What is there to prove that what I say is 100% wrong? Would it ruin your day so much if I made a decision to not watch any new batfilms with Catwoman as the villain? It's my personal opinion that I find her over-done, so I'm sorry that my opinion turned you off so much =P
Of course not. Neither it would ruin your days if I said that I want a Batman who dresses in pink and has a pet chihuahua who aides him fighting crime in the streets.
Would it be a good idea? Of course not. And something it's obvious here... it would be my personal opinion. Newsflash: That's what a debate it's about. Your personal opinion vs. mine. And we're looking to see if your opinion is better than mine. That's what all this is about. I know it doesn't sound pretty, but that's what a Debate is.
If you decide to stick to your "it's my opinion and you've got to respect it" then you're killing the debate and bringing your ideas to the table for no reason at all. If I had an idea, I would be thankful for someone to come and tell me how DISASTROUS my concept really is. Many times a consensus can't be achieved. But sometimes arguments are strong enough to back up the better idea in a clear and sound way. And that's a terrific thing...
Because I'd hate someone would see a good thing in my "Batman in pink with a chihuaha" idea. It's mine, but it's also THAT bad.
I am not 'out of my ******* mind', as you had put it. If you've read the original comics and the many official and non-official encylcopedias, articles, analytical essays and what not on Catwoman's whole archetype and symbolism: she is a love interest on the 'wrong side of the law'.
You're cherrypicking at best, in an obvious atempt to define Catwoman by the very things that make her similar to Talia. But that's like defining the Joker as: "a psychotic Batman super-villain". !!!!???? Just that?
The archetype of Catwoman goes way beyond of that. She's a rogue character, a shapeshifter, someone who lives a double life like Batman does (unlike Talia); someone who's very ambiguous and whose true intentions and motives are usually concealed; someone who engages in criminal acts of disputable 'evilness'; someone who often finds herself breaking the Law for good purposes (like Batman); someone who has a perspective in life different from Batman's; someone with a personal background truly different from him; someone who is constantly teasing him, challenging him and confusing him in mysterious ways for the audience...
basically... the grayest character in the Batverse after the Batman. Even grayer than Talia, whose only antagonist/ally dynamics are established with her father and Bruce, while Catwoman does it with Bruce, Batman, and the entire city.
Catwoman is a much better dynamic and changing character than Talia. And thus, a much more exploitable one.
I'm sorry if it's a moral obligation for you to demand that I click on a link in your signature, and that you also disagree with the above official and unofficial explanations from DC writers/editors and comic/author critics, too. Because they all said that: Catwoman represents Batman and Robin's underlying fear of the unknown/love from a woman. Superheroes, by default, do not have the time for a love life; and this is a proven dilemma for BATMAN, not Bruce Wayne. =D
And that is also true for Vicki Vale, for example. Or Poison Ivy, a character truly born from misogynistic fears and the archetype of the femme fatale. Or Talia, someone Bruce could've easily had a somewhat stable relationship if he wanted to ("Son of the Demon", and remember that Talia knows Bats true identity). And of course, as you say, Catwoman.
All these fours nail the requisites....
.... are you suggesting they're the same character?
The very same character incarnated in four different styles?
By the way, Bruce doesn't have time either for a stable love life. After all, they're the SAME person.
I did not say that: -Rachel- has the same purpose as -Catwoman-: a love interest. Now that Nolan's killed the girlfriend of Batman/Bruce Wayne, it would be pointless/repetitive to introduce ANOTHER girlfriend who may or may not also know that Batman and Bruce Wayne are the same man.
By that logic, TDK needed no main villain. Ra's had already filled that role in BB, so the Joker was unnecessary, right?
Can I ask you NOT to use ridiculous arguments in this discussion? Please?
It doesn't help that Catwoman is a canon, whilst Rachel is Nolan's own creation; so if a director had to pick a love interest, technically they should go for the canon character (who happens to be a villainess), not another tacky original character like the other ones in the Burton batverse or the other filmverses.
