Batman Returns has one advantage over Batman89, Batman Begins & The Dark Knight... [Archive]

kalika

10-01-2008, 12:30 PM

I'm not a big fan of Batman Returns -- it has its moments, but not many of them. I think the chemistry between Wayne and Kyle is much more intense in the comics, or even B:TAS and sundry.

Given that Batman's romantic side is the least interesting aspect of his character, and frankly, I don't think Batman should have a romantic interest, I don't think that's very much of an advantage.

I can't agree here. I think Batman's romantic/sexual side is an intrinsic part of his human side, and thus an incredibly important aspect of his dynamic character. Everybody has there own reasons for liking Batman and a lot of mine stem from watching him try to balance his human nature with the symbol he has created. That struggle born in his two personalities is great stuff! Sometimes I'm more interested in exploring Bruce Wayne (or what's left of him) and watching him experience the simpler, more common things in life, can often be the most intriguing.

Adults are sexual creatures. I'm always curious to see how Bruce handles his humanity. Plus, he's kinda sexy.... :tongue:

LukeRed5

10-01-2008, 12:49 PM

Batman Returns is my favorite out of the 4 Burton/Schumacher. Michelle Pfeiffer is probably the best of any movie Batman's love interests.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-01-2008, 01:30 PM

I'm not a big fan of Batman Returns -- it has its moments, but not many of them. I think the chemistry between Wayne and Kyle is much more intense in the comics, or even B:TAS and sundry.

Yeah but if you're just talking about the movies...if you're just comparing Wayne and Kyle's relationship to Wayne and Vale's relationship or Wayne and Rachel's relationship it's much more intense.

Jake V

10-01-2008, 03:05 PM

I'm not a big fan of Batman Returns -- it has its moments, but not many of them. I think the chemistry between Wayne and Kyle is much more intense in the comics, or even B:TAS and sundry.

I can't agree here. I think Batman's romantic/sexual side is an intrinsic part of his human side, and thus an incredibly important aspect of his dynamic character. Everybody has there own reasons for liking Batman and a lot of mine stem from watching him try to balance his human nature with the symbol he has created. That struggle born in his two personalities is great stuff! Sometimes I'm more interested in exploring Bruce Wayne (or what's left of him) and watching him experience the simpler, more common things in life, can often be the most intriguing.

Adults are sexual creatures. I'm always curious to see how Bruce handles his humanity. Plus, he's kinda sexy.... :tongue:

That's just the thing: I don't think he's fully adult. I think on some level, he became stunted when his parents died.

It's the reason he'd rather hang out with teenage boys. Not for any sexual reason, but because on some level, thats who he can relate to.

B. Kuwanger

10-01-2008, 03:10 PM

Uh, you sure you don't mean "Selina Kyle's boss", Christopher Walken, is the advantage?

AlistairCrane

10-01-2008, 03:27 PM

Selina Kyle/Catwoman/Michelle Pfeiffer is the reason why BR is so good.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-01-2008, 04:57 PM

Uh, you sure you don't mean "Selina Kyle's boss", Christopher Walken, is the advantage?

No I think the advantage is the fact that Batman Returns is the only Batman film that has a sense of sexual tension...Like I said before I always thought that Bruce Wayne's attraction toward Vicki Vale and Rachel Dawes was forced.

Lew Moxon

10-01-2008, 05:25 PM

When I first saw Returns, I thought it was too "Tim Burton" for my tastes. But I liked Selina in the movie, as an actor, I think Michelle Pfiffer did actually a better job than Jack did. Now, I enjoy Jack more, because Jack is Jack. And noone can outdo the Joker.

JTPencils

10-01-2008, 07:11 PM

Ever consider that it may have been the actors that you didn't feel "clicked" or gave off that sexual energy? Perhaps it was their performance even moreso then the written word (or who directed).

Pfeiffer played up the sexy aspect of Catwoman, much like Newmar did years before, and it worked. She clicked with Keaton's Batman/Bruce, and it worked for that film. I was never fond of how FAR some of the sexual innuendo went (I didn't care for Penguin groping female assistants... unnecessary) in BR... but it worked for Pfeiffer.

As for Holmes, Bale... Kidman, Kilmer... it could have been just the lack of any chemistry between the actors involved. I know it was totally lost with Clooney and Thurman. Then again, most of that movie was lost, and should have never seen the light of day!

