I don't see why a certain passage of mine should refrain you from posting whatever thought you had on the matter.
I don't agree with your perception, but it's not something I find so irksomely incongruous that I would consider challenging you about it. Hence why your re-iteration was superfluous.
However,
this I do find irksome:
Gordon aids Batman by doing his duty as a police officer and chasing the criminal and corrupt.
Gordon is not 'batman support'. He's doing a job, he always
was doing that job, and batman just happens to be performing a similar job - which is why they're allies. Gordon doesn't set out to aid batman, they just happen to be fighting for similar goals.
Everyone has a vision of what is essential to them, that's the point I was making. If we appeal to personal taste then who are you to tell someone they shouldn't label something as essential?
I'm not requesting that you alter your language, I'm just asking that you question how important the necessity for a Batboat is. Everything I've posted in this thread relates to something I would feel dissapointed if the sequel didn't adress, to the point where I wouldn't enjoy the overall experience of the film.
If you watched Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and thought, "They really should have had a batboat", and feel that not adressing this issue would dampen your experience of the third film, then sure, the inclusion of the batboat is clearly very important to you.
But to call something essential is to say that it's absence will totally ruin your experience otherwise. Will you
really have your experience ruined by there not being a batboat?
Again, I'm under the understanding that this thread is about adressing issues that left you frustrated when watching previous films, rather than a wishlist of things that'd be cool to see. That's the difference between 'essential to be adressed' and 'something I'd really like to see done'. Nothing to do with semantics, but plain error with regards to denotation.
I do not believe something such as the Batboat is inconsequential nor immaterial. I believe that in line with the comics the introduction of the Batboat would again add an additional dynamic in that Batman will be conducting his warfare on the waters and not just on the roads. Also it represents a genesis in his thinking and the actual armamments at this disposal. To me it is important because a Batboat would add some interesting new action scenes and shift the scenery away a little from just jumping off rooftops with an armoured car. I also feel it will be inevitable as Nathan Crowley a senior production designer from the franchise has stated his desire to create a Batboat of some kind.
A valid justification of why you want to see the batboat. But justifications which prove that this is something you'd like to see, and think would be a natural thematic progression, an inevitable progress in production design etc. Not an essential factor in mainting the story's credibility.
If you had instead said something like;
"It's ridiculous that Batman hasn't extended his limits to include water-borne combat and interception"
or
"One of the major areas of the series I feel needs to be adressed is the necessity of combat on Gotham's waterways."
Then yeah, you'd be perfectly justified in saying 'I personally feel that a batboat is essential'. However, the points you
actually raised confirmed my belief that you are misguided in your use of language, and if not lack the ability to prioritise the essential ingredients of narrative.
I certainly feel by making him an eventual ally, this provides a fascinating dynamic.
There's a difference between having a philisophical mentor and an arms dealer (Alfred and Lucius respectively) and having someone enter a dangerous active role in your crusade against crime. Even if you regard Alfred and Lucius (and even Gordon) as being a part of batman's 'core nexus of support', then the role you are describing is something beyond that.
