Whoo. Missed a lot of fun stuff here. Damnit for having a job! But, boy, do I have a lot to say!
Warbler argues that a movie can be held to criticism for straying from the source material. DominicCobb argues that it should be held solely to its own merits. What do I believe? I believe that, like a lot of things in life, the judgment usually only comes in light of its outcome. That is, if an alteration is deemed to be positive, then it was okay to make that alteration, but if it's deemed to be negative, then it wasn't okay to make that alteration. Therefore, I feel that making a significant alteration is a risk the filmmakers have to decide is worth it. We saw this in action on these very forums when The Dark Knight was in production. The first images of The Joker came out, and some people were aghast that he was depicted so differently than he traditionally is. I recall some making the comment about it looking like he was a kid playing in his mother's makeup. But when the movie came out, and his performance and the take on the character was well-received, most people would argue that it was a justifiable alteration to the source material. And now, I'm assuming that there were some alterations in the first two films that Warbler was okay with, but now that he's seen this film and understands where those alterations were going, he's less okay with them.
Also, this isn't quite the same as, say, adapting a book into a movie. It is similar, but long-running comics don't quite work the same way. A Batman movie is an adaptation to be sure, but it's not adapting a specific Batman story. It's taking various Batman ideas from various Batman sources and combining them into a new entity. And I also find it's a bit misleading to call the comics the "source" from which elements can't be deviated. Because in this case, there are multiple comic sources from which to derive. Which one is the source? Only the original stories by Bob Kane and Bill Finger? The modern comics? Earth-Two? Post-Crisis? One-shots? It's hard to make the argument that you can't deviate from the comics when the comics are constantly altering themselves in relation to older comics.
Finally, I'd make the argument that TDKR does surprise a lot of people in regards to what this trilogy is supposed to be. It surprised me, just like it surprised CP3S and Warbler. The only difference is, I thought it was a very good direction, and I agree with (most of) the alterations it ultimately took. But it's certainly not what I expected when Batman Begins was a standalone film or even when there were just two films. For example, I recall a lot of people justifying the different ambiance and lack of certain traditional trappings in Begins as being a by-product of this early-style Batman. As in, "Why the hell is he driving a tank? Where's the Batmobile?" "Oh, well, this is early Batman. He's still figuring everything out, so it makes sense that he'd just have a big tank instead of something that looks like a Batmobile." Even some of Nolan's earlier statements seemed to reinforce this idea. I remember a quote from around The Dark Knight where he was asked about Robin, and he said something along the lines of Robin would be just a little kid at this point, so of course he couldn't be in this movie. Sure it was something of a convenient dismissal, but at the same time it reinforced the belief that this would be a Batman series true to they mythos of the comics... even if we never saw it. This was early-days Batman, and the series might end long before it got to what we consider to be traditional Batman, but that we could assume it would end up that way, just like how Jim Gordon does eventually become Commissioner, and Wayne Manor and the Batcave are eventually rebuilt. That one day Dick Grayson would become Robin. That Batman would carry on his crusade forever. Even if we never saw it. So in the first two films, Batman can say things like, "This is only temporary," and, "That day is coming," without it necessarily meaning that it will. I mean, this is still early Batman, and I'm sure some people assumed he was just in denial, especially when you have Rachel's note to Batman seemingly telling him what he hasn't been able to discover on his own: "I no longer believe the day will come when YOU no longer need Batman." So I can see many people assuming that the film is telling us that Bruce is wrong, and that Rachel and The Joker are right. "We're destined to do this forever." So, yeah, the films do set up that this Bruce Wayne is different, but it also sets up the idea that that might not be the case either.
Ultimately, though, particularly because I just have such a hard time seeing comic book heroes as character arcs that never end, I like that I finally get to see a Batman that does his job, and then comes to a resolution, and I love seeing a Bruce Wayne who finally gets to be happy. I like getting to see that. In some ways it echoes Bruce's line from Mask of the Phantasm: "I need it be different now. I didn't count on being happy." I feel for him there. And I want him to be happy. I want him to know that his parents don't actually expect him to give up his entire life and his entire chance at his own fulfillment. And I hate to even bring it to this, as I feel I'll lose all credibility, but I feel it also shows a twisted mirror to his arc in the Schumacher films. In Forever, he feels that Batman is his curse, that he is doomed to do this forever, and that he must give up his own happiness to fulfill his obligation. But in the end he decides that he will be Batman forever not because he has to be, but because he chooses to be. People have condemned George Clooney's more upbeat portrayal of Batman in Batman & Robin, but I feel it makes perfect sense in regards to that character arc. He has come to the crossroads where he must confront the childlike notion of being forced to be Batman and reconcile it with his own personal feelings of responsibility as an adult. He gets over his grief regarding his parents but chooses to continue being Batman because it's the right thing to do and because he must be a mentor to Robin, and that brings him to a place where he can finally be happy.
The Bruce in these films also comes to that crossroad, but this is a Bruce who believes in Batman as a symbol to inspire good, a Bruce who believed that Batman only needed to exist as long as Gotham didn't have a legitimate hero with a face that it could believe in. Those hopes were dashed, but ultimately Gotham did reform itself. He did save it. He did give more of himself than any other one person would. So when he comes to that same crossroad, he decides that he DOESN'T have to be Batman forever. And realistically speaking, he CAN'T be Batman forever. Harvey's right when he says that. He could only realistically, physically be Batman for 10-15 years, tops. To continue it forever, it would have to only be a symbol, which is just what he does. Don't forget that at this point, his knees are already screwed up beyond repair, and he has to wear braces just to be able to walk without a cane. So, no, I don't think that he's being lazy or not fulfilling his obligation. I feel that he's earned his shot at being happy. I also feel that Alfred's earned his shot at being happy. So, yes, even though this dashes my hopes of there being a hypothetical possibility of this series leading into the traditional Batman of lore, I certainly feel I can't fault it for letting Bruce find his own path.
Of course, how you feel about that will differ. Differently people have different ideas of what are deal-breakers when it comes to Batman. So I wouldn't feel right in saying that disagreeing with the conclusion to Bruce's arc is unjustified. I feel it's very justified. It was a big risk to take, and not everyone is going to accept it as satisfactory. But I do.
