Vicki in the cave

[frodawgg]

Now, I know I'm gonna get some flack for this, as I know people's hatred for this part of B89, and I can totally understand their animosity towards it. The part I mean, of course, is Alfred letting Vicki in the Batcave.

I can excuse this as a product of Tim Burton's movie-making, as we all know he is known for putting his own twist on things, but that's an argument and discussion for another day.

I really have no problem with this scene, and I'll tell you why. I know it basically goes against the (comic) character's principles, but each of the movies, especially this one, takes liberties with the character and mythology.

So here goes: Two scenes that defend this one.

It seems many of you forget that earlier in B89, Bruce goes to Vicki's apartment with the intent of telling her! So, in this continuity, the argument that "Alfred should be fired" probably wouldn't hold up.

Also, I seem to recall NOBODY being up in arms when, in BB, he repeats the words that Rachel told to him: "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you," as a way of revealing his identity. (I know that he had been lifelong friends with Rachel, whereas in B89 he had just met--and slept with--Vicki, but that shouldn't matter, since the main argument is that he doesn't want to put his loved ones in harm's way, regardless of how long he has known them.)

Now, I'm not saying that you can't dislike the scene and disagree with it, but if you look at the films as a whole, it's kind of unfair to attack just this one.

Peace.

 

[Naked Shia]

that's not what upsets me. But come on, Alfred is letting a reporter in the cave! She may betray him, especially when we know theybroke up between batman and batman returns.

 

[Fenrir]

It seems many of you forget that earlier in B89, Bruce goes to Vicki's apartment with the intent of telling her! So, in this continuity, the argument that "Alfred should be fired" probably wouldn't hold up.

It was not Alfred's place to decide to reveal Bruce's secret. And if you remember, Bruce slightly rebukes him for it in Batman Returns.

Also, I seem to recall NOBODY being up in arms when, in BB, he repeats the words that Rachel told to him: "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you," as a way of revealing his identity. (I know that he had been lifelong friends with Rachel, whereas in B89 he had just met--and slept with--Vicki, but that shouldn't matter, since the main argument is that he doesn't want to put his loved ones in harm's way, regardless of how long he has known them.)

I don't see how it is a relevant example, since in BB Bruce revealed his identity only because of the possibility that he might die trying to save the city and could never see her again.

Now, I'm not saying that you can't dislike the scene and disagree with it, but if you look at the films as a whole, it's kind of unfair to attack just this one.

Peace.

I don't see why you think this is such a huge criticism of B89. In terms of the overall problems with B89, I deem it a fairly small one.

 

[Fenrir]

that's not what upsets me. But come on, Alfred is letting a reporter in the cave! She may betray him, especially when we know they broke up between batman and batman returns.

This too.

 

[frodawgg]

I don't see why you think this is such a huge criticism of B89. In terms of the overall problems with B89, I deem it a fairly small one.

I hear you on all your points, but I have heard from some (and read on this here board) that this scene was the ultimate crime, the unforgivable sin, etc, etc.

 

[Travesty]

A.) Bruce and Alfred already talked about revealing his identity to Vicki.

B.) Yeah, she's a reporter, but if you do remember, she was already in the cave with Batman, and she didn't go around spilling the beans about it. Remember?

C.) Any debate about what happened between B89 and Returns shouldn't be a factor, as both movies aren't even really in the same universe. I mean, the friggin Manor is different in both films, the cave is totally different, the suit, Gotham, the atmosphere, etc. Sure, Vicki was brought up, but it's just a nod more then anything.

 

[Naked Shia]

I'm more upset by al the killing in baman than this scene actually.

 

[The Joker]

This scene didn't bother me because Bruce had already made the decision to reveal to her that he was Batman, but he was interrupted by the Joker arriving at Vicki's apartment.

 

[El Payaso]

Now, I know I'm gonna get some flack for this, as I know people's hatred for this part of B89, and I can totally understand their animosity towards it. The part I mean, of course, is Alfred letting Vicki in the Batcave.

I can excuse this as a product of Tim Burton's movie-making, as we all know he is known for putting his own twist on things, but that's an argument and discussion for another day.

Yes. I mean, that’s what many good directors do. Nolan did it too and bravo for that.

I really have no problem with this scene, and I'll tell you why. I know it basically goes against the (comic) character's principles, but each of the movies, especially this one, takes liberties with the character and mythology.

Each of the movies of every superhero I’d say.

So here goes: Two scenes that defend this one.

It seems many of you forget that earlier in B89, Bruce goes to Vicki's apartment with the intent of telling her! So, in this continuity, the argument that "Alfred should be fired" probably wouldn't hold up.

Not only that.

Alfred spent the movie trying to make Bruce do the right thing. Master Bruce, since she’s so special you better tell her the truth. But no, Bruce kept lying and doing it awfully at that. Bruce was too obsessed with his parents’ murder and using that to hide from his obligations to Vicky; to be honest with her or to stop playing games with her and leave her.

