Constantly retiring or occasionally murdering?

[Max Eckhardt]

Batman is my favorite comic book character. But I didn't discover the character though the comics, my first exposure came via reruns of the 1966 television show.
Unlike most children I somehow perceived that the program was inherently silly but loved it nonetheless. I was able to filter out the camp, ignore it, and take what I wanted from it instead. Of course, once I saw Tim Burton's Batman movie and the 90's animated series I discarded the old show entirely.

Anyway, why I'm I talking about my childhood memories? Oh yeah, I wanted to establish the fact that although I'm a fan of the Batman I'm not a slave to the comics.

I don't read the comics, I don't like where they are at the moment. I do however pick up various graphic novels from time-to-time. Strange Apparitions, The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, Year One, DKR, Hush, No Man's Land, etc...
I like the character of Batman that doesn't kill. I understand why he doesn't kill and I'm all for it. It makes the character and the stories he features in better.

And yet...

For some reason, it doesn't overly bother me that Batman occasionally kills in the movies. Perhaps because when I first saw those older films I didn't yet understand Bruce Wayne's no-kill policy. Zach Snyder's Batman doesn't receive a pass from em however, it infuriates me that kills so many people so needlessly in BvS, (a movie that I despise by the way)

The thing that annoys me must about the Christopher Nolan Batman films is the amount of screen time dedicated to Bruce Wayne's retirement plans.

To me, (And I'm not basing this of any particular comic here, this is just the character as I see him) Bruce Wayne is Batman. Bruce Wayne is a mask, a character that he puts on in public. This is the character presented to us in the Burton films. A man who is uncomfortable in his own skin, who wears the Bruce Wayne mask only when absolutely necessary. When Vicky Vale asks him why he doesn't retire and let the police deal with the scum in Gotham City he tells her that he doesn't feel he has any choice in the issue. He is a man truly possessed.

The Batman presented to us in the Nolan trilogy started talking about his retirement at the end of Batman Begins. He tells Rachel that they can be together and live happily ever after. SHE has to tell HIM that Bruce Wayne is the mask and Batman is the true individual he has become. Huh? Weird don't you think? Shouldn't it be the other way around as it was in Tim Burton's Batman?

Now let's skip forward a few years to TDK. After barely a matter of a few months (or years, depending on who you talk to) Bruce Wayne is actively planning his retirement from crime fighting. And as we learn in TDKR he actually goes through with that retirement following the events of TDK. The in TDKR he comes out of retirement for a few months only to retire again, leave his family home to the state and one damaged Batsuit and the Batpod to an untrained policeman.

What is John supposed to do exactly when Gordon lights the Batsignal; drive to the outskirts of the city, park in the woods, swing across the waterfall, suit up, and then ride back to the city on the Batpod only to get killed by the first super villain he encounters because he doesn't have any league of shadow training? Ok, perhaps he staches the Batpod in his garage and nobody notices. Perhaps the suit lasts him a few months because it is too battle damaged, then what?

Now let's look at the sins of the Burton Batman. He kills people. How many? A chemical factory full of them. Or did they get out with only wounds? Did we see any onscreen men blown up? He fired into a crowd of goons with the Batwing. With rubber bullets DKR style? We know the book was a major influence on the movie... He killed the Joker. Or did the Joker kill himself? Did Batman now that the Joker would have refused to let go of the ladder and that it would come away from the roof before the Joker relinquished his hold?
Batman Returns: He set a clown on fire! Did he die or merely suffer third degree burns after diving into the snow? He strapped a bomb to a clown's chest! but did he die off screen? How powerful was the bomb? Did the clown dislodge it after being thrown over the wall?
In comics, doesn't it always go "If you don't see a corpse, he ain't really dead?" And as we all know, sometimes, even a corpse isn't enough...

 

[Rorschach2012]

Killing is definitely worse.

It's more forgivable in the Burton movies. But they spent 3 movies establishing why Batman doesn't kill, and then BvS comes around and he kills so carelessly, it felt very jarring.

You're establishing the first cinematic Batman that exists within the greater DCEU, and you make him a murderer? It literally lessens the potential of one of his greatest stories (Under the Red Hood) and it opens plot holes (why hasn't Batman killed Joker?).

