The Dark Knight I've just realized what maybe a fatal flaw...

[Ace of Knaves]

Batman considered giving up his crusade to protect Gotham... over a ****ing girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is NOT Batman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Harleen Quinzel]

This has really pissed you off, hasn't it? xD

I see where you are coming from though. He is ready to let Harvey Dent do it all, while he just swans off with his girly?

Not very Batmanish, I agree.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yea it has! I do still think TDK is great. But seriously, how could these guys overlook this in the script writing phase? This is sooooo totally un-Batman like it's comparable to him killing people.

 

[Harleen Quinzel]

Yea it has! I do still think TDK is great. But seriously, how could these guys overlook this in the script writing phase? This is sooooo totally un-Batman like it's comparable to him killing people.

Yeah, its more normal that he would kill people than give up saving Gotham. I suppose the ony possible reason you can give is that he has really only just started out, but still. xD

I swear in some of the comics I have read, he doesn't have the freaky hangup of "I WON'T BREAK MY ONE RULE, I WON'T BREAK MY ONE RULE HUR HUR!"

 

[Bats]

Wow, 2 posts & a thread! Take a deep breath! t:

I said this in the other thread:

"Well yes & no. He was "handing over the torch" to Dent if you think about it. Bruce became Batman to clean up the city heavily controlled by the mob. That was his mission statement & purpose. Dent locked up all of them "without wearing a mask", so Bruce thought his job was done.

His main(?) motivation was for Rachel, but he wasn't leaving a job undone."

Also, he's not like the Batman in the comics fighting street thugs either. His targets focused on corrupt cops & the mob. I really can't remember in either film him taking down someone like a purse snatcher.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Batman shouldn't hand over the torch to any body.

He swore on his parents graves to protect and clean up Gotham for as long as he humanly can. Well that too was missing from the movies so...

 

[batpawn]

Batman considered giving up his crusade to protect Gotham... over a ****ing girl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is NOT Batman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

erm, yes, that IS batman. in his 70 year career in batman comicbooks, it were always women who made him question the morality of his actions andrationality of his behaviour, making him see that there - in fact - IS a light at the end of the dark. Only to see his one true love getting torn away from him, which makes his existance as the Batman even more important to him than ever before.

His disguise was always meant to be the outlet of his human emotions. The compensator of his hate, anger and frustration. But in the end of the day, he is still just a human being, with oh so human needs. And what's more human than just wanting to live a normal life? Wanting the pain (that is the loss of his dear parents) finally go away, and wanting to be - scarily enough - happy? Knowing that there is more to life than just darkness. Like it, or not. But Batman IS a very romantic character in many aspects. Remember Silver St. Cloud? Remember Vesper Fairchild, or - even - Betty Kane (which was the prime example for him why love and his job doesn't really work together that well [which doesn't make those comicbooks less cheesy... GOOD GOD!]).

Or my favorite example: Batman - Mask Of The Phantasm. My favorite scene in the whole movie: Bruce, after he finally found love and peace in Andrea, was standing in the rain infront of his parent's grave. Crying in guilt, telling them that he is sorry, but he can't accomplish his mission anymore. It just doesn't hurt so bad anymore. He even feels guilty for finally being happy. I adore the lovestory in MOTP, it was so good and so well thought out, and the only lovestory in any Batman movie - so far - that felt believable. This should have definitely be the prime example of how to do a lovestory in a Batmanmovie right.

To put it in a nutshell: I thought the love triangle in dark knight was the most believable in any life action movie so far.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Yes I understand that. He does want a normal life, he wants to settle down with a loved one and start a family.

But he knows he can't. That is what Batman is about, he has sacrificed the possibility of a normal life to be Batman. That's why he is such a great hero. That's all there is to it.

And also, the REAL Bruce Wayne from the comics would not put all that pressure on Rachel.

 

[batpawn]

Yes I understand that. He does want a normal life, he wants to settle down with a loved one and start a family.

But he knows he can't. That is what Batman is about, he has sacrificed the possibility of a normal life to be Batman. That's why he is such a great hero. That's all there is to it.

And also, the REAL Bruce Wayne from the comics would not put all that pressure on Rachel.

you forget that dark knight is set in an early stage of his career. he didn't know that he 'can't be happy' back then since he never felt anything like that before. and since rachel was his 'first true love', her loss was also the reason for him to realize that he only can have one or the other, and that his existance as the Batman is much more needed. There is always a reason as to 'why he can't live a normal life', and for the nolan films, Rachel Dawes is the prime reason.