By the end of the movie Alfred was genuinely upset. Alfred is clearly a fatherly figure for Bruce and he knew what he was asking from him and why. I’d say he was prepared to be fired but he chose to do the right thing and force Bruce’s hand (who at this point had been unable to take his responsibility).

Not only I didn’t have a problem with this scene but I found it perfectly in character for Gough’s Alfred.

Also, I seem to recall NOBODY being up in arms when, in BB, he repeats the words that Rachel told to him: "It's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you," as a way of revealing his identity. (I know that he had been lifelong friends with Rachel, whereas in B89 he had just met--and slept with--Vicki, but that shouldn't matter, since the main argument is that he doesn't want to put his loved ones in harm's way, regardless of how long he has known them.)

I have to disagree with something: I see no connection between this and Alfred’s behaviour/decision.

Yes, both Keaton and Bale’s Bruce were willing to reveal their identities at one point. But what Alfred did in Batman 89 was unconnected to what Bruce wanted to do.

It was not Alfred's place to decide to reveal Bruce's secret. And if you remember, Bruce slightly rebukes him for it in Batman Returns.

Sure he wasn’t happy about it. But Alfred – place or not place to do that – made the right decision before Bruce’s inability to take responsibility for his actions respect to Vicky.

I don't see how it is a relevant example, since in BB Bruce revealed his identity only because of the possibility that he might die trying to save the city and could never see her again.

If for possibilities, he should assume that he might die every night.

I don't see why you think this is such a huge criticism of B89. In terms of the overall problems with B89, I deem it a fairly small one.

Same for Bruce suddenly revealing his identity to Rachel and BB. It wasn't a big deal in either case.

 

[Fenrir]

Sure he wasn’t happy about it. But Alfred – place or not place to do that – made the right decision before Bruce’s inability to take responsibility for his actions respect to Vicky.

I don't see it as that way at all. Alfred wanted Bruce to be happy. He didn't like seeing Bruce obsessing over his parents' death all the time and wanted him to have a normal life. Like when he says in the cave about not "grieving on the loss of old friends...or their sons". You may argue about whether or not Alfred did the right thing by letting Vicki in. But that still doesn't change the fact that it was not his place to make that decision. He may tell and advise Bruce to reveal the truth (like he does in Forever) but the right of doing so belongs to Bruce alone. That is why I don't have a problem with Bruce revealing it to Selina in Returns. Because, well, it is HIS secret. And Alfred should have respected that. But like it's been already said, it's a moot point.

If for possibilities, he should assume that he might die every night.

Why? He's clearly more than trained and capable enough to deal with the day-to-day crimes in the city. But a doomsday plot to destroy the entire city and going up against his former and perhaps most influential mentor? That's not something he encounters every day nor was prepared for it.

 

[Fenrir]

Speaking of revealing secrets, I recall the instance in Hush in which Time Drake finds out that Bruce revealed his secret to Selina and goes "You told her? You made the wrong decision" and Bruce goes "It was mine to make". In B89, Alfred, in all his wisdom, should have known better.

 

[The Joker]

Speaking of revealing secrets, I recall the instance in Hush in which Time Drake finds out that Bruce revealed his secret to Selina and goes "You told her? You made the wrong decision" and Bruce goes "It was mine to make". In B89, Alfred, in all his wisdom, should have known better.

That was actually all a sharade to see if Catwoman could be trusted. As soon as she left the cave, Tim says "Do you think she bought it?".

So you see Batman revealed his identity to her, even though there was still obvious doubts about doing it.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't see it as that way at all. Alfred wanted Bruce to be happy. He didn't like seeing Bruce obsessing over his parents' death all the time and wanted him to have a normal life. Like when he says in the cave about not "grieving on the loss of old friends...or their sons". You may argue about whether or not Alfred did the right thing by letting Vicki in. But that still doesn't change the fact that it was not his place to make that decision. He may tell and advise Bruce to reveal the truth (like he does in Forever) but the right of doing so belongs to Bruce alone. That is why I don't have a problem with Bruce revealing it to Selina in Returns. Because, well, it is HIS secret. And Alfred should have respected that. But like it's been already said, it's a moot point.

In fact that is exactly what Alfred does; he tells Bruce to reveal the truth to Vicky.

And Bruce doesn’t do it.

Then Bruce goes to Vicky’s place, has a lot of problems confessing the truth and after he’s interrupted (and shot) by Joker, he goes back to the Batcave and hide himself in his old archives.

At this point it is clear for Alfred that Bruce won’t try to fix things up again anytime soon. So, as a fatherly figure, he forces his hand.

Alfred respected Bruce’s decision; he actually decided to tell the truth, but for one reason or another, he always ended up being unable to actually do it. The only choice for Alfred was to leave Bruce alone, permanently absorbed in his obsession and playing games with Vicky’s mind. But he knew better.

Why?

Because every night could be that night.