 

[The Batman]

Can anyone post examples from comics, cartoon, etc. where Batman expresses the idea that he'll never, ever quit being Batman?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Well, if we are talking about accuracy, murdering Batman is definitely less accurate. Other than a few months in 1939 and the Burton Batman films, Batman has had a strict no kill policy. Period.

Meanwhile, not quitting/retiring is not something that has been such a big part of the character. He has talked about retiring or has outright done so. He quit in TDKR. He quit in Batman Beyond. He was going to quit in Mask of the Phantasm. The idea that Bruce Wayne is a possessed man with a pathological need to be Batman is a myth outside of the Burton films.

Beyond that, it isn't even accuracy that is where BvS fails versus TDKT. In TDKT we understand Bruce and why he wants to quit. This is not true about murdering Batman in BvS. We have a vague line about how he didn't use to be this way and that's about it. We are never told in the film itself why Batman is acting like he is. And supposedly he grows beyond it at the end of the film, but that change is so stupid and unbelievable that it fails utterly. The actual killing isn't presented as a bad thing that Batman shouldn't be doing either, but as more "Wow! Isn't that cool, bro! Look at Batman blow those guys away, bro! He's badass, bro!" Even ignoring the comics, it is a complete failure at presenting an interesting character. Look at The Punisher in same month's Daredevil Season 2. That's how to do a character who's a killer vigilante. Not the joke that was Batman in BvS.

 

[metaphysician]

What's with the "allegedly"? In at least one of the relevant portrayals, there is nothing even slightly "alleged" about it.

 

[titansupes]

*sigh* Okay, let's do this one more time.

The thing that annoys me must about the Christopher Nolan Batman films is the amount of screen time dedicated to Bruce Wayne's retirement plans.

To me, (And I'm not basing this of any particular comic here, this is just the character as I see him) Bruce Wayne is Batman. Bruce Wayne is a mask, a character that he puts on in public. This is the character presented to us in the Burton films. A man who is uncomfortable in his own skin, who wears the Bruce Wayne mask only when absolutely necessary. When Vicky Vale asks him why he doesn't retire and let the police deal with the scum in Gotham City he tells her that he doesn't feel he has any choice in the issue. He is a man truly possessed.
The Batman presented to us in the Nolan trilogy started talking about his retirement at the end of Batman Begins. He tells Rachel that they can be together and live happily ever after. SHE has to tell HIM that Bruce Wayne is the mask and Batman is the true individual he has become. Huh? Weird don't you think? Shouldn't it be the other way around as it was in Tim Burton's Batman?

For Bruce, Batman is not only a means to and end (stop the mob, protect Gotham/his parents legacy, empower the police to such a point that they can handle things from there), but he's also an emotional release for all the fear/ guilt and rage he feels. Bruce is addicted to being Batman, it's just that he-- like many addicts-- doesn't realise it. Even when Rachel and Alfred warn him ("This is your mask...", "You're being consumed by this monster of yours" etc.) he has an "I can stop any time" attitude.

But that all comes to a head in TDKR--

Now let's skip forward a few years to TDK. After barely a matter of a few months (or years, depending on who you talk to) Bruce Wayne is actively planning his retirement from crime fighting. And as we learn in TDKR he actually goes through with that retirement following the events of TDK. The in TDKR he comes out of retirement for a few months only to retire again, leave his family home to the state and one damaged Batsuit and the Batpod to an untrained policeman.

-- in which he's retired, because thanks to he/Gordon and Dent's legacy-- they've won the war. The mob is all but destroyed, the police force cleaned up and Gotham can run as a more-or-less normal city. But he's struggling with life, because he hasn't cured his inner demons.

He doesn't get the emotional release he used to as Batman, and he refuses to live a full life as Bruce Wayne because he still feels the pain of his parents death, as well as Rachel's and even his failure with the energy project (the thing he tried to put his altruistic tendencies into post-Batman). He's refusing to let himself be happy, and on some level, waiting for things to go bad again so he can run down to the cave and put on his cape.

It's only when he climbs the pit and accepts that he has value beyond the cape and cowl that he's truly cured of the need to be Batman.

