What do you think of the Burton/Keaton films?

[phantom1592]

Why exactly? The Dark Knight made it perfectly clear that Bruce doesn't intend to be Batman for the rest of his life, just until he could inspire the citizens of Gotham to fight back against corruption which was personified in Harvey Dent. Gotham being free of organized crime (not all crime) is the direct result of Batman taking the blame and perserving Harvey's image which couldn't just be a contrivance to make a fugitive vigilante again. It needed to have a positive impact on Gotham of some sort.

Except in The Dark Knight Returns, Batman Beyond and all manner of Elseworlds stories that have Bruce marry Selina Kyle and have a daughter.

Bruce himself spells out the reasons he stopped being Batman in TDKR "The Batman wasn't needed anymore, We won". He stopped being Batman because Gotham was in a good place as opposed to The Dark Knight Returns where he quit while Gotham still needed him.

Dark Knight Returns and Batman Beyond had serious extenuating circumstances as to 'why' he quit. Either a Robin died or he broke his moral code, or something that forcefully broke his will. 'Stopped all Crime' should never be on the list of reasons he quit... and if something DOES stop him from wearing the costume... then he becomes an angry bitter drunk because a huge part of his life's purpose is missing. Retiring with a woman in France or wherever just wasn't right. Batman isn't the happy go lucky 'happily ever after' type of character. Giving him THAT kind of arc is missing the core 'Batman Character' than anything that Burton or even Shcumaker did with their interpretations.

Again I refer to the Dark Knight and Bruce propping up Harvey Dent. Bruce should always be working towards a Gotham that's not gonna need Batman anymore, something were not gonna get in comics because there never gonna end, but a film series, which always puts a finite spin on things from comic books is not bound by that. Nolan's Bruce didn't train with the intent that he'd spend 20 years roughing up purse snatchers, He wanted to enact lasting change.

But he shouldn't ever achieve it. He may say he wants it. He may try to get it... but in the end, Crime is NEVER stopped. and there is always some random purse snatcher out on the street who's going to gun down some other child's family in front of his eyes.

And frankly I believe he absolutely DID train with the intent of punching purse snatchers until he dies in the street some night. He's a mega billionaire. If he wants to change the world through politics and social change... he HAS that power and always had. The fact that he had determined the police couldn't do the job and he needed to dress as a bat says that political change wouldn't have done it.

That's the entire point of the movie and Bruce's character arc. Letting go of his pain and the demons that come with it so he can just live his life.

But honestly... what kind of arc is that? What other movie has someone work really to protect innocents and sacrifice their own happiness for the betterment of others... and then just say "Screw it" the cops have it from here. Time for me to do me..." I just can't picture Spider-man or Superman or anyone else actually landing there... except maybe Wolverine. I could picture that... This ranks right up there with Jonathon Kent telling a young Clark "you need to protect your identity... you should have let a bus load of kids die!"

Not even mentioning that 1) he set Blake up as the 'new' Batman indicating that he believed they still needed a Batman.... and 2) Blake did not have 10 years of super ninja training so he's inevitably dead in a week. Batman should be about the man in the gear... not just the gear. No Robin, no training, just toss him the keys to the batcave and go have a margarita....

This is the story that Nolan wanted to tell... but this thread is about the changes to the character and how a director nailed it or how he missed the mark. Batman Begins was pretty good, Dark Knight hit pretty more than it missed, but Rises missed the mark a lot.

Nicholson's Joker and Ledger's Joker are both legitimate takes on the Joker that you can grab comics off the shelf and say "HERE is the Joker they are playing." Rises' Batman is Nolan's own original thing and isn't any recognizable version of Batman.

[Spencermalley935]

'Stopped all Crime' should never be on the list of reasons he quit

Isn't Stopping all Crime basically the culmination of Batman's entire mission statement? If there's no crime, There's no reason for him to be. Anyways, That's not the sitaution presented in Rises, Gotham is not free of crime, just the organized variety. The type of crime still ocurring in Gotham is the kind the police can handle on their own and once a threat they couldn't handle did rise (Bane), He suited up and went out to fight it.

Giving him THAT kind of arc is missing the core 'Batman Character' than anything that Burton or even Shcumaker did with their interpretations.

Okay that is completely and utterly ridiculous. Burton had Batman casually murder criminals, That's goes against his charcter way more than having him desire a life beyond the bat cave.
Bruce Wayne is obviously never gonna have that kind of ending on the comics but that's more to do with that he has a publishing date not because it's "out of character".

But he shouldn't ever achieve it. He may say he wants it. He may try to get it... but in the end, Crime is NEVER stopped. and there is always some random purse snatcher out on the street who's going to gun down some other child's family in front of his eyes.