But I will say this... Jack is still the Joker in my eyes.... that's my opinion, and I"m stickin' to it!

carabas

10-01-2008, 07:27 PM

Lew Moxon

10-01-2008, 08:10 PM

Weren't Keaton and her an actual couple at one point?

AlistairCrane

10-01-2008, 08:17 PM

Weren't Keaton and her an actual couple at one point?

Yes, and I believe it was much prior to the film.

Lew Moxon

10-01-2008, 08:18 PM

Yes, and I believe it was much prior to the film.

Man, that must have been awkward.

AlistairCrane

10-01-2008, 08:27 PM

Man, that must have been awkward.

Only if they parted on bad terms.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-01-2008, 09:37 PM

I don't know. Sure, Mchelle Pfeiffer is sexy as hell (even though she is a very poor Seloina Kyle - but that's probably just the script). But there is pretty much zero chemistry between Pfeiffer and Keaton. Methinks you're projecting their comics chemistry.

Keaton and Pfeiffer had better chemistry than Bale and Holmes. I think you're confusing Batman Returns with Batman because Michael Keaton had zero chemistry with Kim Basinger. By the way why do you write Methinks? It's "I think" NOT "Methinks" is it that hard for you to write I think instead of Methinks?

The Scarlet Sapien

10-01-2008, 10:15 PM

I'd say Bruce had as much chemistry with Vicki as with Selina. Just my opinion.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-01-2008, 10:32 PM

I'd say Bruce had as much chemistry with Vicki as with Selina. Just my opinion.

I disagree because I never felt any sexual tension between Bruce and Vicki but I felt some sexual tension between Bruce and Selina.

carabas

10-02-2008, 05:18 AM

By the way why do you write Methinks? It's "I think" NOT "Methinks" is it that hard for you to write I think instead of Methinks?I like to spice up my vocabulary with odd and interesting words from time to time.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methinks

Chiroptera

10-02-2008, 08:20 AM

I don't know. Sure, Mchelle Pfeiffer is sexy as hell (even though she is a very poor Selina Kyle - but that's probably just the script). But there is pretty much zero chemistry between Pfeiffer and Keaton. Methinks you're projecting their comics chemistry.

I agree with Carabas on all counts. Pfeiffer was a sexy villainess, but she didn't really feel much like Catwoman to me, and she didn't seem to have much chemistry with Keaton on screen; I felt more snap and sizzle between her and Walken in that movie than I did when it came to her scenes with Keaton.

But then, personally, I never felt any real romantic tension in either of the Burton flicks. In Batman it felt forced, and in Batman Returns it didn't seem like love or romance at all. It was just sexual tension that most straight men would feel if they saw a leather clad whip-wielding woman with curves like Pfeiffers.

I never really felt any romantic connection. Honestly, Nolan's films are the first time I've ever actually believed Batman cared about the love interest in an on-screen version of Batman's world.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-02-2008, 09:34 AM

Honestly, Nolan's films are the first time I've ever actually believed Batman cared about the love interest in an on-screen version of Batman's world.

I disagree I think Bruce Wayne's attraction toward Rachel Dawes was forced because Rachel was a normal girl with an ordinary life. Batman is too much of a headcase to be with a normal girl he needs a bad girl like Selina Kyle. Also I hate the way Rachel toyed with Bruce.

You see at the end of Batman Begins she kissed Bruce and she said we can get together after Gotham no longer needs Batman. Then in The Dark Knight she was with Harvey Dent and she basically disregarded what she said in the previous film. Rachel made a promise she didn't keep.

kalika

10-02-2008, 09:41 AM

I disagree I think Bruce Wayne's attraction toward Rachel Dawes was forced because Rachel was a normal girl with an ordinary life. Batman is too much of a headcase to be with a normal girl he needs a bad girl like Selina Kyle.

I agree with you that just any normal girl with an ordinary life can't cut it for Bruce but a childhood friend who knew him before his parents died, heck even knew his parents! -- that's a different story.

It allows Bruce one link back to his own normalcy. Somebody who has known him thru out his entire transformation -- that holds the potential for a lot of heavy emotions and an intense relationship.

