Discussion in 'Justice League' started by Thread Manager, Mar 26, 2013.
This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]454095[/split]
Would you be for this or against it?
He could keep an eye open. It is his home after all and he will always care for it.
But it would seem like he's taking a slight step back. Which could easily spiral. Then that would definitely negate the TDKR's ending.
I just want to see Gotham again lol.
But I can imagine them placing different villains in different cities. Some villains again being drawn to Bruce's presence.
Because Nolan always tried looking for excuses as to why all the villains in Gotham?
Of course if it's JGL's Bat movie, it'll be done with him and Gotham.
Yeah, you guys are. I'm talking about the Bruce/Batman that I feel should be in a movie period, regardless of who it is. But okay, speaking in Bale's case, I'd like for that deep rooted obsession he has with cleaning up Gotham's neverending crime and watching over it to return. Like a person who thinks their schizophrenia has gone away, so they stop taking their medication... only to have it return to them even stronger than it was before.
Some might call it story regression, but that's just the character of Bruce Wayne. It's sad, but his true face is Batman. I don't ever see him happy with just being Bruce Wayne and living a normal life. Especially with Gotham still the cesspool of criminal activity it is. It's like Nolan's Batman f**ked up with that, but I digress.
But yeah, I see I'm in the minority and now more are expressing interest in a Blake as Batman in Gotham idea... not an idea I'm a fan of. At all. But more power to you guys.
So what if it did negate TDKR's ending? S**t happens. Blake might not have been able to keep up the legacy of Batman and anything could have happened to him. He hasn't been trained like Bruce for stuff like this, so it's logical to think he also isn't mentally prepared to protect the entirety of Gotham.
And honestly looking at it like that, it's not a negation but an expansion. Not everyone has happy endings like that. Especially not a tormented character like Bruce. Of course it wouldn't last.
That's the story of Bruce. He's naturally compelled to be Batman because that's who he truly is. He's happiest doing that, but he's also tormented. There's an emptiness to his life when he's just Bruce Wayne, though.
And different villains in different cities... not seeming like Batman at all, once again.
That's why I think it would be a good idea to have Blake travel and learn from the best that Bruce did in the comics. Because Blake has that same passion and drive Bruce did. Close as anybody else can get. I just sense the character could do it.
Blake is a character than can be as loyal and dependent as Dick Grayson, or as harsh and brutal as Jason Todd. I'm interested in his expansion.
Regarding Bruce. If he has moved on from Gotham. Moved onto the JL. Then he is protecting the entire world. Why just go back to Gotham IF Blake is doing a good job, or if Gotham is not in great danger?
Bruce feeling a new found sense of protection for the Earth. I imagine he would do more with his life and influence to further good, as he did with Gotham and its citizens.
And the villains being in others places is only a solution to bring in more familiar comic villains. There's no rule in Nolan's universe to suggest Gotham is the turf to hangout for no reason.
he basically has the same backstory as Bruce, he's also a trained cop who has a knack for reading people (and investigation I would assume), and years of police training.
He's got a head start on Bruce. All he needs is a few years of martial arts training, something he can be doing in Gotham while waiting till he's needed.
Just have the first need for Batman arrive 5 years or so after TDKR. It's a non-issue. A quick mention of this in the movie will do; I don't need to see Batman Begins 2.
More importantly, he's got the 'will'.
As Ra's says, "the training is nothing, the will is everything"!
Exactly. Excellent point
It won't be like the comics, though. Not if they're doing the Nolan movies. Bruce learned from the League of Shadows, and they will certainly not take Blake under their wing to train him.
There are no masters around the world that trained Bruce in this universe.
Because Bruce Wayne/Batman IS Gotham.Batman has always had that sense of protection for the Earth, so don't make it seem like that would be adding something new to the character. Batman has never been international, but he's always thought the world has needed Batman as well as Gotham. That's fine and it's cool for him to travel occasionally, but Gotham is where he resides and does most of his work. That's not to say that he can't be called on to defend the entire world with the rest of the JL. Because he can, and has many times before. It's not like Batman is intended to go around the world solving crimes like a traveling circus of justice.
