Gotham The Wayne's murder: intentional or happenstance?

That's an interesting idea. Imagine if Gordon suspected there was more to the Wayne murder than meets the eye, goes investigating, uncovers unsavory info about Gotham's underworld, society, and politics...and then ultimately it turns out to have been just a random mugging. Bruce could initially vow revenge on Falcone because he believes him responsible for his parents' murders then shift to a crusade against all crime once he knows the truth.

The only problem I have with that scenario is that it does feel a bit flat but it's something to think about.

 

One of the few things I liked in Batman: Earth One was how Geoff Johns handled the Waynes' deaths.

There was established to be a huge conspiracy whereby Oswald Cobblepot intended to have the Waynes murdered but then all of it was for nothing when a random mugger killed them.

Also, I like that even after Chill is (usually) captured, there are still conspiracies that pop up, Lex knew about it, thr Black Glove may have done it and more.

 

Well I think it's narrow minded to suggest the story of Batman will be less if the Waynes were assassinated.

I think they should create something like a catalyst, which they did in BB. TLOS caused the depression in Gotham, which caused Chill to rob the Waynes and murder them. So they were indirectly involved in the cause of the murder. It was a random crime born out of a great plot orchestrated by TLOS.

Bruce should not be made aware straight away that an assassination was ordered on his parents.
He should learn and become grounded in the basics of criminals and crime, that he hates them for what they do to people.
That's why I'm hoping Chill is a cold hearted butthole and mocks the Waynes during the murder.
It shows Bruce a first taste of true evil.

Selina should then come into his life as a representation of the element that some criminals do what they do when their on hard times.
Each villain on the show should be known by Bruce as he understands each and everyone of them and why they behaviour is criminal.
Maybe he hates them more, maybe he pities them.

But what he should draw from the experience is that they're doing something wrong, breaking the law, hurting people. He simply wants them stopped because of his experiences.

And once Bruce's mind has nurtured in the ways understanding his feelings towards the criminal element of society that plagues people in different ways, then he discovers Chill was an assassin that killed the Waynes because they uncovered the biggest reason behind Gotham's downfall and if not for their death, they could've saved the city themselves.

And that's how Batman avenges them. Not just by going after a key figure responsible who paid to have them murdered, but by stopping CRIME itself in it's entirety that was responsible. Not just one man or one reason should be responsible.
Fighting crime like his parents before him is his birthright. He takes on thieir and his own fight.

It should be more factors than just Chill.

 

Batman Begins dealt with it very well.

 

Exactly. The Wayne murder could be the event that births the name Crime Alley.

 

Finding out about something sometime in the future does NOTHING to retroactively change his motives in the past. It can change his motives moving forward, withing the confines of that story.
UNLESS he stops fighting all other crime all together, and then devotes himself to only tracking down those responsible, any "change" in his motives would be, by definition, ONLY applicable to his actions to track down those responsible, and does jack **** to the rest of his mission, motives, character, etc.

 

You're saying this in response to a quote where I specifically say that my problem isn't with it changing the character's motivation. That was the entire point of the post you quoted.

Batman shouldn't be about hate or pity.

 

But like I said, overall, his main concern is about stopping criminals.
Hate and pity or whatever play little in his feelings regarding that.

I wouldn't even say he hates criminals. Dislike for what they do, of course. He just wants them stopped.

 

His main concern shouldn't be stopping criminals. His main concern should be protecting people. There is a significant difference.

 

Yeah, when you go for stopping criminals above protecting people, you get Jean-Paul.

 

And also like I said, the criminal element breaks the law and hurts people.

They're the two of Batman's main motivations.

Stopping a heist that potentially wouldn't harm or hurt anyone. He wouldn't need to protect anyone, just stop criminals.

If there was no innocent life for him to protect, would he just leave the criminals to carry on?
Criminals that are known never to harm anybody physically or mentally? They just commit heists, unarmed, via computers?

Crime is crime. Batman stops it on every level. Whether innocents are threatened or not.

 

That shouldn't be what Batman is about. It turns what he does into a desire for violent catharsis, not a desire to actually protect innocent people and make Gotham a better place.

 

It is what he does though, on occasions.

But you're right. His main motivation is to stop criminals causing harm and pain to innocents.

 

It shouldn't be, though.

That still puts "stopping criminals" as his primary focus. His primary focus should be to protect innocent people and make Gotham City a better place. Stopping criminals just one of the things he has to do to accomplish that.

 

Very true.
He's not just based on stopping criminals.
He's a saviour too in other regards. For example, he rescues people out of common fires if he comes across such an incident.

But Bruce wouldn't be Batman if not for crime, a criminal, and pain.
He has issues with all three of those things.