First off, That's a really depressing way to look at it and second, Nolan's Batman knows there will always be crime but at the same time he has a much more realistic and mature goal in mind than to spend his life tracking down purse snatchers while the city continues to rot. He set his sights on the mob and the rampant corruption that created men like Joe Chill, He went after the disease instead of just tackling the symptoms. Again in The Dark Knight, Bruce was more than happy to step down and let Harvey Dent take over as Gotham's Hero and he wouldn't have been able to stop all street crime.

Batman Begins had part of Bruce's character arc being him realize that the corruption that festered in Gotham city was more important than the consequences of that corruption so it stands to reason that once Batman had rooted that out there'd be no real reason for him to continue. If he's "whatever Gotham needs him to be", it makes perfect sense that he won't be whatever Gotham doesn't need him to be.

But honestly... what kind of arc is that?

More of an arc than he had in either Burton movie. Bruce Wayne may want to help people yes and yes his mission statement is to ensure that what happened to him as a child never happen's to anyone else but at his core, He's still a just a guy like you or me who desires to live a normal happy life. So the ending to his characters journey as presentend in Rises is to me fully consistent with what was established in Batman Begins.

Blake did not have 10 years of super ninja training so he's inevitably dead in a week.

Obviously hes not gonna suit up the very same night and go out looking for trouble but he doesn't need to. The lack of immediate threat give him plenty of time to prepare so that if he's ever needed he'll be there. Bruce passing the mantle on to him is really a just-in-case scenario.

Rises missed the mark a lot.

By actualy having him actually suceed in what set out to do from Batman Begins? I disagree.

Rises' Batman is Nolan's own original thing and isn't any recognizable version of Batman.

Rises Batman is the exact same character as he was in Begins and the Dark Knight and again, There's a number of comic books out there where Bruce has retired or given up the mantle of Batman (He never stays that way obviously but still)

[phantom1592]

Okay that is completely and utterly ridiculous. Burton had Batman casually murder criminals, That's goes against his charcter way more than having him desire a life beyond the bat cave.
Bruce Wayne is obviously never gonna have that kind of ending on the comics but that's more to do with that he has a publishing date not because it's "out of character".

Not really. I mean, yeah... he'll never REALLY retire because he's worth too much money. However unlike a lot of other characters, Batman has an obsessive compulsive intensity and drive to him that has been built in. Wonder Woman can eventually go back to her island... Aquaman can rule atlantis... Hal Jordan can quit for the umpteenth time and wish he hadn't... When Batman is too old to physically take on the streets, he's building robot drones and super suits to do the job.

First off, That's a really depressing way to look at it and

You're not wrong. There was a push to MAKE Batman dark and gritty and depressing. Nolan, even more than Burton wanted to push that gritty realism. A 'happy ever after' where Batman wins and retires off with Catwoman is more Adam West/Silver age than anything else.

second, Nolan's Batman knows there will always be crime but at the same time he has a much more realistic and mature goal in mind than to spend his life tracking down purse snatchers while the city continues to rot. He set his sights on the mob and the rampant corruption that created men like Joe Chill, He went after the disease instead of just tackling the symptoms. Again in The Dark Knight, Bruce was more than happy to step down and let Harvey Dent take over as Gotham's Hero and he wouldn't have been able to stop all street crime.

Batman Begins had part of Bruce's character arc being him realize that the corruption that festered in Gotham city was more important than the consequences of that corruption so it stands to reason that once Batman had rooted that out there'd be no real reason for him to continue. If he's "whatever Gotham needs him to be", it makes perfect sense that he won't be whatever Gotham doesn't need him to be.

I think this the heart of the problem. Batman doesn't NEED an Arc. He shouldn't have one. We don't NEED to see the entire history of Batman beginning and then ending. Batman should be eternal. He has a challenge, he overcomes that challenge, then he waits his silent vigil for the next challenge. Whenever Gotham needs him, he'll be there. This isn't some crazy philosophy of mine... this is how Batman has existed for 80 years. I really don't understand the desire to see something like this 'end'. Movies should end open ended enough that the story can always go on. Especially super hero movies

More of an arc than he had in either Burton movie. Bruce Wayne may want to help people yes and yes his mission statement is to ensure that what happened to him as a child never happen's to anyone else but at his core, He's still a just a guy like you or me who desires to live a normal happy life. So the ending to his characters journey as presentend in Rises is to me fully consistent with what was established in Batman Begins.

Not sure I buy that. 1989 had a personal arc that took him from a solitary figure shut off from everyone, to opening up and letting Vicki in his life. She was still second place to Gotham, but that was an arc. Batman forever was about him trying to balance his Bruce Wayne and Batman identities and become the kind of guy who accept a Robin.

They weren't grand overwhelming arcs going from birth to death... but the character in the beginning had grown and changed by the end. That's plenty of arc for me.