But they didn't really pull it off -- in Begins. I don't think they tapped all that awesome potential, but the idea itself is good, methinks! :biggrin:

carabas

10-02-2008, 10:01 AM

I disagree I think Bruce Wayne's attraction toward Rachel Dawes was forced because Rachel was a normal girl with an ordinary life. Batman is too much of a headcase to be with a normal girl he needs a bad girl like Selina Kyle. I wonder what would be a better 'love interest' (it's not really a love interest since there isn't any real possibikity of a relationship)? Some leatherclad criminal, or a pretty girl he's known all his life and is fighting the same fight he is, albeit in a more mundane way? Anyway, Batman's too much of a headcase to be with Catwoman too. Or not enough of a headcase, depending on whether it's reformed or supervillainous Catwoman.

Also I hate the way Rachel toyed with Bruce. You see at the end of Batman Begins she kissed Bruce and she said we can get together after Gotham no longer needs Batman. Then in The Dark Knight she was with Harvey Dent and she basically disregarded what she said in the previous film.They both knew very well that there was never going to be a day when Gotham would no longer need Batman. And she knew damn well that Bruce is not ever going to give up Batman, even if he manages to turn it into Metropolis. She's got to become a nun because she once said smething not quite true?
Rachel made a promise she didn't keep.On the other hand, she's not a supervillain who likes big explosions.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-02-2008, 10:01 AM

I agree with you that just any normal girl with an ordinary life can't cut it for Bruce but a childhood friend who knew him before his parents died, heck even knew his parents! -- that's a different story.

Well I also said that Batman needs a bad girl and I hardly consider Rachel Dawes a bad girl. Here's a quote from Paul Dini the chief writer of Batman: The Animated Series he agrees with me about Batman needing a bad girl. "The problem with Batman is he only likes bad girls."

Chiroptera

10-02-2008, 10:56 AM

I love dini, he's my favorite writer, but that's one of the few things I'd disagree with him on. And Dini himself seem to have slowly been slipping away from that notion toward more of just believing Batman needs a girl with the same sort of lifestyle that he has. THAT is something I can believe. I don't think he could work with a normal woman, he does need to be with a woman who knows about the capes and cowls life style.

However, Rachel was far more than just a "normal girl" though. She was a childhood friend, one of the few he had before his parents died and likely one of a very, VERY select few he had after they were gone.

Most people who have known someone of the opposite sex from childhood to adult hood have some level of romantic feelings for them as they get older. This is especially true in when that person is there for the other during a time of immense trauma (such as losing one's parents.)

Now, I'm the first to say I thought Katie Holmes' acting in Batman Begins was horribly flat. It was like a card board cute out most of the time; but looking at it purely from a storyline perspective it does make sense. A hell of alot more sense than the cold, logical Michael Keaton version of Batman who randomly falls for a clearly psychotic and unbalanced individual like the Pfeiffer version of Catwoman.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-02-2008, 12:11 PM

However, Rachel was far more than just a "normal girl" though. She was a childhood friend, one of the few he had before his parents died and likely one of a very, VERY select few he had after they were gone.

What do you mean one of the few? I know Harvey Dent was a longtime friend of Bruce Wayne in the comics but in The Dark Knight Dent barely knew Wayne. You see that's the problem I have Rachel (as far as the writing is concerned) they basically took the longtime friend aspect (an aspect that used to belong to Harvey Dent by the way) and applied to Rachel's character. Also as far as original characters go I thought Andrea Beaumont (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) was more interesting than Rachel Dawes.

But this is just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

Chiroptera

10-02-2008, 02:41 PM

What do you mean one of the few? I know Harvey Dent was a longtime friend of Bruce Wayne in the comics but in The Dark Knight Dent barely knew Wayne. You see that's the problem I have Rachel (as far as the writing is concerned) they basically took the longtime friend aspect (an aspect that used to belong to Harvey Dent by the way) and applied to Rachel's character. Also as far as original characters go I thought Andrea Beaumont (Batman: Mask of the Phantasm) was more interesting than Rachel Dawes.

But this is just my opinion so take it with a grain of salt.

Who said anything about interest? And why are we using DCAU characters now? You said an advantage Batman Returns had over Batman, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight; Andrea was in none of these and has no real impact upon the discussion.

I agree she was more interesting than Rachel, I'm aware Harvey was originally Bruce's long time friend, but that's not the case in the Nolan 'verse so again it doesn't really matter in this discussion about romances in the different movies.

As to what I mean by one of the few, I mean that (as far as we can tell in the Nolan verse), Bruce's only real child hood friend seemed to be Rachel, who was the daughter of one of the women on the house staff at Wayne Manor. We have not been, thus far, made aware of him having any other close child hood friends.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-03-2008, 12:11 AM

Who said anything about interest? And why are we using DCAU characters now?

