Batman's arc

[BatmanFurst]

Hi guys, first time commentor here. Just had a question about Batman's arc in this film. Earlier this month I came across a negative review of the film on YouTube. One of the criticisms was that Batman has no arc. However, I disagree, in fact I think there are two ways to look at his arc.

1. Clearly this Batman is just starting out since no one besides a few thugs have actually seen him. Batman taking on the Joker seems to be his first big break if you will. By ridding the city of the Joker he's taken from being a small time vigilante to taking up the mantle as Gotham's protector by the end. I think that's the basic arc for the character.

2. This is my interpretation of it. By being the killer of Bruce's parents the Joker is a physical manifestation of the trauma that's haunted Bruce for years. When Jack is turned into the Joker and starts wreaking havoc that trauma is reintroduced into Bruce's life. By confronting, and ultimately eradicating that trauma he's finally overcome it, and that allows him to be the hero he was born to be.

Is my interpretation a stretch? What do you guys think Batman's arc is?

[thecolorsblend]

Well, I think there might be something to that. In screenwriting, the rule is "Something has to be fixed". Michael Corleone didn't want to become a gangster but then he became a gangster. Alan Grant didn't want to become a father but then he decided he wanted to become a father. Rick Blaine didn't want to risk his neck for anybody but then he decided he wanted to risk his neck for somebody. Etc. Something needs to be fixed.

I'm at a loss to think of a major arc for Batman in B89. There's oodles of character development, expressed and implied. But an arc? Tough to say.

The best I can manage is that Bruce implicitly rejected love in favor of his mission. I think that was evident all through the film. But Vicki worked her way into his heart. Subsequent movies complicated this arc quite a lot, obviously. But viewing B89 as a standalone piece (which was what Burton thought he was making back in 1989), I think it's fair to suggest that Bruce was understood to become at least slightly less obsessed with his mission and at least slightly more open to the idea of a relationship with a woman by the time credits rolled.

This arc makes some sense given that Bruce has no reason to be as driven to find his parents murderer by the end of B89. It's not a huge issue in the movie and I don't think Burton makes a big deal out of it in the narrative. But at the same time, I don't think it's entirely deniable based only on what's shown in B89.

[The Dark Knight]

Character development:

Batman began as an urban legend at odds with the police.
Batman ended as a public reality with a batsignal delivered to the much friendlier police.
Batman began not knowing who killed his parents.
Batman ended knowing who killed his parents and with the killer dead.
Batman started as a closed off guy with only Alfred knowing his secret.
Batman ended as a more open guy because Alfred spilled the beans to Vicki.

To say Batman is the same man at the end of the film as he is at the beginning is false.

[BatmanFurst]

Character development:
Batman ended as a more open guy because Alfred spilled the beans to Vicki.

I've seen a lot of people with this interpretation of the scene in the Bat-Cave. I think that's why most people aren't a fan of it. However, Alfred didn't tell Vicki about Bruce's secret, she'd already figured it out for herself. In the previous scene with Vicki she discovers that Bruce's parents were killed, and Knox says "What do you suppose something like this does to a kid?", after which she storms off. She had figured it out right there. I think this goes over people's heads because the film attempts to portray that revelation visually, which I love. The way this Batman film uses visuals to leave certain things ambiguous, or implied is what makes it unique amongst the other Batman films imo. Here's a brief interview with Burton talking about that specific scene.
EDIT: Sorry the clip didn't start at the right spot. He talks about the scene at 3:04.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZGwSZym3KE&t=3m2s

[The Laughing Fish]

Hi guys, first time commentor here. Just had a question about Batman's arc in this film. Earlier this month I came across a negative review of the film on YouTube.

Let me guess, it was from a channel called HiTop Films? There's a lot of junk content on YouTube. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find worthwhile analysis on anything, a lot of it just regurgitates bullsh*t myths and lazy, dishonest popular consensus. Batman killing in certain films is the worst offender of them all.

To answer your question about whether or not Batman has an arc, I notice a lot of these detractors hated the fact B89 doesn't give you a typical origin story. I, for one, am glad we didn't get that, because origin stories tend to be very formulaic, or in Nolan's case, convoluted and contradictory. One may take it or leave it, but Burton decided to have Batman and Joker responsible for creating each other. I read somewhere that Burton was inspired by reading Alan Moore's Killing Joke; and he was specifically fascinated with the idea that Batman and Joker were screwed up outcasts in society, and how the Joker taunts Batman as they're both freaks who had one bad day. So in Burton's mind, he thought "why don't we literally have them make each other?". Since the original script always planned to kill the Joker off, I reckon it makes sense. In fact, I find it rather refreshing.

Sometimes, a simple story with some subtext is a more enriching experience than a "by-the-numbers" origin story. Batman is forced to come out of the shadows to stop the Joker's mayhem, avenges his parents and is hailed a hero after saving the town. But in the long run, his love life is a casualty in his dedication as a crimefighter. However, for better or worse, Forever is the film that picks up where the Burton films left off, as Batman makes peace with himself, and spares Robin from going down the same toxic, vengeful path as he did.

