The Dark Knight Was Batman portrayed right in this movie?

[Bat-Gasm]

I think the outfit looks pretty good.

The idea of him turning his neck is bad to the bone.

But I think it made his head look weird, and not as "terrifying"

Loved his voice in BB, always had to debate that with my "normal" friends.

His vocals in TDK were pretty sweet, that first scene, "I don't need any help" was awesome.

Really, only one scene makes me really question it and it's after he drops maroni and they are talking.

"Someone must know were he is"

I think is what he says, but his growl...cracks.

funny as balls.

 

[DACrowe]

I just want to ask why so many are struggling with the subplot that Bruce Wayne doesn't want to b e Batman forever? I know it isn't really touched upon very well (if arguably at all) in the comics, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid avenue to explore for something new.

They didn't turn it into "Batman No More." They just took what he said as really maening that he wanted to a symbol and not a savior at the beginning. This is still the first or second year that he is Batman. The mafia is going down, the freaks haven't come and Gordon and especially the new Harvey Dent are taking his lead and cleaning up the city in honest elected/appointed public service positions. They are becoming the future. Bruce thinks he has a girl waiting for him and wants to live a life that doesn't require him getting almost killed every night.

That is understandable as he is young and naive and thinks there is a way out. That comes crashing down when the Joker comes to town and ushers a new era for Gotham, an era arguably worse than before...the time of the freaks. Batman has egged them to come out and while Scarecrow is running around Joker is a real menace to the city and causes all the goodwill Batman has created to come crashing down like a house of cards.

Joker directly links himself to Batman and puts the young hero through a moral delima, turn yourself in or I'll kill people randomly. Now, he'll still be out there murdering, but Batman is exhausted. He has never dealt with something as illogical or unreasonable as the Joker and doesn't want this blood on his hands.

He blames the Joker's existence on him crossing the line of being a vigilante so he thinks he'll turn himself in after his friend Gordon "dies." When thhis happens he thinks he has to leave it to people like Dent to solve Gotham's problems and he can stop his escalation and get on with his life with Rachel. But Dent can look through the looking glass and sees what Batman is. He knows Gotham needs someone who can step around the laws and be the hero and do the things Gotham needs, but Dent cannot do as DA. So he inspires Batman to do what is right. It also has to help that Batman is a psychological creation by Bruce to sooth his mental problems and psychosis and the emptiness he had between his parents' deaths and when he first puts on the mask.

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

You do realize Miller's Batman quit being Batman for over ten years in The Dark Knight Returns, right?

 

[DeeBarr]

Well, to be fair to old Bats he is just 1 year into the job he will have for the rest of his life...

I think this version is sublime... Of course Bruce would have loved to have sorted the city out so that he only would have had to keep the threat of Batman alive so as to warn off the mob... but with all these crazys running around he is compelled to stay on. Obviously this will need some coming to terms with.

Moreover, the Batman is very well developed in this movie. By the end he is basically saying to Gordan, "OK, I'm in for the long haul here. I will be Batman for a long time and if thats going to be the case then you need to treat me like a criminal too, otherwise you will have double standards again in the City."

I feel that only at the end is Batman an actual character... The birth and adolosence of the Bat is over. He is the Bat Man now.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

I just want to ask why so many are struggling with the subplot that Bruce Wayne doesn't want to b e Batman forever? I know it isn't really touched upon very well (if arguably at all) in the comics, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid avenue to explore for something new.

They didn't turn it into "Batman No More." They just took what he said as really maening that he wanted to a symbol and not a savior at the beginning. This is still the first or second year that he is Batman. The mafia is going down, the freaks haven't come and Gordon and especially the new Harvey Dent are taking his lead and cleaning up the city in honest elected/appointed public service positions. They are becoming the future. Bruce thinks he has a girl waiting for him and wants to live a life that doesn't require him getting almost killed every night.

That is understandable as he is young and naive and thinks there is a way out. That comes crashing down when the Joker comes to town and ushers a new era for Gotham, an era arguably worse than before...the time of the freaks. Batman has egged them to come out and while Scarecrow is running around Joker is a real menace to the city and causes all the goodwill Batman has created to come crashing down like a house of cards.