Basically what I'm trying to say is...Rachel Dawes is no Selina Kyle and she sure as hell isn't Andrea Beaumont. I knew Rachel was gonna be different from Selina and Andrea but I didn't know she was gonna be boring. David Goyer created a bland original character in my opinion. Where as Michael Reaves (Mask of the Phantasm writer) created a great original character (Andrea) in my opinion. Also say what you will about the Burtonized Catwoman but she was never boring in my opinion.

Chiroptera

10-03-2008, 07:52 AM

Basically what I'm trying to say is...Rachel Dawes is no Selina Kyle and she sure as hell isn't Andrea Beaumont. I knew Rachel was gonna be different from Selina and Andrea but I didn't know she was gonna be boring. David Goyer created a bland original character in my opinion. Where as Michael Reaves (Mask of the Phantasm writer) created a great original character (Andrea) in my opinion. Also say what you will about the Burtonized Catwoman but she was never boring in my opinion.

I agree.
I also continue to stand by the fact that one character's level of depth doesn't change whether or not the romance was more believable or not.
I don't like Rchael Dawes. I didn't like Katie as Dawes, I thought Maggie did a good job with the character but that Rachel herself was still a boring character to watch; however, I understood how a young Bruce Wayne/Batman could be attracted to her. She's a normal, stable, sane, good-hearted human being in a world that (to Batman) is full of evil, corruption, chaos and undefiable injustice.

Vicki Vale in Batman felt very blah, just like "wait, why is he interested in her?" she didn't have any particular draw or appeal that I could really pin-point as a "Oh that's why he finds her attractive" sort of thing.

Then when it comes to Batman Returns I never felt like they verified or proved their romantic attentions, at least not on Keaton's side. I DID believe Pfeiffer's performance, she led me to believe Selina Kyle was genuinely interested in Bruce Wayne; however, in Batman Returns Keaton's performance made me think of that version of Batman who's so obsessed with the mission that he can't recognize a good thing when he sees it.
He wasn't romantically interested in Selina at any time, and when it came to Catwoman there was a spark, and there was alot of sexual attention and desire, but still no romantic aspirations.

Ben Reilly#6

10-03-2008, 08:49 AM

You know, I always got the feeling that all those encounters were supposed to be stiff and awkward. As Chiroptera said, that kind of attractive is perfectly normal between a hard-edged lone vigilante and a leather-clad whip-carrying shizophrenic woman.
Besides, it's Batman and Catwoman, via Tim Burton. It's bound to be weird.

As for Rachel Dawes, well...I have no love for the character or the actresses who played her, so I'll admit to being bias when I say that she was just there for him to have a doomed love interest. An ideal of normalcy to cling to, and eventually lose, to push him further into his role as Batman. Of course their interactions were going to look pathetic.

Just throwing that out there.

Astonishing X-Fan

10-03-2008, 09:28 AM

Returns had an AWFUL portrayal of Catwoman/Selina. She isn't supposed to be some nutty freak who can talk to cats and who eats birds. I couldn't stand how badly she was "Burtonized".

JTPencils

10-03-2008, 09:58 AM

I still say Bassinger had some great screams in Batman89.

Best "victim" yet.

And she wasn't hard on the eyes either. But as we've seen in her real life... Kim's a bit of a whack job herself.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-03-2008, 10:03 AM

I agree.
I also continue to stand by the fact that one character's level of depth doesn't change whether or not the romance was more believable or not.

Well it's hard for me to believe that Batman would fall for somebody as fugly as Rachel...Both actresses who played Rachel were fugly in my opinion at least the actresses from the previous Batman franchise were pretty.

JTPencils

10-03-2008, 10:05 AM

I wouldn't say that Holmes was fugly, but she DID look like the week before, she was a pom pom girl at the high school rally.... certainly NOT a candidate for Assistant DA.

kalika

10-03-2008, 10:13 AM

I still say Bassinger had some great screams in Batman89.

Best "victim" yet.

HA!!! She *DID* have some fabulous screams! I had completely forgotten about that until you reminded me. I remember being so impressed with her ability to scream on command, I tried to practice and pissed off a lot of family members! :tongue:

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-03-2008, 10:25 AM

I wouldn't say that Holmes was fugly, but she DID look like the week before, she was a pom pom girl at the high school rally.... certainly NOT a candidate for Assistant DA.