Alfred didn't tell Vicki about Bruce's secret, she'd already figured it out for herself. In the previous scene with Vicki she discovers that Bruce's parents were killed, and Knox says "What do you suppose something like this does to a kid?", after which she storms off. She had figured it out right there. I think this goes over people's heads because the film attempts to portray that revelation visually, which I love. The way this Batman film uses visuals to leave certain things ambiguous, or implied is what makes it unique amongst the other Batman films imo.

Exactly right. But the thing is, I thought the scene makes it quite clear - without needing to spell it out - that Vicki learned Bruce's secret, because she's the one who she had gotten to know him personally and intimately, and had struggled to understand why he was so distant with her. Her reaction to Knox's line made her realise that everything about Bruce's behaviour and the mysterious Batman all made sense now, so it's not like the film didn't use any dialogue to make the point. But then again, if BvS has taught me anything, people don't have a very strong grasp for visual storytelling at all.

I do think Daniel Waters is partly to blame for influencing people's interpretation of this scene. Not only did he write the scene where Bruce criticises Alfred for letting Vicki into the Batcave in BR, he said that he hated the first Burton film in an interview on some podcast years ago. In fairness, even if Vicki didn't figure out the secret for herself, I reckon it would've been in Alfred's character to tell her anyway, because in this film he always encouraged Bruce to be open with her.

While we're on the subject of Knox, I once believed he had figured out Bruce's secret too, because he was the one who found the news archive reporting the Wayne murders, and expressed concern for Bruce's state of mind before sharing the information with Vicki. But then I thought it's quite likely that he's not as bright as Vicki is, and failed to make the connection.

[The Dark Knight]

I've seen a lot of people with this interpretation of the scene in the Bat-Cave. I think that's why most people aren't a fan of it. However, Alfred didn't tell Vicki about Bruce's secret, she'd already figured it out for herself. In the previous scene with Vicki she discovers that Bruce's parents were killed, and Knox says "What do you suppose something like this does to a kid?", after which she storms off. She had figured it out right there. I think this goes over people's heads because the film attempts to portray that revelation visually, which I love.

This doesn't change the intent of my comment. Strong suspicions are one thing - Alfred threw open the doors and outright confirmed her thoughts. Bruce wasn't going to bring her into the cave as Bruce Wayne. Bruce was forced to be a more open man because of Alfred's decision. He was willing to sleep with her and visit her apartment, but that was about it. Alfred was the man who wanted their relationship to blossom. Bruce had a wall up around himself. He couldn't bring himself to admit to her that he was Batman.

[BatmanFurst]

"Let me guess, it was from a channel called HiTop Films? There's a lot of junk content on YouTube. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find worthwhile analysis on anything, a lot of it just regurgitates bullsh*t myths and lazy, dishonest popular consensus. Batman killing in certain films is the worst offender of them all."

Yes, that actually was the channel. To be honest I'm fine with people not liking this film but 2 things were brought up in that video that I'm sick of hearing.

1. Burton didn't read the comics- I don't know where this lie originated, I'm guessing it comes from the Kevin Smith quote where Burton said he doesn't read comics. Now to be fair I do think he should've worded that rebuke a little better. However, if people would just do a little research they'd find more than a few quotes that state Burton did indeed read comics that were given to him by the Producer. Not only that, but he also took Alan Moore to lunch for crying out loud.

2. The Batman character isn't Batman from the comics- Again if people would do a bit of research they'd know that the whole intention of this film was to get back to the character that Bob Kane, and Bill Finger had originally created. The producer specifically says that he wanted to get back to the Batman from the Golden Age pre-Robin. I recently read the first volume of the Golden Age for the first time, and was surprised at how accurate Keaton's Batman is to that version of the character. So whenever I hear someone say that criticism it's evident that they're oblivious to what this film is in reference to, or they haven't bothered to go back and read that era of the comics.

[The Laughing Fish]

Let me guess, it was from a channel called HiTop Films?

Yes, that actually was the channel.

I'm not surprised. Those lying degenerates also made a video ridiculing Zack Snyder for Batman's character arc in BvS just to make a cheap, disingenuous point why Batman doesn't kill, while conveniently disregarding Batman & Robin remains the only movie in WB's filmography where he doesn't kill anybody. They actually had the nerve to call the video their "magnus opus", the pretentious hacks.

That channel got called out by fans on Twitter for their hypocrisy, and they just dishonestly dismissed and blocked everybody as Snyder cultists and cowardly avoided any criticism. Complete scumbags if you ask me. It's made even worse when Batman-Online shared their video on its own Twitter page in support, despite we have a thread dedicated of examples where Batman has killed in the comics. To all the staff on BO, well done. You supported intellectually dishonest content from people who also condemned the Burton film. Bravo!

Apologies if I sound harsh, but my tolerance is extremely low when I hear liars can get away with saying any rubbish on YouTube, and people believing it. Let alone get rewarded for it through Patreon.

To be honest I'm fine with people not liking this film but 2 things were brought up in that video that I'm sick of hearing.