He's clearly more than trained and capable enough to deal with the day-to-day crimes in the city. But a doomsday plot to destroy the entire city and going up against his former and perhaps most influential mentor? That's not something he encounters every day nor was prepared for it.

Well, he was trained and prepaired but Dr. Crane set him on fire with little to no effort. So he knew for a fact that every night he could be killed. And he knew about League of Shadows and their plans since before he became Batman.

Speaking of revealing secrets, I recall the instance in Hush in which Time Drake finds out that Bruce revealed his secret to Selina and goes "You told her? You made the wrong decision" and Bruce goes "It was mine to make". In B89, Alfred, in all his wisdom, should have known better.

Yes, a version of the comics that has years and years of experience might say that. But in Batman 89 he was a beginner in terms of how to handle his Batman status along with being Bruce Wayne.

Alfred knew better and forced his hand when he was totally unable, just as a father who forces his son to swallow the bitter medicine even if he doesn’t want to.

 

[Fenrir]

In fact that is exactly what Alfred does; he tells Bruce to reveal the truth to Vicky.

And Bruce doesn’t do it.

Then Bruce goes to Vicky’s place, has a lot of problems confessing the truth and after he’s interrupted (and shot) by Joker, he goes back to the Batcave and hide himself in his old archives.

At this point it is clear for Alfred that Bruce won’t try to fix things up again anytime soon. So, as a fatherly figure, he forces his hand.

Forces his hand in something he has no authority over to begin with?

Alfred respected Bruce’s decision; he actually decided to tell the truth, but for one reason or another, he always ended up being unable to actually do it. The only choice for Alfred was to leave Bruce alone, permanently absorbed in his obsession and playing games with Vicky’s mind. But he knew better.

And that's what he should have done. He does so in Mask of the Phantasm when a similarly inexperienced Bruce is having trouble telling the truth to Andrea (who he seemed to love far more passionately). He lets Bruce make his own decision. He advises Bruce but never intervenes despite knowing better. That is what Alfred's character is all about. He is a father figure to BrUce, sure, but he never forgets his place. He will wholeheartedly offer all his wisdom to his younger master, but will follow Bruce to the depths of hell if that is what his master chooses. He will try to influence Bruce's decisions, but like any truly responsible father, will never show the audacity to make them for him because Bruce is not a child anymore.

Because every night could be that night. Well, he was trained and prepaired but Dr. Crane set him on fire with little to no effort. So he knew for a fact that every night he could be killed. And he knew about League of Shadows and their plans since before he became Batman.

But not every night is as perilous. Sure he faces the possibility of death everyday, but he doesn't expect with certainty that he will, because of his training, his resources and his abilities the odds are in his favor. In this case, he does, because the threat is greater, his task is enormous and he will be fighting the very man who taught him how to fight. In the case of Crane, he was caught by surprise. Now he knows what he has to face and even he doesn't really believe that he might make it, that is why he hires Gordon's help to blow up the tracks as his final backup plan in case he himself fails or dies. Besides, since it was Bruce himself and not Alfred who decided to tell the truth to Rachel, how is this relevant again?

Yes, a version of the comics that has years and years of experience might say that. But in Batman 89 he was a beginner in terms of how to handle his Batman status along with being Bruce Wayne. Alfred knew better and forced his hand when he was totally unable, just as a father who forces his son to swallow the bitter medicine even if he doesn’t want to.

Like I said, Alfred had no right to. He transgressed his limits. Relationships and secrets are one's own personal matters. Alfred had no business meddling in them directly. Even actual fathers don't have that right, let alone a mere 'father figure'.

 

[El Payaso]

Forces his hand in something he has no authority over to begin with?

Apparently. Why?

And that's what he should have done.

If he didn’t care about him and what’s he’s doing with his life, possibly.

He does so in Mask of the Phantasm when a similarly inexperienced Bruce is having trouble telling the truth to Andrea (who he seemed to love far more passionately). He lets Bruce make his own decision. He advises Bruce but never intervenes despite knowing better.

I can’t see how what happened/didn’t happen in Mask of the Phantasm should convince me that is the way it should be done always.

That is what Alfred's character is all about.

I’m sure he is about more than not doing things when he should.

He is a father figure to BrUce, sure, but he never forgets his place. He will wholeheartedly offer all his wisdom to his younger master, but will follow Bruce to the depths of hell if that is what his master chooses. He will try to influence Bruce's decisions, but like any truly responsible father, will never show the audacity to make them for him because Bruce is not a child anymore.

In many senses he is a child. Another person would have put his anger and spite behind in order to live a normal life.

Following him to whatever the place is just because he feels like going there sounds more like a faithful dog than a fatherly figure. Sometimes you have to say ‘stop’ or ‘no’ to the people you love for their own good. That’s being a responsible father.

But not every night is as perilous.

We were talking about possibilities. Not every night is as perilous, but it might be. After being set on fire and poisoned I’m sure Bruce knew he was far from being invulnerable and that he escaped death by miracle.