Well that's my opinion take it with a grain of salt.

zomg

10-03-2008, 10:37 AM

Batman Returns has one advantage over Batman89, Batman Begins & The Dark Knight...

A better soundtrack? :p

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-03-2008, 11:13 AM

Batman Returns has one advantage over Batman89, Batman Begins & The Dark Knight...

A better soundtrack? :p

Yeah that too. :tongue:

Dark Master

10-03-2008, 11:19 AM

And that advantage is Selina Kyle. You see with Vicki Vale and Rachel Dawes I got the feeling that Bruce Wayne's attraction towards them was forced but with Selina I actually felt like there some sexual tension between her and Bruce. Do you agree?

No I think it's because Michelle Pfeiffer looked so hot in that movie I would've paid a small fortune to sleep with her.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-03-2008, 12:28 PM

No I think it's because Michelle Pfeiffer looked so hot in that movie I would've paid a small fortune to sleep with her.

I was six years old when I saw Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) in Batman Returns and I had a small crush on her after I left the theater. I didn't have a small crush on Katie Holmes or Maggie Gyllenhaal after I left the theater but I did have a small crush on Nicole Kidman after I saw Batman Forever in theaters.

Damiean Dark

10-03-2008, 02:28 PM

AlistairCrane

10-03-2008, 02:55 PM

The best instance of Michael/Michelle chemistry is the costume ball scene, where they both show up in regular clothes. Then, Selina pulls out the gun, and then they figure out each other's identities.

TheSpectacularSpider-Man2009

10-03-2008, 04:41 PM

I still think Keaton as Batman in BR is still the ultimate portrayal of the character he is dark and moody his eyes say everything pages of dialouge in other batfilms couldnt batmans mystery in the Nolan films (as decent as they where) has been stripped to nothing to satisfy the "real world" crap some people have suddenly proffessed to always havewanted since BB. the batman is no longer a personification of the dark part of Bruce Waynes soul created the night his parents died he has just become a cop avenger in a suit used to scare criminals.

I wouldn't say that, I mean sure Chris Nolan stripped, away Batman's mystique, by shedding, new light, on his training, and how he obtained, his gadgets, but that was exactly, the point. Nolan wanted his Batman story, to seem believable, during the shooting, of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight his mantra, was versimilitude, and versimilitude was Richard Donner's mantra for Superman too. If you can accept, Dick Donner's mantra of versimilitude you should be able to accept Chris Nolan's mantra of versimilitude.

carabas

10-03-2008, 05:19 PM

I was six years old when I saw Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) in Batman Returns and I had a small crush on her after I left the theater. I didn't have a small crush on Katie Holmes or Maggie Gyllenhaal after I left the theater but I did have a small crush on Nicole Kidman after I saw Batman Forever in theaters.Wouldn't that fact that you're about twenty years older now factor into that? Plus that Catwoman was portrayed as the ultimate sexpot while he Nolan girls were not?

Damiean Dark

10-03-2008, 07:42 PM

I wouldn't say that, I mean sure Chris Nolan stripped, away Batman's mystique, by shedding, new light, on his training, and how he obtained, his gadgets, but that was exactly, the point. Nolan wanted his Batman story, to seem believable, during the shooting, of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight his mantra, was versimilitude, and versimilitude was Richard Donner's mantra for Superman too. If you can accept, Dick Donner's mantra of versimilitude you should be able to accept Chris Nolan's mantra of versimilitude.

Its not so much the gadgets and background being explored more its stuff like Bruce deciding to become a vigilante after a conversation with Falcone in BB and willing to give it all up so easily in TDK. Batman just isnt such an integrel part of Bruce Wayne in Nolans films he is mearly a means to an end to punish criminals Burton/Keatons Batman was far more a psychological beast imo was he as mad as the freaks, was he merly a almost superhumanly focused vigilante? and was batman bruce wayne or was bruce wayne batman? you dont get these questions with Nolan/Bales batman he is a far more black and white creature no matter what pages of dialouge try to state otherwise to make the movies "real world psychological".

caboose

10-03-2008, 09:05 PM

Its not so much the gadgets and background being explored more its stuff like Bruce deciding to become a vigilante after a conversation with Falcone in BB and willing to give it all up so easily in TDK. Batman just isnt such an integrel part of Bruce Wayne in Nolans films he is mearly a means to an end to punish criminals Burton/Keatons Batman was far more a psychological beast imo was he as mad as the freaks, was he merly a almost superhumanly focused vigilante? and was batman bruce wayne or was bruce wayne batman? you dont get these questions with Nolan/Bales batman he is a far more black and white creature no matter what pages of dialouge try to state otherwise to make the movies "real world psychological".