1. Burton didn't read the comics- I don't know where this lie originated, I'm guessing it comes from the Kevin Smith quote where Burton said he doesn't read comics. Now to be fair I do think he should've worded that rebuke a little better. However, if people would just do a little research they'd find more than a few quotes that state Burton did indeed read comics that were given to him by the Producer. Not only that, but he also took Alan Moore to lunch for crying out loud.

Even if it was true that Burton didn't read the comics, I suppose these so-called purists would've hated Nolan too, because according to David Goyer, the guy was completely unfamiliar with Batman comics:

Chris had never read comic books. He didn't know the world. So he trusted me on that franchise and with Superman to know what was canon: what could be changed and what couldn't be changed.

...

Early in 'Batman Begins' he said 'does he have to have a utility belt?', and I said 'yes'. And he said 'why?' And then he showed me a design and it was all black. And I said 'it has to be yellow', and he said 'oh...'.

Source: https://www.indiewire.com/2013/09/david-s-goyer-says-he-had-to-tell-christopher-nolan-what-the-batman-canon-was-for-the-dark-knight-trilogy-93286/

2. The Batman character isn't Batman from the comics- Again if people would do a bit of research they'd know that the whole intention of this film was to get back to the character that Bob Kane, and Bill Finger had originally created.

I wouldn't be surprised if people like Goyer in the Nolan era had an influence in this complaint, judging by what he said in the article I linked above.

"I identified the ten things that remained sticky about Batman and Superman," Goyer added. "Wrote them up and said to Chris 'These are the 10 things that should be in the movie. Like the Ten Commandments. As long as we honour that, we'll be good.' " But the pair took their dedication to staying true to the character one step further, by meeting the very people who make their living thinking up new adventures for Bruce Wayne—the comic book writers behind the cape and cowl.

"We said, 'What do you think should be in a Batman film, and are there any rules that you absolutely would not break?' It sounds simple, but none of the other writers had bothered to do that," Goyer explained. "They dismissed the comic books and their creators. We earned their trust."

It's pretty ironic and rich of Goyer to talk about breaking rules, as well as if the Nolan movies didn't take their own liberties. But anyway, I find his attitude to be pretty disrespectful to everybody involved in the previous Batman films. It's especially insulting to B89 writer Sam Hamm, because he co-created Henri Ducard for the 1989 comic book story Blind Justice, which he wrote as well. Goyer and Nolan would later use Henri Ducard and fuse him together with Ra's al Ghul in BB, who played a significant part in Bruce's destiny to become Batman, like the Joker did in B89. But this is the thanks Hamm gets by Goyer, by being told writers like him "dismissed the comic books and creators". Pathetic.

[BatmanFurst]

To be clear I do enjoy the Nolan films. I think Batman Begins is pretty good, I love The Dark Knight, and Rises is just ok tbh. On top of that Nolan has had nothing but nice things to say about the 89 Batman, and the "I'm Batman" moment in Begins is a nice little tip of the hat to this film. So I have zero animosity towards him or anyone else that worked on those films.

I'm just tired of people using those 2 lies that I previously mentioned to get people on their side when they criticize this film. With the second one in particular, if the filmmakers have come out and said that the film is based off of a specific era of the comics I think it's unfair to then hold this Batman up to the rules and moral code of an incarnation that came after what the film was inspired by.

I guess it's just the way of things though. Back when this film came out everybody was putting down the Adam West series, now that Nolan's trilogy is out it's cool to bash this film. I'm sure there'll be another Batman film down the road that'll make people put the Nolan trilogy down as well.

[The Laughing Fish]

Let me be clear, I don't mind if people don't like the Burton films. Under normal circumstances, I can happily admit they're not perfect by any means. But if people are going to judge these sort of movies by comparing them to the comics too much, then they're going to be very disappointed. Because for every one of these movies that might take some ideas here and there, you'll likely find them taking twice the amount of liberties. That, and I have no tolerance when agenda-driven people like that YouTube channel and Goyer spread misinformation.

Goyer, in particular, has a notorious reputation for having a big mouth. He said some stupid things over the years in addition to those quotes I listed, e.g. claiming the Martian Manhunter character could never work on film, and went on record to put down B89 on the 25th anniversary home video release, even though the Nolan series recreated ideas and scenes from that movie, and BR to a lesser extent.

But even if Goyer was complimentary and affectionate towards the Burton films, it wouldn't have improved my opinion on the Nolan stuff. Same thing goes for Nolan respecting B89, I don't care. Aside some moments here and there, I don't like those movies at all. I thought TDK, in particular, was awful, and the worst comic book movie I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot bad movies in this genre. Sorry, but that movie doesn't deserve to be held on such a high pedestal.

I guess it's just the way of things though. Back when this film came out everybody was putting down the Adam West series, now that Nolan's trilogy is out it's cool to bash this film. I'm sure there'll be another Batman film down the road that'll make people put the Nolan trilogy down as well.

I doubt it. From what I observed from people's behaviours, the Nolan faithful are just as stubborn and obnoxious as Donner Superman fans.