And what does that tell you?
I'll let you think about it... (it has something to do with Occam's Razor)
....
...
..
.
ready?
Okay, if you tried really hard, you may have figured it out by now.
- They are NOT the SAME character.
- They created Rachel over picking Selina because they do NOT play the same part, not even in essence...
- They are NOT interchangeable.
From now on, it'd be nice if you can come up with the same good rationale before jumping to conclusions that satisfy your points.
Really, I can't coach you all the time.
Catwoman is only a thief, in the end: Nolan's Batman (like in the original comics) only starts fighting against the various mobs, smugglers, and serial killers. A thief (master thief though she is) isn't really up there with the League of Shadows/Assassins from Batman Begins, or the entire mob in The Dark Knight. A thief who steals Gotham's biggest diamond: big whoop for Nolan's Batman: he has better things and criminals to deal with, like racketeering groups and psychopaths.
Can I tell you where the idea of a thief who steals from wealthy people and institutions has the upper hand against the League of Shadows?
It's fresh for the franchise.
It's new.
It helps explore further themes within the Nolanverse.
And it leaves space for an actual main villain. She would involved in the conflict in a heavy way, but not as the main threat.
Besides... a Big Diamond? Do you try to come across as this stupid or it's easy for you?
Do you know how many important and dangerous artifacts Catwoman can steal?
What about stealing important technological creations from Lucius Fox?
What about acceding to Wayne Enterprises's secret and now destroyed bat-sonar?
What about deviating billions of dollars from Gotham's major companies? Did you see the viral marketing for TDK? In Gotham Tonight, they stressed once how W.E., if collapsed, would bring down Gotham's economical foundations. And in the light of today's events, we know that is not so wacko after all.
So, no, I don't think that Nolan would be wanting to steal a Big Diamond.
Information, weapons, technology, funds... I can see Catwoman stealing that. Apparently, you don't.
Crane is exactly like he is in the comics: he is meant to come off across as a 'skinny ass' weakling: but he isn't, on the inside. Harvey Two-Face is, like in The Long Halloween, other novels, and The Dark Knight: one of the white knights. The Joker proved that 'anyone' can snap and take the fall. How else do you expect a D.A to react to one of the people who failed to see the truth? Do you want him to kick a puppy instead of threaten his best friend's own family, an ironic twist to Dent's own tragic accident with his family?
Agreed. And, as I proved above, Catwoman can suddenly become big trouble for Batman and Gotham. If Harvey could grab a gun a point at a kid, then it's not very difficult to become a threat in this city.
It's amusing that your post is reeking of a typical flame; immature, overblown insults resorting to 'omgz r u in 4th grade'.
Hahaha, I'd like you to quote me on that, please.
By the way, are you?
.... you know, in fourth grade?
I like to provoke people. Experience has taught me that, if they get angry, they often find their ideas suddenly difficult to explain. Good ideas should be worth the effort. In the end, it's a decanting system.
As if that'd mean anything; most kids at that age would know more about the Batman fandom then you've already shown to 'know' in your silly reply.
That's a confirmation then... you're under the required age. I'm sorry for being such a bully.
Because, as we all know, Batman comics can be read by most ages; except for the of course adult comics that should only be read by the of-age, like Arkham or Dark Victory.
- Objection, your honour!
- Grounds?
- Relevance... and the fourth grader now is talking like an eightie year old.
- Sustained.
Romance is an important part of Batman and Bruce Wayne; in Nolan's verse, he's already decided to prove that Batman wants a real life, but hey, bad things happen if he tries to lead a normal life. He can't go back. It would also be out of character for Bruce to take on another love interest, after how it destroyed Harvey Dent and nearly destroyed Gordon, and his own life.
- Objection again!
- Grounds?
- The counselor is misleading the discussion, implying that a love interest is equal to another.
- Sustained... I'll advice the counselor to click on the opposing part's signature link before jumping to hasty conclusions.
And since you're hesitant to do so, I'll be happy to post the relevant part here, for you...
