The Dark Knight Rises *SPOILERS*
- Thread starter Goonsack Steve
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Status
Kamandi
Super Freak
This Batman only contended with five villains from one of the richest rogue galleries in comics. Batman's B-list villains are better than most heroes A-list.
devilof76
Super Freak
Three movies wasn't enough.
All incidental, and they died as consequences of their own poor judgment.
Who was the garbage truck driver?
All incidental, and they died as consequences of their own poor judgment.
Who was the garbage truck driver?
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,145
Still killing. Straight from the horses mouth that he indeed broke his one rule multiple times.
Batman's a bit of a hypocrite, not just in the latest Nolan films.
I remember all the way back in Batman Forever (a Batman that also didn't kill), the Kilmer Bruce was preaching to Grayson about revenge and killing and how it's wrong. Then, at the end of the film, he tricks and kills Two-Face before Robin's very eyes.
The whole "no killing" and "no guns" is ideal, sure, but as Nolan even said, it's tough to do. Batman comes off as a bit of a hypocrite stating, "No guns, no killing", and yet, partakes in the act by killing people (Harvey Dent's life over Jimmy Gordons, which is understandable) and using guns on his vehicles.
EDIT:
The Garbage Truck driver is the guy in the tunnels that helps the Joker in pursuit of Dent. Batman drives into the tunnels at full speed and intentionally goes straight into the garbage driver. He destroys the entire front of the vehicle and the impact causes the driver and passenger sides of the truck to go up into the top of the tunnel ceiling, crushing him and throwing him out.
To shoot the scene, they used smaller models and they specifically made a small miniature of the truck driver that's crush able for the scene and for potential shots of him flying out.
Batman's a bit of a hypocrite, not just in the latest Nolan films.
I remember all the way back in Batman Forever (a Batman that also didn't kill), the Kilmer Bruce was preaching to Grayson about revenge and killing and how it's wrong. Then, at the end of the film, he tricks and kills Two-Face before Robin's very eyes.
The whole "no killing" and "no guns" is ideal, sure, but as Nolan even said, it's tough to do. Batman comes off as a bit of a hypocrite stating, "No guns, no killing", and yet, partakes in the act by killing people (Harvey Dent's life over Jimmy Gordons, which is understandable) and using guns on his vehicles.
EDIT:
The Garbage Truck driver is the guy in the tunnels that helps the Joker in pursuit of Dent. Batman drives into the tunnels at full speed and intentionally goes straight into the garbage driver. He destroys the entire front of the vehicle and the impact causes the driver and passenger sides of the truck to go up into the top of the tunnel ceiling, crushing him and throwing him out.
To shoot the scene, they used smaller models and they specifically made a small miniature of the truck driver that's crush able for the scene and for potential shots of him flying out.
Last edited:
devilof76
Super Freak
But that ignores the crucial distinction between killing and murder, and in these films, that is the stand he takes (League of Shadows initiation).
Not hypocritical at all. He does not seek to solve problems by taking a life. Being forced to make a decision on the spot is totally different.
So we know for a fact he dies? Is the audience really supposed to be thinking: "he just killed that guy"?
Khonsu70
Super Freak
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,326
- Reaction score
- 0
I think the whole point here is that, ideally, Batman doesn't kill with the calculated intent to kill. Sometimes people may die as a result of his actions, but he isn't planning to murder them. Even with Dent, there really wasn't another choice and Batman took the same fall as Dent and lived. It's sorta random fate. Batman takes the high ground whenever there is a plausible alternative.
devilof76
Super Freak
Even in the League initiation. Technically, executing a murderer is not murder, but to personally make the choice to take a man's life, without trial and by his own hand is not a choice he would make, nor was it a choice he made in any of these films.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,145
Yeah, he dies. In a blu ray live chat with Nolan a viewer asked a question regarding the truck driver, and they were told that Batman had to incapacitate the truck to stop the vehicle from protecting the Joker's truck from the police. The driver (which I believe is an Arkham thug) is a casualty. There's also pics of the model and miniature on google if you're interested, it's pretty cool.
You guys are twisting it a bit, I think, some things anyway.
This particular Batman was fashioned as a non-killer, in any way shape or form. That's what the whole exchange between Batman and the Joker is about for the interrogation scene. Bruce states that he isn't an executioner and that he doesn't kill. I don't recall him going into technicalities, just that he will not do the deed. He spares the Asian theif's life (who is probably killed in the explosion that Bruce caused).
