The Batman VS Batman Begins VS Batman 1989.

[C Prometheus]

I openly embrace my nostalgia for the Nolan flicks, heh. I think that kind of fondness is justified, given the quality of those movies-- it's always a great reminder of what is possible with the character and genre. Heck, DC could be capitalizing on it soon if this is happening and I'd be super interested to see what they'd do if it turns out to be what it looks like:

Ram V, Rafael Albuquerque, Dave Stewart On A Dark Knight Comic?

But look, as with everything in life, there is a healthy balance to be had-- I don't want to only be looking backwards-- as a fan, as a person, etc. Can't live in the past all the time. But part of the beauty of film is that it lasts forever and while also encapsulating a moment in time, and if a movie is good enough it may still find ways to resonate you in new ways as it ages. So far TDKT has stood that test of time for me.

The Batman was a very ambitious and impressive first attempt from Reeves. It's just too early for me to really have a grasp on where it will ultimately sit in the franchise's history. End of the day, this forum is a small sample size anyway. But yeah, Batman Begins along with Raimi's Spider-Man is one of the fundamental building blocks of this place IMO. It means a lot to people. And at the same time, most fans seem to really love The Batman. It got great reviews. I think the younger generation of fans is really responding to it and embracing it as their Batman, at least from what I can see. And if you're a veteran of the Nolan days and this is your new favorite, power to you. I think we can all probably objectively acknowledge that each of the movies here does something better than the others and it is as always is going to come down to taste and what you value in a movie.

You nailed it right on the head! I couldn't agree more.

 

[BatsAndNights]

This board was regularly nitpicking Nolan to death in the leadup to The Batman's release. Not to mention TB is a new, acclaimed flick. Something else is going on here, and it isn't nostalgia. That line of argument isn't a good one in the first place.

I feel like that's par for the course whenever a new version is coming out because of the hype surrounding it and the theoretical potential that this new version is gonna be the absolute apex of adapting the character which completely solves even the littlest of nitpicks from past versions. It's just people hoping it's gonna be the best version of the character with no flaws even if that's obviously just not really possible.

 

[titansupes]

And yet it’s all being contradicted in Begins and TDK by how Bruce has his sights on passing the torch over to Harvey and retiring from being Batman so he can be with Rachel. Nolan’s Bruce has a bit too much of an Everyman quality about him and too much emphasis being put into his longing for the time after Batman and that contradicts the accusations being made to Bruce.

Bruce being laser focused on his goal of Batman is a good start and I agree that TDK has moments throughout that back up that idea… but again, it’s undercut by the fact that the audience knows that Bruce doesn’t want to be Batman forever and is actively looking for a way out. That in and of itself undermines the entire idea of Bruce being “lost” in the persona of Batman.

I don’t mind alternate depictions of a character, especially when they’re done well. I like Bale’s Bruce and I love his arc. But as a whole, the films just don’t sell me on that particular part of Bruce’s character and it frustrates me that Nolan generally just resorts to telling us that Bruce is lost in Batman, instead of consistently showing us.

That's not a contradiction. His goal as Batman is to save Gotham by inspiring hope and shaking them out of apathy. Passing the torch to Harvey is him doing exactly what he wanted to do for Gotham. Giving Gotham a symbol of hope. He just believed Harvey could do it better than Batman ever could.

Its not an alternate depiction of the character either. The comic book Batman wants to hang up his cape and just stay home and be normal too. Its not a life he enjoys and wants to do forever;

We're not mentioning a key part of TDKR, something that was threaded all through BB and TDK-- His conscious and subconscious mind, so well illustrated by his twin retirements. Everything he does is in service to what he believes to be a finite mission as Batman. He THINKS he can give it up, but as we see in TDKR... without Batman, he's purposeless, wasting away. He won the war, but still he's just "waiting for things to go bad again", as Alfred says. It's only when he finally comes to terms with the source of his pain aka "It's my fault, Alfred... if I hadn't gotten scared..." and learns to live for himself again that he can truly put the mantle aside and take a shot at life as Bruce.

 

[Rick190293]

I was going to point that too. TDKR clearly shows that bruce is lost and sad not only because of Dent and Rachel's death, but also because Batman isn't necessary anymore... the moment he starts realising he's needed again, with the rise of Bane and the misterious cat burglar, he's alive again. It's like an addiction to him. Yeah, Nolan gave him a definitive ending (until it continues on a comic book series lol), but the addiction to being the bat is there.

 

[C Prometheus]

We're not mentioning a key part of TDKR, something that was threaded all through BB and TDK-- His conscious and subconscious mind, so well illustrated by his twin retirements. Everything he does is in service to what he believes to be a finite mission as Batman. He THINKS he can give it up, but as we see in TDKR... without Batman, he's purposeless, wasting away. He won the war, but still he's just "waiting for things to go bad again", as Alfred says. It's only when he finally comes to terms with the source of his pain aka "It's my fault, Alfred... if I hadn't gotten scared..." and learns to live for himself again that he can truly put the mantle aside and take a shot at life as Bruce.

