This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
The Premier Source For All Things Batman and DC
FOX has released six clips from next week's episode of Gotham, titled "Harvey Dent". Check them out below along with a full synopsis.
Trying to close the Wayne murder case, a young Harvey Dent (guest star Nicholas D’ Agosto) encourages Gordon to team up with Mayor James (guest star Richard Kind). Meanwhile, Penguin makes contact with Mooney’s secret weapon, Liza (guest star Mackenzie Leigh), in the all-new “Harvey Dent” episode of GOTHAM airing Monday, Nov. 17 (8:00-9:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX.
This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
Eh. Not feeling that particular angle of Selina moving in with Bruce, even for a while. Throws off the entire future dynamic of their relationship.
Not saying I disagree but they can always have her leave the manor because she hates it there. Probably not last more than 2 episodes.
Which will not exist at all, it's not like this show is a prequel to anything ;)
Even so, WE all know of their dynamic as adults. This interferes with that, which is a tad annoying. Mind you, I generally have no problem with Gotham. This is the first time they've done something I don't support.
How does this interfere with that dynamic?
The way they've set this up, I could see it leading to a world where Selina knows damn well that Bruce is Batman, but she doesn't give him up because who wants to live in a world where there's no one to take on people like the Joker?
i feel like they'e setting it up so that both Selina and Gordon will know when the times comes. that could work, i s'pose.
That box fight scene is just so much fun to watch. Great dialog, humor, emotions, and chemistry.The coolest on-screen Alfred I've seen so far, probably because the writers give his personality more variety, depth and edges for the first time. His interaction with Bruce is priceless, and it will be interesting to see how he'll handle a "minx" like Selina. :) And also how her staying at Wayne Manor will affect Bruce. This show really develops in a good and interesting direction, I'm excited for this and future episodes. It's something fresh and different.
You'd think Bruce would have a chef so Alfred wouldn't have to also make Bruce's meals.
So Selina Kyle will be staying at Wayne Manor for awhile. Holy raging hormones, Batman! Alfred will need to have "The birds and the bees" talk with Bruce, ASAP!
I'm cool with all of the changes from the source material. I think that I may end up liking Gotham's canon better than the Batman comic book canon. It'll be cool to see Batboy and Catgirl, get into some mischief together.
I just don't see them as a great couple. Neither can trust the other, especially Batman.
It certainly makes for an entertaining read, but in reality, there wouldn't be much hope for them to be a long term happy couple. There's some truth to "opposites attract" but the real truth is that you need fundamental similarities to stay together.
Yeah because they have nothing in common except for dressing in all black, jumping off roof tops, don't mind fighting dirty and getting into street brawls, have a thing for the theatrical, have trust issues and traumatizing childhoods.
You're right, no fundamental similarities.
She steals and is willing to murder, he fights crime and stops killers. He's a good guy, she's an anti-hero at best. She works outside the law as a way of life, he operates outside the law because the system is too corrupt and bureaucratic to get things done within the system. The things you mentioned are surface level similarities at best.
I think the "steals for personal gain" is a better way to describe Kyle's activities. You know that trophy room aspect of the BatCave that stopped growing after Grayson left? A large chunk of it are souvenirs from cases...or rather evidence taken from cases. Batman's list of crimes include stealing as well.
Plus, I think "willing to murder" is a little misleading. Besides Black Mask, how many people have Kyle murdered (actually, from what I recall, it was manslaughter, not murder)?
In all honesty, one different turn for each & they could essentially have turned out as the other.
Taking souvenirs from cases isn't the same thing as Selina's thefts. Regardless of the actual numbers she has, she's willing to, Batman isn't. Batman doesn't take evidence that could hurt a conviction. There's no different turn that could have made Bruce evil, What one different turn could've made him turn into someone like Selina, or her into Bruce? it's why he is who he is, he has a fundamental belief in justice. "Steals for personal gain"? Now we're playing semantics.
Stealing evidence no matter how small is stealing. Hell, his collection of evidence is technically stealing & virtually voids its admission into court. I have to complete a Chain of Custody form anytime I purchase a counterfeit item or collect evidence for a case.
And you don't believe if Batman blamed the system for not preventing his parents' death he could as easily be the criminal that Kyle is? Isn't that essentially Owlman?
Same with Kyle; you don't believe if she pursued a life to work within a corrupt system, she couldn't be the crime fighter Batman is?
It's dramatic license, and we're dealing with a guy that dresses as a bat and is a vigilante. The system had nothing to do with his parents' deaths. That was a random street crime. The system can be blamed for its rampant police corruption and organized crime, all of which Bruce understood. Batman blaming the system for their deaths isn't a small thing, would be a huge fundamental shift in one's psychology. If Selina pursued a life to work w/in the corrupt system, she wouldn't be who she is. The things you mentioned aren't small things.
They're rationalizations. People justify decisions good/bad, big/small.
If the word "small" holds you up, then I'll amend the comment.
It'd only take 1 directional change for each to have the other's costumed motives.