What is John supposed to do exactly when Gordon lights the Batsignal; drive to the outskirts of the city, park in the woods, swing across the waterfall, suit up, and then ride back to the city on the Batpod only to get killed by the first super villain he encounters because he doesn't have any league of shadow training? Ok, perhaps he staches the Batpod in his garage and nobody notices. Perhaps the suit lasts him a few months because it is too battle damaged, then what?

That's not at all a logical scenario. Why do people seem to have it in their heads that Blake would run around in a Batsuit that very night? If we had to extrapolate on the ending of the movie properly, as if we were developing a sequel, it'd be the easiest thing to do logically.

Since Gotham is in good hands after the war in TDKR, Blake (who already has more experience than Bruce did at his age, given he's a cop) has access to all of Batman's equipment, and all the archives in the Batcomputer. Maybe he goes off and travels the world for a few years, retracing Bruce's steps and learning various martial arts etc.

When something big and bad goes down in Gotham, he's forced to return earlier than he's like (feeling like he's not ready would be a good source of drama). Since he's not a cop anymore (remember him throwing his badge away on the bridge?), and he's not a billionaire, he needs a job and a place to live. Luckily, someone he grew up with and is still close to currently occupies Wayne Manor! Father Reilly is running his orphanage, and hires John to work with the kids and/or maintain the grounds/whatever the hell. It gives Blake perfect access to his Batcave, his very own version of Alfred in Reilly, and a bunch of emotionally wounded kids to mentor (maybe one could even grow into a successor one day-- Wayne Manor: School for Mini-Batmen).

As for ongoing maintenance on the equipment, the files on the Batcomputer lead him to Lucius Fox. Lucius could be retired by now (and he'd be very wealthy given his career), or he could be CEO or majority share holder in Wayne Enterprises. Either way-- he has the means and the desire to help Blake be Batman II (he was always enthusiastic about Bruce's doing it, after all).

Aaaaand we're all set.

 

[zlucamanz]

i will accept batman's killing when he's willing to kill his iconic villian not just the nameless henchmen with far more harmless than those who often escaped from prison and cuase more damage than what the nameless henchmen do.

DCAU still be the best batman up to date

 

[Lantern Venom]

I didn't vote because I don't consider either to be a particular problem. In the comics, there are plot devices like the Lazarus Pit or characters like Shondra Kinsolving (not to mention continuity reboots) to account for normal human characters staying healthy and vital. However, in the context of a realistic story like the Nolan trilogy, Bruce Wayne's body would only be able to sustain being Batman for a limited period of time. It makes complete sense that he would retire or pass his mantle if he arrived at the conclusion that he couldn't do anything above and beyond the GPD.

Likewise, Batman's no-kill policy from the comics is often misunderstood. There are plenty of instances from the comics where Batman is responsible for the death(s) of random thugs who put him in kill-or-be killed scenarios. He simply can't assure the safety of people attacking him, particularly if he's greatly outnumbered. The real representation of his policy is a situation like his interactions with Deadshot and Harley Quinn in Suicide Squad. The plot made it clear that he was tracking Deadshot and could have killed him before Deadshot was aware of him, but Batman took Deadshot into custody, even at some personal risk. He also attempted CPR on Harley when he could have let her die. If Batman has any other recourse, he doesn't take life. The movies have been pretty consistent in their respective handling of that modus operandi.

The one instance where we see a clear departure is Batfleck's attempted execution of Superman. That was clearly out of character, but BvS was set up in such a way where Batman had been traumatized in such a way that he was unable to think clearly.

 

[Greens]

I was watching Batman 89 and it dawned on me... people always discuss whether Batman killed Joker by attaching his leg to that gargoyle, but a few minutes earlier Batman pushes Joker off the building. He easily could have apprehended him but he chose to let him fall to his death. It's so nonchalant that it doesn't read like a kill, lol.

 

[Batmannerism]

Well, if we are talking about accuracy, murdering Batman is definitely less accurate. Other than a few months in 1939 and the Burton Batman films, Batman has had a strict no kill policy. Period.

Meanwhile, not quitting/retiring is not something that has been such a big part of the character. He has talked about retiring or has outright done so. He quit in TDKR. He quit in Batman Beyond. He was going to quit in Mask of the Phantasm. The idea that Bruce Wayne is a possessed man with a pathological need to be Batman is a myth outside of the Burton films.

