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

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

Couldn't he have just used this logic with The Joker falling to his death? Sure, he was more directly responsible for The Joker being put in those circumstances, but he was almost as complicit in the train being unable to stop. How many degrees of separation are acceptable in Batman's code?

>SWEAR TO ME

He threw the joker down off the roof, completely different scenario to Ra's trying to ram the train and Gordon simply cutting off the monorail early. Batman took care of his own survival, he doesnt need to actively prevent Ra's from digging his own grave. He also chooses to kill Harvey out of necessity when its either him or Gordons kid, showing that Nolan Batman isnt the childish idealist people often associate with batman. Its not his duty to be judge, jury and executioner, but its his duty as an upstanding citizen to protect others in fatal danger when he has the ability to do so. Something like killing Harvey would have been completely within the confines of the law (although this could be said for literally every encounter he has with supervillains, most countries would allow him to outright kill them in self defense)

>Couldn't he have just used this logic with The Joker falling to his death?
Absolutely, but I guess they wanted to bring the Joker back in the next one.
He did just that in the very next scene when he tackled Two-Face out of the building. I know that he did it to save Gordon's kid and all but still.
Why didn't this break his rule? The rule wasn't that he wouldn't kill in any way.

>The rule was that he wouldn't kill in any way.
Sorry, I'm high.

His rules are he won't kill non-jews. Harvey (((Dent))) is jewery and thus it is ok to kill him.

*stomps your head in*

Yeah I imagine Nolan had something good planned for the joker, but Ledger really fucked those plans

>joker back in the next one

I didn't see him in TDKR

Man, those movies were so goddamn good, especially compared to the trash that we got afterwards. They really were superhero movies for adults and not 12 year old cutters.

I think Nolan finally opened up in an interview a little while ago and talked about the possible continuations of The Dark Knight. One draft had Joker being the primary focus of The Dark Knight and disfiguring Harvey at the end, which would make Two-Face the antagonist of the sequel while Joker would play a sort of Hannibal Lecter dubious advisory role from confinement (probably because in the source material it might've followed more closely, Harvey ends up becoming a organized criminal "schemer" which goes against the chaos romanticized by Ledger Joker)..

Come to think of it, if you removed any Harvey scenes past the hospital in The Dark Knight, it would've set that up. I wonder if Harvey's final involvement was reshoots after Ledger's death. Joker's talk of Harvey being his "ace in the hole" would be more vague and open-ended, but could be considered a tease for a sequel like Joker at the end of Batman Begins.

>actually discussion a Nolan movie like it has fucking depth and meaning

This board is awful on the weekends

I do wish someone would make a comic based the original idea of Dark Knight Rises that included Joker and Two-Face

>what is No man's land
>what is Knightfall

Yes we should talk about worshipping bbc amirite

Protip you only see that because that's what you search for

t. armchair psych

>armchair psych identifying armchair psychs

wow such talent

>"I wont sex you but i will be you pusy slave,"

What does supermen means by this

ebin

Gotta keep reddit away

So ledger is the one that ruined the trilogy after all

it makes sense that they would not have used Bane in the original concept for just how much he doesnt fit into the nolanverse, while Harvey is one of Batmans best villains, also representing the duality of Bruce/Batman while being involved with both

Rises felt way too comic-ey in a terrible way after the almost grounded masterplans of the first 2 movies (long range microwave emitter dispenses the fear gas into gotham/ Joker puts the gotham in dismay through acts of chaos and violence)

Cuz he ded

no

I never understood how people think Rises is the more comic book-y movie when Begins exists.

Granted Rises definitely pushes the fantasy boundaries TDK established but it still grounded every aspect of it.

>he's dead

Wut

everyone was talking about how ledger died because his role of the joker made him insane that he had to abuse pain killers

is this true or just a coverup for a junkie?

They were great. I don't like capeshit at all but Begins and Dark Knight were both top notch, and didn't really feel like comic book movies. My only major gripe was the horrible CGI with the two face character. It was so bad, it knocked the movie down a couple pegs IMO. The whole Dent transformation into two face felt cartoonish, and I feel Nolan should've changed it a bit. Otherwise they were great. Nolan gets alot of flak here, and he can be a little heavy handed at times, but he's undeniably great at engaging you throughout his movies. His set pieces, with seem to be scored perfectly, can be breathtaking

He was just a junkie, that rumour sounds like tabloid memeing

I was always disappointed that Two-Face died at the end. I was really hoping for a sequel revolving around him.

No he threw joker off the roof himself. He didn't put Ras on the train.

>Trying to save the villain, who at any moment before, during or after Bats' attempt to rescue him, would obviously use that time to take Bats out.
Batman did the right thing. Taking a chance to rescue Ra when he just pointed out to Bruce that he doesn't care for mercy or weakness, is just suicide.

Has anyone seen Batman Begins more than once?

yup

I saw it as a double screening

>normies will argue this is not murder
>normies will argue walter white not saving jane is murder
When did you realise normie morals can be warped to fit any situation?

>tfw you're the only person on Sup Forums that thinks Batman Begins was the best of the trilogy

OF COURSE

Talkin bout some kinda DAYUM!

His gloves threw him off, not Batman himself

Batman is crazy, and his "non killing" rule is my least favorite aspect of his character (and hes my favorite superhero by a wide margin) Its just a convenient excuse to keep all his great villains alive

>normies will argue this is not murder

he was acting completely within the confines of the law not to mention just the morals of someone who isnt a genuinely cucked retard. He already saved Ra's once and got his house burned down/ was left to die for it

>Batman is crazy, and his "non killing" rule is my least favorite aspect of his character

its smart though, it isnt some random citizens duty to kill off people, he only helps the underequipped GCPD capture them. After that its the failing of the justice system

all of this is wrong. Batman breaks every law in the books. Breaking and entering, kidnapping, torture, blackmail. Then he stops short of killing murderous psychopaths because that would somehow be a step too far

>he was acting completely within the confines of the law
>all of this is wrong. Batman breaks every law in the books.

learn to read, retard. Also assuming that youre referring to the capturing criminals part, youre somewhat correct but nobody cares if he tortures criminals or breaks into their apartments for the good of actually civilized people. criminals give up their human rights the second they start being criminals