Yes. One dressed up as a bat. The other one wore pants. And had a badge.
Cracked DISEMBOWELS the narrative foundation of Batman Begins
- Thread starter Gaith
- Start date
Yes. One dressed up as a bat. The other one wore pants. And had a badge.
Well, by TDK it kinda got meh, because no one seemed to be afraid of the Bat. They were afraid of getting caught by that Ninja vigilante with the armor suit and the tank and sophisticated weapons, but they didn't go "Shit, there's a bat the size of a man, I piss my pants".
So yeah, he is crazy in a way because he thinks he still needs the Bat symbol to make gangsters afraid of him.
This is not the first time this deconstruction of Batman's origin has been attempted. However, it always seems to fail taking this into consideration: Bruce Wayne is rich, and more crucially, grew up in the lifestyle of the rich and supremely powerful. His father was a "god" - capable of doing anything he wished.
The senseless murder of the parents of a child like that, very possibly would resonate differently from that of an average person; the common man is conditioned to accept life sucks and he can't do anything about his lot. The wealthy believe they have have complete freedom, including freedom from everyday misery and hardship. (Talking archetypes here.)
So, young Bruce Wayne grows up pampered, with the best of everything, and asking himself why his parents should have been taken away from him. This is not to say he is an ass, conceited, or believes he is better than the common man. It's just that his ambient expectations of life are different. Or so he thought.
Why wouldn't a man like that be able to convince himself with all his power and resources, he shouldn't be able to do something about the dark world that murdered his parents? Batman's justification has also always seem to include the implication that while Wayne is rich, Gotham is so corrupt that just throwing money at the problem won't make it go away. So giving to charity alone isn't enough. (And in almost every telling of the story, it's made clear Wayne still gives huge amounts of money to charities, hospitals, and services in the city, or enables them by improving the economy with his business holdings.)
So Wayne becomes the city's "dark knight". The justification he sells himself on in Batman Begins is actually one of the more naturalistic and vaguely plausible versions, too; Nolan was clearly concerned about that. Wayne isn't in it for just revenge or to beat people up. He wants to create a symbol, something "uncorruptible", of the city fighting back against evil. And again, the scion of a wealthy empire, he's just the guy to have delusions of grandeur.
Besides all of this, it's fiction and it has to be constructed to support the existence of a caped super hero, for chrissakes. You can tear down the origin of any comic book super hero by applying real world logic to it - the only way you couldn't, is if in real life we had super heroes as effective as Batman actually operating and proving there were plausible ways to make it happen. Since we don't (...yet), it's easy to point out all the reason X super hero origin doesn't work.
The senseless murder of the parents of a child like that, very possibly would resonate differently from that of an average person; the common man is conditioned to accept life sucks and he can't do anything about his lot. The wealthy believe they have have complete freedom, including freedom from everyday misery and hardship. (Talking archetypes here.)
So, young Bruce Wayne grows up pampered, with the best of everything, and asking himself why his parents should have been taken away from him. This is not to say he is an ass, conceited, or believes he is better than the common man. It's just that his ambient expectations of life are different. Or so he thought.
Why wouldn't a man like that be able to convince himself with all his power and resources, he shouldn't be able to do something about the dark world that murdered his parents? Batman's justification has also always seem to include the implication that while Wayne is rich, Gotham is so corrupt that just throwing money at the problem won't make it go away. So giving to charity alone isn't enough. (And in almost every telling of the story, it's made clear Wayne still gives huge amounts of money to charities, hospitals, and services in the city, or enables them by improving the economy with his business holdings.)
So Wayne becomes the city's "dark knight". The justification he sells himself on in Batman Begins is actually one of the more naturalistic and vaguely plausible versions, too; Nolan was clearly concerned about that. Wayne isn't in it for just revenge or to beat people up. He wants to create a symbol, something "uncorruptible", of the city fighting back against evil. And again, the scion of a wealthy empire, he's just the guy to have delusions of grandeur.