Joker directly links himself to Batman and puts the young hero through a moral delima, turn yourself in or I'll kill people randomly. Now, he'll still be out there murdering, but Batman is exhausted. He has never dealt with something as illogical or unreasonable as the Joker and doesn't want this blood on his hands.

He blames the Joker's existence on him crossing the line of being a vigilante so he thinks he'll turn himself in after his friend Gordon "dies." When thhis happens he thinks he has to leave it to people like Dent to solve Gotham's problems and he can stop his escalation and get on with his life with Rachel. But Dent can look through the looking glass and sees what Batman is. He knows Gotham needs someone who can step around the laws and be the hero and do the things Gotham needs, but Dent cannot do as DA. So he inspires Batman to do what is right. It also has to help that Batman is a psychological creation by Bruce to sooth his mental problems and psychosis and the emptiness he had between his parents' deaths and when he first puts on the mask.

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

Agreed. See, that was the problem with the other movies: He had no real choice. Batman's character wasn't ever truly developed. He just did things. No insight on what his parent's death did to him, no real motive. Here he did, thinking that once he could bring the city back up off its knees, he could retire. In seeing this can't happen, now he can truly stick to what he's doing.

 

[DeeBarr]

You do realize Miller's Batman quit being Batman for over ten years in The Dark Knight Returns, right?

Excellent Question..

Moreover, his methods and abilities in Millers TDK Returns are brilliant and he knows his enemies better than they know themselves. The reason he is so serious and so always right in Returns is because he is older and set in his ways and, more importantly, he knows this is possibly his last chance to clean up the City...

"How many people have I killed, by letting you live?" Or something like that!! I'm sure someone will set me right on the quote!

 

[The Sage]

I just want to ask why so many are struggling with the subplot that Bruce Wayne doesn't want to b e Batman forever? I know it isn't really touched upon very well (if arguably at all) in the comics, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid avenue to explore for something new.

They didn't turn it into "Batman No More." They just took what he said as really maening that he wanted to a symbol and not a savior at the beginning. This is still the first or second year that he is Batman. The mafia is going down, the freaks haven't come and Gordon and especially the new Harvey Dent are taking his lead and cleaning up the city in honest elected/appointed public service positions. They are becoming the future. Bruce thinks he has a girl waiting for him and wants to live a life that doesn't require him getting almost killed every night.

That is understandable as he is young and naive and thinks there is a way out. That comes crashing down when the Joker comes to town and ushers a new era for Gotham, an era arguably worse than before...the time of the freaks. Batman has egged them to come out and while Scarecrow is running around Joker is a real menace to the city and causes all the goodwill Batman has created to come crashing down like a house of cards.

Joker directly links himself to Batman and puts the young hero through a moral delima, turn yourself in or I'll kill people randomly. Now, he'll still be out there murdering, but Batman is exhausted. He has never dealt with something as illogical or unreasonable as the Joker and doesn't want this blood on his hands.

He blames the Joker's existence on him crossing the line of being a vigilante so he thinks he'll turn himself in after his friend Gordon "dies." When thhis happens he thinks he has to leave it to people like Dent to solve Gotham's problems and he can stop his escalation and get on with his life with Rachel. But Dent can look through the looking glass and sees what Batman is. He knows Gotham needs someone who can step around the laws and be the hero and do the things Gotham needs, but Dent cannot do as DA. So he inspires Batman to do what is right. It also has to help that Batman is a psychological creation by Bruce to sooth his mental problems and psychosis and the emptiness he had between his parents' deaths and when he first puts on the mask.

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

That was well said.

Nice reference to BTAS. Are you talking about the episode "I Am The Night", when Batman's questioning if his mission is doing any good, Gordon gets critically injured, and Batman's so torn up by that he gives up being Batman before Robin brought him back to his senses?