And Gotham, like Oscorp in the Spider-Man movies, is like the Tower of Babel. All of Batman's villains come from there because that city is the cesspool of crime and there's just an evil and darkness there that the other cities in the DCU do not have. The crazies reside in Gotham. And that's where Batman's iconic villains deserve to make their debut. Not some other city.
The Nolanverse Batman is like an elseworlds version. You guys are thinking of making that version(without changing what's been set) a part of a main DCU. That just sounds odd to me... these things are not what Bruce Wayne/Batman is about.
Blake may not be as efficient as Bruce. But he's certainly capable. And with a bit soul searching and discipline training by himself, Blake could improve.
I don't buy that, not for the Nolanverse. In the comics, they HAVE to be there. Because the hero resides there. Excuses are made for them to be there.
Joker is there only because of Batman.
Riddler, because of his obsession with beating Batman.
Penguin, because business is good there.
Poison Ivy, Mr. Freeze, Cayface, etc. They really have no purpose to be there. The company that originally made Freeze have his accident could have been anywhere in the world.
Excuse s are made to keep them there. That explanation of Gotham being a cesspool doesn't really apply to some villains. Nolan gave them plausible excuses to be there in the movies. Different from the comics
All adaptations are an 'elseworlds version'.
The comics, by the nature of the business, aren't going to present Bruce with situations in which he does not heal physically, and an Alfred who pleas for him to stop his unnecessary actions. It doesn't mean it's out of character when this happens in TDKR. It's in character for Bruce to do the selfless thing. In the comics, since his body never degrades, the selfless thing is for Bruce to continue his mission in Gotham. In the nolanverse, where Bruce's body degrades, the selfless thing for Bruce, who wants to continue being Batman, is to stop destroying his worn-out body, and allowing someone younger and more able to take the responsibility, and for Bruce to try to find a sense of purpose in other ways.
some people like TDKR enough that they don't want to see Bruce regress in the JL movie. Having a Bruce Wayne who's always in the same life stage (Being exactly like the comics version, physically fine and operating in Gotham) isn't the most important thing to everyone.
Alfred has always been that way, even in the comics. It's not out of character for him to want Bruce to stop being Batman. In fact, it's in character. Has he ever left because of it? No, he's always stuck by Bruce's side regardless. Unlike Nolan's version, but again, I digress.
And again, it wouldn't be character regression if he took back the mantle, but I do see that is your opinion. But yeah, I see that it isn't important to everyone. I just don't agree with that.
Riddler was still created because of events in his life that took place specifically in Gotham. Gotham is really the only city in the DCU that will mess up a person and drive them to villainy. You're saying everyone will be happy dandy with most of Batman's most notorious rogues not coming from Gotham, but from other cities around the world. Once again, you are deleting these great things from the Batman mythos just to fit Nolan's singular vision.
It's like another male Krypronian(a mixture of Superboy/Supergirl I guess) who survived the planet's destruction coming down to Earth, and eventually taking Superman's place when he's dead or leaves in the last movie of the trilogy. Imagine if the MoS movies had occured like that in place of the Nolan movies. Then we'd be getting a Superman who isn't Clark Kent, dating Lois, working at the DP, isn't a reporter, etc, etc in the JL. It sounds off and like something you'd see in a completely different dimension. Now granted, these movies already take place in another dimension, but you should get my point.
It's a slight regression for him to become Batman again. But with good solid writing, it can easily be overlooked.
But it's more of a regression for him to go back to point A aka Gotham. And anybody who wants him to move onto bigger and better things after TDKR, understandably can't help but do this lol
It can indeed be overlooked and even understood with the right writing. And once again, I just don't agree about it being a slight regression. It's who he is. Bruce Wayne is a facade, it's sad to think he'd be content with living his life behind that "mask".
Bruce globally doing things does not automatically make it bigger and better than what he's already achieved. JL will naturally be his bigger and better calling. Going back to Gotham does not/will not undo what he's achieved.