Besides all of this, it's fiction and it has to be constructed to support the existence of a caped super hero, for chrissakes. You can tear down the origin of any comic book super hero by applying real world logic to it - the only way you couldn't, is if in real life we had super heroes as effective as Batman actually operating and proving there were plausible ways to make it happen. Since we don't (...yet), it's easy to point out all the reason X super hero origin doesn't work.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
So Batman is insane because he is a citizen with enough money and resources to stop criminals and actually do the work that the police won't or can't do, but because he's dressed as a bat as to disquise himself and scare criminals that makes him crazy. If Gordon deputized him and gave him a badge, he wouldn't be considered crazy. That's fucking nuts, it's not a piece of metal that determines your sanity. Wyatt Earp had a lot of personal issues and reasons to go after the cowboys. The only reason he was given a badge in Tombstone is because 1. Nobody else had the balls and 2. He was a well established crime fighter and had the resources to go after them. The only difference is Bruce Wayne wasn't asked to help, he took it upon himself to do so. The Wayne family was known in Gotham as contributors to the community, Bruce decided to extend that contribution and use his resources to capture crimals that again, the Police are either unwilling or unable to capture. Someone has to step up and take charge, so he wears a mask, so what? I would too, vigilantism is illegal, but citizens arrests are not? That makes no sense.
Nowhere Man
Commodore
Reading Kaijima's post, icant help but wonder what would've happened ifMartin Sheen was brutally murdered. Can you imagine a Charlie Sheen Batman?Now that would be crazy.
Some people take this stuff way too seriously. Just enjoy the darn movie, folks.
Same could be said for the Cracked article which made at least two mistakes on the plots of the movies it mentions.
(In Inception the Cobb and Mal's children were born before they spent "eternity" in Limbo and it mentions Ten-Forward and children being on the ship when talking about Picard ramming the E-E.)
It's just supposed to be a funny article to make you think a bit on the characters/show's it's talking about without meaning for you to take any aspect of it seriously.
Or, he becomes insane because of his parents' murder. Gaith's post reminded me of the plotline of Dexter, especially the part about Alfred's irresponsibility in not even attempting to help the disturbed young boy under his care. Just like Harry apparently never even tried to get Dexter any psychological help.
You could spin a story about how both Harry/Alfred were being irresponsible because if Dexter/Bruce are irreparably damaged, there's no need to take the risk of curing the kid, and preventing him from being molded into the perfect tool of vengeance that Harry/Alfred was seeking. Or, you can forget the psychology and just accept that Harry/Alfred was right - the kid was too damaged to help, let's do the next best thing, accept him for what he is and help him cope.
That's a different character and a different story. As long as a character and a story works, and isn't complete steaming crap (such as the Star Wars PT for example), there's no need to rewrite it, except if you think it's an interesting exercise to do variations on a story and see if you can come up with something that works, too.
Not Batman - Charlie Sheen needs to be cast as the next Joker! You heard it here first!!!
I'm having some problems following your grammar.
But, yes. Bruce Wayne IS insane. If he was in the Real World (tm), he would be considered nuts. Maybe not certifable, but, yeah. He's crazy.
He should probably do something better with his money. Like, I don't know, invest in schools? Invest in manufacturing to help people get work? After school programs?
There's better use of his money than being a one man war against crime.
Imagine if he just donated to the city so they could hire more cops?
Then Gordon would be nuts. Giving a guy dressed up as a bat a badge? What's next? Some guy dressed up as Robin Hood?
True.
But dressing as a Bat to act as a vigilante, no matter how noble your intentions, doesn't scream sanity either.
The real Wyatt Earp was also a legal representative of the law. Society said, ok, you have the guts to stand up and do it, we've decided that you can do it.
Bruce decided not to go that route.
He could have volunteered. Said, hey, Gotham City, I want to help....
Or don't have the resources.... I mean, it would be great if some rich guy gave the department a whole lot of money, or even like, a crime lab with a super computer....
...But Bruce has got to keep it all to himself....
He could also step up and take charge legally. He has the resources to be mayor. Or if he went to the Police Academy, he too, could be a cop, and do it all legally.
But, no. He chooses to dress up as a Bat, keep all the great toys for him and his besties.
Maybe he's not insane, just narcissistic.
Of course if he wasn't, then we wouldn't have the stories. So, there you go.
Last edited:
I think Bruce Wayne was a bit of a romantic, prone to flights of fantasy that wouldn't be possible to indulge in for most people. Who among us hasn't thought of yelling RAMMING SPEED! and crashing right into the dickwad who cut you off on the way to Wal-Mart? Or, getting some sort of lethal weapon and running wild in the streets of (insert large, crime-infested city) at night? The thing about Bruce Wayne is that he probably is just a bit unstable, and has enough power and resources to point at whatever crazy scheme he wants to fulfill. Part of the romanticism is dressing up like a bat: it adds mystery, inflates his ego, and looks really cool. Plus, as he also intended, it probably scared the shit out of people.
