And now for the serious.
Wow, I'm usually a fan of your posts, but this is some of the worst arrogant, patronizing stuff I've ever seen on these forums.
As Judge Judy has said: "Don't get dramatic with me"
That post was actually an arrogant answer to an arrogant stand point. It was late and honestly I'm so tired of this "Batman can't retire" debate, I honestly think it's VERY silly. Of course he can retire and hopefully at the end of this post you'll understand why.
But to do that you'll have to open your mind of different variations of Batman, if you don't do that you'll never understand my point.
now...
It is not a failure in someone's thinking to be displeased with a characterization he or she believes is illegitimate.
No, it's not. I don't care if people are displeased with it. I'm only concerned with the idea that it can't be done because of some criterion created by the Comics. I cannot say enough that these are not Movie Comic Books, they are comic book movies. There has been a set up from the first movie that has made retiring totally possible and within character.
Yes, Batman is a creative character and subject to interpretation. The character has over 70 years of different interpretations in the comics and other media. Comics fan are aware that there is no single perfect version of the character. They do not fail to see the possibilities that the character holds.
I like the bolded part a lot but it's nearly counter to some of the things suggested in this forum. Someone yesterday said it was arrogant to think that the Nolan films could ever do anything better than the comics. What? are you kidding me? Why can't they? It's a total possibility, it might not happen but there's no reason to think that they couldn't.
If people who hold the comics to the highest standard are so aware of this why do they seem so vehemently against the idea of Batman retiring. It's not just: "eh, I don't like that idea, it would seem odd." it's: "That is the worst thing ever and would be bad ending for a Batman movie!"
But the defense is never anything other than some reiteration of the way the comics have done things. Haven't we noticed these films deviate from the comics in ways? subtle ways here and there that could dramatically affect the way the end is told. Again Batman is not a character who is determined to save Gotham on his own, his goal has been explicitly stated. He wants to inspire good in Gotham.
There is your factual, undeniable evidence right there. If he does inspire good in Gotham if that criterion is met then there is no NEED for Batman.
Do not counter this with: "As long as there is crime, orphans, murders" that's all dandy and fine but that's a trait of the comic book Batman, this slight divergence is going to essentially shape a forked path for Batman and one of the options is what a lot of people seem to think is so counter to Batman.
I will say it again. There is an inherent need to keep this characters grounded in some way to their comic counter parts, that's what makes them familiar and true but that doesn't mean that as a creator of these films the writers need to be confined into such a narrow view of the character. Especially something as small as Retiring. If we were talking about Batman having gender reassignment surgery and becoming Wonder Woman this could be more understood but this movie is an end to this universe and we KNOW it will have a definite ending.
Retirement is within character for THIS universe. THIS UNIVERSE.
THIS UNIVERSE. if this were BTAS I'd be agreeing with all of you but it's not and it's been really clear up until this point that it's not the same parameters that guide this universe.
Thus is the skew between a finite universe and an infinite universe.
Rather, what they are arguing against you is that if you change a character enough, it's not the same character anymore. This is a perfectly reasonable position. It has nothing to do with a failure of thinking. For some, a Bruce Wayne who happily retires and walks off into the sunset is not Batman, not the same character. It arguably changes the core of the character, the core of his personality and psychology.
But for some strange reason they're never able to explain why. This is not some sudden change in the character either. This is something that has been possible from the very start of this universe, it's an ending we have agreed is workable by entering into the first two films. Now if you didn't like BB or TDK and think they are so dramatically different from Batman's core then you are in line with this current way of thinking but if you found that for the most part BB and TDK are in line with the core Batman traits then you can't suddenly revoke it now. why? Because retirement has been the end game for this Bruce since Batman begins. Hell TDK has him pining for it!
No. TDK's ending is not about being Batman forever. It's about being responsible for actions. That he has the ability and the want to save Gotham so bad that he's willing to be a scapegoat for Harvey's crimes. Bruce does this because he knows that Gotham is on the cusp of a change, a good one. One that could finally have the city be presentable and stand-up for itself. That was Harvey's gift to the city. His actions in TDK are still in line with the idea of retirement.
Now do you have to subscribe to what I said above? No but, it's subjective and it most certainly does fit in with what happened in TDK and with the idea of retirement. Which makes it a possibility and that's all I'm concerned with. Anyone saying that retirement is not a possibility as an end for these films for whatever reason is down-right wrong. It is within the character we've been claiming has been within universal character with Batman.
Batman is more than just a billionaire orphan who runs around meting out justice with his fists. What defines Batman is open to interpretation. Others may disagree with you about the character's defining traits, that is not a reason to talk down to them and tell them that they fail to understand the character and are wedded to the constraining idea of "comic book Batman". There are numerous comic book Batmans.
I never said they failed to understand the character, I said it was a failing on their part to not be able to see how retirement could work. To set your mind and say: "This will work. this will never work" is a rigid, close minded view of a character who is a creative work and therefore shapable by many ideas. If one cannot see how someone can have Batman retire and tell a story that weaves his core beliefs and characterizations into that end, then they have a failure of creative thought. It's a rigid way of thinking and there's no way around that. There are people more creative than I and if they told me: "I probably could work these ideas in the story and keep it true" I have no choice but to say: "Go ahead!" and keep an open mind because creativity is not science, it's not something that comes strictly from formulaic equations. It's a mixing and a matching of different ideas to create something new.
As Batman fans I would think the lot of you would take a position closer to: "Eh...retirement? I'm not sure Batman would do that but, if he does retire in TDKR and it's done right then that'll be something new and exciting to experience" instead the lot seem to be hinged that no matter what someone as a creative entity does to shape this character they will never be able to make sense of Batman retiring in tune with his core characterization.
To me,
that is arrogant and then splitting it between Batman fans vs. Nolan fans is even worse.
What about people who just like to see creative characters go through as many different iterations of the character as possible. I love to see my favorite characters, tortured, maimed, successful, angry, happy, sad, belligerent and others. Because I just like to see how they react in new ways because they're great characters.
Batman is a great character, let's not insist that he needs to be restrained by former creative uses of him. Let's hope that if this retirement thing happens, its done in a way that's still in line with the Batman character. Everyone wins there.
Some may just disagree with you about what characteristics unify those interpretations and what constitutes the hard core of the character's identity.
Yes but the core of the character is still a creative thing. It can always be manipulated, not always successfully but we should all ALWAYS be open to the possibility of a creative entity taking the character to new levels.
Especially considering the topic of this post is semi-related.
