Did Batman adopt a moral code by the end of the movie?

[Catwoman]

I think you must be right, Catwoman

I'm always right.

[Wayne49]

Fascinating discussion but one that really reminds me of the fundamental flaws within the concept itself. Even if we took the stated examples in Returns and in effect "fixed' them so that Batman wasn't killing anyone, there are still major issues with the morality (or context of said morality) as it applies to his choice to impose it on others.

If we look at Batman, or really any hero in this genre, there is essentially a person with a self-motivated desire to go into society and impose their definition of "justice". We have elected officials in this country that are hated by both sides for standing on a perceived principle. Imagine how the world would be if a disguised person, or group of people, imposed their own brand of justice without a voice from the community? Honestly we suspend allot of our rationality when we watch these movies. We make great leaps of faith in stating, " He's Batman." So we bring with that reasoning a whole host of ideas that says we are "familiar" with this person so we understand what he's really trying to do. If we're going to try and apply real life principles to this story, you have to already understand society would NEVER celebrate these people because they have no first hand context to offer them that kind of inclusion to do as they wish. Especially in this day and age of PC extremists.

So as much as I would love to get into those points about inconsistencies in how Batman dispenses "justice", the truth is the glaring flaws that permeate his very existence trumps all of that reasoning. You have ONE person imposing HIS definition of right and wrong based on HIS interpretation of events. We have people doing that today and they are masked. We call them terrorists. So it's very hard to draw a line in reality and reason Batman would get a pass from society for his intentions since that world does not get a first hand accounting which offers ten fold more context than people on the street who have none.

And yes, in watching these films, you have to accept the reality as it is sold to you. That's part of the suspension of disbelief. You are accepting the reasoning of that world to take the ride. So maybe the real question in this discussion should be is Burton violating those parameters in what he is selling as the morality of Batman? I really don't think so, because in Burton's universe, Batman never makes a statement of what he won't do to achieve justice. He is a broken spirit looking for satisfaction to the injustice served him. So I believe Burton is essentially saying Batman is that figure that allows Bruce Wayne to dispense the same terror right back at the group that inflicted it upon him. If people have to die in the pursuit of that mission, I think Batman is indifferent to that outcome because in his mind, it's the consequence of those people choosing that life to inflict pain on others.

[The Laughing Fish]

The latest leaks for Batgirl and Flash rebooting Keaton's Batman timeline and the disappointing Batman '89 comics have made me lament a missed opportunity. It's bad enough that Sam Hamm's comics had very little in common with the Burtonverse, aside from Joe Quinones' art and the Easter eggs; don't even get me started with that final conversation that Bruce and Selina had in Issue #6. But to have Keaton's Batman history getting retconned and largely ignore a lot of the plot points from the Burton era makes his return very hollow. The last confrontation between those two characters had in BR could've easily been expanded upon, and how that ending might've shaped Bruce's state of mind in the present day. Instead, it will likely be ignored, as if it never happened.

Whatever Keaton's next film appearances have to offer, I somehow don't think they will resonate as this scene from BF.

BTW, for those who are interested: A few weeks ago, it was rumoured that Batgirl had a few test screenings. Unsurprisingly, Keaton's Batman is a different version, and it's likely it will have little to nothing in common with the Batman we all grew up. While it's rumoured that Pfeiffer's Catwoman is referenced at some stage, it is stated that Batkeaton and Batgirl both have no-kill rules, implying that Batman never had a dark past. Another rumour I heard is that Keaton is only in the movie for five minutes.

[The Laughing Fish]

Shortly after my last post, history would record that Batgirl was shelved, and Keaton's future was cut down and wrapped up in a disastrous flop that was The Flash. Keaton's Batman story, as far as I'm concerned, ended in 1992. But I definitely don't mind the idea of Forever as a spiritual connection and conclusion to that era, if that makes sense.