You can't put Batman mythology into a 3-Film 'Trilogy'...

[riddler]

I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.

Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.

You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.

I would add that Keaton remarks how 'Batman' saved the city from property damage in Returns, something Bale clearly had no interest in. Baleman destroyed quite a bit of police property, Keaton clearly made an attempt to minimize collateral damage

[thecolorsblend]

To be fair to Bale's Batman in TDKRises, (A) how much worse could the city get by that point and (B) yeah, a nuclear explosion could probably mess things up even more... which was the very thing Batman was trying like hell to prevent from happening.

Maybe my standards are too low but the ends sometimes do have to justify the means.

[johnnygobbs]

I would add that Keaton remarks how 'Batman' saved the city from property damage in Returns, something Bale clearly had no interest in. Baleman destroyed quite a bit of police property, Keaton clearly made an attempt to minimize collateral damage

Who cares about property damage (like John McClane says in Die Hard "who gives a damn about glass?")?  Keaton's Batman let a lovely young woman fall to her death and just stood there like a dummy!    All the preservation of property in the world doesn't make up for that failure.

[thecolorsblend]

Keaton's Batman let a lovely young woman fall to her death and just stood there like a dummy!    All the preservation of property in the world doesn't make up for that failure.

Um, that was a plot point of the movie. Batman couldn't save her. That's the premise of the scene. Literally nothing comes from the collateral damage in the Nolan movies.

[Dagenspear]

I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.

Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.

You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.

Being a murderer will always be more incompetent than not being one.

[Dagenspear]

Keaton's Batman let a lovely young woman fall to her death and just stood there like a dummy!    All the preservation of property in the world doesn't make up for that failure.

Um, that was a plot point of the movie. Batman couldn't save her. That's the premise of the scene. Literally nothing comes from the collateral damage in the Nolan movies.

He couldn't save her? He barely tried to. He also shows no amount of caring about it.

[Dagenspear]

I fail to see your logic. They are both killers. Keaton's Batman intentionally, and Bale's Batman unintentionally.

Keaton's version is calculating and controlled. Baleman uses his batpod cannons to clear parked cars - and we are shown two kids sitting in the backseat of a nearby vehicle during this same scene. In B89, Keaton parks his Batmobile, shields it up and takes the fight to the back street, away from the public.

You are more likely to be killed in collateral damage by Baleman than Keaton.

I would add that Keaton remarks how 'Batman' saved the city from property damage in Returns, something Bale clearly had no interest in. Baleman destroyed quite a bit of police property, Keaton clearly made an attempt to minimize collateral damage

Property damage doesn't matter.

[The Laughing Fish]

Who cares about property damage (like John McClane says in Die Hard "who gives a damn about glass?")? 

We're not talking about "damn glass".  We're talking about Batman recklessly crushing cars and property that endangers innocent people. Bloody hell, he was extremely lucky he didn't manage to kill those cops during that chase scene in BB. I think this does matter, especially if Batman wanted to become an "incorruptible symbol" yet he doesn't give a damn about people's safety. The very same people he's supposed to be protecting. 

And yeah, I'll agree that Batman could've at least tried to save the Ice Princess if he wasn't so taken surprised in the heat of the moment. But you know what? I find it's more reprehensible that Batman justified his decision to kill Talia's father to "save millions of innocent people", but allowed the more destructive Joker to murder so many for no reason, other than because the writers wanted a contrived moral dilemma. That to me is the biggest disgrace of them all.  And what's even worse, people ate that up.

Being a murderer will always be more incompetent than not being one.

So in that case, Bale is just as bad as Keaton since he effectively killed off a defenseless Ra's and justified doing so to his daughter.

And don't give me that rubbish that 'he didn't kill Ra's" or "it's not murder". You acknowledged before that Batman did break his moral code, and his code was not killing. Therefore, Bale's Batman is a murderer too. Saying otherwise only defies common sense.

In my opinion, I find it's more disturbing that Batman doesn't react or feel guilty over the deaths of the people he ended up killing in the temple, Two-Face or Talia, if he really didn't intend to harm them. Where's his conscience?

[Dagenspear]

So in that case, Bale is just as bad as Keaton since he effectively killed off a defenseless Ra's and justified doing so to his daughter.

And don't give me that rubbish that 'he didn't kill Ra's" or "it's not murder". You acknowledged before that Batman did break his moral code, and his code was not killing. Therefore, Bale's Batman is a murderer too. Saying otherwise only defies common sense.

In my opinion, I find it's more disturbing that Batman doesn't react or feel guilty over the deaths of the people he ended up killing in the temple, Two-Face or Talia, if he really didn't intend to harm them. Where's his conscience?

Doing the right thing isn't about feeling bad if you do the wrong thing. It's about the right thing. But Keaton's shows just as much remorse. He actually smiles. That's disturbing. But I disagree that the characters didn't feel guilt.

I didn't acknowledge that. I said that he kinda broke his rule in that instance. I didn't say that he did break is rule in that instance.

He didn't murder.

I googled murder. This was one of the things that came up:
The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
That is not what Batman did. By this definition, he never did that.

[johnnygobbs]

And yeah, I'll agree that Batman could've at least tried to save the Ice Princess if he wasn't so taken surprised in the heat of the moment.

But he's Batman.  He's supposed to be prepared for the unexpected.  Why didn't he rush forward to grab her when the bats came flocking at her? 

And bearing in mind how far the film goes to demonstrate how dumb the Ice Princess is, the filmmakers could easily have kept her alive, after being saved by Batman, but still wrongfully accuse him of her kidnap.  After all, anyone who is dumb enough to think that they press a tree-lighting button after the tree lights up, that a Batarang is a camera and that the Penguin is a talent scout, would be dumb enough to believe that Batman kidnapped them.

With this scenario, Batman still gets to be heroic whilst maintaining the plotline concerning him being framed.