 

[Superoldguy]

He wasn't in the rage I thought he would be after Rachel's death. Or didn't show alot of saddness after her death either, he sat in a chair and had a tear drop down his cheek. I mean that point of the movie could have been stronger but then again it didn't hurt the film.

I believe the line was something like "I hate to be whoever he takes her death out on".

then didnt he fight through Maronis bar and drop him a few stories in a rage?

 

[K.B.]

Bale did a better job this time around.

Overall Batman himself was far, FAR better then he was portrayed in Begins.

Nolan , I feel, still dosent understand the "why" behind Batman ie: his parents death.

I do however feel that he is "getting it" more and more because he stoped trying to show where Bats gets his toys and allt hat uncessary garbage and replaced it with Batman just showing up and kicking ass. Also he's actually starting to show Batman as a detective (though this still needs more work to be perfect, as it should be).

 

[Crook]

I just want to ask why so many are struggling with the subplot that Bruce Wayne doesn't want to b e Batman forever? I know it isn't really touched upon very well (if arguably at all) in the comics, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid avenue to explore for something new.

If that was addressed at me, I just wanna clear it up that I don't have too much of a problem with that. Making Bruce seek out happiness is a welcome addition to the character. Though it should always be settled that this is a never ending venture for him.

They didn't turn it into "Batman No More." They just took what he said as really maening that he wanted to a symbol and not a savior at the beginning. This is still the first or second year that he is Batman. The mafia is going down, the freaks haven't come and Gordon and especially the new Harvey Dent are taking his lead and cleaning up the city in honest elected/appointed public service positions. They are becoming the future. Bruce thinks he has a girl waiting for him and wants to live a life that doesn't require him getting almost killed every night.

Again, not much of an issue with me. I actually did like the scene where Bruce tells Rachel that the day is coming where Batman isn't needed. It makes the moment Joker takes over the city even more poignant, because Bruce was ready to leave this life, but it's grabbing him back.

Joker directly links himself to Batman and puts the young hero through a moral delima, turn yourself in or I'll kill people randomly. Now, he'll still be out there murdering, but Batman is exhausted. He has never dealt with something as illogical or unreasonable as the Joker and doesn't want this blood on his hands.

Here's the crutch of the argument. See, believing that the blood is on his hands, is naive. Period. So is believing that his parents being killed was his fault. But thankfully, Nolan had Bruce saying that when he was....a child. Which is my point here. It's childish reasoning. I fully expected Bruce to be a lot more intelligent than letting Joker ultimately get the best of him. I'm sure the question of whether letting Joker live or die is for better or worse, is at the back of Bruce's head every day. It's a common theme when you deal with these two, for any medium. But in the end, he won't compromise the mission or his morals as a result of it.

Agreed. See, that was the problem with the other movies: He had no real choice. Batman's character wasn't ever truly developed. He just did things. No insight on what his parent's death did to him, no real motive. Here he did, thinking that once he could bring the city back up off its knees, he could retire. In seeing this can't happen, now he can truly stick to what he's doing.

You've got to be joking.

In Burton's movies, it was a lot more subtle, but the idea was there. I suggest you watch B89 again if you truly think Batman "just did things". Hell, even Forever beat you over the head with why he's Batman. C'mon.

 

[DACrowe]

You do realize Miller's Batman quit being Batman for over ten years in The Dark Knight Returns, right?

I've read and liked TDR, but read the character in that novel. It is very unique to what has become before or after, but that is the interpretations fans seem to clamor for.

 

[DACrowe]

If that was addressed at me, I just wanna clear it up that I don't have too much of a problem with that. Making Bruce seek out happiness is a welcome addition to the character. Though it should always be settled that this is a never ending venture for him.


Again, not much of an issue with me. I actually did like the scene where Bruce tells Rachel that the day is coming where Batman isn't needed. It makes the moment Joker takes over the city even more poignant, because Bruce was ready to leave this life, but it's grabbing him back.


