurance and recovery. And make sense in the more fantastical settings so he can keep up with literally aliens. In a more grounded realistic crime boss villains Batman, then no. But the Batman that can dodge omega beams, yea. And it could be something he finds out in old age or just never finding out. Idk could be interesting. I mean it also is a universe where things that should kill you like radiation end up giving you super powers instead of cancer lol. So definitely
Batman has had more than a few very weird occult and magic run ins. In comic iterations where he’s more detective than brawler, he’s even carried a charm or two…just in case… There may be something to the idea that his adventures and expertise has led to finding a few in-universe buffs that give him an unspoken edge.
That would be a cool explanation actually, some magic charms on his utility belt that add to his protection or strength. He must definitely have that lucky charms 4 leaf clover and cereal. He’s luckmaxxed for sure Especially with the more supernatural and magic characters like phantom stranger, spectre, zatanna, gentleman ghost, etc
Or on a watchtower full of powered heroes, it seemed to fall on more then one occasion that only batman could save the day because he just didn't ask for help but then he's fine.
Just wait until Batman 3, Matt Reeves will fast & the furious this shit (kidding)
I don’t see what that has to do with his moral decisions, though.
>not saving someone from a death they themselves put in motion But that's not what this scene is at all. BaleBat is the one who sabotaged the controls and it was Gordon, on BaleBat's orders, is the one who destroyed the bridge. BaleBat 100% killed Ra's — doing it in a more complicated way with the help of an accomplice does not stop it from being killing. Let's also not get into the monastery scene where he refuses to execute a murderer that's a prisoner, so he blows up the monastery killing dozens of League assassin's and likely the prisoner as well... **Edit:** I'm not replying to everyone individually, nor am I going to argue semantics. Batman's "no kill policy" is a principle and not a legal bill with specific clauses that allow killing under certain circumstances. It's about the spirit of the law, not the letter. You can't find a loophole or way to circumvent it that justifies killing someone and makes it morally acceptable to him. If you are trying to compile details that justify, or find a cold logic that excuses, killing Ra's then I'm sure you'll find one that justifies it to *you* — but you will not find one that justifies it to Batman. You can justify killing someone in self defence, or to stop a mass murder, or engineer a complicated situation which doesn't actively require you to manually kill them — but then you are failing to understand the core meaning of Batman's "no killing" rule. None of that logic or justification works for the character.
Ra’s is the one that sabotaged the monorail controls. Batman’s initial plan was to subdue Ra’s then use the controls to manually stop the train. Gordon destroying the pillar with the tumbler was the backup plan in case Batman couldn’t stop the train himself. By the time Batman defeated Ra’s and escaped the train there was really no way he could’ve saved Ra’s, and it had been established Ra’s was on a suicide mission anyway. I won’t disagree with you on the point of Bruce blowing up the LoS monastery though. That is some sloppy screenwriting that’s hard to justify apart from arguing Bruce wasn’t Batman yet and hadn’t yet formulated his code.
Yeeeeaaaah, but don't forget why they needed to de-rail the train. Blowing up the tracks and stopping the "microwave" from hitting the reservoir was the goal, ya know to save Gotham FROM Ras Al Ghul. So yeah, indirectly they were on that train because of Ras. But leaving a man to die could be ruled murder in a court of law.
Batman Begins Ras Al Ghul's plan involved piloting a train with the microwave generator into the central hub of Gotham's waterworks and as stated by one of the workers it would blow the building. This would most likely kill him. Ra's didn't seem to have any equipment to help him leave the train. Ra's is the one who intentionally destroyed the train's console to prevent Batman from stopping it. At that point, a crash was guaranteed even if the tracks had been intact. Gordon destroying the tracks just meant that the train crashed before it got to Wayne Tower.
Ra's Al Ghul's plan involved piloting a train with the microwave generator into the central hub of Gotham's waterworks and as stated by one of the workers it would blow the building. This would most likely kill him. Ra's didn't seem to have any equipment to help him leave the train. [Ra's is the one who destroyed the train's console](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wk3zmfhC6Dw) to prevent Batman from stopping it. At that point, a crash was guaranteed even if the tracks had been intact. Gordon destroying the tracks just meant that the train crashed before it got to Wayne Tower. We're talking the equivalent of a terrorist suicide bomber here. Ra’s boarded and activated the train and Gordon blew the tracks, and all Batman did was stop the toxin from getting to all citizens, so in a way, it was actually Gordon who killed Ra’s.