I would actually agree with you for TDKR!

If you'll notice, I only mentioned TDKR once or twice in my previous posts criticizing Nolan's depictions of how Bruce "gets lost in Batman," because I think that film gets it mostly right- which is vital, because I don't think the ending would work for audiences nearly as well otherwise. I just don't see it conveyed particularly well in Batman Begins and it's still only somewhat better IMO in TDK. For TDKR though, I think Nolan passed.

I still think Burton and Reeves both are much more effective in how they convey that conflict in Bruce's identity, but obviously mileage varies.

 

[Boom]

The Batman is my favorite Batman movie, but I would say that Batman Begins is the better overall film. It's more concise and just hit all of the right notes.

 

[Doctor Jones]

1. Batman Begins
2. The Batman
3. Batman (1989)

Still a damned impressive set of Batman films. All great in their own right. And the best one isn't even in here.

 

[Frodo]

I feel like that's par for the course whenever a new version is coming out because of the hype surrounding it and the theoretical potential that this new version is gonna be the absolute apex of adapting the character which completely solves even the littlest of nitpicks from past versions. It's just people hoping it's gonna be the best version of the character with no flaws even if that's obviously just not really possible.

Yeah, it also tends to happen with any new version of anything, particularly when a new generation which tends to claim that,
" Their reboot is better than anything else that came before".
That's what my generation said about the 1966 version back in the 90s.

Same thing happens with music and other genres.
The new generation says the older one is " whack".
Fandom is certainly no exception to that.

Eventually, the day will come when the next generation of fans says, " The Reeves films weren't all that! Our Batman is the definitive Batman !".

It's gonna happen eventually.
It always happens.

 

[spideyfan77]

I think most agree that Nolan movies were most accessible as they were films first and comic book movies second. My family loves those movies and they don’t care for and never have cared for Batman before.

Reeves was trying to make a BATMAN graphic novel on the big screen instead. Something that isn’t very accessible and something that some people just won’t like. You more likely need to be a Batman comic book fan or fan in general to really love this movie.

For me, I prefer Reeves approach as I love Batman and always wanted a Batman movie rather than a movie with Batman in it. But both approaches are awesome! Love the Nolan movies and love Reeves!

Nolan brought Batman to our world. Reeves brought Batman’s comic book world to grounded reality.

 

[spideyfan77]

For the other discussion, I do agree that Nolan made Bruce more of an everyday person in terms of wanting to retire and also not a one man mission.

Bruce wanted to retire and be with Racheal from Batman Begins. His mission was to wrap things up and quit Batman so he can be with her. The scene that always comes to mind is when Bruce is talking to Rachael about how he is going to quit and the time is coming. That to me is just something I never pictured Bruce saying. Bruce had a goal and end point in his mind for Nolan. For me, Bruce never has an endpoint or mission accomplished. The war is never over in his mind. He can tell others something different but it’s an obsession that consumes him. Nolan’s Bruce was Batman I think for like 2 years? I think Pattinson has already been Batman longer than him if I remember correctly and he is just getting started with no end in sight as shown by the end with catwoman.

The other thing with Nolan’s Bruce was he needed others to help like Lucius and Alfred. Mostly Lucius to create everything for him. He would take the equipment that Lucius gave him to fight the war on crime. He also didn’t know what Lucius was even saying at some parts which always bugged me. He is more of an everyday man rather than someone who wants to do everything himself (equipment, detective work, fighting, etc).

 

[The Joker]

For the other discussion, I do agree that Nolan made Bruce more of an everyday person in terms of wanting to retire and also not a one man mission.

Bruce wanted to retire and be with Racheal from Batman Begins. His mission was to wrap things up and quit Batman so he can be with her. The scene that always comes to mind is when Bruce is talking to Rachael about how he is going to quit and the time is coming. That to me is just something I never pictured Bruce saying. Bruce had a goal and end point in his mind for Nolan. For me, Bruce never has an endpoint or mission accomplished. The war is never over in his mind. He can tell others something different but it’s an obsession that consumes him. Nolan’s Bruce was Batman I think for like 2 years? I think Pattinson has already been Batman longer than him if I remember correctly and he is just getting started with no end in sight as shown by the end with catwoman.

But that is simply incorrect. Batman does have an end mission in sight. He's said so many times in the comics;

There's no point in saying he doesn't when its clearly stated that he does. There's no reason to believe he's lying or BS'ing when he says it. When it comes to his Batman mission he never minces words. If he says something about it he means it. Because comic books are an on going medium they're never ever going to let him reach it because they can't. If they do that they end the character and lose money and fans. That's the reality of it. Having an end goal in mind doesn't make him an "every day person" either. He's a billionaire trained in martial arts, wears a Bat costume, drives around in outlandish vehicles, saves his city from mass destruction, but because he has an end goal that makes him more of an every day person. The logic escapes me.

