Luckily enough the impact of people in our lives, or love itself, is not defined by how many minutes you’ve been with the person.
I'm not talking about love, I'm talking about trust. Bruce can think she's the greatest woman ever, but can he trust her?
And you know it's more than 5 in this case but how resist to make it look bad somehow.
Two things:
1. You know very well it's a saying like driving someone up the wall with frustration.
2. I don't need to make it look bad. It is bad. Fans have seen it as bad long before I pointed it out here. Sam Hamm, the writer of the movie completely disowns it. He even said it would be Alfred's last day at Wayne Manor if that ever happened in the comics.
It’s the same as asking: You think Batman should still exist. Why? Bruce is not benefitting from this. Or Peter Parker for the case. The cost is higher than the benefit. But both know they must go on because it’s simply the right thing to do.
Both Peter and Bruce get extreme satisfaction from bringing evil doers to justice. Spider-Man even enjoys his heroic exploits on most occasions. It's the bad press and the effects being the hero has on his social life that he hates.
They both have their dark times when things go bad for them because of it, like with every hero who has two lives with an alter ego, but make no mistake both of them are getting a benefit from it.
You don’t show respect to the other person or tell the truth only when it means a benefit.
I never said you should. I said in this instance there was no harm in it.
Them in the same scene has absolutely nothing to do with their relationship’s dynamics.
Of course it does. The face off against the two characters is the most crucial of all. That's the big pay off from the feud.
Both hated each other without knowing each other personally.
That goes for every villain Bruce fights. Joker had a reason to hate Batman personally, and later so did Bruce.
Same as in comics like TKJ where Batman wonders how could they hate each other so much without knowing their true identities.
Except in B'89 that's not applicable because Bruce was fully aware Jack Napier was the Joker. There was no mystery surrounding his origins there.
They hated because both represented what each other hated.
Again that goes for every villain. Batman hates criminals, the villains hate the hero who ruins their plans. Batman and Joker's relationship goes a lot deeper than that.
Oh, it wasn’t spoonfed, but he made his points.
Joker never liked Batman’s popularity on TV. So he wanted to stole Batman’s thunder and prove he was more popular among people even when he was exposed by Batman to those very people as the one poisoning them. And Joker knew Gothamites, police included, were corruptible enough to go to their own deaths if that meant a couple of extra bucks.
Really, so how do you account for Joker sending Bob to follow Knox in order to find Batman before any this so called popularity contest you mentioned happened?
The Joker was out to get Batman for dropping him in those chemicals. Stealing the limelight and messing up his poison scam was just an extra reason to hate him.
Joker never once expressed any interest in the mentality of corrupting Gotham's people. He just wanted to kill them.
Scenes when Bruce, knowing Rachel was dating Dent, insisted to her that they should be together. Bruce never said ‘Ah, okay, you’re with him. Be happy you two.’ No, he fought for her. And Dent was jealous of Wayne and also rushed his proposal to her.
That’s fighting for a girl. It doesn’t have to be an obvious graphic fist fight.
Ok, lets break down:
1. Bruce mentioned once to Rachel about them being together, when he mentioned the time when she said they could be together when he stopped being Batman, and asked her did she mean it. Do you think Bruce was not going to ask her that whether she was single or not?
2. Dent wasn't jealous of Wayne. He was put off by his playboy persona. Rachel had known Bruce for years. Nothing had ever happened between them to Dent's knowledge. They were just friends. Clearly she discussed it with him as Dent said Rachel had told him all about Alfred when he met Alfred. Bruce was seen going around with different women on his arm all the time. Heck he arrived at Dent's party with three babes.
3. Rushed into a proposal? How do you know it was rushed? You don't know how long they were dating. It could have been on the cards for a while. Since Rachel had mentally decided to spend the rest of her life with Dent, I think that's how it was.
It’s a completely different situation. Not only he was married, not only his wife was not Bruce Wayne’s love interest, but his wife never died before he became Two-Face... or ever died as far as I know. If someone has ever been married and you think that wife now has practically the same impact in your life as a dead girlfriend, then I'll be convinced is a technicality.
Marriage is a technicality. A ring on the finger doesn't alter the emotional love. Yes, Dent's wife never died or was sought after by Batman. But the latter never played a part in the creation of Two Face, and the former goes under the same umbrella heading of Dent losing his wife after he became Two Face. She moved out of Gotham was never seen again.
Wayne’s killer identity is much more of a technicality. Waynes need to be killed as Bruce is a child to start Batman’s birth. That’s about it. At first it was some unknown, then it was called Joe Chill. Things changed but the bat-universe wasn’t destroyed when the murderer got an identity and wasn’t destroyed in B89 either
I'm not talking about the identity of the killer, I'm talking about making the Joker the killer, which completely alters his relationship with Batman. That's what Burton did.
Joker meets Bruce Wayne, it's because he's stalking Bruce's girlfriend and Bruce then learns Joker is the killer of his parents from that scene. Batman and Joker finally come face to face, and it's all about the death of the Waynes.
No, I’m saying that bad decisions could be triggered by a lie. And that’s why Bruce Wayne should not be lied at by his closer loved one. Nor should Alfred wait and see what happens to decide to tell the truth. You tell the truth as a matter of principles, not only when your lies can backfire at you.
If you want to get into pedantics, since you're all about respect and morality, morally you don't have any right to put on a costume and break the law, cause property destruction, and assault criminals, even though it is in the name of a good cause. Bad consequences can result from that, too. Far worse than just burning some letter from a dead person.
Nor can he blame himself because Rachel wanted to marry someone else.
Of course he can. He'd read that she couldn't be with him because she believes he will always be Batman. Rachel is saying she had to move on because she knows Bruce will never stop being Batman. He's always going to need it.