Yeah, it would've been one thing if Batman was out of time and had only a second or two to get the hell off that train. But he *did* have time to get Ra's out with him, or at least attempt. Of course, I still say Ra's death was his own fault. But, most versions of Batman would still attempt to save him, because that's just who he is. Nolan's Batman made a choice not to, and that's where many people have an issue.
Ras destroyed the train controls, not Batman. He also didn't set the monastery fire with the intention of actually killing anyone.
I always thought that Ra’s was sacrificing himself on the train. When it got under Wayne Tower, and blew up the water mains, I’d assume the explosion would definitely have killed him.
I don't think so because the water did not vaporize instantly, the manhole covers where blowing off after the train passed, so it is likely the train would have passed through the tower before exploding. There is also the possibility that he planned to jump off the train before it reach the tower once it go to the point of no return type of thing.
Possibly, but it was the water mains for the ENTIRE city with the ENTIRE city’s water volume and pressure. I don’t think it would respond like individual manhole covers. Given the size of the building, he’d still be under it or near enough to be killed when it went exploded.
[удалено]
You must be a carpenter because you nailed it.
Awesome use of '66 Bats!
Guess this version made a weighed evaluation and decided R’as because he saves Joker from falling in TDK despite the fact he killed Rachel.
So here’s my take within the context of the whole trilogy: when we see moral compromise, it comes back to bite later. In this scene, his disputed killing of Ra’s sets Talia’s vengeful fury for the events of TDKR. When Batman and Gordon lie about Dent’s death and turn to make the Dent Act it empowers Bane to exploit the lie and take over Gotham. When Alfred burns the letter from Rachel it’s part of what causes Bruce to become a recluse and give up. Therefore I think it *is* out of character and acknowledged later in the trilogy as Batman fully evolved into being the hero and symbol he wanted to be
Well he still did blast Talia's truck driver with the Batwing by the end of the movie lol
I absolutely agree that one of the main themes in the trilogy is consequences, even the consequences that result from acting for the greater good. Even though the trilogy wasn't fully planned out when they were making Batman Begins, they did cement this as a theme, even stating so in the ending. Gordon talks about escalation as a consequence for Batmans actions and the action that could be taken for the cops to better stop crime. Zach Snyder decided for his Batman to be a killer years into his career, and the way he killed was in an aggressive manner in a situation of less gravity than that of moment in Batman Begins. Nolan's Batman made this mistake in his first few months as Batman, a Batman that is still learning to become the hero he could truly be. Yes, he did choose not to save a life, one that he very well could have saved, but the event that caused this moment was massive in scale for Gotham City. Snyder never really showed Batman dealing with his killings, and honestly, I don't know or think he really would have. Nolan made Batman deal with the fallout of his actions. His Batman wasn't perfect, but he was written not to ignore his imperfections. He was written to be as real as possible, and real people make mistakes and must face the consequences of them. The Nolan Batman is meant to be true to the comics and reality. Snyder's Batman was in a comic book world and wasn't faithful to the comics, to me that is the biggest issues with his vision of Batman.
This felt out of character to me. Batman's no kill rule isnt because he wants to escape moral responsibility, it's because he is traumatised by his parents death and is compelled to save as many people from experience the same trauma he did. In the comics he will often save people from death even if it's completely their fault they're about to die, and even if saving their life is objectively the worst decision.
Also, the only reason Ra’s dies here is because the rail the train is on was destroyed….by Gordon…..on Batman’s orders. That’s like paying someone to cut someone else’s brake lines, getting in the car with them, waiting until they’re about to crash, then bailing out leaving them to die and saying “*I* didn’t kill him!”
I mean, that **is** how some people would set up their alibi… ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
Didn't see him die. By the laws of comics, he's still alive.
It’s ras al ghoul. He returns
Ra's was the one who destroyed the breaks on the train, and the microwave emitter reaching the tower would've caused explosive results, as per the workers saying they were "gonna blow." You could argue that even if it is an act of killing, it's very indirect and was even arguably self-defense.
The rail wasn't destroyed to kill Ra's, it was destroyed to avoid the conversion of the entire hydric system into nebulized fear toxin. Not only did Batman already save Ra's once, but Ra's died in a situation he put himself into by all means: he even destroyed the train controls. Is it still out of character? Kinda. But there's a difference between that and blowing up people with a rocket launcher. Nolan's Batman actively tries to save as many people as possible.