 

[The Joker]

What you talkin' about, Ace? Batman has considered giving it all up in the comics in order to lead a normal life "over a ****ing girl".

Heck, in second most popular Batman movie after TDK, Mask of the Phantasm, he was willing to break that infamous promise to his parents so he could settle down with Andrea Beaumont. And he considered it again when she came back into his life years later, and they slept together.

And he knew Rachel ALOT longer than Andrea.

 

[Travesty]

Silly thread, Ace. Batman considered giving it all up several times in the past in order to lead a normal life "over a ****ing girl".

Heck, in second most popular Batman movie after TDK, Mask of the Phantasm, he was willing to break that infamous promise to his parents so he could settle down with Andrea Beaumont. And he considered it again when she came back into his life years later, and they slept together.

Yes, but the reason why he remembered that he needs to keep going back to the streets to fight crime, was because he made a vow to his parents. That was never brought up in TDK, and hell, his parents weren't even brought up at all, either. I don't have a problem with him doubting what he's doing with his war on crime, but the story should come full circle, with Bruce realizing why he is fighting this endless war.

I don't think this is a silly thread at all, because it's a major disappointment for me, and it seems, others as well. He wanted to hang up his cape over a women, never once thinking about why he became Batman, and that should never be the case for Batman.

 

[The Joker]

Yes, but the reason why he remembered that he needs to keep going back to the streets to fight crime, was because he made a vow to his parents.

You mean in MOTP? No, the reason he went back to fighting crime was because Andrea left him. The reason he always went back was because the relationships failed.

I don't have a problem with him doubting what he's doing with his war on crime, but the story should come full circle, with Bruce realizing why he is fighting this endless war.

I don't think this is a silly thread at all, because it's a major disappointment for me, and it seems, others as well. He wanted to hang up his cape over a women, never once thinking about why he became Batman, and that should never be the case for Batman.

We KNOW why he is fighting crime. They spent the better part of Begins ramming that down our throats. Why do they have to go over that again? TDK dealt with the toll that was taking on him. Batman was looking for someone to eventually take up his mantle.

If Batman giving it all up because he wants to be with the woman he loves is majorly disappointing to you, then avoid MOTP at all costs

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Batman from the COMICS would never even consider "passing on the mantle". Especially over a ****ing woman...

I think when Bruce questions why he keeps doing it is great in the comics. The moments of introspection about why he doesn't just kill the Joker for example are truly great moments.

But over a girl? No, just... no. That is NOT Batman.

And also, Bruce wouldn't be selfish enough to completely disregard the fact that maybe, just maybe... Rachel wants to be with Harvey more than him. He didn't seem to give one toss about Rachel really.

Again... that is NOT Bruce Wayne/Batman.

Silly fan boys blinded by their love for TDK

 

[The Joker]

Batman from the COMICS would never even consider "passing on the mantle". Especially over a ****ing woman...

Batman has considered giving up the mantle, including for being with a girl. Vicki Vale and Silver St Cloud to name a couple.

As for never passing on the mantle at all, you're wrong again there, too. For example in Knightsend/Quest, after his back healed, he was going to leave Azrael with the mantle of Batman, until Tim told him Azrael had gone psycho with it.

And also, Bruce wouldn't be selfish enough to completely disregard the fact that maybe, just maybe... Rachel wants to be with Harvey more than him. He didn't seem to give one toss about Rachel really.

Where did he show that? He asked her if she meant what she said when she told him that they could be together when he stopped being Batman, and she said yes. Then they kissed, and she didn't resist the kiss. Where was he being selfish? Where was he mis-reading any signals from her out of selfishness.

Even to the audience, it came across that Rachel didn't really love Harvey. Especially when Harvey proposed at the party. It wasn't until her final moments that we learned her real feelings.

Silly fan boys blinded by their love for TDK

*Lick*

Your bitterness tastes so sweet

 

[Ace of Knaves]

No but Bruce has never considered coming out to the public as Batman. Another hole in logic. Yea he'll quit Batman to be with Rachel... by revealing himself to everyone...