You're also incorrect in saying his mission was to wrap things up to be with her. I'll never understand how people consistently misconstrue something so straight forward as that. He didn't go back to Gotham in Batman Begins with the plan to save the city and be with Rachel. His plan was to save the city by shaking them out of apathy and providing a symbol of hope. Him and Rachel potentially being together didn't even come on his radar until the end of Begins when she went to him, not the other way around. Even then it didn't alter his mission as Batman. It just gave him something to look forward to when he was done. Simple as that.

That fallacy theory that pops up is as silly as the one about him retiring in TDKR because Rachel was dead. Even though the movie makes it clear multiple times that wasn't the reason. For some unknown reason some fans severely over exaggerate to the point of fabrication on how much Rachel factored into his Batman mission. She was someone he hoped to share his life with after he was done. Nothing more, nothing less.

The other thing with Nolan’s Bruce was he needed others to help like Lucius and Alfred. Mostly Lucius to create everything for him. He would take the equipment that Lucius gave him to fight the war on crime. He also didn’t know what Lucius was even saying at some parts which always bugged me. He is more of an everyday man rather than someone who wants to do everything himself (equipment, detective work, fighting, etc).

Getting help from allies is a staple part of the character. Alfred, Gordon, Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Azrael, Superman, Huntress, Bullock, Montoya.......I could go on for a hundred years naming people who have helped Batman in his mission more times than you can count e.g.

You're not wrong in saying he did heavily rely on Lucius for the gadgets, and that is probably one aspect of criticism I do understand from fans. But at the same time he still showed his own smarts utilizing it e.g. turning the sonar concept into a large tracking device to scan the whole city for Joker's whereabouts.

Any fans here of Arkham Origins game? In my opinion it had some of the best character writing I've ever seen for the characters. Especially Batman, Gordon, Alfred, and Joker. There's one scene in it in particular that stands out where Alfred reassures a self doubting Batman that he has to realize he is a man and can't do it all alone;




Comic book fantasy or not, Batman is still a flesh and blood man. Getting help from his allies doesn't make him less of a hero or an everyday man. Same goes for other beloved Batman mediums like BTAS. Alfred, Robin, Batgirl....they all helped him and saved his butt many times in that. He had a mechanic named Earl Cooper build his Batmobile for him etc. Heck in Mask of the Phantasm he was willing to throw away his whole mission of becoming Batman just so he could be with Andrea Beaumont. Even when she came back into his life years later and they rekindled their love he contemplated it again.

Nine times out of ten when these kind of discussions pop up its fan projecting more what they want Batman to be rather than who he actually is in my opinion.

 

[BatLobster]

Nine times out of ten when these kind of discussions pop up its fan projecting more what they want Batman to be rather than who he actually is in my opinion.

 

[Gothamsknight]

I just love when @The Joker articulates everything I want to say. Saves me so much time

 

[BatsAndNights]

But that is simply incorrect. Batman does have an end mission in sight. He's said so many times in the comics;

There's no point in saying he doesn't when its clearly stated that he does. There's no reason to believe he's lying or BS'ing when he says it. When it comes to his Batman mission he never minces words. If he says something about it he means it. Because comic books are an on going medium they're never ever going to let him reach it because they can't. If they do that they end the character and lose money and fans. That's the reality of it. Having an end goal in mind doesn't make him an "every day person" either. He's a billionaire trained in martial arts, wears a Bat costume, drives around in outlandish vehicles, saves his city from mass destruction, but because he has an end goal that makes him more of an every day person. The logic escapes me.

Nine times out of ten when these kind of discussions pop up its fan projecting more what they want Batman to be rather than who he actually is in my opinion.

While I think Batman definitely has a long-term goal for his mission and a theoretical end, I think that goal is one that...simply isn't possible. His goal is the complete and utter eradication of crime and evil. Once that's fulfilled, once no boy will ever lose his parents in an alleyway ever again, then he's fully "completed" his mission. The implications there of how utterly broken he truly was by his tragedy are pretty harrowing. The fact that the only way this man who has done so much genuine good will be content with it is once the evil that took away his parents has utterly been eliminated.

So while, yes, he does have an end goal in sight. I'm not sure if I'd say it's a rational or reachable one. The only time Bruce will retire, in reality, would be when he physically can't do it anymore. Because (not only because of the limitations of the comic medium, but also because it's simply not feasible) there's no way he will ever truly achieve his goal. There will always be an evil out there looking to take advantage of the innocent. And Batman will always be there to stop them.

 

[The Joker]

While I think Batman definitely has a long-term goal for his mission and a theoretical end, I think that goal is one that...simply isn't possible. His goal is the complete and utter eradication of crime and evil. Once that's fulfilled, once no boy will ever lose his parents in an alleyway ever again, then he's fully "completed" his mission. The implications there of how utterly broken he truly was by his tragedy are pretty harrowing.