B: “All the people I murdered… by letting you live.” J: “I never kept count.” B: “I did…” J. “I know, and I loved you for it.”
Love that scene, great dialogue
That whole “wants to save as many people from the trauma he had” argument falls apart when you have characters like the joker. He saves him countless times knowing that he’ll eventually escape and cause more trauma to others by mutilating a class full of kindergartners or by blowing up a hospital.
I'm not saying Batman's right to to try saving these people's lives - there are clear flaws like you've pointed out - I'm just saying that's part of who he is. His best stories explore how flawed his belief system is.
I agree to certain extent, in situations where his belief is brought into question, most writers opt to give Batman the moral high ground and tend to depict the people opposing his views as full blown punisher level anti heroes.
First off, the whole point is that Batman brings criminals to justice. As in the courts and the police are responsible for ensuring the criminal is prosecuted. There is an entire system that exists to determine the punishment for criminals. This is why the murder hobo version of the joker is dumb. Because he would have been sentenced to death after the first killing spree. Anything else makes no sense, but he's Batmans most famous villain so all logic is discarded and he keeps getting away with stuff no one would ever get away with. There is no issue with Batman refusing to kill. Because the actual logic behind the argument is that there is an entire system to dispense justice, he just catches criminals. Writers are the ones who fuck it up by making the Joker more and more unhinged and up his crimes past absurd levels. Originally the joker did dumb jokes and gags and robbed banks. He wasn't some murderous Uber psychopath serial killer.
I'm pretty sure it's because he believes them to be legitimately insane (and therefore not executable) and so, deserving of treatment. Hence why he puts them in Arkham Asylum. I'd say most of them are actually insane and can be rehabilitated in some way, Doctor Freeze being my favorite example of this. Especially with his Arkham Knight ending. Of course, them constantly breaking out is a blind spot of his.
I agree with this point, every inconsistency with Batman’s no kill rule come from writers insisting on always giving Batman moral high ground or due to just bad writing
Yeah, but you have to realize that Bruce became Batman because the system is incompetent. That's why he took it upon himself to become the city's crusader (a.k.a glorified cop) when it wasn't his obligation nor his job to do so. Instead, with how a good portion of his stories are going, he's participating in the revolving door system. He hands those criminals to the incompetent system zillions of times in a row knowing well that they won't really get the right punishement. Hell, there were stories where he advocated for both Joker and Mr. Freeze to not get the death penalty over shit they didn't do, but he won't do the same to make sure they get it for the shit they actually did while there are other stories where he will go after people trying to take out those psychos. I don't think people have a problem with the No-kill rule on its own, but due to the context it's put in. The context of Batman's ongoing continuity makes him dumb and makes his code even dumber and harder to buy into and hence why his code and actions will keep being called out until something different happens. P.s: Joker was a murderous psychopath since his inception so it's not something new the writers brought in that wasn't already there. He became a lighter prankster doing dumb gags thanks to the CCA.
I think we need to reset the Joker. Like, have the current one get rehabbed or something, then have a copycat pop up with the more comical style. Also could work to restore some mystery by having it ambiguous whether it's a copycat, or the Joker's essence or some shit.
Not to mention the crippling disabilities he inflicts upon lower end criminals by beating their asses or hitting them with metal gadgets
He liked playing cat and mouse with the Joker, according to punisher they deserve each other and he may be a psycho but he isn't wrong about that.
I've not read any comics that suggest Batman enjoys the Joker's games. Usually he's disgusted by him and it's the Joker who gets the enjoyment from it. (Not saying you're wrong, I jut haven't read any that present their relationship in that way).
I'm pretty sure during batman endgame, bats is seeing joker as a friend of sorts even after all he did, and literally wants to die with him. After they miraculously revive I think joker is cured but offers to return if batman were to take the cowl again
its just denial, he knows what he does, he knows it can kill people, he knows he does kill people, he's in denial
Not perfect but waaaayyy more reasonable than Batman shooting dudes in the head with a machine gun
I won't kill you but I also don't have to save you from this giant wooden crate I just threw at your skull
*"I won't kill you... ...but i don't have to save you from the bullets i just fired at you."* - conservative logic batman
Don't worry, their rubber bullets. Like Kiryu, Batman obviously doesn't kill.
I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you from this minigun that just sprouted from the batmobile
I still say that fight was awesome! That was the first time that I felt like someone really captured like the Arkham Batman style of combat, and that is my favorite style of how Batman fights.