I do read the comics, and he has never seriously considered giving up the mantle. In Knightfall he had a broken back, and was completely destroyed. He was gonna give it up because he believed he couldn't do it any more and wouldn't be effective. Thusly, not being effective at protecting his City. Selfless reason. Not a selfish one.

And sure Rachel might of led him on. But still, Bruce was relying on her so he could have a normal life. A statement Rachel posed to him which he didn't even answer.

Bruce just saw Harvey as his get out clause. Sure he knew Harvey was the "White Knight". But really, Harvey was Bruce's escape from Batman. Again, that is NOT something Bruce Wayne would do.

And I called you a fan boy because every time someone criticizes TDK you are one of the first to pop up going "Nope, you're silly" as you have in this thread, and as you have done when I and others have criticized the absolutely piss poor "fight scenes" if you can call em that. Or the rididculousness of a bank having a massive hole in it's wall in broad daylight in a busy street and no one batting an eye lid.

All valid criticisms you and others toss aside because it's your beloved TDK.

 

[Travesty]

You mean in MOTP? No, the reason he went back to fighting crime was because Andrea left him. The reason he always went back was because the relationships failed.

He wasn't even Batman when Andrea left him. He got the letter when he was down looking in the Bat-cave for the first time. He never even put on the cape. Sure, he made a promise, but everything in the movie was alluding to him inevitably becoming Batman, regardless, if he was married or not. When he was hugging Andrea after he proposed, you see a ton of bats, you also see him excavating the early Bat-caves, etc. Once Batman puts on the cape, he is basically married to it. Sure, he may have his doubts, but it's always harder for him to give up the Bat-persona after he's already dawned it upon the criminals.

I think comparing Bruce with his mediocre attempts at fighting crime in a ski-mask, is different then after he dawns the persona of Batman. Having doubts in Pre-Batman phase is easier to understand, then after he already is Batman.

We KNOW why he is fighting crime. They spent the better part of Begins ramming that down our throats. Why do they have to go over that again? TDK dealt with the toll that was taking on him. Batman was looking for someone to eventually take up his mantle.

Because in ever Bat-story that deals with Bruce having conflicting thoughts of quitting his war on crime, it always goes back to why he was there to begin with(ie. his parents).

If Batman giving it all up because he wants to be with the woman he loves is majorly disappointing to you, then avoid MOTP at all costs

No, I love that movie, because they balanced the themes, and made it clear as to why he is who he is. This wasn't apparent in TDK. I mean, the movie even starts off with Bruce trying his hardest to get rid of the cape. Then after she dies, he doesn't want to continue, and Alfred tells Bruce that she would like it if he continues, and it was all about her. I'm not saying to explore his parents death again, but Alfred could of said something like, "well, you're doing this, not just for her, but for your parents". Nothing was even brought up at all. Even in the MOTP, after Andrea gives him the note, you see the scene fade to a picture of his parents, and then you see Batman suiting up. Why? Because he made a vow to his parents, and it seems inevitable that he would become Batman regardless.

 

[The Joker]

No but Bruce has never considered coming out to the public as Batman. Another hole in logic. Yea he'll quit Batman to be with Rachel... by revealing himself to everyone...

Watch the movie again. He was giving himself up because the Joker was killing people in his name.

"People are dying, Alfred. What would you have me do?"

"Well today I found out what Batman can't endure. He can't endure this. Today you get to say I told you so"

I do read the comics, and he has never seriously considered giving up the mantle. In Knightfall he had a broken back, and was completely destroyed. He was gonna give it up because he believed he couldn't do it any more and wouldn't be effective. Thusly, not being effective at protecting his City. Selfless reason. Not a selfish one.

Wrong.

He never ever doubted that he couldn't do it again. He was going to give it up because he didn't want to do it anymore. The invasion of Bane into his home and life was a wake up call.

But you're side stepping now, and trying to dodge your original statement that he'd never give up being Batman

And sure Rachel might of led him on. But still, Bruce was relying on her so he could have a normal life. A statement Rachel posed to him which he didn't even answer.

So what? Again, you're side stepping what you originally said about him disregarding her feelings for Harvey, when that was not true. He asked her if she meant what she told him, and she said yes.

Stick to your one argument, mate

Bruce just saw Harvey as his get out clause. Sure he knew Harvey was the "White Knight". But really, Harvey was Bruce's escape from Batman. Again, that is NOT something Bruce Wayne would do.