Beyond that, it isn't even accuracy that is where BvS fails versus TDKT. In TDKT we understand Bruce and why he wants to quit. This is not true about murdering Batman in BvS. We have a vague line about how he didn't use to be this way and that's about it. We are never told in the film itself why Batman is acting like he is. And supposedly he grows beyond it at the end of the film, but that change is so stupid and unbelievable that it fails utterly. The actual killing isn't presented as a bad thing that Batman shouldn't be doing either, but as more "Wow! Isn't that cool, bro! Look at Batman blow those guys away, bro! He's badass, bro!" Even ignoring the comics, it is a complete failure at presenting an interesting character. Look at The Punisher in same month's Daredevil Season 2. That's how to do a character who's a killer vigilante. Not the joke that was Batman in BvS.

Got to agree with all of that !

 

[FunkMiller]

Likewise, Batman's no-kill policy from the comics is often misunderstood. There are plenty of instances from the comics where Batman is responsible for the death(s) of random thugs who put him in kill-or-be killed scenarios.

Not really, no. In 78 years of comics and other media, there are a handful of cases where Batman is portrayed as willingly being either complicit in, or directly responsible for, the murder of another human being.

This 'but...but Batman kills in the comics!' argument is exclusively trotted out by Snyder fans trying to defend his awful, murdery version of Batman in BvS.

Yes, there are a few examples of Batman killing over the many years he's existed. There are an equal number of cases where Batman has been dressed in a brightly coloured Batsuit. If Zack had trotted out Affleck in an orange Bat suit, you could,conceivably make exactly the same argument for why it's fine.

The no-kill code is extremely well established across decades of material. It's as intrinsic to Batman as the cave and Alfred.

 

[Max Eckhardt]

Well, if we are talking about accuracy, murdering Batman is definitely less accurate. Other than a few months in 1939 and the Burton Batman films, Batman has had a strict no kill policy. Period.

Meanwhile, not quitting/retiring is not something that has been such a big part of the character. He has talked about retiring or has outright done so. He quit in TDKR. He quit in Batman Beyond. He was going to quit in Mask of the Phantasm. The idea that Bruce Wayne is a possessed man with a pathological need to be Batman is a myth outside of the Burton films.

I can remember an early episode of the 90's animated series where Bruce refuses to take Christmas Eve off as Batman. Robin says something like it's only one night, what difference will one night in the year make? To which Batman responds; One night always makes a difference.
This goes some way to building the idea in my mind at least that Batman is a man obsessed, driven by his demons, and not at all in control of his own destiny, at least in his own mind.
I suppose the 80/90's comics, cartoons, and films have colored my interpretation of what the dark knight is to me.

 

[Max Eckhardt]

*sigh* Okay, let's do this one more time.



For Bruce, Batman is not only a means to and end (stop the mob, protect Gotham/his parents legacy, empower the police to such a point that they can handle things from there), but he's also an emotional release for all the fear/ guilt and rage he feels. Bruce is addicted to being Batman, it's just that he-- like many addicts-- doesn't realise it. Even when Rachel and Alfred warn him ("This is your mask...", "You're being consumed by this monster of yours" etc.) he has an "I can stop any time" attitude.

But that all comes to a head in TDKR--



-- in which he's retired, because thanks to he/Gordon and Dent's legacy-- they've won the war. The mob is all but destroyed, the police force cleaned up and Gotham can run as a more-or-less normal city. But he's struggling with life, because he hasn't cured his inner demons.

He doesn't get the emotional release he used to as Batman, and he refuses to live a full life as Bruce Wayne because he still feels the pain of his parents death, as well as Rachel's and even his failure with the energy project (the thing he tried to put his altruistic tendencies into post-Batman). He's refusing to let himself be happy, and on some level, waiting for things to go bad again so he can run down to the cave and put on his cape.

It's only when he climbs the pit and accepts that he has value beyond the cape and cowl that he's truly cured of the need to be Batman.



That's not at all a logical scenario. Why do people seem to have it in their heads that Blake would run around in a Batsuit that very night? If we had to extrapolate on the ending of the movie properly, as if we were developing a sequel, it'd be the easiest thing to do logically.

