Click the LIKE button, Batman-style!
“The Dark Knight Rises” opens this Friday, but I’ll be writing up a spoiler-free review after viewing it on Wednesday. I’m obviously pretty darned excited, and have recently watched “Batman Begins” and “The Dark Knight” to get me in the mood. Without ruining everyone’s collective Bat Buzz, though, I had some concerns when watching the first two:
1) Chatty Police Officers. In “Batman Begins”, you’ve got the wacky cut-ups describing the first appearance of the Batmobile. “It’s a black… tank” is funny, “It’s not on a street, it’s jumping from rooftop to rooftop” is funny, but in “Dark Knight”, they went too far with it. They’ve got a regular Chatty Cathy riding shotgun in the van transporting Harvey Dent. He provides unwelcome colour commentary during the whole car chase sequence. “That’s not good”/”That’s NOT good!” are particularly uncomfortable examples.
2) Bat Morality. Without spoiling “Batman Begins” too much for those who haven’t seen it, I didn’t really follow Batman’s final line to the antagonist: “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you”. I can appreciate if he’s making the argument that he’s not held by any Good Samaritan standards of heroism. I suppose you could make a case for that. If a serial killer was in grave danger, and Batman didn’t feel like rescuing him, that’s one thing. But in this case, Batman actively brought about the danger for the antagonist, then claims that’s he’s not bound to remove him from that danger. It’s supposed to be a cool moment, where the audience is supposed to appreciate that the baddie is about to reap what he’s sown, but I think it’s undone upon reflection.
Anyway, those gripes aren’t going to keep me from gettin’ revved up for “The Dark Knight Rises”! I liked Bane in the comics, and Tom Hardy is a cool cat, so it should be tons o’ fun.
Google Led You Here: “Prometheus Funny” Was it, Internet Searcher?
The “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you” is a reference to Batman’s moral code in that he will never kill. Ever. It is his one weakness and one rule that confines him and means villains have more power than him. Ra’s Al Ghul consistently comments on how Wayne is will never win because he is unprepared to do what is necessary in killing, so at the end when it seems Ra’s is right Batman bends this one rule by not killing him – but not saving him.
SPOILERS…
I get the “no killing” rule. They explored it quite a bit in “Dark Knight”. In “Begins”, he says that he won’t kill Ra’s, but doesn’t have to save him. However, the problem I have is that Batman arranged for Gordon to destroy the bridge supports, he armed Gordon with the Batmobile to destroy the bridge supports, therefore Batman is responsible for the bridge supports being destroyed. When the L-train crashes into a parking lot instead of its intended destination, that’s Batman’s fault. Batman knew Ra’s was on the train, he knew that a train going off the rails is likely to be fatal for anyone on board, and he ordered Gordon to destroy the rails. If he then chooses not to save Ra’s, then that’s killing, in my mind.
His killing was not direct. It was indirect, which in a way is like “I won’t kill you, but I don’t have to save you.”
First off: Big fan. Good to see you hitting the streets again. Secondly: I guess there’s a degree of separation in the form of a human agent, but it just seems like splitting superheroic hairs at this point. Whether he threw a bat bomb at the rails, pushed a button that caused bat-splosions to destroy the rails, or hired Killer Croc to chomp his way through the rails, he destroyed the rails.
So, him killing a lot of people in comics is what? Him being confused? o.O
Who does he kill in the comics? As far as I know, he throws plenty of punches ‘n batarangs, but always non-lethally.
you guys really don’t get his second point
Could you clarify? Whose second point? If it’s Batman’s (the second point being: “…I don’t have to save you”), then yes, I am struggling with it. I think that if he DOESN’T save Ra’s, then he has effectively killed him by destroying the rails.
If it’s Pacman’s second point (Batman bends his no-killing rule by choosing not to save Ra’s), then I think I get it, I just don’t agree. Regardless of whether he felt it was the only option to prevent spreading the fear gas, he still made a decision that he knew was extremely likely to result in Ra’s death. If he had saved Ra’s afterwards, then he would not have violated his rule, but as-is, he killed Ra’s.
Round Two of Bat Morality: What about his role in Dent’s death?
I was actually referring to your second point, your article was two issues you had with the films, and the people commenting don’t seem to get your second issue, the bat-morality. I thought that was unclear while writing it. Basically, I completely agree with you, ‘technically’ batman didn’t kill r’as, but he in essence did. I was wondering about that myself. As for the whole dent thing, it’s not the same as with r’as, where he made a choice not to save him, batman did what he did to protect the child (although in retrospect, shoving the kid off the side of the building is definitely a bad idea), and batman just tackled dent without the intent to kill. I don’t know, it’s easier to debate than the r’as thing, which to me is far closer to breaking his rule.
Ah, gotcha. I hope we get at least one possible rule violation to debate in the new movie.