Rises Batman is the exact same character as he was in Begins and the Dark Knight and again, There's a number of comic books out there where Bruce has retired or given up the mantle of Batman (He never stays that way obviously but still)

Like? The only ones I can think of Earth-2 where he and catwoman had a daughter and then died with Robin and Huntress taking over. The actual death is usually glossed over, just that he's gone and the kids have taken over. I never saw an actual retired Bruce Wayne there. Dark Knight Returns, which had zero happy endings. He was a bitter old alcoholic after Robin died. Batman Beyond, which he took his crusade farther than his body could, broke his 'no guns' rule and then retired to his dark lonely mansion.

Any other time someone else took the mantle, he was dead or broken or rehabilitating with full intention of taking it back. 3 out-of-continuity instances that were more tragic than a never-ending battle.

[Agent Z]

in·sane
[inˈsān]

ADJECTIVE
in a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill:


Seems to fit for me.

The very fact that he was not executed years ago was specifically because the courts, psychologists, and everyone else has deemed him 'insane'. At the very least he's a severe Sociopath with no conscience and extreme anti-social behavior.

The courts and psychologists of Gotham have been repeatedly shown to be thunderingly incompetent, when they aren't shown as being outright evil. Joker is capable of normal interaction - it's how he manipulated Harley Quinn.

Having a gimmick does not mental illness make. But Batman writers seem to forget this isn't the 1960s.

[Agent Z]

Not really. I mean, yeah... he'll never REALLY retire because he's worth too much money. However unlike a lot of other characters, Batman has an obsessive compulsive intensity and drive to him that has been built in. Wonder Woman can eventually go back to her island... Aquaman can rule atlantis... Hal Jordan can quit for the umpteenth time and wish he hadn't... When Batman is too old to physically take on the streets, he's building robot drones and super suits to do the job.




You're not wrong. There was a push to MAKE Batman dark and gritty and depressing. Nolan, even more than Burton wanted to push that gritty realism. A 'happy ever after' where Batman wins and retires off with Catwoman is more Adam West/Silver age than anything else.




I think this the heart of the problem. Batman doesn't NEED an Arc. He shouldn't have one. We don't NEED to see the entire history of Batman beginning and then ending. Batman should be eternal. He has a challenge, he overcomes that challenge, then he waits his silent vigil for the next challenge. Whenever Gotham needs him, he'll be there. This isn't some crazy philosophy of mine... this is how Batman has existed for 80 years. I really don't understand the desire to see something like this 'end'. Movies should end open ended enough that the story can always go on. Especially super hero movies



Not sure I buy that. 1989 had a personal arc that took him from a solitary figure shut off from everyone, to opening up and letting Vicki in his life. She was still second place to Gotham, but that was an arc. Batman forever was about him trying to balance his Bruce Wayne and Batman identities and become the kind of guy who accept a Robin.

They weren't grand overwhelming arcs going from birth to death... but the character in the beginning had grown and changed by the end. That's plenty of arc for me.




Like? The only ones I can think of Earth-2 where he and catwoman had a daughter and then died with Robin and Huntress taking over. The actual death is usually glossed over, just that he's gone and the kids have taken over. I never saw an actual retired Bruce Wayne there. Dark Knight Returns, which had zero happy endings. He was a bitter old alcoholic after Robin died. Batman Beyond, which he took his crusade farther than his body could, broke his 'no guns' rule and then retired to his dark lonely mansion.

Any other time someone else took the mantle, he was dead or broken or rehabilitating with full intention of taking it back. 3 out-of-continuity instances that were more tragic than a never-ending battle.

Didn't Kingdom Come say that was a bad thing?

Nolan Batman is a thousand times more psychologically healthy than any version of Batman that didn't know a temporary solution when they saw one. Him being a vigilante past there being a need for him is the same problem as every other extreme solution that outlasted it's use - the French Revolution, Caesar's dictatorship, the Patriot Act etc.

[Spencermalley935]

On the whole issue of Batman retiring, Here's a quote straight from Chris Nolan on the subject.

For me, The Dark Knight Rises (2012) is specifically and definitely the end of the Batman story as I wanted to tell it, and the open-ended nature of the film is simply a very important thematic idea that we wanted to get into the movie, which is that Batman is a symbol. He can be anybody, and that was very important to us. Not every Batman fan will necessarily agree with that interpretation of the philosophy of the character, but for me it all comes back to the scene between Bruce Wayne and Alfred in the private jet in Batman Begins (2005), where the only way that I could find to make a credible characterization of a guy transforming himself into Batman is if it was as a necessary symbol, and he saw himself as a catalyst for change and therefore it was a temporary process, maybe a five-year plan that would be enforced for symbolically encouraging the good of Gotham to take back their city. To me, for that mission to succeed, it has to end, so this is the ending for me, and as I say, the open-ended elements are all to do with the thematic idea that Batman was not important as a man, he's more than that. He's a symbol, and the symbol lives on.