So while, yes, he does have an end goal in sight. I'm not sure if I'd say it's a rational or reachable one. The only time Bruce will retire, in reality, would be when he physically can't do it anymore. Because (not only because of the limitations of the comic medium, but also because it's simply not feasible) there's no way he will ever truly achieve his goal. There will always be an evil out there looking to take advantage of the innocent. And Batman will always be there to stop them.

Saving Gotham from crime? Yes definitely possible to save a city. Eradicating the whole world of crime? An absurdly delusional goal for one man to think he can achieve. But since Batman is based in Gotham and focuses strictly on Gotham then why would you think he's trying to eradicate crime completely? Let alone believe he could always be there to stop it when he never leaves his own city?

Saving Gotham from crime, yes a reachable goal. Crime everywhere? Not in a million years. The reason they'll constantly keep Gotham ravaged with crime is because they will never end Batman.

Same reason why nobody realistically would have put a bullet in Joker's head by now. They can't end a fan favorite character.

 

[DKDetective]

While I think Batman definitely has a long-term goal for his mission and a theoretical end, I think that goal is one that...simply isn't possible. His goal is the complete and utter eradication of crime and evil. Once that's fulfilled, once no boy will ever lose his parents in an alleyway ever again, then he's fully "completed" his mission. The implications there of how utterly broken he truly was by his tragedy are pretty harrowing. The fact that the only way this man who has done so much genuine good will only be content with it once the evil that took away his parents has utterly been eliminated.

So while, yes, he does have an end goal in sight. I'm not sure if I'd say it's a rational or reachable one. The only time Bruce will retire, in reality, would be when he physically can't do it anymore. Because (not only because of the limitations of the comic medium, but also because it's simply not feasible) there's no way he will ever truly achieve his goal. There will always be an evil out there looking to take advantage of the innocent. And Batman will always be there to stop them.

Saving Gotham from crime? Yes definitely possible to save a city. Eradicating the whole world of crime? An absurdly delusional goal for one man to think he can achieve. But since Batman is based in Gotham and focuses strictly on Gotham then why would you think he's trying to eradicate crime completely? Let alone believe he could always be there to stop it when he never leaves his own city?

Saving Gotham from crime, yes a reachable goal. Crime everywhere? Not in a million years.

To be fair, I have read great Denny O'Neil interviews where he makes much the same points as @DeadlyWest about Bruce retiring. As Denny sees it, there are only two ends for Bruce. Either, he gets smart, realizes he can't be Batman forever, moves on, and retires with a lovely lady and has a family, which for Denny was Talia, or he continues on indefinitely and one day is too slow and gets shot or misses a step on a rooftop and falls to his death. Denny's perspective was that although he would hope for the former, he sees Bruce as an obsessive who would never be satisfied and the latter outcome is more likely given how he saw Bruce's psychology.

 

[spideyfan77]

But that is simply incorrect. Batman does have an end mission in sight. He's said so many times in the comics;

There's no point in saying he doesn't when its clearly stated that he does. There's no reason to believe he's lying or BS'ing when he says it. When it comes to his Batman mission he never minces words. If he says something about it he means it. Because comic books are an on going medium they're never ever going to let him reach it because they can't. If they do that they end the character and lose money and fans. That's the reality of it. Having an end goal in mind doesn't make him an "every day person" either. He's a billionaire trained in martial arts, wears a Bat costume, drives around in outlandish vehicles, saves his city from mass destruction, but because he has an end goal that makes him more of an every day person. The logic escapes me.

You're also incorrect in saying his mission was to wrap things up to be with her. I'll never understand how people consistently misconstrue something so straight forward as that. He didn't go back to Gotham in Batman Begins with the plan to save the city and be with Rachel. His plan was to save the city by shaking them out of apathy and providing a symbol of hope. Him and Rachel potentially being together didn't even come on his radar until the end of Begins when she went to him, not the other way around. Even then it didn't alter his mission as Batman. It just gave him something to look forward to when he was done. Simple as that.

That fallacy theory that pops up is as silly as the one about him retiring in TDKR because Rachel was dead. Even though the movie makes it clear multiple times that wasn't the reason. For some unknown reason some fans severely over exaggerate to the point of fabrication on how much Rachel factored into his Batman mission. She was someone he hoped to share his life with after he was done. Nothing more, nothing less.



Getting help from allies is a staple part of the character. Alfred, Gordon, Robin, Nightwing, Batgirl, Azrael, Superman, Huntress, Bullock, Montoya.......I could go on for a hundred years naming people who have helped Batman in his mission more times than you can count e.g.

You're not wrong in saying he did heavily rely on Lucius for the gadgets, and that is probably one aspect of criticism I do understand from fans. But at the same time he still showed his own smarts utilizing it e.g. turning the sonar concept into a large tracking device to scan the whole city for Joker's whereabouts.