Besides, since it was Bruce himself and not Alfred who decided to tell the truth to Rachel, how is this relevant again?

It is not. It was just mentioned in the original post.

That’s why I said “I have to disagree with something: I see no connection between this and Alfred’s behaviour/decision.

Yes, both Keaton and Bale’s Bruce were willing to reveal their identities at one point. But what Alfred did in Batman 89 was unconnected to what Bruce wanted to do.”

Like I said, Alfred had no right to. He transgressed his limits.

Just as Bruce had no right to lie to Vicky - and Batman in BB had no right to put policemen’s lives at stake by crushing their cars with the Tumbler or Batman in TDK had no legal right to take evidence before the police did).

But as Keaton’s Bruce said “This is not a perfect world.”

Alfred felt that – after many attempts to put Bruce on the right track - he had to do the right thing and he just did.

Caine's Alfred had no right to burn Rachel's personal letter to Bruce but he did.

Relationships and secrets are one's own personal matters.

But lying to another person is not.

Alfred had no business meddling in them directly. Even actual fathers don't have that right, let alone a mere 'father figure'.

Fathers who have sons that can’t act maturely and are harming other people with their behaviour and fathers who care do.

 

[Fenrir]

Apparently. Why?

Which shows his apparent lack of respect for Bruce's personal life. That is completely out of character for Alfred.

If he didn’t care about him and what’s he’s doing with his life, possibly.

Then why the hell did he go along with Bruce's decision to dress up like a bat and fight crime for the rest of his life? Seems like Alfred's got his priorities screwed up when it comes to Bruce. His young master endangering his life and family fortune on some kind of endless crusade and he will gladly oblige. But lying to a woman he just recently met? Oh noes! Must intervene!

I can’t see how what happened/didn’t happen in Mask of the Phantasm should convince me that is the way it should be done always.

Why not? Especially when it is the better way to do it?

I’m sure he is about more than not doing things when he should.

Please provide examples or shut up. In the comics, Alfred has always, and sometimes hesitantly, but still did back Bruce in far more crazier endeavors if that is what Bruce ultimately decided on. Though he feels his responsibility towards Bruce, he does not presume to have any kind of authority to act without the consent of his young master in such matters.

In many senses he is a child. Another person would have put his anger and spite behind in order to live a normal life.

But he didn't stop Bruce then. Why now? Ah yes, the unexplained wonders of sloppy writing.

Following him to whatever the place is just because he feels like going there sounds more like a faithful dog than a fatherly figure. Sometimes you have to say ‘stop’ or ‘no’ to the people you love for their own good. That’s being a responsible father.

Again, why didn't he do so when Bruce decided to become Batman? Where was his responsible father figure gibberish then?

We were talking about possibilities. Not every night is as perilous, but it might be. After being set on fire and poisoned I’m sure Bruce knew he was far from being invulnerable and that he escaped death by miracle.

In the case of Crane, he was caught by surprise. Now he knows what he has to face and even he doesn't really believe that he might make it, that is why he hires Gordon's help to blow up the tracks as his final backup plan in case he himself fails or dies. He tells Rachel the truth because considering the circumstances, the likelihood of him getting killed at the time were far, far greater than any other night.

Just as Bruce had no right to lie to Vicky.

People lie to their loved ones all the time. Welcome to the real world, kid.

Alfred felt that – after many attempts to put Bruce on the right track - he had to do the right thing and he just did.

List these "many" examples please.

Caine's Alfred had no right to burn Rachel's personal letter to Bruce but he did.

Personal?

"Will you give this to him for me, when the time is right?"
"How will I know?"
"It's not sealed."

She wanted Alfred to read the letter and decide for himself the best time to give it to Bruce. And Alfred decides not to. He was not acting out of his limits. He was merely exercising the right entrusted to him by the giver of the message itself.

But lying to another person is not.

It is if you are doing so for reasons that are not malicious but you still want to keep them to yourselves.

Fathers who have sons that can’t act maturely and are harming other people with their behaviour and fathers who care do.

Bruce harmed Vicky by lying to her? Way to sound ridiculous by blowing things out of proportion. Alfred meddling in Bruce's affairs was plain and simply a dumb thing to do. And shows Alfred's own lack of understanding about Bruce's state of mind. Bruce went down to Vicky's apartment to tell her the truth, but fate brought him face to face with the one man who made him what he is today when the Joker utters the line which reminded Bruce of the night his parents were murdered. That is why he sets Vicky's matter aside and starts obsessing over the Joker. As we all know, there is nothing more important to Bruce than his parents. And after the showdown at Vicky's apartment, he thought he had been gifted with a chance for revenge. Bruce was doing the right thing when he decided that the Joker was a far bigger problem to worry about - both for himself and the city. It seems that Alfred, and you, completely failed to comprehend that.