He would undoubtedly lay the blame on himself for that.
If Gordon had come there faster - as Batman did - he could have.
What a load of bull, man. There is so many variables going against that. For starters you don't know which location is closer. Second Gordon was in a squad car, Batman was mounted on his slick BatPod. Gordon busted his hump trying to get there, driving on curbs and footpaths along the way trying to cut corners to get there.
The man did everything he could. Both he and Batman did.
Or if Batman hadn’t trusted a man who couldn’t be trusted.
That goes for Rachel, Dent, and Gordon as well.
Batman could have guessed there was a trick behind those addresses that the Joker “all of a sudden” decided to confess.
Joker was not suddenly confessing. He willingly revealed all the info on his own terms. From telling Batman he had Rachel, too, to the addresses they were at and forcing Batman to choose which one to save.
Bruce actually does blame himself on Rachel’s death (”Did I bring this on us? On her?”
That's a question, mate. Not a declaration of blame. Unlike with Dent where he outright blamed himself. "I let that murdering psychopath blow him half to hell".
And Alfred’s lie provoked Bruce to prepare a new lie for ‘humanitarian reasons’: “She was going to wait for me. Dent doesn’t know. He can never know.” It’s liars’ circle of life.
That doesn't make a lick of sense. How can Alfred's decision to keep the letter from Bruce provoke what Batman decided to do with Dent when Batman was oblivious to the letter's existence?
Love without respect. Like thanking someone without really meaning it
Former cannot go without the latter.
Of course they can. That's exactly what Alfred was doing. Respecting Bruce's feelings in that he clearly found some solace in the idea that Rachel was prepared to wait for him.
It was because of Vicky’s impact on Bruce. And how Bruce kept pushing her out of his life in spite of her being good for him and a possible normal life in the future.
And Alfred decided to stop that.
I know why he did it, but it was utter nonsense. Bruce wasn't going anywhere. Neither was Vicki. Alfred could have encouraged Bruce to maintain contact with Vicki without escorting her to the Batcave and dropping her on Bruce like that without his consent. It's Bruce's decision to reveal who he's Batman to and who he lets into the Batcave.
The most grating thing of all is that they had only been on ONE date. He had not even spent a whole day in her company. Suddenly Alfred is pushing her into Bruce's life.
Not that it was the nicest thing to do. But at least comparable. I mean if anyone could ever explain to me what’s the need to compare both things to start with.
It's actions done by Alfred without Bruce's consent. One involved taking a living breathing person who neither he or Bruce knew well at all, and telling her Bruce's biggest secrets.
The other involves destroying a letter from a dead friend that revealed a harsh truth that would have no consequences other than emotional hurt.
I see. It’s good or bad merely according to whether it has been done in comics or cartoons before.
Yes, unless you like your Batman characters to act against their natures.
And that sentence is as stupid as saying “Sometimes respect isn't good enough. Sometimes people deserve more". In case of “truth,” what was Batman talking about when he said “more”: a lie. A lie is more than the truth sometimes. Well, it is not.
No, Batman wasn't talking about a lie. He was talking about preserving the hope for a city with good people who deserve it. The same as how Alfred was preserving the feelings of a good man who didn't need to know Rachel had intended to jilt him for Dent.
That’s only good as I am the one deciding when to respect people’s right to be informed and to know the truth, and not someone else lying to my face and taking that right from me without letting me know. Sounds like the beginning of a well-intentioned nice dictatorship.
Does it. How many dictators do you know of have turned themselves into a hunted criminal wanted for multiple murders in order to keep a city safe and criminal free?
Yeah, my victory is better than people’s rights. Why don’t we just plant false evidence on someone who we know is guilty so we can send him to jail? Why respecting laws and Due Process? Because it’s a higher good?
No. Let’s corrupt the system when it serves our well-intentioned purposes.
What could be nicer and cleaner than fighting corruption with corruption?
You have issues about obeying the legal system and the law? LOL, like I said above, Batman breaks the law all the time. He assaults criminals, destroys public property, steals evidence from crime scenes, breaks and enters into where ever he pleases etc. It's a wonder you can be a fan of this character if you are against bending the rules and some deception in order for a greater good.
- Sir your daughter is pregnant and the baby has some serious problem. We don’t think he’ll survive more than 1 month after birth.
[FONT="]- Okay then, sedate my daughter, get rid of the baby secretly and never say anything to my daughter. Sometimes people deserves more.
Cannot agree with that behaviour.
What a great comparison. Murdering an unborn baby and burning a letter about being jilted for another guy.
Why didn't you just compare accidentally breaking your kid's favorite toy and secretly replacing it without them knowing while you were at it
When you make a decision like that you cannot call it “great” depending on the future because when you make it you simply don’t know what’s in the future. You don’t decide to marry someone because I don’t think I’ll meet someone better in the future.
If you decide to marry someone, you've led them to believe you love them and they are the one for you. You're not only involving them in such a decision, but their friends and family as well as your own. A lot of people can be affected by such a thing.
Rachel is dead. D-E-A-D. Nothing she can say or do can hurt Bruce now. The only way Bruce can be hurt by this is if his idea of Rachel waiting for him was his one and only opportunity to be happy.
That’s why correct people don’t base decisions on what might or might not happen later but on higher values such as respect and true love.
Are you joking me? Millions of decisions are based on probabilities and not certainties.
Poor little thing. He wasn’t loved back. I’m sorry man but that hardly counts as the last straw that could send a man like Bruce to alcoholism and self-pity or some other tragedy like that.
Who said it would send him into those things? Nobody. Nobody suggested he would self destruct because of it. Not me, and certainly not the movie.
t
This.