Any fans here of Arkham Origins game? In my opinion it had some of the best character writing I've ever seen for the characters. Especially Batman, Gordon, Alfred, and Joker. There's one scene in it in particular that stands out where Alfred reassures a self doubting Batman that he has to realize he is a man and can't do it all alone;




Comic book fantasy or not, Batman is still a flesh and blood man. Getting help from his allies doesn't make him less of a hero or an everyday man. Same goes for other beloved Batman mediums like BTAS. Alfred, Robin, Batgirl....they all helped him and saved his butt many times in that. He had a mechanic named Earl Cooper build his Batmobile for him etc. Heck in Mask of the Phantasm he was willing to throw away his whole mission of becoming Batman just so he could be with Andrea Beaumont. Even when she came back into his life years later and they rekindled their love he contemplated it again.

Nine times out of ten when these kind of discussions pop up its fan projecting more what they want Batman to be rather than who he actually is in my opinion.

I love these discussions because Batman is so awesome and we are all fans!

I think what it is for me is that Bruce Wayne in the Nolan movies felt like the real Bruce Wayne. I don’t mean his playboy personality but his personality around Alfred and Lucius and Rachael. In The Batman and even 89, it felt like he is uncomfortable being Bruce Wayne even around Alfred and others. It felt like Batman is who he is and knows how to be. Bruce he doesn’t and feels uncomfortable. I don’t mean the playboy personality as I think Reeves will dive into that but I mean just Bruce being Bruce. He WANTS to be Batman because that is who he is. He will always want to fight crime and go out at night. It has been depicted in so many adaptations that he NEEDS to go on patrol even if he doesn’t have to. He is obsessed with it because it is his true self now. For Nolan, it seemed like Bruce wasn’t a broken man but well rounded and was comfortable being Bruce and could see a world where he doesn’t have to be Batman. That was his goal to inspire hope for the city so that Batman wasn’t needed even though he knows crime will always be there….Batman didn’t have to be. That is why he left the city with Blake/Robin and tried with Harvey. Nolan had Batman be active for like 2 years maybe? That to me alone is crazy. It’s not a lifelong mission but a 2 year side activity (granted 8 years or whatever of retiring after the first year and half). For Reeves, I don’t think this Batman will ever retire. He will either die or continue on in his fight. I do like how BTAS handled how he had to retire because he pushed to old age, had a heart attack mid mission and had to use a gun that he swore to never use. He was that obsessed. That to me is Batman. He never ever wants to quit unless he is forced to. That one panel isn’t the end all be all when we can look at multiple other iterations where it’s the opposite.

For the solo mission part, it wasn’t so much he never gets help. It’s more that he relies too much on Lucius for everything related to Batman. I would say that Lucius is just as important in creating Batman here than Bruce….if not more. They made it more like James Bond and Q. Where Lucius creates everything for Bruce to use to fight crime. It makes Bruce more of a fighter that uses others gadgets and expertise. Yeah he does have scenes of intelligence like the bullet fragment scene or safe scene in TDKR or the sonar. But they also have scenes where it makes it seem like Lucius is way smarter than Bruce like “am I supposed to know what that means?”. That was my issue.

As for the Rachael stuff, I don’t understand why Bruce retired then for 8 years if it wasn’t because Rachael died. Was it because the police were hunting him? But in the end of dark knight, he knows that’s gonna happen and welcomes it. Because he can be that person who has the cops after him while he still continues to fight the good fight. Hence he is the dark knight. That’s what makes the scene so spectacular in my eyes. That was very Batman of him. But then he just retires that night. There was 100% crime in Gotham during those 8 years even if it wasn’t a supervillain. Bruce in my eyes wouldn’t be able to stop fighting crime just because the cops were after him. I viewed it as it was because of Rachael. He didn’t have that drive anymore because there was no happy ending available for him anymore. It wasn’t until he was dragged into it by Selina attacking Bruce.

 

[The Joker]

To be fair, I have read great Denny O'Neil interviews where he makes much the same points as @DeadlyWest about Bruce retiring. As Denny sees it, there are only two ends for Bruce. Either, he gets smart, realizes he can't be Batman forever, moves on, and retires with a lovely lady and has a family, which for Denny was Talia, or he continues on indefinitely and one day is too slow and gets shot or misses a step on a rooftop and falls to his death. Denny's perspective was that although he would hope for the former, he sees Bruce as an obsessive who would never be satisfied and the latter outcome is more likely given how he saw Bruce's psychology.

With a panel consisting of award-winning "Batman" writers, editors and artists Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams, Grant Morrison, Frank Miller, Scott Snyder, Geoff Johns and Jim Lee, it would be hard to claim a more reliable resource for all questions pertaining to the modern Batman. So when one fan asked which film versions they felt had 'gotten it right', "Batman" editor Denny O'Neil (creator of both Ra's and Talia al Ghul in the original comics) didn't mince words:

"I can answer that in two words: Christopher Nolan. I created one of the characters in the first and third, so you would expect me to be pretty picky about it. And about halfway through that script I thought: 'My God, he's doing it better than I did. He really gets this character... why the hell didn't I think of this?' He is a man who has great respect for the source material and a master of his own craft."