Actually, one specific element of Nolan's Batman is that there is a different emphasis on which parts of Wayne's personality have weight. Nolan's Bruce Wayne is supposed to be, I think, "less insane" than the typical Batman.
This is visible in that for Nolan Wayne, Batman is the character. Batman is just a device, and Bruce struggles visibly with whether or not that character is doing more bad than good. In the typical comic interpretation of Batman, Bruce Wayne is a foppish cover identity that Batman maintains to distract the public from suspicious ties between Wayne and The Batman. Usually, Batman is the real guy, whose only reason for living is to be the Batman, be a super hero, fight crime, etc.
Nolan Wayne is portrayed as trying to work through his issues and feeling of guilt and responsibility. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if in the 3rd film, Wayne hangs up the cape for real and decides his job is done.
Also, as I alluded to in my comment up thread, I think folks should keep in mind - even when dealing with comic book Batman who is far more insane, that the usual practical criticism of Bruce Wayne's strategy - why doesn't he just use his riches to buy a better city - is something that's basically dealt with in most incarnations of Batman. Bruce Wayne is always funding charitable work, city services, and trying to improve Gotham legally, above board. Part of Gotham's character, even in the realistic Nolanverse, is that it teeters on the crux of corruption and redemption. The city is so corrupt, that the mob and various villains are always undermining the efforts of the authorities. Hence, the need for Batman to go where the police can't, etc, etc.
This is visible in that for Nolan Wayne, Batman is the character. Batman is just a device, and Bruce struggles visibly with whether or not that character is doing more bad than good. In the typical comic interpretation of Batman, Bruce Wayne is a foppish cover identity that Batman maintains to distract the public from suspicious ties between Wayne and The Batman. Usually, Batman is the real guy, whose only reason for living is to be the Batman, be a super hero, fight crime, etc.
Nolan Wayne is portrayed as trying to work through his issues and feeling of guilt and responsibility. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if in the 3rd film, Wayne hangs up the cape for real and decides his job is done.
Also, as I alluded to in my comment up thread, I think folks should keep in mind - even when dealing with comic book Batman who is far more insane, that the usual practical criticism of Bruce Wayne's strategy - why doesn't he just use his riches to buy a better city - is something that's basically dealt with in most incarnations of Batman. Bruce Wayne is always funding charitable work, city services, and trying to improve Gotham legally, above board. Part of Gotham's character, even in the realistic Nolanverse, is that it teeters on the crux of corruption and redemption. The city is so corrupt, that the mob and various villains are always undermining the efforts of the authorities. Hence, the need for Batman to go where the police can't, etc, etc.
And in the film it's mentioned the Thomas Wayne tried that and almost sent Wayne Enterprises bankrupt in the process only to find at the end of the day that it achieved very little.
So, the next logical step is to dress up in a costume and fight crime individually? That's insane. Besides, Thomas Wayne was a doctor who might have sucked at business.
Ultimately, the point I think I'm going for: you can't ascribe to many "realistic" motives to Batman/Bruce Wayne--or the world that he exists in, without ending up that Bruce is insane.
It's a comic book, they are comic book movies. You sorta have to accept their premises and judge based on that. That's why I went with the whole microwave thing. If I can believe a man can fly, why can't I believe a machine that only boils what in pipes and not in the human blood stream?
Well, I just figured that it was directional and pointed straight down beneath the monorail, which is where Gotham's water line ran to the main hub at Wayne Tower (I know this because those friggin' guys at the Tower repeated it like five times). If there was anyone directly beneath the train, it probably did kill them, however there wouldn't be that many. Maybe some homeless guys living next to the supports and pedestrians crossing the roads running parallel to the track. Considering that there were probably hundreds of people or more killed or wounded in The Narrows from the fear toxin, and the el-train and the entire sub-basement of Wayne Tower were destroyed, it might have looked like a minor disaster in comparison.
I love it when Cracked does this shit - they certainly know how to troll the fanboisie. 
From what I gathered after reading years of Batman comics and graphics novels is that Gotham itself is such a crime ridden and corruption entangled city, it really would be unproductive to dump money into the problem. Corruption goes to the highest levels there and the donated money would most probably go to the criminals anyways.
Must. Resist. Dissecting. What. Cracked. Wrote.
No, no. You mean DISEMBOWEL!!!! what Cracked wrote.
This is the internet, you must only speak in hyperbole.