 

[Fresh Prince]

A.) Bruce and Alfred already talked about revealing his identity to Vicki.

B.) Yeah, she's a reporter, but if you do remember, she was already in the cave with Batman, and she didn't go around spilling the beans about it. Remember?

C.) Any debate about what happened between B89 and Returns shouldn't be a factor, as both movies aren't even really in the same universe. I mean, the friggin Manor is different in both films, the cave is totally different, the suit, Gotham, the atmosphere, etc. Sure, Vicki was brought up, but it's just a nod more then anything.

BR was in the same universe as B89. Just cause Bruce house was different does not mean anything he could of changed up thep lace you know redocorate alot of people do that to their homes. Also the suit he could of changed up his suit too and also as for Gotham with Batman being in the city, that means more freaks comes out and the city gets darker and darker. And so what if the cave is different he could of changed that around too. Vickie being brought up proved that they was in the same universe. BF & B&R however was not in the same universe.

 

[The Guard]

It seems this has quickly become an exercise in defending the new version of Alfred and condemning the old one. Figures.

I tend to think people who have some sort of logic problem with this sequence in BATMAN are idiots, or just miss the point entirely. One, this isn't the comics, so comic book logic doesn't exactly apply. Two, Vicki obviously figured out and confirmed to herself that Bruce was Batman and demanded to be let in, Alfred didn't just go "Hey, Bruce is Batman". It's her entire arc of the film, and the logical and frankly, a satisfying evolution of it.

It was incredibly in character for Gough's Alfred to do, and about twelve times more compelling a method of reveal than Bale's "It's not who I am underneath" nonsense.

Alfred forcing Bruce's hand may not have been within his "authority"...but that's the whole point of it as a character moment. The first move Alfred makes to step beyond the boundaries is the discussion he and Bruce have about Vicki. The second is when he says "I have no wish to spend my few remaining years grieving for the loss of old friends...or their sons". It's set up as Alfred's arc within the film.

 

[Naked Shia]

I don't understan why some people MUST insult those who disagree with them. Are you fascists? I think that people doing that have insecurity problems and don't understand why forums exist.

 

[Jolly Rolly]

Bruce also revealed his identity to Selina in BR, what a dumb@ss eh?

I especially like Max Shreck's reaction upon Batman's reveal like even he can't imagine a balding, average looking guy like Keaton as Bats.

"Bruce Wayne! but why are you dressed up like Batman?"

 

[david icke]

I tend to think people who have some sort of logic problem with this sequence in BATMAN are idiots, or just miss the point entirely. One, this isn't the comics, so comic book logic doesn't exactly apply. Two, Vicki obviously figured out and confirmed to herself that Bruce was Batman and demanded to be let in, Alfred didn't just go "Hey, Bruce is Batman". It's her entire arc of the film, and the logical and frankly, a satisfying evolution of it.

I don't see why folk who have a 'logic problem' with this sequence are idiots at all. Alfred lets a reporter into the cave, a woman he has met once, and not only that but a woman he knows Bruce has pissed off by lying to her. For all Alfred knew she would expose Bruce, turn his life upside down and get him killed. She could've been a little like Alfred herself and thought she was doing Bruce a favour by 'getting him some help.' ie doctors. shrinks etc, all the while getting a big story out of it.

You say there is a difference between the comics and movie Alfred and this is true and I can accept that. But the thing about this is that Alfred has made a decision that has such potential for disaster, that has made him a complete liability, that you wonder how how he became such a trusted confidant to Bruce. It doesn't make sense that someone who has kept Bruce's secrets for so long(the presumably years of setting things up for his mission), would throw caution to the wind just when he's getting started.
I just don't believe this character 'change' at all, if this guy gets so worried about Bruce's psyche if he loses a women he has had only one date with, he would have called in the psychiatrists when he started building an underground lair and started talking about dressing up as a bat.

And as for Vicki 'obviously' firguring out Bruce's secret ID and demanding to be let into the cave, well, y'know, I would have liked to have seen that movie, unfortunately it doesn't exist. It would've been a damn sight more dramatic than the scene we got , which was tantamount to an awkward moment when a girlfriend finds her boyfriend looking at his secret porn stash or something.
No drama at all in that scene, compare it to the stuff in Superman II, that was how a superhero's ID should be revealed.

It was incredibly in character for Gough's Alfred to do, and about twelve times more compelling a method of reveal than Bale's "It's not who I am underneath" nonsense.

Again, if it was in character, he would have called in the shrinks long ago. You also said, it was his first move to step beyond the boundaries, I would say that it was such a large step beyond the boundaries that it was out of character. As another poster said, bad writing, sometimes that's what it is. It was a very undramatic way for a hero's secret ID to be revealed never mind illogical character moves.

The ID reveal in BB makes much more sense, and the moment he leaps off into what could be his death is dramatic.

 

[Occulus]

It's been years and years since I read it so I might be wrong. But didn't they explain this scene alittle better in the novelization?