'Batman' Comic Writers Agree: Christopher Nolan 'Got It Right'

I'd be very interested to see one of these Denny interviews to see the context.

 

[The Joker]

I love these discussions because Batman is so awesome and we are all fans!

I think what it is for me is that Bruce Wayne in the Nolan movies felt like the real Bruce Wayne. I don’t mean his playboy personality but his personality around Alfred and Lucius and Rachael. In The Batman and even 89, it felt like he is uncomfortable being Bruce Wayne even around Alfred and others. It felt like Batman is who he is and knows how to be. Bruce he doesn’t and feels uncomfortable. I don’t mean the playboy personality as I think Reeves will dive into that but I mean just Bruce being Bruce. He WANTS to be Batman because that is who he is. He will always want to fight crime and go out at night. It has been depicted in so many adaptations that he NEEDS to go on patrol even if he doesn’t have to. He is obsessed with it because it is his true self now. For Nolan, it seemed like Bruce wasn’t a broken man but well rounded and was comfortable being Bruce and could see a world where he doesn’t have to be Batman. That was his goal to inspire hope for the city so that Batman wasn’t needed even though he knows crime will always be there….Batman didn’t have to be. That is why he left the city with Blake/Robin and tried with Harvey. Nolan had Batman be active for like 2 years maybe? That to me alone is crazy. It’s not a lifelong mission but a 2 year side activity (granted 8 years or whatever of retiring after the first year and half). For Reeves, I don’t think this Batman will ever retire. He will either die or continue on in his fight. I do like how BTAS handled how he had to retire because he pushed to old age, had a heart attack mid mission and had to use a gun that he swore to never use. He was that obsessed. That to me is Batman. He never ever wants to quit unless he is forced to. That one panel isn’t the end all be all when we can look at multiple other iterations where it’s the opposite.

I don't know how on earth you got that impression for the character when TDKR blatantly shows he needed to be Batman because his life as Bruce Wayne became an empty shell without it. As someone else here said, I think it was titansupes, his conscious and subconscious mind, so well illustrated by his twin retirements. Everything he does is in service to what he believes to be a finite mission as Batman. He THINKS he can give it up, but as we see in TDKR... without Batman, he's purposeless, wasting away. He won the war, but still he's just "waiting for things to go bad again", as Alfred says.

What other iterations are the opposite? I'm legit interested to see. Please share some.

For the solo mission part, it wasn’t so much he never gets help. It’s more that he relies too much on Lucius for everything related to Batman. I would say that Lucius is just as important in creating Batman here than Bruce….if not more. They made it more like James Bond and Q. Where Lucius creates everything for Bruce to use to fight crime. It makes Bruce more of a fighter that uses others gadgets and expertise. Yeah he does have scenes of intelligence like the bullet fragment scene or safe scene in TDKR or the sonar. But they also have scenes where it makes it seem like Lucius is way smarter than Bruce like “am I supposed to know what that means?”. That was my issue.

He relies on Lucius for the gadgets. Yes you are right. But in the hands of someone unremarkable they are just worthless gadgets. For example Lucius may have made the Batman costume, but he isn't the one taking out SWAT teams, Joker's men, and saving hostages all at the same time. Only Batman can do that. I think you're over emphasizing the importance of the gadgets. They don't define Batman. Never have done.

As for the Rachael stuff, I don’t understand why Bruce retired then for 8 years if it wasn’t because Rachael died. Was it because the police were hunting him? But in the end of dark knight, he knows that’s gonna happen and welcomes it. Because he can be that person who has the cops after him while he still continues to fight the good fight. Hence he is the dark knight. That’s what makes the scene so spectacular in my eyes. That was very Batman of him. But then he just retires that night. There was 100% crime in Gotham during those 8 years even if it wasn’t a supervillain. Bruce in my eyes wouldn’t be able to stop fighting crime just because the cops were after him. I viewed it as it was because of Rachael. He didn’t have that drive anymore because there was no happy ending available for him anymore. It wasn’t until he was dragged into it by Selina attacking Bruce.

No it was because he was no longer needed as Batman. Harvey Dent's legacy and the Dent act cleaned up the city. This was mentioned multiple times by multiple characters. I'm not sure how you missed it. It had nothing to do with Rachel.

Gordon: "We were in this together. Then you were gone"
Batman: "The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won"

They even say Gordon is going to get early retirement off the Mayor because the city crime is so low.

 

[DKDetective]

With a panel consisting of award-winning "Batman" writers, editors and artists Denny O'Neil, Neal Adams, Grant Morrison, Frank Miller, Scott Snyder, Geoff Johns and Jim Lee, it would be hard to claim a more reliable resource for all questions pertaining to the modern Batman. So when one fan asked which film versions they felt had 'gotten it right', "Batman" editor Denny O'Neil (creator of both Ra's and Talia al Ghul in the original comics) didn't mince words:

"I can answer that in two words: Christopher Nolan. I created one of the characters in the first and third, so you would expect me to be pretty picky about it. And about halfway through that script I thought: 'My God, he's doing it better than I did. He really gets this character... why the hell didn't I think of this?' He is a man who has great respect for the source material and a master of his own craft."