Even though I've always preferred Talia, it's easy to see how Batman & Kyle are mirror images.
That's a huge directional change. It's a work of fiction so there's dramatic license, I doubt the creators thought through the legal implications of having Batman take stuff from his enemies. Batman and Selina aren't mirror images, she steals for the thrill of it, Batman takes from his own company because he needs the tools to fight crime, but he makes his company whole.
Those are superficial differences. At the core they're the same; one took the path to the left & the other to the right.
Exactly, two completely different directions. What exactly is their core similarity? Batman fights for justice, Catwoman steals for the thrill.
Their origins & motivations could have easily led to the other's. Both had psychologically altering childhoods that led to their futures. It's how we get Owlman & why Kyle was easy to sway into being one of Batman's ally.
You don't have to agree with it, but it's easy for a large number of people to see the 2 are similar & (arguably) are a perfect fit. They both just originally ended up on opposite sides of the law.
How could they have "easily" led to the other's? Yes, both had traumatic events, but what makes Bruce a hero is that he uses his pain to better himself and help good people. She uses it as motivation and justification for theft. People aren't deterministic, similar events can have different outcomes. They aren't a perfect fit. One who believes in the spirit of law and order will always be at odds with someone who doesn't care about the law. You keep saying that them being on opposite ends of both the law and morality is some small thing, or that Bruce could easily been like her, but you don't back it up with anything. What's your basis for claiming that they could easily led to the other's future?
Proof? I've seen a Kyle work on the same side of the law as Batman. I've also seen Batman's mirror image as Owlman.
Do you believe 100 out of 100 people who are in the same position as a young Bruce Wayne will always use his/her pain to go on to be a viligante for the law?
Do you believe 100 out of 100 people who are in the same position as a young Selina Kyle will always use his/her pain to be motivated & justified to be a criminal?
And I believe in the spirit of law & order, but acknowledge it isn't a clear cut system. Especially if I too am technically a criminal.
Kyle has also worked on the other side. You keep bringing up Owlman, why? Owlman is a foil, but they aren't the same, they have similar circumstances, but people aren't determined. Something was fundamentally different with Bruce that he didn't become a criminal.
They aren't an iconic couple in the same way Lois and Clark are. Catwoman and Batman don't date that often. She's not in every issue. It's an interesting pairing, but one that wouldn't last.
None actually after she murdered Black Mask Selina was horrified
I thought not. That 1 horrific incident seems a far cry to say "is willing to murder."
Could you trust someone who stole from you constantly and left you to die?
I wrote that she constantly stole from him, which she did, and she cost him BILLIONS. Her coming back is nice, but that doesn't redeem her. I know the Nolans like them together, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated. Selina claims she does it to survive and she wanted to stop, but thieves rationalize and go back all the time. I like Bruce's ending, but I don't buy them as a great couple. Bruce tells her that he thinks she's not all that bad, but what until that point had she done for him to reach that conclusion? Catwoman's an interesting character in the movie, one of the best parts actually, but they don't make for a great couple.
She stole his prints, a pearl necklace, & his car (possibly the Batpod because we don't know what she did after he flew off in the Bat). How are those "billions"?
Coming back to save him doesn't redeem her? She had a chance get clear out of Gotham but instead chose to risk her life to come back & help. The money can be replaced (I've this theory they took the Tate fortune), Batman's life couldn't be.
She was redeemed.
She took his prints which led to the loss of his fortune. If she had been told what they were doing, she wouldn't care. She didn't like the 1%. Batman's instincts are constantly wrong in Nolan's films, and he has zero reason to trust her. I'm not arguing the merits of the film or Catwoman's characterization, simply that she and Batman aren't Lois and Clark, nor are they more iconic.
It's arguable whether she's redeemed, but you can't trust someone like her enough to make a long term relationship work. Hush did a good job of dramatizing that.
75 years worth of Batman interpretations disagree with you about Batman's instincts. maybe you don't like them as interpreted in Nolan's trilogy, but that doesn't make them wrong.
What specifically from the last post was I wrong about? Have they ever had a long lasting relationship where they were both completely upfront?
you said: "Batman's instincts are constantly wrong in Nolan's films" ~ an artistic interpretation, by its very definition as representative, isn't "wrong" just because it doesn't align with your preconceptions.
one can express an opinion as to preference, by all means, but calling an interpretation--or an opinion for that matter--"wrong" makes no sense. "vanilla is my favorite flavor." "no, you're wrong." "I like Bruce and Selina as great iconic couple." "no, you're wrong." the burden of proof lies with you--and you made your points, but to keep saying "you can't trust her and therefore the relationship will fail" is nonsensical. because clearly, in this movie, Bruce is either a.) willing to take this risk, and/or b.) perfectly capable of hitching up his big boy pants and dealing with whatever may come like a grownup. and gee, maybe, since the ending is left to us to imagine, thinking they might make it is not such a sad awful thing.
this is Nolan's Batman and Nolan's Selina. if you don't like them together or find them credible, fine. clearly other people feel do.