 

[El Payaso]

Which shows his apparent lack of respect for Bruce's personal life. That is completely out of character for Alfred.

But Alfred ended up allowing him to become Batman as he wanted right? Apparently he has a lot of respect for Bruce’s personal decisions. Except when they harm other (non criminal) people.

Then why the hell did he go along with Bruce's decision to dress up like a bat and fight crime for the rest of his life? Seems like Alfred's got his priorities screwed up when it comes to Bruce. His young master endangering his life and family fortune on some kind of endless crusade and he will gladly oblige. But lying to a woman he just recently met? Oh noes! Must intervene!

Oh, it seems like you had to invent this notion that Alfred had no problem with the Batman idea.

Sure, he respected Bruce’s decision. Doesn’t mean he didn’t/doesn’t have problems with it. Bruce might be endangering his life, but in order to protect innocent people. It seems like Alfred respect that kind of decisions as long as there could be a noble purpose behind. Gee, you might end up learning a lot of Alfred out of this thread!

Why not? Especially when it is the better way to do it?

Merely your opinion, which is not quite well backed up so far. Thing happening in MotP might be entertaining to you, but there’s no reason to consider them canon or anything of the like.

Please provide examples

He helps Bruce a lot in almost every comic. When he brings him food even when Batman says “I’m not hungry.”

That might not be a specific example but it’s better than your example with Tim Drake on Hush that failed miserably. :P

But if you want specific, in All Star Batman & Robin, Bruce decides the best starting training for Dick Grayson is to spend the night alone without food. Alfred disobeys him and feeds Dick. After Batman found out this:

BATMAN: What the hell do you think you’re doing, Alfred?
ALFRED: That boy will not be reduced to eating rats, sir.
BATMAN: I was.
ALFRED: You chose your time below. Living like a rat yourself. You chose this life.
BATMAN: And it has chosen him.
ALFRED: Sir, I am your b utler. I am your aide. I am your medic. I am not, however, your slave. Unhand me.

or shut up.

not happening dude. You’ll have to live with different opinions or just leave.

In the comics, Alfred has always, and sometimes hesitantly, but still did back Bruce in far more crazier endeavors if that is what Bruce ultimately decided on. Though he feels his responsibility towards Bruce, he does not presume to have any kind of authority to act without the consent of his young master in such matters.

Gough’s Alfred is more proactive than that. Bruce is not always right.

But he didn't stop Bruce then. Why now? Ah yes, the unexplained wonders of sloppy writing.

As I said, we don’t know if he tried to stop him. From all we know from the movie, he’s not too happy with the idea. Did you miss that in the movie or is it the unexplained wonders of sloppy replying?

Again, why didn't he do so when Bruce decided to become Batman? Where was his responsible father figure gibberish then?

Again, as I said, we don’t know if he tried to stop him. From all we know from the movie, he’s not too happy with the idea.

In the case of Crane, he was caught by surprise. Now he knows what he has to face and even he doesn't really believe that he might make it, that is why he hires Gordon's help to blow up the tracks as his final backup plan in case he himself fails or dies. He tells Rachel the truth because considering the circumstances, the likelihood of him getting killed at the time were far, far greater than any other night.

As we agreed this doesn’t belong to the subject; I’ll drop it.

People lie to their loved ones all the time. Welcome to the real world, kid.

People force the hand of their loved ones all the time. Welcome to the real world, kid.

List these "many" examples please.

Watch the movie; he tried to convince Bruce of telling the truth.

Personal?

"Will you give this to him for me, when the time is right?"
"How will I know?"
"It's not sealed."

She wanted Alfred to read the letter and decide for himself the best time to give it to Bruce. And Alfred decides not to. He was not acting out of his limits. He was merely exercising the right entrusted to him by the giver of the message itself.

Because “decide the right time to deliver a letter” means “burn it if you feel like it.” :facepalm

It was Alfred’s right to decide the right time to deliver the letter, not to decide not to deliver it at all. Lack of respect for Bruce's personal life.

It is if you are doing so for reasons that are not malicious but you still want to keep them to yourselves.

It is if it’s basically irresponsible, malicious or not.

Bruce harmed Vicky by lying to her? Way to sound ridiculous by blowing things out of proportion.

Is it something like saying “oh, people never force hands because they don’t have authority.”



And well, he was harming Vicky.

Alfred meddling in Bruce's affairs was plain and simply a dumb thing to do.

On the contrary, that allowed Vicky and Bruce to understand each other and get closer.

And shows Alfred's own lack of understanding about Bruce's state of mind.

On the contrary, he knew he kept procrastinating that. Bruce’s state of mind was just not taking responsibility for his actions, which Alfred – opposite to you – understood well.

Bruce went down to Vicky's apartment to tell her the truth, but fate brought him face to face with the one man who made him what he is today when the Joker utters the line which reminded Bruce of the night his parents were murdered. That is why he sets Vicky's matter aside and starts obsessing over the Joker. As we all know, there is nothing more important to Bruce than his parents.