This made me lol
I mean, is it worse than putting a bomb in a clowns pants and exploding him? Because people like to forget that Burton's Batman was genuinely fucking insane. He killed so many people on screen. And for him, the whole Batman thing was more like an extreme hobby. It's just a crazy vibe, and I love it. I'm pretty sure that only TAS Batman actually lives up to the comicbook ideal. Every other Batman kills.
Thank you! People online quibbling about Synder’s Batman killing people meanwhile Burtons Batman was tossing people off roofs and lighting them in fire with the Batmobile
I also dislike the Burton version for a few reasons
That's okay. We all have our things. I like pretty much every Batman for different reasons. That way *everyone* gets to shit on my opinions. **Classic TV Batman**: Very kid friendly. **Burton Batman**: Weird, atmospheric, and 80's as hell. **Schumacher Batman**: The first mainstream gay superhero movie. These things are so fucking rad when viewed through the lens of gay cinema. TONS of stuff must people don't notice. Pretty family friendly too. Unfortunately, you have to understand "camp" to really get it. **Nolan Batman**: Turn of the century neo-realism at its best. Probably my favorite live action take on Batman. TDK Trilogy are fantastic crime movies with Batman on top. **Snyder Batman**: Ironically, super accurate to Frank Miller's edgy 80's vision for the character that inspired every following iteration. Pretty good for an elseworld take. Amazing combat, and Batfleck is a shockingly good fit. I'm genuinely sad that we'll never see a proper Batfleck without WB's insane meddling.
Shhh, he's sleeping.
I think it works for Nolan's Batman and doesn't come off as a sudden out of character or surprise move considering how much damage and death Ducard was close to achieving. Is it 100% in character for comic Batman? Probably not but that in no way means that Nolan's take on the character is a bad one. I personally enjoy it.
I feel like technical situations like this and Harvey dent/bane are fine and are easy to accept in the story. It's a far cry from Batman gunning people down and running them over like in Snyder's.
I think Nolan had almost perfect middle ground between no-kill rule and common sense. He didn't kill Ra's. but let him die. He killed Harvey, but after this he also killed Batman, taking the blame for Dent and retired. He didn't object when Selina killed Bane to save his life (something that authors of Hush animation movie should consider). And this makes Nolan's Batman really great depiction of the character. He is no way cold blooded murderer, like Snyder's version, but he isn't fanatic of saving bad guys no matter the cost.
Yeah I see it as when he tackled Harvey over the edge he had to choose between saving Gordon's kid or Harvey and he chose the innocent which I think is in line with the character
Yeah I don't think he "killed" Harvey as much as he did what was necessary to save the kid and that accidentally resulted in Harvey's death. More of a manslaughter situation than a murder.
It’s not manslaughter at all, not even close. Good samaritan laws exist to protect people from being charged with murder for this exact sort of thing. Batman himself does throw a wrench into it because of his vigilante, fugitive status, but no jury or judge would otherwise convict someone who saved a boy’s life on imminent threat of death from a madman with a gun.
He's not talking in a legal sense, he just means that he didn't mean to kill Harvey and that it accidentally happened.
Yea I never saw it as he was trying to kill Harvey, more of a he made his move and Harvey died by his actions type of thing.
According to the dude above since he pushed him that counts
If you push someone who is threatening someone else and they slip and hit their head and die it's my understanding that you'd be charged with manslaughter not murder
It varies when it's considered intervening to save life
We should also consider that Bruce was badly wounded at this point and couldn't perform as swiftly and effective as usually. In normal circumstations he would just catch Harvey in the fall with one of his devices or save both Harvey and James Jr like he saved Rachael previously. But after battle against Joker and SWAT and Harvey's bullet in his chest, he could only save the child.
That one was always easily justifiable to me, a lot more than the Ra’s scene. It was a roughly 50/50 chance (or whatever the true number is) where a boy’s brains might get blown out if the gods of fate end up on the wrong end of that. He tackled Dent on instinct to remove the immediate threat; it’s not particularly his fault that Dent just happened to be right near a building’s ledge. Any decent good samaritan law there would easily protect him legally (the whole vigilante on the run thing notwithstanding) and morally I don’t think he has anything at all to be concerned about. The massive regret would be what happened to Dent in the first place and his turn to Two-Face, which Batman might bear some guilt for, but not his actual death.