"
Besides, a love relationship [with Catwoman]
shouldnt be a repetition of the dynamics between he and Rachel. Replaceable characters like Vicky Vale shouldnt be used. Batman and Catwomans relationship is the perfect contrast to his relationship with Rachel: Rachel was his anchor towards the Bruce persona
she was pulling him to a stable life, a life without a mask. Catwoman would be luring him to a life they both share, where nothing is stable, and there's always a mask. If hes in loved with someone who has a life so similar to his, then he has no hope for a normal life. Catwoman is the catalyst for the perpetuation of the Batman persona.
(....)
What I find interesting about her is that she has the possibility of talking with Batman and yet appealing to Bruce Wayne. She can crack the emotional barrier given by his mask, his voice, his whole alter ego. And those are the moments when whe wee a fallible human being under that mask (just like when he beated the hell out of the Joker as soon as he mentioned Rachel). The moments I enjoy Catwoman the most is when she makes Batman doubt about what he really wants. They both should have leading roles, but she should still be a criminal
an outcast like he is, only that she doesnt respect the Law at all. She finds delight in breaking the Law, and actually believe that she does is the right thing. The movie can greatly benefit from an ambiguous characters like her. She steals from the rich to stress the economic and social differences. That's her code.
And the effects she provokes in Batman cannot be done by any other character. After adding the Joker, I think the only way to completely depict the basics of the Bat-world is to add Catwoman. Without the ambiguity of Catwoman, I dont think the Bat-verse will be complete. "
So, in conclusion, your point was: "He already tried and failed so he shouldn't try again in another form". And my point is: by that logic, he shouldn't fight crime anymore because of his defeats.
Oh, I love other people's baseless arguments. They're SO easy to take apart.
LMAO! You base that label on me, from reading these opinions of mine? Did you miss Nolan's interviews in which he said he chose to go with the Rogues Gallery? By all rights, he can pick whoever he wants: it's his film trilogy. So he could add Hush, or Le Bossu if he very well wanted to; but it'd go against what he started out to do- adapt Batman to the screen in a gritty, semi-realistic adaptation, going back to the fandom's roots in the vintage comics. That means Penguin, Riddler, Joker, Catwoman, Clayface, etc. Not a 10ft tall anthropomorphic Killer Croc, the Werewolf (known as, of course, just 'the Werewolf'), and the other High-Fantasy characters that would not fit in Nolan's verse.
I agree with all of that. In fact, I don't recall challenging it.... but.... I don't get it...
... doesn't that rule
Talia out?
Are you working to prove me right? Because it's confusing, really. Are you willing to put Talia in that list along those classic Silver Age names you listed there?
The Penguin is a drug dealer. What else does he do in the comics? Both vintage, retro, and modern? He deals in drugs and artillery in return for loyalty and power.
And that makes him what? Repeat after me.... a MOBSTEEERRR. What about the No Man's Land storyline? Did the Penguin gained power by trading with drugs post-earthquake? He's more than that and it's very easy to see.
Nolan's Ra's Al Ghul provided the blue flower for Nolan's Crane's fear toxin: which is a drug, which Crane then sold to drug addicts or dealers that wanted it, which was explained in The Dark Knight novelization.
The Scarecrow became a drug dealer. No doubt about that. BUT RA'S AL GHUL??
The guys that made and sent the letters with anthrax, what were they? Drug dealers?
When Ra's spread the hallucinogen in the air, what was he doing? Giving free drugs?
He didn't trade with them... he wasn't
dealing with them... he was using them for a terrorist attack. A
chemical-based terrorist attack.
Not some wacky drug trade.
Next time it would be quite helpful if you thought your arguments beforehand.
And, just for the record, I don't see the "
many official and non-official [Batman]
encyclopedias" using you as their poster boy.
That would VERY bad advertising.
See ya.
t:
![[A]](https://superherohype-data.community.forum/avatars/m/70/70800.jpg?1270390582){kind=avatar}