Here's the crutch of the argument. See, believing that the blood is on his hands, is naive. Period. So is believing that his parents being killed was his fault. But thankfully, Nolan had Bruce saying that when he was....a child. Which is my point here. It's childish reasoning. I fully expected Bruce to be a lot more intelligent than letting Joker ultimately get the best of him. I'm sure the question of whether letting Joker live or die is for better or worse, is at the back of Bruce's head every day. It's a common theme when you deal with these two, for any medium. But in the end, he won't compromise the mission or his morals as a result of it.


You've got to be joking.

In Burton's movies, it was a lot more subtle, but the idea was there. I suggest you watch B89 again if you truly think Batman "just did things". Hell, even Forever beat you over the head with why he's Batman. C'mon.

That post wasn't pointed to any poster inpartiular. I agree wit most of what you said, except I think that Batman making that naive decision (but going back on it) to give up is not surprising. He had never been confronted with that kind of evil before and thought he was already on his way out and if he left now and let Dent do the rest he could still have a somewhat clear conscious. He became clear with what Dent did Gotham still needed Batman and after Rachel's death he kind of resigns himself to it.

As has been pointed out in the beloved TAS after Gordon gets injured, and Batman has been doing this for at least a decade at this point, he tries to quit. And in MOP when he is first becoming Batman he throws it all away for Andrea, until that doesn't pan out either.

 

[the_professor]

Just reading the title of the thread: heck yeah. . . or so I think, just an opinion.

Batman seemed to have a full grip of his responsibilities.

<now to figure out why I cannot create a thread in here... maybe because I just created a username in here? hmm...>

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

You've got to be joking.

In Burton's movies, it was a lot more subtle, but the idea was there. I suggest you watch B89 again if you truly think Batman "just did things". Hell, even Forever beat you over the head with why he's Batman. C'mon.

Ok, first, this is a matter of opinion. In MY opinion, B89 Batman wasn't that into what he was doing. You don't discover his motives until later in the movie, even though as a fan, we already knew it. He just never really seemed to care, only until he finds out The Joker killed his parents, near the end. Maybe that's just me. In Forever, he was gonna stop it for a woman. Only a woman. He was doing it here because, first, Gotham hated him, and second, he believed it would save lives. In Forever, he was just going to stop without having someone continue stopping crime. In TDK, he knew he had that in Harvey Dent.

 

[TheDarkKnight08]

edit

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

deleted

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

The mistakes and failings Batman made in this film will haunt him. Especially in the final scenes and how every character sacrificed some form of their moral code or ethical principles to deal with Joker and there is no easy answer if what they did was right or indication taht the day was truly saved.

BOOM ... you got it, bro. Compelling story telling right there. Nor does it break the total spirit of what the character is about. The point was that the audience doesn't want Bruce Wayne to give himself up, and ultimately he doesn't. His belief in what he's doing as The Batman is re-instated by Harvey Dent.

 

[TaterSalad]

Aren't we reaching with all these questions?

Movie was great... top notch... spot on.

Dissecting it doesn't change anything.

Move on.

 

[The Guard]

Also, The Guard has a really arrogant tone for having pretty bad opinions.

Could be worse, I could be ignorant enough not to realize an opinion cannot be classified as "good" or "bad" simply by saying so on any real level.

him killing harvey was useless.

It wasn't useless, just forced as hell and not particularly appropriate for the Batman mythology. Given the situation, killing Harvey makes some sense...for most people. But this is Batman we're talking about, who supposedly is above such things (and more skilled to boot).

but one thing is for sure it is for the majority an accident He is tackling him to stop him from shooting someone else.

You cannot accidentally tackle someone right off a ledge. I'm sorry, you just can't.

"Oops, tackled you too far. My bad."

Hell, in doing that, he risked Gordon's son's life in the process.

Okay. I'll just pull out my copies of The Killing Joke, The Man Who Laughs, Batman: Year One, Long Halloween and Dark Victory. Oh lookies, I see me some similarities!

Wait...you're telling me that a 30 page comic doesn't tend to have deep exploration of concepts?

That's true, and guess what. Those comics aren't deep either. I have never considered them deep, and I would never purport to.