Luckily, Alfred knows there’s a world outside of Bruce’s priorities.

And after the showdown at Vicky's apartment, he thought he had been gifted with a chance for revenge. Bruce was doing the right thing when he decided that the Joker was a far bigger problem to worry about - both for himself and the city. It seems that Alfred, and you, completely failed to comprehend that.

Obsession for personal revenge might be important to him, but that doesn’t excuse him from other responsibilities. Good for everybody that Alfred knew that better.

 

[El Payaso]

I don't see why folk who have a 'logic problem' with this sequence are idiots at all.

Neither do I. Well, only when they reply by shutting you up.

Alfred lets a reporter into the cave, a woman he has met once, and not only that but a woman he knows Bruce has pissed off by lying to her. For all Alfred knew she would expose Bruce, turn his life upside down and get him killed. She could've been a little like Alfred herself and thought she was doing Bruce a favour by 'getting him some help.' ie doctors. shrinks etc, all the while getting a big story out of it.

Apparently Alfred’s years taught him little things about people since that was not at all what happened. Vicky and Bruce got closer after she knew the truth. It was only Bruce’s inability to handle his doublw life what ended up splitting them (as we know in BR).

You say there is a difference between the comics and movie Alfred and this is true and I can accept that. But the thing about this is that Alfred has made a decision that has such potential for disaster, that has made him a complete liability, that you wonder how how he became such a trusted confidant to Bruce. It doesn't make sense that someone who has kept Bruce's secrets for so long(the presumably years of setting things up for his mission), would throw caution to the wind just when he's getting started.

It was just a way to tell Bruce, if you’re going to do this whole vigiliante act, let innocent people aside and if yopu fall in love then be a man and act responsibly. I think Alfred had no problem in getting fired after that; he prefers to find a new job than have to work bearing Bruce’s immaturity and irresponsibility. Batman and Batman’s secret are essential for Bruce but he has to live up to that and take responsibility of his actions; he can’t be Batman just because he has the money for it.

I just don't believe this character 'change' at all, if this guy gets so worried about Bruce's psyche if he loses a women he has had only one date with, he would have called in the psychiatrists when he started building an underground lair and started talking about dressing up as a bat.

He’s not worried because he’s losing a woman, but because he’s harming that woman.

And as for Vicki 'obviously' firguring out Bruce's secret ID and demanding to be let into the cave, well, y'know, I would have liked to have seen that movie, unfortunately it doesn't exist. It would've been a damn sight more dramatic than the scene we got , which was tantamount to an awkward moment when a girlfriend finds her boyfriend looking at his secret porn stash or something.
No drama at all in that scene, compare it to the stuff in Superman II, that was how a superhero's ID should be revealed.

Sure, Bruce should have clumsily tripped over and fall on the bonfire. That’s such a dramatic way to expose your secret identity.

Again, if it was in character, he would have called in the shrinks long ago.

Maybe. But this issue is not about being crazy but being irresponsible.

You also said, it was his first move to step beyond the boundaries, I would say that it was such a large step beyond the boundaries that it was out of character. As another poster said, bad writing, sometimes that's what it is. It was a very undramatic way for a hero's secret ID to be revealed never mind illogical character moves.

It is not illogical if there’s a background. Alfred insisted in having Bruce telling her the truth instead of lying. Then we know Alfred is not even happy with Bruce’s obsessions. Bruce’s inability to take responsibility over his personal romantic life is what pushed Alfred and that’s explained in the movie.

The ID reveal in BB makes much more sense, and the moment he leaps off into what could be his death is dramatic.

Well, if he died, his identity would have been revealed all the same, right?

Therefore, what was the real need to – suddenly - expose it to Rachel? Sounds a lot like let’s skip logics and insert a dramatic moment right here!

 

[The Guard]

I don't see why folk who have a 'logic problem' with this sequence are idiots at all.

Because it's not an illogical moment. In fact, it adheres more to logic than most of the comic book portrayals of Bruce and Alfred's relationship do. It's just not what happened in the comics, and that's the issue people seem to have with it. And that's fine. But don't give me nonsense about "It's just not logical".

Alfred lets a reporter into the cave, a woman he has met once, and not only that but a woman he knows Bruce has pissed off by lying to her.

It's not remotely that simple.

By the time she comes to him wanting to be let in on Bruce's secrets, Alfred knows a bit more about Vicki and Bruce than "I met her once, and Bruce may or may not have pissed her off".

You have to look at the scene in context. Does Vicki look PISSED when she arrives in the cave? Nope. She looks concerned. Confused. Alfred knows what she means to Bruce, and what she could mean to Bruce's life. That is his arc and role in the film. To facilitate this. Obviously Alfred and Vicki must have had some interaction before he let her into the cave. They don't SHOW the conversation, because that would be anticlimactic, and it's obvious that they wanted Vicki coming into the cave to be a surprise for Bruce, and in some senses, the audience.