Yes, he would, as was mentioned above. He believed in Harvey Dent, and trusted him to be the "hero with a face" that Gotham needs.

Batman would absolutely give it up for a normal life he he really believed he could. Why do you think MOTP doesn't come under fire from this kind of criticism of giving it up for Andrea?

Because he's done it in the comics, too.

And I called you a fan boy because every time someone criticizes TDK you are one of the first to pop up going "Nope, you're silly" as you have in this thread, and as you have done when I and others have criticized the absolutely piss poor "fight scenes" if you can call em that. Or the rididculousness of a bank having a massive hole in it's wall in broad daylight in a busy street and no one batting an eye lid.

All valid criticisms you and others toss aside because it's your beloved TDK.

No, I refute your criticisms because I genuinely disagree with them. I don't think TDK is flawless, and I never ever disputed the bank thing That was OTT, but in a comic book movie, I don't slay it too much. Mainly because it looked rather cool.

If you're going to criticize, then make it consistent, Ace.

 

[The Joker]

He wasn't even Batman when Andrea left him. He got the letter when he was down looking in the Bat-cave for the first time. He never even put on the cape. Sure, he made a promise, but everything in the movie was alluding to him inevitably becoming Batman, regardless, if he was married or not.

No, it wasn't. He went to his parents' grave and begged their forgiveness for breaking his promise to them, because he fully intended to go and live a normal life with Andrea. Hence why he proposed to her.

Andrea: "I never saw this coming, because I always felt like I'd thrown you a curve ball because I wasn't in the plan"
Bruce: "You are now. I'm changing the plan"

When he was hugging Andrea after he proposed, you see a ton of bats, you also see him excavating the early Bat-caves, etc. Once Batman puts on the cape, he is basically married to it. Sure, he may have his doubts, but it's always harder for him to give up the Bat-persona after he's already dawned it upon the criminals.

You're not getting it, mate. Of course they were showing preludes to him becoming Batman, because we all know he was going to become Batman.

But he had every intention of giving up his quest to fight crime just to be with Andrea. And he considered it again years later when she came back into his life. They both said they were going to try and make it work this time.

Bruce: "It's true. I still love her. Maybe when all this business is settled. Maybe then..." *He looks at his parents picture*
Alfred: "I'm sure they would have wanted you to be happy, sir"

I think comparing Bruce with his mediocre attempts at fighting crime in a ski-mask, is different then after he dawns the persona of Batman. Having doubts in Pre-Batman phase is easier to understand, then after he already is Batman.

See above. He was going to give it up again for her after the gangster murder case was solved.

Because in ever Bat-story that deals with Bruce having conflicting thoughts of quitting his war on crime, it always goes back to why he was there to begin with(ie. his parents).

And again, we already know why he's doing it.

No, I love that movie, because they balanced the themes, and made it clear as to why he is who he is. This wasn't apparent in TDK. I mean, the movie even starts off with Bruce trying his hardest to get rid of the cape.

Where was he trying to get rid of it from the start? He didn't consider it until Harvey proved himself after getting half of the city's criminals locked up.

Then after she dies, he doesn't want to continue, and Alfred tells Bruce that she would like it if he continues, and it was all about her.

Huh? Where was it all about her? He asked Alfred if he brought Rachel's death on her. And Alfred said no, that she believed in him. Then ALfred said that Gotham needs him, to which Bruce replied "No, Gotham needs it's true hero, and I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell". To which Alfred replied that's why they need him now.

Nothing to do with Rachel.

I'm not saying to explore his parents death again, but Alfred could of said something like, "well, you're doing this, not just for her, but for your parents". Nothing was even brought up at all.

Yes, that would have been nice. But again, Bruce shouldn't be thinking in terms of his parents, but in terms of himself as a hero. Which is why Alfred kept placing the emphasis on him, and how he was needed. Not because of a duty to his parents, but to himself and Gotham.

Even in the MOTP, after Andrea gives him the note, you see the scene fade to a picture of his parents, and then you see Batman suiting up. Why? Because he made a vow to his parents, and it seems inevitable that he would become Batman regardless.

No, because he was reverting back to the only thing he had left. His quest to fight crime. Which was the original complaint of this thread. That he'd never give that up for a woman.