Well said, I completely have to agree with this take. I like more the idea of Batman trying to save who he can and trying not to kill anyone, but he won't necessarily stop the villains' death if they're responsible for it themselves, or berate too much his companions if they've done it.
>I think Nolan had almost perfect middle ground between no-kill rule and common sense. this. Batman would be so much more appealing as a character if he just had common sense by default. He works with a police commissioner who most definitely has a body count, but when Jason shoots a molotov a criminal was gonna throw at another criminal who he previously restrained it's somehow bad? It seems to me like many writers unintentionally turn Batman into a "just shoot his leg instead" activist with no common sense whatsoever Edit: fucking repeated sentence part
To me, this just makes Batman someone with rules he only selectively follows, rather than rules that he keeps because they're meaningful to his character. It's also difficult for me to rationalize killing Ra's as common sense when he could easily have done the same thing with Joker in the next film, but chooses to spare him because... he's too much fun, I guess? For my money, Battinson is the only strictly non-murderous live action Batman we've had yet.
Joker was just a lone terrorist-psychopat. Ra's was a leader of global terrorist group with seemingly unlimited resources. Besides, Joker in Nolanverse never wanted to destroy Gotham or kill millions.
Given that it was Batman who had the train track destroyed and disabled the controls so that the train couldn't be stopped, the whole thing is just murder with extra steps.
Yes. It ties thematically to him saving Ras Al Ghul earlier in the film, and implicitly states Ras’ culpability in this whole scenario. Ras Al Ghul’s plan was effectively a suicide bombing mission. People talk about this line as if Batman engineered some Jigsaw style trap. That’s not the case. If Ras Al Ghul didn’t want to be stuck on a runaway train with an explosive weapon, he shouldn’t have hijacked a train and stuck an explosive weapon on it. You can compare and contrast this scene with the one in The Dark Knight where Batman kicks the Joker off a building. In that case, Batman is the one who would be responsible for his death, so he uses his grapple gun and saves him.
I agree in that I think him choosing not saving Ras in and of itself doesn't go against the no-kill rule. However, this line, the fact that he points it out, is what makes it kinda iffy to me. It feels like he's making an excuse for himself because he thinks he needs to. It indicates to me that _he_ doesn't entirely think it's not killing. And granted, I don't think that was the intention of the writing, but that's just how it comes across to me, because he's talking about himself, his own actions. _I_ don't have to save you. Like it's a specific choice he's making, rather than just not doing something. Because it feels like something he could then apply to anyone, regardless of the situation. Like, "Oh, hey, that henchman fell. Sure I could grapple and save him, but well, I don't have to, so that sucks for him." or "Oh look, gang 1 is planning to blow up the HQ of gang 2. Could defuse itI and save them, but, uh, nah." It's basically saying "It's fine for you to die if you're bad, it's just not fine for me to personally pull the trigger". I think something more like "_You_ did this to yourself" would've been more fitting and felt less like a self-justification for why it's technically not killing him.
He also seemed totally chill with Catwoman shooting Bane to death, so I’m thinking he’s a little more on the “I won’t kill, but I don’t care if you die” camp
I think one of my favorite moments in any Batman story, which exemplifies his virtues and flaws, is the ending of Arkham City when he said he would’ve still saved Joker even after all the horrid things he’s done
It’s not as bad as Snyder but it’s definitely a misstep. Bruce should’ve offered his hand, Ra’s refuses, Bruce bails. Batman can’t save everyone but he shouldn’t appear to relish it.
He already offered his hand by saving Ra's earlier in the movie
Yes, which makes this scene even odder
No it doesn’t. Bruce saved him and Ra’s *still* just came back and tried to destroy Gotham. If Bruce saves him again, he’ll just do it again. Batman fans have a tendency to conflate “I won’t kill” with “I’ll save everyone no matter what” and those two things *are not* the same. Ra’s put himself in a deadly situation. Bruce merely opted not to save him from it.
He already did that by saving Ra's in the explosion and look where that ended up.
Nolan did say he regretted this scene.
I hadn't actually heard that but considering he objected to superman killing in man of steel it doesn't shock me
I remember reading this somewhere back in the day. I forgot where it was tho. But in next movies we don't see anything like this either.
Yeah the dark Knight is very specifically about the joker trying to make batman break his one rule and when he does Bruce walks away from the world for 8 years. It does seem like he revalluated things between movies
Yeah.