Turning off my *****e mode now. I understand you scrutinize these movies because many fans do not, but why not turn it on the Burton movies?

Well, y'see...

1. BATMAN came out in 1989. Much as I'd like to "discuss" a recent movie that came out 20 years ago...

2. The Burton movies do not purport to be anything but a new take on the character. They don't make all these claims about "sticking to the comics".

3. Why would I rip on the Burton movies on a TDK spoiler forum? Do you want to discuss my feelings on the Burton Batman films or something?

I know you defend them feverishly (as do I from time to time), but did those really reach the characters full potential? I mean if you are going to condemn one you cannot give leeway to the other.

I do not defend them feverishly. I defend the elements of the films that I feel deserve defending. No, none of the previous Batman films have come close to reaching the character's full potential, and I've not really ever said otherwise. This "leeway" seems to be a figment of your imagination.

And before you reverse it, yeah I see that Batman "killed" accidentally at least in TDK. The difference is it had thematic importance and depth with Batman actually mourning the decision.

That isn't depth. That's a story point. And if that's mourning, I will eat my hat. He's like "****, I killed my former ally...well, I'll take the blame for his crimes to make up for it, oops, gotta run".

In B'89 and BR (supposedly inspired by the Killing Joke and Dark Knight Returns heavily) Batman kills without remorse and sometimes this leads to lazy writing (how did Penguin die again, exactly?)

.

What do you mean how did Penguin die? He fell through a glass window and landed about sixty to eighty feet below from what I can tell. The impact on the water alone would damage many of your internal organs.

How's one "fall" any lazier than another? And how does that equate to lazy writing?

The mistakes and failings Batman made in this film will haunt him.

Like his parent's death does? In all seriousness, if they don't delve into how Batman made the wrong choice at the end of TDK, I will be seriously disappointed in Nolan and co, and so should everyone else be.

Who cares? Batman has indirectly and accidentally killed people throughout
the entire character's history.

Simply not true of the comic book mythology.

He doesn't murder, but you can't predict whether any single victim will die or not. He threw Maroni off a **cking building and he didn't die

He dropped Maroni like fifteen feet. You're unlikely to die from that height.

I doubt the drop was any higher for Dent.

It was three or four stories. Seemed considerably higher to me.

Just because Dent died of a small **cking drop doesn't make Batman's movie character in the Dark Knight any less valid an interpretation for any reason.

That depends on what "valid" means. I suppose ANY interpretation of Batman can be considered valid, but the word I see being thrown around is "right".

Suddenly Batman's not only a killer, he's the killer of a key character of the Batman mythology.

hero of justice

Heh. That sound like a Mexican knockoff title to anyone else?

What director/writer doesn't choose to do their own thing with the character?

Ok...what is your point in the context of this discussion? Did I make a judgement call on whether Nolan was allowed to do his own version of the character or not? The thread says "Was Batman portrayed right in this movie?" The implication is obvious.

Why?

Are you serious?

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

I touched on this myself, but didn't go as in depth. You hit great points, well stated. I can't believe anyone would have an actual bone to pick with what happened in the movie, when a young Bruce Wayne feels directly responsible for deaths and rushes his plan to hang up the cape and cowl when being mind ****ed by the most terrorizing force he'll ever face. I much prefer a hero who's conflicted internally and externally. Jesus, if you had a problem with Bruce's inner struggle ... what do you want out of Batman? A bland stylized charicature who never does wrong, always comes out on top, who doesn't ever feel totally threatned? Man, that's why Nolan's Batman movie has such heart and adrenaline. Batman / Bruce Wayne is no more safe a character than anyone else in Gotham City.