Since Gotham is in good hands after the war in TDKR, Blake (who already has more experience than Bruce did at his age, given he's a cop) has access to all of Batman's equipment, and all the archives in the Batcomputer. Maybe he goes off and travels the world for a few years, retracing Bruce's steps and learning various martial arts etc.

When something big and bad goes down in Gotham, he's forced to return earlier than he's like (feeling like he's not ready would be a good source of drama). Since he's not a cop anymore (remember him throwing his badge away on the bridge?), and he's not a billionaire, he needs a job and a place to live. Luckily, someone he grew up with and is still close to currently occupies Wayne Manor! Father Reilly is running his orphanage, and hires John to work with the kids and/or maintain the grounds/whatever the hell. It gives Blake perfect access to his Batcave, his very own version of Alfred in Reilly, and a bunch of emotionally wounded kids to mentor (maybe one could even grow into a successor one day-- Wayne Manor: School for Mini-Batmen).

As for ongoing maintenance on the equipment, the files on the Batcomputer lead him to Lucius Fox. Lucius could be retired by now (and he'd be very wealthy given his career), or he could be CEO or majority share holder in Wayne Enterprises. Either way-- he has the means and the desire to help Blake be Batman II (he was always enthusiastic about Bruce's doing it, after all).

Aaaaand we're all set.

Hello titansupes, nice to me you,

I apologize but I don't know how to respond to individual quotes as you have done to me, I'll just leave paragraph breaks between individual points if that's ok?

Point one: I guess that is another of my problems with the Nolan trilogy's depiction of Batman. He doesn't seem to be in it for the long haul. His aim is to stop the mob and organized crime and then retire. This seems rather naive. Crime infests the city at every level, yet he only seems concerned with organized crime. He somehow believes that if he removes Falcone no one else will rise up in his place. Furthermore, Batman doesn't seem concerned with smaller level crime; rapists, murders for example.
The Bruce Wayne I know and love became Batman to prevent another kid having to witness his or her parents gunned down in front of them in another senseless crime. Batman also represents control over death for Bruce, a mastery over chaos. Just not so much in the Nolan trilogy...

Oh please don't bring up the silly pit nonsense! It's almost as bad at the rocket laden Penguins in Batman Returns...

John blake is a killer. He doesn't deserve the cape and cowl. Blake could conceivably travel the world for several years but he wouldn't encounter the League of Shadows would he? He simply wouldn't be able to gain the necessary experience to become the Batman.
And here is another issue I have with the Nolan films, in Nolan's eyes anyone can become Batman, all they need is the training and a lot of money (which John Blake doesn't have BTW)
This has never sat right with me. I like to believe that only Bruce Wayne could be the Batman. I know we have seen otherwise in various comics and cartoon shows, but I don't like it. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, John is ill equipped to take up the mantle. As for Fox helping John - I don't see it. I don't see they guy siphoning off funds from Wayne Enterprises to help an unprepared beat cop fight criminals.
TDK showed us how the embezzlement of corporate assets fails to go unnoticed by company personnel...

 

[The Joker]

I can remember an early episode of the 90's animated series where Bruce refuses to take Christmas Eve off as Batman. Robin says something like it's only one night, what difference will one night in the year make? To which Batman responds; One night always makes a difference.

You're talking about an episode where the Joker escaped from Arkham on Christmas. What version of Batman ever took the night off when a mega threat like the Joker was on the loose?

Point one: I guess that is another of my problems with the Nolan trilogy's depiction of Batman. He doesn't seem to be in it for the long haul. His aim is to stop the mob and organized crime and then retire. This seems rather naive. Crime infests the city at every level, yet he only seems concerned with organized crime. He somehow believes that if he removes Falcone no one else will rise up in his place. Furthermore, Batman doesn't seem concerned with smaller level crime; rapists, murders for example.
The Bruce Wayne I know and love became Batman to prevent another kid having to witness his or her parents gunned down in front of them in another senseless crime. Batman also represents control over death for Bruce, a mastery over chaos. Just not so much in the Nolan trilogy...

Batman is working toward the day where he can hang up his cape and stay home once Gotham is safe from the ravages of crime. In TDKR crime levels had dropped so low the Mayor was going to retire Gordon early. Even Alfred says Bruce is sitting around waiting and hoping for things to go bad again just so he can be Batman.