I think I could argue this 'til I'm blue in the face, and it won't get anywhere because of how we're all each approaching Batman. I'm just gonna let you guys peacefully go back to the JGL as Batman discussion after this. Gotta evac the thread reasonably soon, this is a madhouse. A madhouse!
But not all of the villains are from Gotham. And the excuses that brung them there, which is really for the benefit of Batman to fight them, can be easily changed to suit Bruce on his travels. That's if the movie guys wanted it.
I get your point. But regardless, Nolan created something interesting with Blake and there are people who would like to see more of him. That's something.
But it's not who he was by the end. Otherwise he wouldn't have did everything he did.
Then to change his mind and go back on everything?
How would you approach it?
I've lost track on what I want lol
I really don't think he needs to be Batman in Gotham. Those days are over. The whole theme of TDKR was about Bruce staying the hell away from Gotham because that's where all the pain is. Doesn't mean he can't be Batman again. That could further the character. But it's a regression to go back into the pain & suffering that is Gotham City.
IMO he (Batman) should never return until that city and the rest of the world has seen him as an immortal being who has risen from the dead to join forces with other superpowered beings in saving the planet. Then he could return but it would have to be Blake by then, because Bruce needs to live the rest of his life without the anger and reminders. He can only do that by not being around Gotham.
Saving the world in other parts is something he has never done. He has also never met superpowered beings. He's never started a League of his own. This is a progression into new territory which is why Nolan, etc might be down with it. But Batman returning to Gotham where there's criminals?? He's done that already. That is a regression of the character.
Ugh. No personal offense meant to you, but... This is how movies become like Transformers. This is how you create a mess that is comic book continuity. By not having any respect for the stories being made.
It's not. Because the goal of TDKR was to give Bruce a happy ending. That was getting over his grief, his need to be Batman and passing the cowl on for the legend to continue for the ongoing good of Gotham. But he won't be involved anymore. Making that "Oh, actually no he can't do that, and it turns out Blake's a **** up and Bruce had to go back" does negate it, it also makes it unhappy (I don't care if 'not everyone gets a happy ending' in real life, that's what happened for THIS story for a reason) and it's dishonest. So there can be no true, bold definitive ending's because we fans become so attached to something we have to keep it going no matter how much it destroys the quality we enjoyed it for in the first place. No, thanks.
Not anymore. He never wanted to be Batman forever, all the way through Batman Begins. Rachel and Alfred saw through that to his subconscious (what you're talking about here) and that Batman had become his true-self, whether Bruce realised it or not (not).
But all this tormented, empty life as Bruce Wayne, only truly happy in the cowl... We got all that already in TDKR. He was a depressed, empty recluse... Then he became Batman again and was downright gleeful (though ultimately self-destructive... which is what Batman is in this iteration. A temporary solution for whoever is under the cowl. A treatment that can become addictive.)
And then he moves past it all in the pit when he forgives himself and learns the value of his life beyond Batman. We've got it already. It's irresponsible and dishonest to do it all over again because we've grown attached to this character/actor.
You know how we can accomplish all this, without negating TDKT and maintaining all the things Batman needs (and not putting him out of sink within the timeline and thematically with the rest of the DC heroes?)
TDKT is my absolute favourite version of the character, and I'm sad to see it go. But - It HAS to go. For it's own good, and that of the potential DC Cinematic Universe.
Bruce Wayne the billionaire playboy is a facade. That guy is dead.
Bruce Wayne the real man is not a facade.
I would just completely reboot... but in the case of Bale returning I'd just have Blake either die or not be able to maintain the life of Batman.
I really don't want to see Blake Batman or whomever he chooses to be.
But in the Nolanverse's case, I've given it more thought and you are right, it would be character regression to ultimately achieve what I want.
Are you not a fan of the concept of Terry McGinnis either?
But is Bruce Wayne the real man even still alive anymore? In my perspective, that Bruce died with the birth of Batman. Honestly, that part of him died along with his parents that night. I get what you're saying, though.