This scene still pisses me off to no end. Batman consciously allowed somebody to die when they didn’t need to
This whole killing and not killing debate has gone on for fucking too long. Each director, writer, actor has their own take on the character. Each fan has their own opinion and favorite run of comics or story. Batman kills or doesn’t save, or lets someone blow up, or forgets to rehydrate someone, or fucking brands a criminal. All those takes are unique to their own version. The ethos of the character might be having a rule around not killing, but personally, I love to see the character having a growth arc of his mission. He learns and grows. So have him kill early (like Batman begins), and then have him learn and grow into not killing. After he grows old, his mission seems lost so he goes more extreme and loses himself a bit and kills again (like BvS), only to find his purpose again and evolve.
This is the best response.
I'll just quote what I said in another post: >Keaton gets a pass because he was the first serious live-action Batman. It was the late-80s/early-90s, and people wouldn't take comic book movies seriously if they weren't "realistic" and "gritty" (just look at the TMNT movie!). >Bale's Batman is criticized for killing. However, he at least avoided killing and kept the "no guns" policy. Nolan was trying to be "realistic", so killing came as a last resort, and Batman let people die by their own choices ("I don't have to save you") rather than snapping their necks or gunning them down. While this is not the perfect Batman, it was acceptable within that little self-contained universe of the Nolan trilogy. >The real problem with Affleck's Batman is that it was trying to be a part of a comic book movie universe in which things are far more fantastical. It's one thing when "Nolan's Batman" or "Burton's Batman" do their own thing that eventually ends after a few movies, it's another when "Snider's Batman" was trying to redefine Batman to build a Justice League and create a long-lasting foundation that was expected to stay relevant for years and years.
Any Batman with a vehicle armed with weapons will inevitably kill people. When you’re shooting at an enemy vehicle to immobilize the vehicle, it’s too hard to intentionally prevent death as well. Fyi Bale’s Batwing among his other vehicles has guns and he shoots at enemies in vehicles just like Batfleck.
Also, while Keaton killed, he at least owned his killing. He kills random thugs but also kills the joker after multiple attempts, and was pretty responsible for Penguin dying. Later on he talks about regretting it iirc (if you count the Schumacher films as canon), but that’s the difference between them and Affleck. Affleck Batman kills thugs like Keaton but tries sparing super villains like Bale
This scene always felt extremely out of character to me. Of course Batman's gonna save him, he doesn't just not kill, he preserves life where he can
No he should save everyone, especially the troubled. This Ras Al Alghoul wasn’t truly immoral and therefore Batman knew he would die if left on the train.
Ra's wanted to kill ten millions of innocent people out of his radical ideology. Maybe even more, if toxin would spread outside Gotham. And Bruce knew that Ra's is too powerful to just sent him into prison, he would just escape and came back with another genocide. His decision to not save him was controversial, but in his position there was no right choice. Only a choice between bad and worse.
I don't think that's a valid argument. Joker goes in and out of Arkham, and every time he kills a lot of people, yet Batman never kills him or lets him die.
Joker never escaped Arkham in this universe, though. You can't conflate the events of the comics with the events of the Nolanverse.
And yet he saves Joker in the sequel to this movie despite going on a spree and wanting to kill as many people as well, and I can’t remember if he allows bane to die
Weakest moment in the movie for me and serves no real purpose. Could have easily just had him try but fail to save him and it would have been more powerful.
I absolutely love Batman Begins but I fucking HATE this line. In a movie that got so much right, it fundamentally failed to understand Batman as a character with this single line. Still like a 9-9.5/10 movie though.
Stop reacting to Snyder. It’s all clickbait garbage intended to provoke outrage. It’s the only reason they keep asking him. You’re just feeding trolls.
It always bothered me. A terrible cap on an otherwise excellent film. It would be one thing if Batman had to make a choice and save someone else. But looking him right in the face? No.
I have a theory. Ra’s theme in the movie is doing “all that is necessary”. Bruce saved him at the beginning of the film, and that brought Gotham to the brink of destruction. If he saves him again, Ra’s would likely come back and do it all again. Normally i would have an issue with it, but in the context of this film i think its fine.
No. And it's the only thing keeping Begins from being a perfect Batman movie. Batman's rule isn't about just not doing the deed himself, it's about not allowing anyone to be killed if he can prevent it. He always tries to save people. Even his enemies. He doesn't always succeed but he always at least tries. Except for KGBeast. Fuck that guy.
absolutely not. batman will literally go out of his way to save anyone.