Oh please don't bring up the silly pit nonsense! It's almost as bad at the rocket laden Penguins in Batman Returns...

Explain this please. What was so silly about the lesson Bruce learned in the pit?

John blake is a killer. He doesn't deserve the cape and cowl.

He's a Police Officer. Calling him a killer is like calling Jim Gordon a killer, and he doesn't deserve Batman's trust or friendship.

Blake could conceivably travel the world for several years but he wouldn't encounter the League of Shadows would he? He simply wouldn't be able to gain the necessary experience to become the Batman.

Robin, Batgirl and all the others Bruce let don a cape and cowl and protect his city, including in his absence, didn't have the extensive experience and level of training Bruce had.

Blake doesn't need to be trained by the LOS to be as efficient as Batman as a fighter.

And here is another issue I have with the Nolan films, in Nolan's eyes anyone can become Batman, all they need is the training and a lot of money (which John Blake doesn't have BTW)

That's completely false. Never once do the movies imply all you need is money and training to be Batman. Not once. If anything the fact Bruce left it all to Blake proves that. Bruce chose Blake because they came from the same kind of tragedy (just like how he chose Dick Grayson to join his crime fighting crusade). He has the same morals and ideals as Bruce. He proved his trustworthiness by never revealing Bruce's secret.

The point is, John is ill equipped to take up the mantle.

Says who? He was left all of Bruce's Batman stuff.

As for Fox helping John - I don't see it. I don't see they guy siphoning off funds from Wayne Enterprises to help an unprepared beat cop fight criminals.

I do. He helped equip Bruce with all his bizarre requests when he barely knew him 5 minutes in Begins. If Bruce left Blake all his Batman stuff, then Fox would know this guy has Bruce's highest trust. So why wouldn't he help him?

TDK showed us how the embezzlement of corporate assets fails to go unnoticed by company personnel...

One guy found out, and Lucius handled it brilliantly. In fact to show how unphased he was by it, the very next scene shows Bruce and Lucius using Wayne tech on the shattered bullet to track down Joker. And he continued right through to the end. Including in TDKR when Lucius actually coaxes Bruce to come and look at the tech stuff in the W.E. basement.

So why would you think Reese's discovery put Lucius off helping Batman?

 

[titansupes]

Hello titansupes, nice to me you,

I apologize but I don't know how to respond to individual quotes as you have done to me, I'll just leave paragraph breaks between individual points if that's ok?

In the advanced post bit, just highlight the part you want and hit the quote button to wrap tags around it.

Point one: I guess that is another of my problems with the Nolan trilogy's depiction of Batman. He doesn't seem to be in it for the long haul. His aim is to stop the mob and organized crime and then retire. This seems rather naive. Crime infests the city at every level, yet he only seems concerned with organized crime. He somehow believes that if he removes Falcone no one else will rise up in his place. Furthermore, Batman doesn't seem concerned with smaller level crime; rapists, murders for example.
The Bruce Wayne I know and love became Batman to prevent another kid having to witness his or her parents gunned down in front of them in another senseless crime. Batman also represents control over death for Bruce, a mastery over chaos. Just not so much in the Nolan trilogy...

He did all that. He just did it in a smart way-- he went for the root of the problem.

Obviously, Gotham's crime is worse than other major cities. It's effectively still in Depression, or teetering somewhere around that level (The Waynes helped pull it out as much as they could and their deaths "galvanized the city into saving itself and Gotham has limped on ever since"). Most, if not all of that, can be traced back to the mob. Ra's, Rachel and even Falcone himself confirm all that. The mob keeping Gotham's citizens in that state is what drove Joe Chill to do what he did ("... creating new Joe Chills' everyday" as Rachel says).

So they eventually-- over BB, TDK and much of the eight year interval between TDK and TDKR-- manage to destroy the mob (and in doing so, save the police force from widespread corruption so that they can actually do their jobs and stop Gotham from being taken over like that again).

Oh please don't bring up the silly pit nonsense! It's almost as bad at the rocket laden Penguins in Batman Returns...

Not... even close.

John blake is a killer. He doesn't deserve the cape and cowl. Blake could conceivably travel the world for several years but he wouldn't encounter the League of Shadows would he? He simply wouldn't be able to gain the necessary experience to become the Batman.

