"I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"

Christopher's 2005 reboot of the Batman franchise that tells the origins of how Bruce Wayne became Batman.
Posts: 175
Joined: February 2012
TehBatGetsBraked wrote:
MovieExoddus wrote:
Also, please post something more useful and relevant to this thread next time. Would be much more appreciated.

:JGLface:
I was complimenting Mr. Lightnings first post :JGLface: :JGLface:
Sorry mate, please accept my apology.

Posts: 2989
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
MovieExoddus wrote:
Skyab23 wrote:Not sure if this has been mentioned in this thread, but I've found a bit of a inconsistency. Bruce refuses to save Ras from his own death yet in The Dark Knight, he chooses to save the Joker from his. Why would Bruce save the Joker yet not save Ras? Definitely an inconsistency.
You didn't read Lightning's post correctly. Ra's could have saved himself as he mentioned in his theory.
How could Ras have saved himself? Yes he had the plan in place to originally escape, but his is before Batman ruined his plans. If someone has a good explanation of how he would have escaped that situation, I'd like their opinion, because I'm running it through my head and can't see it.

Posts: 175
Joined: February 2012
Skyab23 wrote:
MovieExoddus wrote:
You didn't read Lightning's post correctly. Ra's could have saved himself as he mentioned in his theory.
How could Ras have saved himself? Yes he had the plan in place to originally escape, but his is before Batman ruined his plans. If someone has a good explanation of how he would have escaped that situation, I'd like their opinion, because I'm running it through my head and can't see it.
Probably had some device he hid identical to Batman's grappling hook, and there's plenty more ways he could have escaped; don't underestimate professional assassins and escapologist. He identified his destiny, though, as he know he was meant to die.

Posts: 5
Joined: March 2012
I'm feeling the need to watch this film again, probably on weekend. Some thoughts on Skyab23 comments. I do believe that Bruce had the choice to save both The Joker and Ra's, even though he was way more responsible in the case of the Joker since it was Bruce who pushed him to fall. However, as I said before, I believe that Joker's actions made Bruce more mature in his choices. Like the Joker said "Killing is making a choice. Choose one life over another". So maybe a matured Batman, would had make a different choice with Ra's, though it wouldn't seem to make a difference, since Ra's character maybe wouldn't had allowed Bruce's attempt to save him.

And as for Ra's ability for saving from the crashing train, I think is safe to assume that he could have figure it out, make an effort, after all we are talking of Ra's al Ghul The thing is, he didn't. He resigned to his fate.

Posts: 586
Joined: February 2012
Location: Illinois
A first thought, I thought that he was just talking about he didn't kill Ra's, Ra's was killed by the train. As Arnold Schwarzenegger would say, "I didn't kill him, the train was his enemy!" :lol:
Jokes aside, after mulling over the film after I watched it, I thought, "Why did Ra's die? Why didn't the Joker?" This has led me to even more meditating. After an hour or so of sitting on my bed, alone, and in silence, I've come up with my own idea.
Ra's al Ghul was a sane man. He knew exactly what he was doing, he knew exactly what the outcome was. The direct opposite of the Joker, who is, in his own words, "I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it!" Ra's was the man with the plan. The Joker, on the other hand, was not a sane man. I think Bruce had the choice of letting someone die, a man who knew what the price of his actions were, and how they would affect several people.
The Joker, as I said and as we all know, was insane. He had no plan, no back-up, there was no plan B. He just did things. He was as close to the embodiment and personification of chaos/anarchy as possible. But, any psychiatrist could argue that he can get better, with the use of antipsychotics and several other drugs in a treatment asylum. You should be punished if you know what your doing and how it will happen, the way that Ra's did. Killing might be a long-shot of a punishment, but it's fiction set in realism.
Makes sense?

Posts: 2989
Joined: November 2011
Location: North Carolina
I get what you're saying but I totally disagree when you state that the Joker had no plans at all. The Joker was the biggest schemer of them all. He planned everything, from tricking Batman into picking Harvey's location over Racheal's, knowing that the implications of this would lead to a downfall...everything the Joker did was in attempt to manipulate the people of Gotham against Batman and to test Batman's ethics and morality.

This has actually been discussed on this board, and most people have said that they believe the Joker was the biggest schemer of them all. So, I have yet to really understand why Batman would save the Joker and not Ras...would love to hear Nolan's explanation of this.

Posts: 9038
Joined: July 2010
Because the circumstances were different. Batman was on safe ground with the Joker plummeting to his death below him. Whereas with Ra's, Batman was inside a train with Ra's that was about to fly off the track. How would Batman even save Ra's in that situation? Grab onto Ra's as he was gliding out of the train? That would put Batman at risk. If the circumstances of the situation were similar to the Joker's, I'm sure Batman would have saved Ra's.

Posts: 586
Joined: February 2012
Location: Illinois
Does anyone think we're overthinking this?

Posts: 195
Joined: March 2012
Location: American Gardens Building, West 81st Street
I always attributed it to the idea of Batman giving Ra's the respect he deserves. Ra's would much rather be killed than simply taken in and treated as a common criminal, and be tried by "corrupt bureaucrats".

Posts: 4041
Joined: April 2010
About the Joker, we've been over this. The Joker has a plan, he always has. "Its all part of the plan"

Post Reply