So killing Dent, killing the garbage truck driver, letting Ra's Al Ghul die (in an event that Batman premeditated, with the help of Gordon and knew the outcome) and quite possibly killing victims (the HEMTT driver and perhaps Talia herself) with a barrage of machine gun fire from the Bat isn't "wrong" for Batman's supposed rule? He's breaking his rule, which is, "no killing, period".
Most are with intent, he knew Ra's couldn't escape from a wreck he planned with Gordon (the destruction of the monorail).
Some of the kills I think are completely acceptable, especially the one with Dent since he's threatening a young, innocent boy. However, regardless of the situation, this is a character that they establish with a very specific rule, a rule that he "doesn't kill". He says this to everyone, even Catwoman.
Yet he does kill and we never have the character think about his actions after the fact. We never see him questioning himself if he is in fact "wrong" for the decisions he's made when it comes to killing.
It's funny, years ago, people were up in arms about some of the things the Keaton Batman did (a Batman who didn't have rules but did whatever was necessary), specifically killing.
People seemed to get upset about that particular Batman sending an unmanned Batmobile into the Axis Chemicals factory that killed about a dozen of the Joker's henchmen, or mowing down thugs that threatened Gothamites, or inadvertently causing the Joker's death. There's also that bit with the strongman thug and bomb.
Yet, this Batman does similar things and gets a free pass? We'll make up explanations on why it's alright when it's said repeatedly that "THIS GUY DOESN'T KILL"?
Personally, I have no problem with Batman killing, be it from his Batwing trying to protect gothamites or saving a child from a maniac. But when you specifically create a "no killing rule" and yet have the character kill multiple times but don't even have him contemplate about the things he's done, something is a little off. I get "the greater good", but these three films NEVER get into that.
You guys are twisting it a bit, I think, some things anyway.
This particular Batman was fashioned as a non-killer, in any way shape or form. That's what the whole exchange between Batman and the Joker is about for the interrogation scene. Bruce states that he isn't an executioner and that he doesn't kill. I don't recall him going into technicalities, just that he will not do the deed. He spares the Asian theif's life (who is probably killed in the explosion that Bruce caused).
So killing Dent, killing the garbage truck driver, letting Ra's Al Ghul die (in an event that Batman premeditated, with the help of Gordon and knew the outcome) and quite possibly killing victims (the HEMTT driver and perhaps Talia herself) with a barrage of machine gun fire from the Bat isn't "wrong" for Batman's supposed rule? He's breaking his rule, which is, "no killing, period".
Most are with intent, he knew Ra's couldn't escape from a wreck he planned with Gordon (the destruction of the monorail).
Some of the kills I think are completely acceptable, especially the one with Dent since he's threatening a young, innocent boy. However, regardless of the situation, this is a character that they establish with a very specific rule, a rule that he "doesn't kill". He says this to everyone, even Catwoman.
Yet he does kill and we never have the character think about his actions after the fact. We never see him questioning himself if he is in fact "wrong" for the decisions he's made when it comes to killing.
It's funny, years ago, people were up in arms about some of the things the Keaton Batman did (a Batman who didn't have rules but did whatever was necessary), specifically killing.
People seemed to get upset about that particular Batman sending an unmanned Batmobile into the Axis Chemicals factory that killed about a dozen of the Joker's henchmen, or mowing down thugs that threatened Gothamites, or inadvertently causing the Joker's death. There's also that bit with the strongman thug and bomb.
Yet, this Batman does similar things and gets a free pass? We'll make up explanations on why it's alright when it's said repeatedly that "THIS GUY DOESN'T KILL"?
Personally, I have no problem with Batman killing, be it from his Batwing trying to protect gothamites or saving a child from a maniac. But when you specifically create a "no killing rule" and yet have the character kill multiple times but don't even have him contemplate about the things he's done, something is a little off. I get "the greater good", but these three films NEVER get into that.
devilof76
Super Freak
The explosion Bruce caused, by refusing to take the man's life?
The causal chain for that destruction starts with Ra's, and it was Ra's own fault that he died on the train.
That's the problem. His actions are driven by the need to save lives from those intent on ending them. Were they not on that path, they would not be dead. If you throw yourself on a sword, is the sword killing you?