And yet he did in the comics and MOTP. Simple as that.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

No Batman would never give up being Batman for a normal life. That is what Batman is all about, he sacrifices the chance to have a normal life. Why? Because he made a vow on his parents graves never to give up. Well, in the GOOD Batman stories he does. Knightfall does not fall under that category. I obviously don't remember it that well because I only read it once. And once is enough of that terrible story.

All the good portrayals of Batman. Miller's, Morrison's etc would never have Batman give up over a girl. They would never have him give up full stop.

 

[The Joker]

No Batman would never give up being Batman for a normal life. That is what Batman is all about, he sacrifices the chance to have a normal life. Why? Because he made a vow on his parents graves never to give up. Well, in the GOOD Batman stories he does. Knightfall does not fall under that category. I obviously don't remember it that well because I only read it once. And once is enough of that terrible story.

All the good portrayals of Batman. Miller's, Morrison's etc would never have Batman give up over a girl. They would never have him give up full stop.

Well that's down to your opinion, Acey. Your original statement that he'd never do it is false because he has done it. And it's a theme that's been explored many times. Whether you like that portrayl of Batman or not is your choice, of course. But it's not out of character for Batman as you claim. It's like the people who slay the Burton Batman movies for making Batman a killer. They may not like that interpretation, but it's still a valid one from the early years in the comics.

BTAS takes the best from the comics, and Batman giving up the mantle for emotional or personal reasons is always a great one. They explored it in the episode 'I am the Night', too, when Jim Gordon got shot. Batman blamed himself, and gave up being Batman.

 

[Travesty]

You're not getting it, mate. Of course they were showing preludes to him becoming Batman, because we all know he was going to become Batman.

And that's what this entire discussion is about. It's about how Bruce can hang up his cape(The Batman persona) over a women. Before he is Batman, he is just a regular guy, but after, he learns he is more then just a man, a hero to Gotham. And now the vow he took, can be taken seriously, because he can inspire hope and good in Gotham, but not when he's just a man. Of course he had doubts about what he was doing before he was Batman, even when he was fighting against some thugs in an alley, he knew he needed to be more then just a regular guy. This entire discussion is about how he wants to retire the Bat-persona, over a women. You're trying to bring up examples from MOTP, when that's not even close to being the case, because he wasn't even Batman, nor, had a bat-cave or ANYTHING Bat-related.

And I know you're going to tare apart this post, to try and counter it, but just know that this really isn't my main point. You can go on all you want, but my main ideas are farther down.

Where was he trying to get rid of it from the start? He didn't consider it until Harvey proved himself after getting half of the city's criminals locked up.

Well, lets see: We see Bruce spying on her in the bunker. He acts like he isn't, but even Alfred knows what he's doing. Then, a few scenes later, we see Bruce having dinner with Dent and Rachel, while we see Bruce eye up Rachel, we then see that Bruce found a "hero" to fall back on, so he can get back with Rachel. This was all in the first 20 min of the movie, which is pretty much the beginning.

Huh? Where was it all about her? He asked Alfred if he brought Rachel's death on her. And Alfred said no, that she believed in him. Then ALfred said that Gotham needs him, to which Bruce replied "No, Gotham needs it's true hero, and I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell". To which Alfred replied that's why they need him now.

Nothing to do with Rachel.

I guess I got a little ahead of myself there. Bruce was wanting to quit because of what happened to Rachel. Having conflicting thoughts, Alfred tells him that she believed in what he stood for. While Alfred is done talking, he goes back to talking about how Rachel was going to wait for him. Yeah, I get why he's all sad, but the reason why he gets back in the suit had nothing to do with a vow or promise, it was mostly with Alfreds pep-talk, which, was mainly about what Rachel thought was good for Gotham. It had nothing to do with his parents, it was due to what Rachel thought was the right thing to do. Which is why Alfred never gave him the letter, cause he would have just given up. If it was all about Gotham and himself, then giving the letter would have made him want to get back into the suit faster, but this wasn't the case in TDK. Rachel's letter basically said that she thought that he would never give up being Batman, yet, the opposite was true, and was the entire point throughout TDK. That's why Alfred burned the letter.

Yes, that would have been nice. But again, Bruce shouldn't be thinking in terms of his parents, but in terms of himself as a hero. Which is why Alfred kept placing the emphasis on him, and how he was needed. Not because of a duty to his parents, but to himself and Gotham.