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

I touched on this myself, but didn't go as in depth. You hit great points, well stated. I can't believe anyone would have an actual bone to pick with what happened in the movie, when a young Bruce Wayne feels directly responsible for deaths and rushes his plan to hang up the cape and cowl when being mind ****ed by the most terrorizing force he'll ever face. I much prefer a hero who's conflicted internally and externally. Jesus, if you had a problem with Bruce's inner struggle ... what do you want out of Batman? A bland stylized charicature who never does wrong, always comes out on top, who doesn't ever feel totally threatned? Man, that's why Nolan's Batman movie has such heart and adrenaline. Batman / Bruce Wayne is no more safe a character than anyone else in Gotham City. And

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

I touched on this myself, but didn't go as in depth. You hit great points, well stated. I can't believe anyone would have an actual bone to pick with what happened in the movie, when a young Bruce Wayne feels directly responsible for deaths and rushes his plan to hang up the cape and cowl when being mind ****ed by the most terrorizing force he'll ever face. I much prefer a hero who's conflicted internally and externally. Jesus, if you had a problem with Bruce's inner struggle ... what do you want out of Batman? A bland stylized charicature who never does wrong, always comes out on top, who doesn't ever feel totally threatned? Man, that's why Nolan's Batman movie has such heart and adrenaline. Batman / Bruce Wayne is no more safe a character than anyone else in Gotham City. And facing those

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

I touched on this myself, but didn't go as in depth. You hit great points, well stated. I can't believe anyone would have an actual bone to pick with what happened in the movie, when a young Bruce Wayne feels directly responsible for deaths and rushes his plan to hang up the cape and cowl when being mind ****ed by the most terrorizing force he'll ever face. I much prefer a hero who's conflicted internally and externally. Jesus, if you had a problem with Bruce's inner struggle ... what do you want out of Batman? A bland stylized charicature who never does wrong, always comes out on top, who doesn't ever feel totally threatned? Man, that's why Nolan's Batman movie has such heart and adrenaline. Batman / Bruce Wayne is no more safe a character than anyone else in Gotham City. And facing those challenges

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

I touched on this myself, but didn't go as in depth. You hit great points, well stated. I can't believe anyone would have an actual bone to pick with what happened in the movie, when a young Bruce Wayne feels directly responsible for deaths and rushes his plan to hang up the cape and cowl when being mind ****ed by the most terrorizing force he'll ever face. I much prefer a hero who's conflicted internally and externally. Jesus, if you had a problem with Bruce's inner struggle ... what do you want out of Batman? A bland stylized charicature who never does wrong, always comes out on top, who doesn't ever feel totally threatned? Man, that's why Nolan's Batman movie has such heart and adrenaline. Batman / Bruce Wayne is no more safe a character than anyone else in Gotham City. And facing those challenges and success

 

[the GRIN Reaper]

At the end of the film he realizes he needs to be Batman because Gotham needs their dark knight as much or omore than a white knight and must always be Batman. His dreams of normalcy died with Rachel and he became the hero Gotham needed in the third act of the movie.

Is that bad? Is it bad for Batman to have doubt? To question whether he is doing more harm than good? Or do we prefer the Frank Miller Batman who just always has the rright answer, always knows what he is doing, never second guesses himself and is a rigid caricature without growth, which is what Batman has become in the comics in the last decade?

I find the more interestig interpretation of the character recently, BTAS, dealt with this early on. In Mask of the Phantasm Batman questions if he is insane and Bruce throws away his plans for Batman before they even begin. But is it okay to do that as it is TAS instead of Hollywood "butchering" the material?

Why not do something new that could be explored in the comics but has not been as opposed to have him playing just "the Batman" and be as flat and reactionary a character as he is in the comics now or the Schumaucher movies for that matter?

I touched on this myself, but didn't go as in depth. You hit great points, well stated. I can't believe anyone would have an actual bone to pick with what happened in the movie, when a young Bruce Wayne feels directly responsible for deaths and rushes his plan to hang up the cape and cowl when being mind ****ed by the most terrorizing force he'll ever face. I much prefer a hero who's conflicted internally and externally. Jesus, if you had a problem with Bruce's inner struggle ... what do you want out of Batman? A bland stylized charicature who never does wrong, always comes out on top, who doesn't ever feel totally threatned? Man, that's why Nolan's Batman movie has such heart and adrenaline. Batman / Bruce Wayne is no more safe a character than anyone else in Gotham City. And facing those challenges and success or