'Batman' Comic Writers Agree: Christopher Nolan 'Got It Right'

I'd be very interested to see one of these Denny interviews to see the context.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Nolan fundamentally misinterpreted the character or anything. He did a great job. But one of the great things about this character is that he is moldable and can withstand many different interpretations. Like anyone, Denny's ideas about Bruce can change or he can go back and forth. My thoughts change. I'm just pointing to the fact that it is a valid interpretation to see Bruce's finite goal as being actually impossible and therefore he is deluding himself. In Murderer/Fugitive, which is written by some of my favourite modern Batman writers, they very very much take the position that Bruce's war is unwinnable and he knows that better than most.

Here is one of the ones I mentioned, which is from only a year before Denny died, so after the one you quoted:
Exclusive Interview - Denny O'Neil on Batman's 80th anniversary, Green Arrow and new stories

In my personal biography of Bruce Wayne, he’s 33 now – that’s my Catholic background, Christ was 33 – and he’s going to last until he’s about 42 and then he’s going to slip on one of those roofs missing a step and dies. That’s one possibility, the other is he finds Talia, wherever she is on Earth, and they reconcile their differences and get married and have the smartest, most beautiful children ever! He uses his brains and his fortune to help humanity in different ways. Logically there’s no other way for him to end. When people do ‘this is Batman at 50’, he was just Batman. They didn’t make any allowances for ‘Gee, I used to be able to run 5 miles and now that I’m almost 80 I can’t because I’m almost 80’.

I'm still tracking down the interview where Denny talks about Bruce's obsessive nature and where he says he figures that the more likely outcome is the pessimistic one. It might have been a YouTube video interview. I've been consuming a lot of Batman content since this movie came out, and a lot of Denny stuff in particular, so it is a bit tough finding all of the sources and keeping them straight.

 

[spideyfan77]

I don't know how on earth you got that impression for the character when TDKR blatantly shows he needed to be Batman because his life as Bruce Wayne became an empty shell without it. As someone else here said, I think it was titansupes, his conscious and subconscious mind, so well illustrated by his twin retirements. Everything he does is in service to what he believes to be a finite mission as Batman. He THINKS he can give it up, but as we see in TDKR... without Batman, he's purposeless, wasting away. He won the war, but still he's just "waiting for things to go bad again", as Alfred says.

What other iterations are the opposite? I'm legit interested to see. Please share some.



He relies on Lucius for the gadgets. Yes you are right. But in the hands of someone unremarkable they are just worthless gadgets. For example Lucius may have made the Batman costume, but he isn't the one taking out SWAT teams, Joker's men, and saving hostages all at the same time. Only Batman can do that. I think you're over emphasizing the importance of the gadgets. They don't define Batman. Never have done.



No it was because he was no longer needed as Batman. Harvey Dent's legacy and the Dent act cleaned up the city. This was mentioned multiple times by multiple characters. I'm not sure how you missed it. It had nothing to do with Rachel.

Gordon: "We were in this together. Then you were gone"
Batman: "The Batman wasn't needed any more. We won"

They even say Gordon is going to get early retirement off the Mayor because the city crime is so low.

But that isn’t true because he retires again and is happy with Selina. In my eyes he was broken because Rachael died because of him and he failed her. He kept saying how there is nothing out there for him because there was no more Rachael. If he didn’t retire in the end of TDKR then yeah I would agree with you because then your point would be valid that he learned it was because he wasn’t Batman anymore and never about settling down with someone. But he does settle down and retire and give the batcave (knowing there is going to be more crime and wars to fight) to Blake. He just found someone to settle down with and be happy. I love the ending but it didn’t mesh with my view of Batman. It was a realistic approach to Batman. What if Batman was in our world? Impossible to fight for 25 years and never retire.


Batman BTAS, the dark knight returns, kingdom come, all of Scott Snyder run, and basically all of the comics. Batman 89. Batman isn’t only about fighting the super city ending events. He doesn’t want any crime. Zero. Any death in the street is failure on his part. No city ESPECIALLY Gotham will ever achieve that.


I agree but then your just saying that an amazing fighter can be Batman. When in my eyes, it is a lot more than that for Batman. It is intellect, gadgets, planning, drive, and obsession. Nolan for the most part understands this except the intellect and gadgets. Batman has a gadget for everything. Take away his utility belt and suit then yeah you are taking away Batman’s biggest weapon. Why do you think he can fight Superman or be in the justice league fighting other gods or fighting half his villains? Clayface, Mr. Freeze, Man-Bat, Bane, etc. Let alone a dozen robbers. He has the gadgets and batsuit and intellect to even the odds in a fight.