For all Alfred knew she would expose Bruce, turn his life upside down and get him killed.

Why? Why would Vicki do that? Why would a reasonable person do that to someone they care about?

She comes to the cave because she cares about him and wants to be with him. Alfred can clearly see this, so he lets her into the cave. It's pretty simple.

Suggesting that Vicki might uncover his identify and ruin his life is a bit like me whining that Bruce revealed his identity to Rachel, and worrying that because he lied to her and made her think he was a jerk, that she'd suddenly prosecute him for being Batman or something upon his return to her.

She could've been a little like Alfred herself and thought she was doing Bruce a favour by 'getting him some help.' ie doctors. shrinks etc, all the while getting a big story out of it.

She could have, sure. It seemed pretty apparent she wasn't going to, though, didn't it, based on what the movie showed us, with her clearly caring more about Bruce's past and his life than "the story".

Does Alfred know that she won't reveal who he is?

No. What Alfred knows is that Bruce's obsession has become dangerous, and that he cannot keep shutting out the world around him, and that Vicki and Bruce care about each other.

Did Alfred make the right decision? That's debatable, and that's why there is conflict to the situation. If Alfred went around serving Bruce and never questioned what he was doing and what it was doing to him, that would basically just end up being boring, in my mind.

You say there is a difference between the comics and movie Alfred and this is true and I can accept that. But the thing about this is that Alfred has made a decision that has such potential for disaster, that has made him a complete liability, that you wonder how how he became such a trusted confidant to Bruce.

I suppose if we simply assume that Vicki, who clearly cares about Bruce, who Alfred can tell clearly cares about Bruce, would just randomly ruin Bruce's life...yes, it has potential for disaster. I think that's reaching a bit to justify hating what Alfred did, though.

It doesn't make sense that someone who has kept Bruce's secrets for so long(the presumably years of setting things up for his mission), would throw caution to the wind just when he's getting started.

This doesn't strike me as throwing caution to the wind at all, not as much as say, helping outfit someone in armor and weaponry for a war on crime and backing them up as they wage said war on crime does.

Alfred doesn't appear to be stupid in the film, he seems wise and aware of their connection. It strikes me as a logical move Alfred would make, given his character arc in the film.

People keep trying to compare BATMAN to the comics, and going "But...but that's WRONG! THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN in the comics!"

But again. It wasn't the comics, and was never meant to be.

I just don't believe this character 'change' at all, if this guy gets so worried about Bruce's psyche if he loses a women he has had only one date with, he would have called in the psychiatrists when he started building an underground lair and started talking about dressing up as a bat.

1. It's not about Bruce "losing" Vicki. It's about Alfred realizing how good she is for Bruce.

2. This seems to be you taking a small moment, and blowing it way out of proportion with "maybes". Maybe Alfred DID ask Bruce to get some help before his crusade began. Maybe Bruce did and it just wasn't enough. Perhaps Alfred simply feels, as the movie tends to show, and Gough communicated wonderfully with his performance, a bit guilty about his role in Bruce's obsessions, and his complacency in them thus far.

And as for Vicki 'obviously' figuring out Bruce's secret ID and demanding to be let into the cave, well, y'know, I would have liked to have seen that movie, unfortunately it doesn't exist. It would've been a damn sight more dramatic than the scene we got , which was tantamount to an awkward moment when a girlfriend finds her boyfriend looking at his secret porn stash or something. No drama at all in that scene, compare it to the stuff in Superman II, that was how a superhero's ID should be revealed.

I'm sorry...SUPERMAN II is how a superhero's ID should be revealed?

"Hey, I'm going to trip and fall on the fire...hells bells, I'm fine, now we can bang!"

Are you serious?

I'm pretty sure most Batfans would disagree with you that the scene lacks drama. That's the heart of Bruce Wayne's conflict, and probably one of the better scenes in the film.

And there's not really much that's obvious about a slow, building, progression of events that leads to Vicki discovering Bruce's identity. Especially when you compare it to, oh, say, Bruce using a line that Rachel said to him earlier, which IS an obvious reveal.

Vicki discovering Bruce's ID, for once in a superhero film, felt like part of the overall story, not just a forced or "expected" element.

Again, if it was in character, he would have called in the shrinks long ago.

What are you basing that on? The movie shows us that he did not, in fact, do that, and that is all you should really be going on when assessing it.

People change, and so do their actions. Alfred, in BATMAN, was no longer willing to let Bruce go it alone. At one point he probably was, and had tired of doing so.

You also said, it was his first move to step beyond the boundaries, I would say that it was such a large step beyond the boundaries that it was out of character.

No, I said his first move to step beyond the boundaries was him discussing Vicki with Bruce.

You keep saying "out of character", but what are you basing that on? Certainly not the film, where Alfred makes it pretty clear as the film wears on that he is not thrilled with Bruce's choice of lifestyle.