I don't mean to tell you what to think or claim to know what Nolan was trying to portray, but in my opinion there is plenty to suggest Bale's Wayne needs the Batman creation to satisfy his own emotions.

Firstly you have the fact that Bruce's trauma and survivor's guilt is tied directly to his fear of Bats. The fact that Bruce takes on the visual persona of the creatures that on some level he acknowledges as leading to his parents death is quite twisted and "dark".

Its clear by the end of Dark Knight that the point Holmes' Rachel makes at the end of Begins and Maggie's Rachel makes in her letter monologue, (that Bruce needs Batman more than he needs Rachel), is true. That right there is fucked up enough for me.

Bale's Bruce also shows moments in Begins (during and post Tumbler chase scene) and Dark Knight (capturing Scarecrow and making jokes about hockey shorts) where he is clearly enjoying his role as Batman and it is satisfying both his vengeful feelings as well as a somewhat self destructive desire to wreak violent havoc.

The Nolan/Bale Batman is so vastly multi-layered in comparison to the Burton/Keaton version that its embarassing to compare the two. But thats not to say Keaton's Batman is without merit.

Choppa

10-03-2008, 09:12 PM

I'm not sure how you can really compare the female roles. Catwoman was an actual villian, while all of the others were mostly generic damsels in distress. That he actually had confrontations with someone who could rival him is what most likely makes her stand out.

Choppa

10-03-2008, 09:21 PM

Its not so much the gadgets and background being explored more its stuff like Bruce deciding to become a vigilante after a conversation with Falcone in BB and willing to give it all up so easily in TDK.

The conversion motivates him to study the criminal world because Falcone told him he would always fear what he didn't understand. The decision to become a vigilante came later.

He wasn't ready to give it all up easily in TDK. The reason Rachael didn't chose him is because she said he would never be able to give up being Batman.

Batman just isnt such an integrel part of Bruce Wayne in Nolans films he is mearly a means to an end to punish criminals Burton/Keatons Batman was far more a psychological beast imo was he as mad as the freaks, was he merly a almost superhumanly focused vigilante?

He was scared of bats as a child. Using the bat as his symbol demonstrated that he mastered his fear. It wasn't arbitrary or just a means to and end. He knew from personal experience that a bat is scary.

and was batman bruce wayne or was bruce wayne batman? you dont get these questions with Nolan/Bales batman he is a far more black and white creature no matter what pages of dialouge try to state otherwise to make the movies "real world psychological".

Bruce is Bruce and Batman is Batman. It's pretty obviously shown by the fake and superficial ignorant playboy act.

Damiean Dark

10-04-2008, 01:37 AM

[QUOTE=Choppa;7668443]The conversion motivates him to study the criminal world because Falcone told him he would always fear what he didn't understand. The decision to become a vigilante came later.

Thats the problem bruce mopes about for 20+ years before deciding to become the bat batman should be born the moment his parents died before his eyes not in a physical sense but part of wayne died and batman was born it was also criminal not seeing him swearing to punish criminals as a child.

He wasn't ready to give it all up easily in TDK. The reason Rachael didn't chose him is because she said he would never be able to give up being Batman.

He was more then willing he said so himself thats a major part of why he chose harvey as the white knight of Gotham so people wouldnt need him anymore. Its irritating that its so disposable one thing Keatons bat would never do is give up the bat, he cant, it is a part of him not a means to an end.

He was scared of bats as a child. Using the bat as his symbol demonstrated that he mastered his fear. It wasn't arbitrary or just a means to and end. He knew from personal experience that a bat is scary.

It was a means to an end to scare crooks period its hard to explain but the bats scared him as a child but the batman isnt geled to his personality its an act. when Keaton donned the suit it was part of him awakening (sounds corny but its true) his manner and voice changed naturally not a forced growl to hide his voice he seemed almost a different person.

Bruce is Bruce and Batman is Batman. It's pretty obviously shown by the fake and superficial ignorant playboy act

Thats what i said in BB its completely clear whos who but in the two Burton films you continually questioning which is the real person its possible because they are so completely different Bale wasnt far different or changed in the suit.