Then Nolan either:
1. Doesn’t understand Gotham - literally the worst of the worst…..this city will always have crime. It is the most corrupt and crime ridden city like ever depicted in popular culture.
2. Extremely unrealistic - every city has crime. People will get robbed or hurt or killed no matter what. Batman wouldn’t accept that in my eyes. Because in his eyes….those that were murdered have sons/daughters like he lost his parents. It’s literally the whole reason why he started Batman. To stop that from ever happening to anyone else. Not to fight supervillains or save the world or save an entire city from blowing up. It was to stop regular criminals. The other stuff came up afterwards. Just because the big stuff is won….doesn’t mean Batman views his mission as over.

So unless Gotham (the most disgusting and corrupt city in the world) had ZERO crimes then I don’t understand why he retired. Let alone he does retire in the end KNOWING there is going to be crime and leaves it to Blake to deal with it.

 

[The Joker]

Then Nolan either:
1. Doesn’t understand Gotham - literally the worst of the worst…..this city will always have crime. It is the most corrupt and crime ridden city like ever depicted in popular culture.
2. Extremely unrealistic - every city has crime. People will get robbed or hurt or killed no matter what. Batman wouldn’t accept that in my eyes. Because in his eyes….those that were murdered have sons/daughters like he lost his parents. It’s literally the whole reason why he started Batman. To stop that from ever happening to anyone else. Not to fight supervillains or save the world or save an entire city from blowing up. It was to stop regular criminals. The other stuff came up afterwards. Just because the big stuff is won….doesn’t mean Batman views his mission as over.

So unless Gotham (the most disgusting and corrupt city in the world) had ZERO crimes then I don’t understand why he retired. Let alone he does retire in the end KNOWING there is going to be crime and leaves it to Blake to deal with it.

It wasn't a case of him not understanding Gotham. It was a case that he had Batman succeed in his mission to save Gotham through Harvey Dent's legacy and preserving his hero image to the city.

This isn't the Adam West Batman show. The Police are capable of handling petty crime here.

Your views are a classic case of what I was talking about above when I said these discussions are often fan projecting of who they think Batman is rather than who he actually is. Take Batman Year One for example which showcases Batman's beginning. He zeroes in on the corruption and the big crime bosses like Falcone. That's the root of the crime in the city. That's what makes things unbearably bad. Same in Batman Begins. The city had no super villains or threats of it being blown up when he started as Batman. He was focused on the corruption and taking out Falcone.

 

[spideyfan77]

Again, I love Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Really enjoyed The Dark Knight Rises. Think they are completely valid and great interpretation of Batman. As I have said, they took Batman and put him into our world. Made him super accessible to everyone. TDK was my favourite batman solo movie before The Batman. I just think that The Batman is more MY interpretation of Batman that I know and love.

 

[The Joker]

To be clear, I'm not saying that Nolan fundamentally misinterpreted the character or anything. He did a great job. But one of the great things about this character is that he is moldable and can withstand many different interpretations. Like anyone, Denny's ideas about Bruce can change or he can go back and forth. My thoughts change. I'm just pointing to the fact that it is a valid interpretation to see Bruce's finite goal as being actually impossible and therefore he is deluding himself. In Murderer/Fugitive, which is written by some of my favourite modern Batman writers, they very very much take the position that Bruce's war is unwinnable and he knows that better than most.

Here is one of the ones I mentioned, which is from only a year before Denny died, so after the one you quoted:
Exclusive Interview - Denny O'Neil on Batman's 80th anniversary, Green Arrow and new stories

"I thought this was the most realistic character in comics so I will make him realistic, but I couldn’t. If you think about the Batmobile, its not credible that a city of 7 million people would not see that the same very visible car goes in the same direction at 5 AM and its a countryside that it goes to, so there are maybe seven or eight estates. Surely they would figure it out! You can’t have a realistic Batman and the Batmobile! There is a college professor who argued that Batman could exist for two years and a whole lot of reasons he couldn’t do it anymore."

Thanks for digging it up for me. This is why I asked to see the interview for the context. In this context he's taking about applying realism to Batman and how that retirement scenario would go. As he just said there in a realistic scenario Batman couldn't even have a Batmobile. He's just spinning a realism yarn here.

I'm still tracking down the interview where Denny talks about Bruce's obsessive nature and where he says he figures that the more likely outcome is the pessimistic one. It might have been a YouTube video interview. I've been consuming a lot of Batman content since this movie came out, and a lot of Denny stuff in particular, so it is a bit tough finding all of the sources and keeping them straight.

Well if you do manage to come across it please share it. I'm a big Denny fan.

 

[InCali]

Hmmm......that's an interesting question. All of them are very good, but I think I would go with BB because it's a fuller story and a very well done story at that. I almost went with The Batman, but that's because it's most recent. I suspect it wouldn't do as well if the question were asked a couple of years from now.