Originally Posted by CConn
No, that's not accurate at all, actually.
The only reason Bruce rebelled against executing that guy was because of Rachel's previous condemnation of it.
Actually, pretty much all of Bruce's core beliefs and motivations sprung from a desire to please Rachel or align with her own morals. Which, as others have already said, is pretty weak compared to Keaton's Batman who was entirely driven by his parents ' death and his own morals; not borrowed from anyone.
But that's still ignoring all the ways he behaved that went against the people around him in the later two films.
In TDK, he was willing to turn himself in which opposed Alfred's advice for him to "endure". Then when he lets Dent take the blame, this only serves to infuriate Rachel. He also set up the whole sonar device without Lucius' knowledge, which put him on thin ice with Lucius for a moment there. Takes the blame for Dent despite Gordon's objections. Then of course in TDKR he suits up again despite Alfred's pleas and it leaves him utterly isolated. It's a gross generalization to say he was nothing but a mouthpiece for the supporting characters' ideals through all of the films.
He has a lot of various formative influences in BB keeping him reigned in, but he pretty much comes into his own in TDK. That's what classical hero's journey stories are all about, especially ones about orphans. There are many mentors and guides along the way.
I love Keaton's Bruce Wayne/Batman and I love the Burton movies. The difference there is that Bruce is pretty much a fully formed character from the start. I don't think he really learns a thing in 2 films or has much of an arc to speak of. That's totally fine, but the character can be approached differently and more human too, and Nolan's movies proved it.