I don't know what the killer thing has to do with anything? He shot one terrorist who was in the middle of performing a terrorist act (and trying to kill Blake) and was so disgusted with himself he threw his gun down. And he did this while he was a cop. That's a-okay.

And here is another issue I have with the Nolan films, in Nolan's eyes anyone can become Batman, all they need is the training and a lot of money (which John Blake doesn't have BTW). This has never sat right with me. I like to believe that only Bruce Wayne could be the Batman. I know we have seen otherwise in various comics and cartoon shows, but I don't like it. But that's neither here nor there. The point is, John is ill equipped to take up the mantle. As for Fox helping John - I don't see it. I don't see they guy siphoning off funds from Wayne Enterprises to help an unprepared beat cop fight criminals.
TDK showed us how the embezzlement of corporate assets fails to go unnoticed by company personnel...

I just explained all this? It would be the easiest thing in the world to write.

He goes and gets training. No, it wouldn't be the exact same training that Bruce had-- it'd lead him to becoming a slightly different Batman. And that's great. You wouldn't want to make a movie about a new guy taking up the cowl and make him the same. He wouldn't be ill-equipped, because part of his story arc would be about his equipping himself. That's not a problem, that's drama.

Also, I don't see a scenario in which Fox wouldn't help or fund Blake. He's extremely wealthy himself, and he's very enthusiastic about Batman. PLUS! He briefly met and worked with Blake in TDKR, so he knows his heart's in the right place. I'm sure he'd do it with a wink and a smile.

As for siphoning money-- Make Fox the new majority shareholder (also, he didn't have a problem with Bruce having "R&D burning through cash, something about phones for the military?" OR you can have him fund it himself. Plus, they've already got a lot of stuff left in the Applied Sciences division under Wayne Tower.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I can remember an early episode of the 90's animated series where Bruce refuses to take Christmas Eve off as Batman. Robin says something like it's only one night, what difference will one night in the year make? To which Batman responds; One night always makes a difference.
This goes some way to building the idea in my mind at least that Batman is a man obsessed, driven by his demons, and not at all in control of his own destiny, at least in his own mind.
I suppose the 80/90's comics, cartoons, and films have colored my interpretation of what the dark knight is to me.

Since you are familiar with the Animated Series, remember in that continuity when he was going to quit so he could be with Andrea Beaumont?

 

[The Batman]

Had Andrea not dumped him, Timmverse Batman wouldn't even be Batman.

Fanboys are so dogmatic about this, to my knowledge, near-imaginary "Batman never quits" thing, yet some of the most popular versions of Batman have quit or come close to quitting.

Again, can anyone show me any comic/cartoon/movie examples where Batman declares that he'll never stop being Batman?

Also, people forget that its easy to keep being Batman when you're eternally stuck in your early 30's.

 

[Awest66]

No contest.

Batman murdering people is by far a bigger offense to his character than him desiring a life beyond the cave.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Not really, no. In 78 years of comics and other media, there are a handful of cases where Batman is portrayed as willingly being either complicit in, or directly responsible for, the murder of another human being.

This 'but...but Batman kills in the comics!' argument is exclusively trotted out by Snyder fans trying to defend his awful, murdery version of Batman in BvS.

There have been people critical of every cinematic Batman's battle tactics, but I've never felt that those various incarnations have been unfaithful to Batman's no-kill stance in the comics, including BvS. As I stated in the previous post, his MO is often misunderstood when it comes to lethal force. He doesn't execute villains if he has another option, but his enemies can and do die in the chaos of battle.

Also, I'd contend that his instances of lethal force are more than a handful in the comics. He seemed to have no moral issues with taking out his opponents in 1939-1940. Without editorial mandates, I dare say that his original concept would have resulted in decades of bodies had it continued.

 

[Bayne]

I don't have a problem with the idea of Batman retiring. I just think the recent movies brought it up way too often. It felt like Batman was only in it for a few little adventures and that's it. Working towards his own obsolesence is great, but it really should be more of a long haul situation.

 

[OutOfBoose]

Neither is a problem for me. Context is important. When Batman kills without extreme necessity - it's unacceptable for various reasons. When a desperate situation forces Batman's hand - sure. I honestly don't know how to feel about Batman going for aliens, creatures or whatever. I want Batman to stay on the Earth, in Gotham and fight crime. Not travel the Galaxy or fighting interdimensional horrors.