But that's not how it was portrayed, or giving the letter to Bruce wouldn't have been a big deal. He got back into his suit, because he was pissed about Rachel. If he knew that the hero he selected was going to take the girl away from him, when that was basically his retirement plan, then he would have just given up.

No, because he was reverting back to the only thing he had left. His quest to fight crime. Which was the original complaint of this thread. That he'd never give that up for a woman.

And yet he did in the comics and MOTP. Simple as that.

And again, Bruce wasn't even Batman yet. The complaint of this thread was about Batman giving up his cape, not just ski-masked vigilante. And while this is all fun, TDK portrayed Bruce's revenge more towards Rachel's death, not just his duty to Gotham, if not, then Bruce should have received his letter from Alfred. Which is my complaint, that it had nothing to do with a vow to his parents or Gotham, it was all about a women.

 

[isi123]

Good point. But think of it how Nolan has. It's set in reality, and Batman doesn;t have any power, he's human just like us after all, so i'm not too surprised.

Still love TDK though!

 

[The Joker]

And that's what this entire discussion is about. It's about how Bruce can hang up his cape(The Batman persona) over a women. Before he is Batman, he is just a regular guy, but after, he learns he is more then just a man, a hero to Gotham.

And he was STILL willing to do it after he became Batman in MOTP, too, when Andrea came back into his life.

So again, your point is moot. Next.....

This entire discussion is about how he wants to retire the Bat-persona, over a women. You're trying to bring up examples from MOTP, when that's not even close to being the case, because he wasn't even Batman, nor, had a bat-cave or ANYTHING Bat-related.

Either you're ignoring my points, or you're not reading them properly. Batman was willing to hang up the cape in MOTP for Andrea when she came back into his life, and they re-connected and had sex.

Too bad she turned out to be the Phantasm

Well, lets see: We see Bruce spying on her in the bunker. He acts like he isn't, but even Alfred knows what he's doing. Then, a few scenes later, we see Bruce having dinner with Dent and Rachel, while we see Bruce eye up Rachel, we then see that Bruce found a "hero" to fall back on, so he can get back with Rachel. This was all in the first 20 min of the movie, which is pretty much the beginning.

And how does any of that equate to him wanting to give up being Batman? He spies on Rachel when he returns to Gotham in Begins, too. Watching her outside the courthouse, following her on the train etc.

She's a D.A. in a city that's corrupt. And it can be argued that he was watching Harvey, not Rachel. Rachel was just with him because they work together and they're dating.

Alfred: "Look at the new district attorney"
Bruce: "I am....closely. I need to know if he can be trusted"

Sorry, you're grasping at straws there, Travesty.

I guess I got a little ahead of myself there. Bruce was wanting to quit because of what happened to Rachel.

Bruce was wanting to quit because of what happened to Rachel AND Harvey.

"Gotham needs it's true hero, and I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell".

You can't cut and paste the conversation here

Having conflicting thoughts, Alfred tells him that she believed in what he stood for.

And Alfred told him Gotham needs him now more than ever. Rachel was just the beginner of the conversation, as she naturally would be, since they both knew her for years.

While Alfred is done talking, he goes back to talking about how Rachel was going to wait for him. Yeah, I get why he's all sad, but the reason why he gets back in the suit had nothing to do with a vow or promise, it was mostly with Alfreds pep-talk, which, was mainly about what Rachel thought was good for Gotham.

That's your flawed interpretation of it. The final words Alfred says to him is Gotham needs him now more than ever. Not because Rachel believed in him. Yeah, he mentions how Rachel was going to wait for him which was a plot point for her letter, and one of the themes of the movie which is echoed at the end when we see Alfred burning the letter, among the other things like Harvey dying a hero, Lucius having his faith restored when the sonar machine is destroyed etc.

In fact, the final words of that conversation was Bruce asking Alfred how he caught that bandit in the forest in Burmah.

It had nothing to do with his parents, it was due to what Rachel thought was the right thing to do. Which is why Alfred never gave him the letter, cause he would have just given up.

He didn't give him the letter because he was sparing his feelings. Just like they were not going to tell Harvey about the thing he and Rachel had.

You don't kick a dog when it's down. No good would have come from either of them finding out after Rachel's death.

But that's not how it was portrayed, or giving the letter to Bruce wouldn't have been a big deal. He got back into his suit, because he was pissed about Rachel. If he knew that the hero he selected was going to take the girl away from him, when that was basically his retirement plan, then he would have just given up.