But the last of those three is his main motivation for doing what he does.
Whatever a criminal does, whatever kind of man he is, Bruce is beyond concerned about that. All he's concerned about is stopping that said individual from potentially harming innocent lives at some point down the line.

However, he wants to prevent a criminal breaking the law, even if they haven't harmed anyone. They can't be allowed to get away with it and Batman wouldn't stand for it.

Hate, however, isn't what drove Bruce to become Batman. It was his empathy.

But I want to see him discover those reasons and feelings as the show progresses.
He's bound to be hateful and angry at first.

 

I'm not saying he should be that extreme or stop rescuing someone from a burning building to go chase down the arsonist behind it.

He saves, then he stops the criminal.

I never implied Bruce sets out planning attacks on the criminal organisation like a tactical military leader. That's Jean-Paul.

Bruce Wayne is always out on the streets watching over the innocent - not watching criminals. He leaves operations like the above to the police.

 

I'm sorry, I don't know what the hell I was thinking, lol. I COMPLETELY miss read your post. I may as well have not read it at all.

As far as what you ACTUALLY wrote, as opposed to whatever the hell I was obliviously responding to:

I THINK I agree with you here, except that it doesn't change the truth about random crime, nor the mission he's taken on.
Everything he's done since, and will continue to do, don't have to be re-purposed based on him uncovering more about the murder of his parents.

I believe that you are saying the murder is re-contextualized, and being the inciting incident for Bruce, it changes the context of the story.
Although it COULD, I don't believe it inherently DOES.

Arguably, Batman Begins essentially makes Ra's "responsible" for Bruce's parent's murder, while still making it an otherwise "random" crime.
Although, the suggestion is that Ra's, and the League's actions are largely responsible for the downfall of Gotham, and thus everything Bruce is fighting, it arguably re-contextualizes the ENTIRE mission. That said, it still remains universal within those films. That is, the fact that there was an over-arcing tie to Ra's and the League, going from his everything leading up to his parents murder, all the way to the finale of TDKRises, the narrative, his mission, everything, still speaks to the randomness with which crime can victimize.

Not saying that is how it has to be done, just that I think it CAN be done.

I think that targeting someone who is attempting good, trying to help people and fix things, and killing them BECAUSE they are trying to do good, is also a pretty big idea, and a meaningful story.
It's not just about the victimization, but about it being perpetuated; not only are people trying to step up smacked down, but those trying to help them up are as well. It also showcases the hole Batman attempts to fill with thick justice; No one even CAN help.

Another way it could be similarly re-contextualized, making someone "bigger" bare, at least some of, the responsibility, is the war on drugs.
The war on drugs takes any possible danger of drugs and increases it exponentially, and puts it over EVERYONE'S heads.
A desperate addict who has no recourse but expensive and dangerous street drugs doesn't have many options as far as funding himself. This suddenly takes his problems, and makes them potentially ANYBODY'S problem, if he break into your home looking for money, or holds you up in an alley.

Similar to how Ra's is "responsible" for the economic conditions which created the environment that produced Joe Chill in Begins, tying one of the larger characters to the drug market, and system which creates a desperate and dangerous addict Joe Chill would, within the context of the story, make said character "responsible" for the murder.
Sorry for the run on sentence there.

Although both of those examples give a more "soft" responsibility to other characters, as far as the Wayne's murder, there are many ways they could present a backstory in which someone "bigger" has ties to the murder.
Even making it so someone was directly targeting them, I imagine could be made to work as well.

 

As I suspected all along,Robin...Chill was probably...an assassin!

 

Trailer hints at this being organized hit. Perhapes to create a mystery behind their deaths.

Joe chill being hitman and not just mugger isn't new idea if you know batman comic book history.

 

The biggest thing that worries me is the Wayne killers face obscured. Reminds me of how Syler in heroes was a stunt guy before they cast and revealed him. This show seems to have an obvious affection for the Burton films but is smartly not completely departed the Nolan aesthetics either. With that in mind I wouldn't be surprised if they bring back Jack Napier as the Wayne killer which would tick me off quite a bit. I prefer it to be Chill and a random desperate act of violence.

 

I doubt they are going to pursue the Burton route. If so, they would not have bothered making the show around Gordon, as Gordon was a joke in the films. Don't get me wrong: Pat Hingle's one of my favorite Western actors, and they should have used him for some creative mileage, but, all he did was command a spotlight be operated and state the obvious.

 

Nice thread, but I'm ambivalent about this. If the murders are random then it seems to take away from the premise of this series: That Gotham is beyond corrupt and, it's becoming evil.

If it's an assassination then you've got a much more intricate detective story, which seems more logical given this is mostly about Gordon.

 

I think it should stay vague. They should walk the line between was it just a random event or was it something more with out ever really answering.