On retirement: it was never an issue for me as long as story justifies it. In example, low crime, old age or when all his enemies are defeated/locked and stay that way for extended period. I just don't understand, nor accept people complaining about Bruce retiring in TDKR. It makes sense in the context of the story and that's about it.

 

[BatLobster]

Point one: I guess that is another of my problems with the Nolan trilogy's depiction of Batman. He doesn't seem to be in it for the long haul. His aim is to stop the mob and organized crime and then retire. This seems rather naive. Crime infests the city at every level, yet he only seems concerned with organized crime. He somehow believes that if he removes Falcone no one else will rise up in his place. Furthermore, Batman doesn't seem concerned with smaller level crime; rapists, murders for example.
The Bruce Wayne I know and love became Batman to prevent another kid having to witness his or her parents gunned down in front of them in another senseless crime. Batman also represents control over death for Bruce, a mastery over chaos. Just not so much in the Nolan trilogy...

Actually, I think it's more naive the other way around. One man could never stop ALL smaller crimes. On any given night Batman is on patrol, multiple rapes or murders could be happening on different ends of town. Then there's domestic crimes, prostitution, drugs, etc.= all sorts of stuff that Batman can never truly stop in a city as huge and economically diverse as Gotham.

In the Nolan films, Gotham is depicted as a city rotting from within with corruption. The police, judges, etc. are all on the mob's payroll. By focusing on the root of the problem, Bruce is trying to give Gotham a chance to stand up to corruption and save itself, in the process becoming a symbol for criminals to fear and the good people to rally behind. It is a more practical goal for Bruce to strive for, which makes sense when you're trying to frame a finite story arc for the character. Comics don't have to do that, because there's always another issue.

You do get a small taste of Batman's impact on lower level crime in the beginning of TDK. That drug dealer who calls it off because seeing the Bat-signal spooks him. And we also see Batman break up Scarecrow's drug deal. I think seeing those two scenes back to back kind of shows the bigger picture of this Batman's MO- go after the bigger fish. Of course, this also backfires on him in TDK when he stays focused on the mob and underestimates The Joker at first.

Justice vs. revenge/common vigilantism was a big theme set up in Begins.

 

[Max Eckhardt]

You're talking about an episode where the Joker escaped from Arkham on Christmas. What version of Batman ever took the night off when a mega threat like the Joker was on the loose?

The exact scene i'm referring to is when there was no overt threat to the citizens of Gotham. It was a peaceful night. That is what made Dick so exasperated with Batman's decision to remain on patrol.

 

[Max Eckhardt]

You know, guys and girls, Tim Burton's Batman is my favorite comic book movie. It was the film that introduced me to the character and the one on which much of what Batman personally means to me has come from.
I can't respond to all of your comments individually; unfortunately I don't have the time, but I humbly concede the point many of you are making. You're all right to say that it isn't explicitly stated in Batman media (at least none that I can think of at this moment in time other than that episode of the animated series) outside of the Burton movies that Batman views his war on crime as unending.
It is something that I personally consider to be the care. But that's alright though, isn't it? We each build our own Batman. Mine would never retire and he would never appear in daylight. Mine would keep his face in shadow even when talking to commissioner Gordon on a rooftop at night.
My Bruce Wayne doesn't appear in public and is somewhat of a recluse. I just prefer that version of the dark knight rather than the one that is regularly seen in public with a few loose women in tow.
My Batman never kills.
My Batman is a vigilante and not a superhero.
It's very cool when you think about it, how much Batman has changed over the years and how he can mean so many different things to so many different people. I don't think this is quite the case with other comic book heroes.

 

[The Joker]

The exact scene i'm referring to is when there was no overt threat to the citizens of Gotham. It was a peaceful night. That is what made Dick so exasperated with Batman's decision to remain on patrol.

The Joker was on the loose. That is a threat to the Gotham citizens. That's why Batman chose to go out on said peaceful Christmas eve night because he was expecting trouble. And he was right. Robin had the naive belief that "even scum spend the holidays with their families". That's why he kept urging Batman to stay at home and relax.