Rubbish. Giving him the letter and finding out she was going to reject him right after he's blaming himself for her death would have only served to kick Bruce when he was down.

If anything, the ending of TDK proved more than ever how dedicated he was to being Batman and saving Gotham by allowing himself to be painted as a murderer in the public eyes in order to keep the morale in Gotham.

So please don't try and sell me the notion that Rachel's letter would have made him give it all up. It's a ridiculous notion.

And again, Bruce wasn't even Batman yet. The complaint of this thread was about Batman giving up his cape, not just ski-masked vigilante. And while this is all fun, TDK portrayed Bruce's revenge more towards Rachel's death, not just his duty to Gotham, if not, then Bruce should have received his letter from Alfred. Which is my complaint, that it had nothing to do with a vow to his parents or Gotham, it was all about a women.

Addressed all this above. He was willing to give up being Batman for Andrea. I don't know how you missed that sequence.

 

[CristiMAN]

Batman doesnt give up his cape over a woman. He does that because at some point in the movie being Batman is killing more people. And even that was just a plan to reveal and capture Joker, like Alfred tells Rachel. When he considers returning to a normal (rachel) life is at a point in the movie that the trio Bats/harvey/gordon are really close to ending crime at Gotham. The normal criminal is not for batman to take care. Then enter the Joker. The main objective in Joker escalation in crime is to bring "another class of criminal". That is the main plot. Joker realizes that Batman and him are going to do that forever. He turned the city upside down. Made batman a criminal and in the process destroyed Gotham's white knight. He made Batman's retire impossible, maybe forever. And never he intended to kill batman. Just to bring chaos to many levels. Starting with the mob money. He captured it just to destroy it. At least his half. The other half nobody know where it is but him. It became a city without mob bosses. Only chaotic crime. And only one man to bring peace to Gotham. Batman. That's pretty obious in the interrogation room dialogue. Agent of chaos. Just talking about it, I want to see the movie again. Dude, go see the movie and try to "see" beyond the obvious. TDK has so many levels to be admired. Way beyhond "Batman considered giving up his crusade to protect Gotham... over a ****ing girl"... That's classic superhero movie plot (so many times used)... The Dark Knight is just in another level. Pure genius.

 

[Travesty]

And he was STILL willing to do it after he became Batman in MOTP, too, when Andrea came back into his life.

So again, your point is moot. Next.....

But Bruce never said he was going to hang up his cape when Andrea came back. All he did was debate the idea of him and Andrea for a second, looked at his parents picture, and went back to work, figuring out The Joker is involved. Andrea already knew he was Batman, and Bruce never once said he was going to retire, but that's not the case in TDK.

Next......

Either you're ignoring my points, or you're not reading them properly. Batman was willing to hang up the cape in MOTP for Andrea when she came back into his life, and they re-connected and had sex.

And he never said he was going to retire Batman. For all you know, he could have been with Andrea, and been Batman at the same time. It's not like she already knows, and again, it was never even said that Bruce was going to retire when Andrea came back. You're just making up facts, when nothing concrete was ever shown to us, unlike the events of TDK.

And how does any of that equate to him wanting to give up being Batman? He spies on Rachel when he returns to Gotham in Begins, too. Watching her outside the courthouse, following her on the train etc.

She's a D.A. in a city that's corrupt. And it can be argued that he was watching Harvey, not Rachel. Rachel was just with him because they work together and they're dating.

Alfred: "Look at the new district attorney"
Bruce: "I am....closely. I need to know if he can be trusted"

Sorry, you're grasping at straws there, Travesty.

Grasping at straws? Haha, good lord! In BB Rachel tells Bruce that maybe one day when Gotham doesn't need Batman, that there could be a chance. Then comes TDK, where he's kinda spying on her, and then gets defensive when Alfred brings that idea to Bruce. Then, 5 min later in the movie, you see Bruce get jealous that Harvey is holding Rachel's hand, and you can see that Rachel's knows Bruce is jealous as well. Bing-bang-boom, Bruce has the idea that Harvey could be the "hero" of Gotham, so Bruce can retire Batman, and be with Rachel. We know this for a fact, when Rachel and Bruce are talking outside of the dinner party. That's not "grasping at straws", that's exactly how it happened.

Bruce was wanting to quit because of what happened to Rachel AND Harvey.