The causal chain for that destruction starts with Ra's, and it was Ra's own fault that he died on the train.
That's the problem. His actions are driven by the need to save lives from those intent on ending them. Were they not on that path, they would not be dead. If you throw yourself on a sword, is the sword killing you?
Khonsu70
Super Freak
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2011
- Messages
- 1,326
- Reaction score
- 0
You guys are twisting it a bit, I think.
People seemed to get upset about that particular Batman sending an unmanned Batmobile into the Axis Chemicals factory that killed about a dozen of the Joker's henchmen, or mowing down thugs that threatened Gothamites, or inadvertently causing the Joker's death. There's also that bit with the strongman thug and bomb.
Yet, this Batman does similar things and gets a free pass? We'll make up explanations on why it's alright when it's said repeatedly that "THIS GUY DOESN'T KILL"?
No, not twisting - well maybe a little, but I'm willing to do that for Batman in general. I'm also not giving this Batman a "pass" I'm not willing to give Keaton's Batman. I'm a fan of the character and intelligent interpretations of it, not just Nolan's Batman. The one thing that you mentioned that seemed blatantly off, for either version of the character, was Keaton's Batman strapping the bomb to the guy and blowing him up with a smile. No two ways around it, that was murder. He didn't have to save Ra's, if the guy could save his own butt, that's fine - Wayne saved Ra's once before and look what happened.
batfan08
Super Freak
The way I see it, even comic Batman could inflict some casualties, and he's got a pretty strict "no killing" rule as well. Hell, when Wayne saved Reese, who's to say that the guy driving the truck had a seatbelt on? If he jettisoned through his windshield, and splattered all over the road, would Wayne have intentionally killed him, too?
devilof76
Super Freak
It's also worth noting that very few people recognize the difference between killing and murder. General consensus is that killing is killing, an equivocation which is the root of pacifism. Granted, it would be hard to call Batman a pacifist, but when push comes to shove, most people would claim pacifism if the only alternative was to be a murderer.
intothevoid
Super Freak
This.
I think it's a very interesting part of the characterization in the trilogy though - the no killing rule and the incidental kills. And that interview Difab posted was definitely one of the most interesting ones on the subject - I remember reading that a while back
devilof76
Super Freak
To quote Captain Malcolm Reynolds, "You murdered yourself, son. I just carried the bullet awhile."
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
I think everyone should quote Captain Malcolm Reynolds.
devilof76
Super Freak
I concur. 
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
Well....you can't.
devilof76
Super Freak
I'd do a damn sight better job than you...
Oh, wait. I don't want to run the ship.
Oh, wait. I don't want to run the ship.
csutkakoma
Super Freak
I have to agree. In spite of the flaws I listed, I thought this was a great final bookend to this trilogy. The poeple who don't like it went into this not wanting to like it. It's fairly obvious from the tone of the posts. Funny, because a lot of the time i agree with what these folks have to say, but there's something about Nolan that just makes rational discussion irrelevant. I think it's because folks took a stand pretty early on and they don't want to seem like they are "waffling" by admitting there might be stuff to like here?
That is not true in my case at all. I loved the first 2 Nolan Batman. I am a huge Batman fan and I couldn't wait for Rises back than. And when I saw it is was a huge disappointment. And my problem wasn't mainly the fact that Nolan's Batman is nothing like the Batman I love from the comics in Rises (Frank Miller era for example.) of course this was a problem for me regardless. Bale was weak as Batman and his character was nothing like what the cape crusader supposed to be. Also he was more like a self parody. I just cannot take him seriously at all (Open mouth, Bat voice, acting, idiotic stupid funy lines, Batman is not a serious and threatening charachter in this one. He is throwing around Jokes like no tommorow.). He was much better in Begins and TDK, especially in Begins. The movie was weak for me and by far the weakest in the series. The plot was weak, and there were a lot of stupid things in this. It felt the logic went out from the window at this one. Of course Nolan said he has a different view on Batman than the comic book fans but still. Don't get me wrong it is not a crap movie. It is an okay movie and it does not deserve more than 6,5/10 from me. It is funny that on film we never saw the real comic book Batman even once. I hope in the reboot and in JL they will stay very-very close to the comic book version of the character. World greatest detective anyone? Not so much in Rises or in any Batman films.
- Status
