Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (March 24th, 2016)

batfan08 said:

I'll Nevah give up...


Nevah...

Click to expand...

batfan08 said:

Nope, not even then. I'll still go to funerals and Cafés when I'm needed.

Click to expand...

batfan08 said:

One of the biggest complaints that bugs me is the idea that "Bruce quit because of Rachel." While I believe she played a role in his seclusion, there were many other factors. For one, Jim Gordon. As I said, they succeeded in cleaning up Gotham, but it came at the cost of Batman's reputation. Just to play Devil's advocate, here, let's put you in the shoes of any one of Gotham City's denizens. For the past year, you've watched someone take on the role of Gotham's protector. Then, out of nowhere, the commissioner of police claims that he snapped and murdered five people, including several police officers and a district attorney. Batman told him to do that, but he also knew what that entailed; there was no going back. If he went back to beating up criminals and returning to the status quo after "supposedly" suffering a psychotic break, it would only serve to raise suspicions, putting Gordon in a [negative] spotlight, and, ultimately, undoing everything they worked towards.

Keep in mind, as well, that there was a transitional period, and that Bruce didn't just instantly transform into the Howard Hughes shut-in we see at the beginning of the film. With Batman no longer a viable option for his crusade, he took an interest in his company, and, in some ways, it calls back to what Ra's Al Ghul said in Begins, about how Bruce's parents tried to save the city with economics. He took an active interest in his company, and even tried to create a new, energy source. In the end, the Fusion Reactor was what broke Bruce. After he saw how it could be weaponized, I think he believed himself to be doing more harm than good, and, thus, decided to give everything up.

As for The Dark Knight Returns, would people have liked TDKR better if it ended with Bruce asking Brian Douglas' drinking buddies for more assistance in his war on crime? Regarding TDK, though, my point is that Bruce never intended to stay Batman forever. He may have been coerced in that particular instance, but look at Harvey's fundraiser. He genuinely wants to pass the bill [to clean up Gotham] off to Harvey, so he can live happily ever after with his childhood friend.

Click to expand...

Dr.Mirakle32 said:

MY Batman isn't a quitter.

Click to expand...

batfan08 said:

One of the biggest complaints that bugs me is the idea that "Bruce quit because of Rachel." While I believe she played a role in his seclusion, there were many other factors. For one, Jim Gordon. As I said, they succeeded in cleaning up Gotham, but it came at the cost of Batman's reputation. Just to play Devil's advocate, here, let's put you in the shoes of any one of Gotham City's denizens. For the past year, you've watched someone take on the role of Gotham's protector. Then, out of nowhere, the commissioner of police claims that he snapped and murdered five people, including several police officers and a district attorney. Batman told him to do that, but he also knew what that entailed; there was no going back. If he went back to beating up criminals and returning to the status quo after "supposedly" suffering a psychotic break, it would only serve to raise suspicions, putting Gordon in a [negative] spotlight, and, ultimately, undoing everything they worked towards.

Keep in mind, as well, that there was a transitional period, and that Bruce didn't just instantly transform into the Howard Hughes shut-in we see at the beginning of the film. With Batman no longer a viable option for his crusade, he took an interest in his company, and, in some ways, it calls back to what Ra's Al Ghul said in Begins, about how Bruce's parents tried to save the city with economics. He took an active interest in his company, and even tried to create a new, energy source. In the end, the Fusion Reactor was what broke Bruce. After he saw how it could be weaponized, I think he believed himself to be doing more harm than good, and, thus, decided to give everything up.

As for The Dark Knight Returns, would people have liked TDKR better if it ended with Bruce asking Brian Douglas' drinking buddies for more assistance in his war on crime? Regarding TDK, though, my point is that Bruce never intended to stay Batman forever. He may have been coerced in that particular instance, but look at Harvey's fundraiser. He genuinely wants to pass the bill [to clean up Gotham] off to Harvey, so he can live happily ever after with his childhood friend.

Click to expand...

intothevoid said:

Still fighting the good fight batcat.

Most excellent.

Click to expand...

Frank said:

But Batman never quits, he never retires. I wanna see Batman in action not Batman inaction. Rises literally broke the Bat out of Batman and I didn't pay to see it end like that.

Click to expand...

jye4ever said:

TDKR fiction: Great ending to BB/TDK, what an amazing legend and gift that BW gave Gotham's citizens.

TDKR reality: Ledger death screwed it all up, TDKR not what Nolan originally had planned = forced story money grab from master Nolan!

That movie goes down like a nail milk shake.

Click to expand...

Khev said:

So the general consensus is that TDKR and MOS were an awesome one-two punch from WB/DC and the future looks extremely bright from here on out?

Click to expand...

Khev said:

So the general consensus is that TDKR and MOS were an awesome one-two punch from WB/DC and the future looks extremely bright from here on out?

Click to expand...

Khev said:

TDKR nuke should have set off the Kryptonian ship beacon, luring Zod to Earth. Then it's not Hopeman's fault. Batman should have pulled a Han Solo and showed up to the Metropolis fight in an even more badass Batwing to help clean up the mess he unleashed. Superman would then be cool, Batman would be a cool non-quitter, and WB/DC would have their connected universe.

Click to expand...