"Gotham needs it's true hero, and I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell".

You can't cut and paste the conversation here

Wow! Harvey is still alive, and nobody even knows that he's Two-Face yet. Bruce wants to quit, because of what happened to Rachel. And again, if it wasn't about Rachel, then Alfred would have given the note to Bruce. The note even said she thought Bruce couldn't give up Batman, even though we know for a fact that he was.

I mean, I don't even know why we're trying to debate this. He was trying to hang up the cape for Rachel, and Rachel alone. It is clear as day, and even Bruce himself said that was his plan when he said, "you know that one day when you said that Gotham will no longer need Batman, it's coming. Harvey is that hero". This all stems back to when Rachel said, in BB, that they could have a chance at being together, if Gotham doesn't need a Batman.

That's your flawed interpretation of it. The final words Alfred says to him is Gotham needs him now more than ever. Not because Rachel believed in him. Yeah, he mentions how Rachel was going to wait for him which was a plot point for her letter, and one of the themes of the movie which is echoed at the end when we see Alfred burning the letter, among the other things like Harvey dying a hero, Lucius having his faith restored when the sonar machine is destroyed etc.

In fact, the final words of that conversation was Bruce asking Alfred how he caught that bandit in the forest in Burmah.

It doesn't matter about what theme was echoed, as it is apparent at the scene we're talking about. Again, if it wasn't about Rachel, then he would have received the letter, but he didn't. The letter was very clear, and so was Alfreds intentions of not giving it to Bruce. The ENTIRE discussion was about Rachel. It wasn't about Gotham, it wasn't really about Dent, it was about Rachel. Alfred is the one who had to pep him up.

And it doesn't matter what the "final word" was, because it shows Bruce's rage over what happened to Rachel, and he wanted his revenge. He asked Alfred how he caught the bandit, because he was blind on revenge for Rachel. If it wasn't about Rachel, then he would have gotten the letter, and the entire discussion wouldn't be revolved around her.

He didn't give him the letter because he was sparing his feelings. Just like they were not going to tell Harvey about the thing he and Rachel had.

You don't kick a dog when it's down. No good would have come from either of them finding out after Rachel's death.

Sparing his feelings? He knew Bruce was already down about the whole thing, when he's crying in the living room in the Bat-suit, and he was planing on giving it to him to begin with. He took it away, because Bruce was pretty clear about his feeling of retiring the Bat-persona. I mean, he even tells him, "she was going to wait for me, Alfred. Dent can't know...". The ENTIRE pep-talk was about Rachel, and trying to get Bruce back into action. It wasn't Bruce realizing anything, it was Alfred!

Rubbish. Giving him the letter and finding out she was going to reject him right after he's blaming himself for her death would have only served to kick Bruce when he was down.

And again, Alfred was already going to give it to Bruce when he was crying in the living room. He took it away, after Bruce said that he was going to retire with Rachel. Alfred was the one who got Bruce back on track, not Bruce thinking back to his vow to his parents and Gotham.

So please don't try and sell me the notion that Rachel's letter would have made him give it all up. It's a ridiculous notion.

Is it? Then what's the point of burning the friggin letter then? It was Alfred who saved Batman from retiring, not Bruce.

Addressed all this above. He was willing to give up being Batman for Andrea. I don't know how you missed that sequence.

And that was never even made known in the film, so I don't know why you're making that up. Batman knew that Andrea's dad was dead, and she was out for revenge. The only thing that came close was when Alfred asks Bruce, "what are you going to do about your alter-ego", to which Bruce replies, " I don't know, it's just moving all to fast". After that, we see Bruce go straight into detective mode, and he becomes Batman once again.


Bottom line: In MOTP, Bruce doesn't even want to give up the Batman persona. Sure, it crossed his mind, but not to the point where he's making some huge grand-scheme of the entire situation. He thought about it for a second, and then the thought left him almost instantly, when he started doing some detective work, which in turn, put him right back to being Batman. In TDK, the entire movie starts off with Bruce scheming his way out of being Batman, and Alfred is the one who has to pep him back into it, even hiding Rachel's letter from him. Comparing the two is utterly useless, when they're not even close to being the same thing. And in MOTP, his parents death was brought up, bringing the story to a full circle, and revitalizing his spirits, to become the Bat-creature of the night, once again. Which was my original point, and one of the many reasons why I don't like TDK.