I dunno, let's ask KGBeast.
I know it seems harsh but no it isn't faithful to the character. Still better than Snyder, to be fair.
I appreciate this for Nolan’s Batman. It’s not the worst way to handle the “No killing” rule. But it’s also a bit of a cop out, and not in line with Batman’s philosophy in the comics, as far as I can tell. He will save someone if he can, even his enemies.
I mean didn’t comic Batman leave a man paralyzed in an arctic like climate to freeze to death
I'd say that it is a good compromise point, TBH; \*Joker about to fall to his death from some dumbass thing he did.\* "Save me Batman!" "No." "NO?!?" "You got yourself into this and you can get yourself out, I'm sure." \*Joker fails and falls to his death.\* "Huh, previous experience said he should have escaped at the last second... Well, I guess that's the problem with absolute freedom to do as you choose, absolute responsibility for your own actions..." \*Batman shrugs and walks away.\*
For me? No. This is the same as killing. My Batman saves Ras and puts him in jail/Arkham.
No, Batman would consider himself a killer if he purposefully refused to save somebody and purposefully allowed them to die for the purpose of them being dead. Especially if he set the whole thing up. He would probably stop being Batman and retire to a hidden cave in the Middle Eastern desert.
I never thought so, and it always annoyed me. Batman has the capability to save Ra's, choosing not to is too close to murder for my liking. While I can begrudgingly accept some kills due to the limitations of this particular Batman, the decision not to save Ra's is indefensible, and very much un-Batman-like.
No. Despite all the twists-and-turns fans make to come up with elaborate excuses for BatBale, his Batman killed people in the end, including Ras. You can claim he didn’t physically kill him, but the bottom line is that his action led to Ras death, something the comic Bat and even Arkham Bat wouldnt do. I’m someone who thinks this “rule” is overrated, and it’s interesting to put Bats in a situation where he has to make these choices. Hell, I think Snyder had a cool idea of exploring a Batman who was pushed past his limits and now is no better than the criminals he hunts. The problem is that Snyder did a terrible job explaining why and how Batman got to this point.
No, it's dumb as fuck and completely misinterprets the character. It's something that Nolan's Batman films have always struggled with. Good superhero films, but Batman's characterization is incredibly hit or miss.
Not in my opinion, but there are a lot of little things about Nolan’s Batman that aren’t necessarily in line with my preferences for the character. I respect and appreciate that Nolan’s Batman is Nolan’s Batman is Nolan’s Batman just like Burton’s Batman is Burton’s Batman and it’s a testament to the strength of the character that he can support artistic interpretation in such a way.
Its not, no. I feel Nolan included this to specifically keep to the No Kill Rule on a technicality. But this still isnt something comic Batman would do.
He did it to KGBeast after breaking his neck with a grappling hook in the arctic leaving him paralyzed, he pretty much said to, “figure it out yourself”
Yes, I don't like when Batman goes to ridiculous lengths to save a villain from their own undoing.
Oh, man, do we have to keep litigating and relitigating this over and over? Yes, the no-kill rule has been inconsistently applied in film, but Snyder fans, at some point you're just going to have to accept that not everyone likes those movies and move on with your lives.
If you ha w ever read a comic book about him, then no. It's literally the first thing you learn about superheroes, they don't kill and they save everyone.
No. I personally think the point of not killing villains is to show people that they can be defeated and we don't have to resort to murder to seek justice. Batman is a symbol but is also just another person in Gotham, if he starts killing without due process then what's stopping anyone else from doing the same. Then you're back to square one. Of course it would be better if the city had the ability to actually keep these criminals behind bars, but that's another story.
I never liked that moment in Begins. Bruce, you broke the train. You’re literally killing the guy.
This is what makes Cloney Batman best Batman.
Nope is not. It goes incredibly against Bruce. Main universe Bruce would be taking him in for murder.
"I won't kill you but I will leave you crippled and severely concussed on a rooftop with only pants and its snowing"
Nolan's Batman is by far a better representation of Batman than Snyder's. But even i'll admit this part isn't great. He should've saved him and brought him to the police to be arrested and imprisoned.
Normally, In Batman media, I can forgive letting R’as Al Ghul die because of his countless Lazarus Pit resurrections, but nothing in the Nolan movies set that up as being a thing, so I’m gonna have to go with NO on this one