I utterly reject the idea that Batman is based on a "misguided" concept of justice. On the contrary, the point of Batman is that Bruce found a
positive way to cope with his trauma, letting it inspire him to help others, using his massive resources to protect the helpless and ensure they didn't have to suffer the kind of loss he did. It's totally missing the point to say he's trying to fix
his childhood. He's not that self-directed. He's trying to protect
others' childhoods. He sacrifices everything for the benefit of others, and it makes me profoundly sad that our culture has become so egocentric and cynical that we can look at such pure selfless generosity and dismiss it as mental illness. Earlier generations would've seen it as saintliness, the courage to embrace total self-abnegation and work tirelessly in service to others.
The greatest proof that Batman is a healthy, positive response to grief is Dick Grayson -- someone who suffered the same childhood loss that Bruce did, but who grew up happier and healthier
because he had Batman as a father figure and inspiration. Also Barbara Gordon, who doesn't have any such trauma but is still inspired by the positive example Batman sets. Batman's existence, his example, made them better people. Bruce will always be living with his pain, yes, but he uses that to inspire him to protect others from pain, to create something positive that he can give to others. This is in contrast to his enemies, who use their pain and grief as an excuse to lash out and inflict the same pain and grief on others.
They're the ones who are misguided and unhealthy. Batman is the one who had the same kind of formative trauma but found a way to turn it into something good rather than something evil.
The hoary bromide that "Bruce must be crazy because no sane person would wear a mask and cape and swing from rooftops" is a category error, because it forgets that Bruce Wayne lives in a universe where
lots of people wear masks and capes to fight crime. In the DC Universe, it's no more crazy for a crimefighter to wear a flamboyant costume than it is for an athlete to wear a jersey with a number printed on it, or for a nun to wear a habit. It's a commonplace practice in that reality.
The problem is that most screen adaptations of Batman put him in a world without other superheroes and without a Robin or Batgirl to show the positive impact he has. They take away that context and make it easier to make the mistake of seeing him as some deluded nut. But I think the Nolan films (at least the first two) did a terrific job of compensating for that. They told the story of how Bruce chose justice over revenge, how he constructed Batman as a healthier, more constructive way of coping with his pain than just going around shooting criminals. They showed how the costume and iconography were not the result of derangement, but a calculated application of theatrics and symbolism to achieve a specific goal. And they showed how the public image of Batman that he created served to inspire the people of Gotham and make
them better.
Although this has been built into Batman from the beginning, or at least from the time they finally got around to giving him
an origin in 1940. His decision to adopt a bat persona is not because of any personal obsession with bats or anything like that. He's spent maybe the past 15-20 years training relentlessly to fight crime, and he reasons, "Criminals are a superstitious, cowardly lot. So my disguise must be able to strike terror into their hearts." And a bat just happens to fly through his open window at that moment. It's merely a convenient symbol he happens across, one he chooses not based on
his own psychological issues, but on his understanding of the psychology of the criminals he targets. Nolan got it exactly right: it was a calculated use of symbolism, a psy-ops tactic against the enemy.
And the worst parts of those movies were the comic book action stuff honestly.