Of course his instincts were wrong. Here are a few - He didn't suspect the League were evil despite being in their ranks or years, he didn't think The Joker was a problem in the beginning, he didn't think Bane would be a big problem, he didn't suspect Miranda was up to anything, he trusted Selina only to be lead into a deathtrap. We aren't discussing a matter of preferences here. I don't know how you reached that conclusion. I'm saying that within the context of the films, Bruce is consistently proven to be wrong.
so now that you've proven that Batman makes a lot of "wrong" choices, it's clearly not out of character for him to trust Selina. so the ending makes perfect sense in the context of this world. glad we cleared that up!
Yes, he makes a lot of wrong choice, and ends up paying for it. Trusting someone like her would likely end up badly for him. So much for them being a great couple when a person like her would betray that trust.
nope. they beat the odds and are perfectly happy together. primarily because that's what's implied in that final scene, but more importantly, we get to imagine their future the way we want to.
your version is sad and needlessly cynical (two things Nolan is not, and therefore in no way implied). so i'll just stick to mine.
I get the implication, just saying I don't buy it. I know that's what the writers and director say happened, and in the movie it did. I'm simply saying it stretches credibility for me, if not outright breaks it.
And how am I cynical? I believe in love and enjoy watching a great relationship play out in a story, but for me to emotionally invest, I have to believe that the couple would work in real life, and that they share enough fundamental values. I'm actually a softy, but I don't buy the relationship, especially not that incarnation. Nolan's great at a lot of things, but pulling on heartstrings isn't one of them.
if you're saying that you wanted them to be great together but didn't buy it as presented then you're not cynical, you ol' softy.
personally i found it believable enough to pay for it numerous times at the theatre. but then, i'm pretty easy to please when i'm willing.
There's interesting couples and there's great couples, which aren't mutually exclusive. Sid and Nancy are interesting, but not a great couple. Batman and Catwoman are an interesting pairing because of the conflict, but I don't think that makes them a great couple. Logan and Veronica are interesting, but I don't think they'd work in real life, until Logan grew up.
you're really amazingly focused on semantics. and yeah, i think you're cynical. you may be a softy, but some of the biggest softies i know are also the biggest cynics.
This is hardly semantics. Interesting people aren't necessarily good. I can find a couple interesting without thinking they will work out.
What specifically makes you think I'm a cynic? Just because I don't think Batman and Catwoman are soulmates?
it's completely semantics. you feel the need to explain interesting when i never even introduced the word interesting into the mix. this is how all of your arguments go: how you define your words.
and you're a cynic because given a fantasy in which there is an implied (i would even say explicit) happy ending, you chose to use your own free will to imagine a future of failure rather than a possibility in which bruce and selina go to italy, get all the therapy (or whatever) that they need, channel selina's proclivities for theft by putting that energy toward distributions to the poor (for which she has clear inclinations). i dunno ~ pretty much anything you want to imagine. anything. but you'd rather insist they would fail.
so yeah, you're either that unimaginative. or a cynic.
You didn't, but I had to since you didn't seem to understand my point. I didn't define the word, I used a different word so you would get the point I was making.
So because I don't imagine that one instance, ergo I'm a cynic? Fine, I'm unimaginative, but even that's a reach. If you have to imagine something that far out in order to justify something that's not shown or implied, it's a big reach.
i get your point, but it's irrelevant. we're talking about the story in the movie. whether the couple is "interesting" or "great" is not the point.
you say: "not shown or implied." i honestly feel like you're just being stubborn at this point. it IS shown AND implied.
i see two happy people who are going to make it sitting on the bank of the Arno having drinks. YOU see a relationship doomed to failure because you refuse to entertain the possibility that they can work out whatever differences they have.
if that isn't the definition of cynicism, then i don't know what is.
No, but that has always been my point, they are interesting but I don't buy them as a great couple. That's always been my point of contention. I don't think they are MFEO. Yes, Nolan showed them together, but that doesn't mean it's a fitting ending with them being together. These aren't small differences, she's a thief and I have a hard time buying that criminals change just so a writer can give someone a happy ending. I love nice endings, but they have to feel earned and come from characters. With Selina, there's too much water under that bridge.
Cynicism would be me saying "romance is an emotion manufactured by greeting card companies". I never implied that couples can't work out.
so: yes, you agree that they're together, that the director wants us to believe that they will be fine, but you don't feel like they earned it or that they are made for each other.
fair enough! but it's still absolutely cynical.
Yes, I agree that they are together. I never said otherwise, I'm simply saying that given who those characters are, the ending doesn't fit, since I don't think the logical ending for them is to be together. I also think it's ridiculous that Bruce gives her his mother's pearls.
That's not cynicism.
This has got to be one of the most ridiculously wrong remarks you've ever made. Not only did I not say criminals can't redeem themselves or even imply it, you are equivocating me judging criminals with say judging a person of a different race, which is so asinine. You are so naïve. Yes, people can change, but it's both rare, and it takes time. It's would be an awful idea to trust someone not long after they've left you to die or stolen your stuff. It would take a long time to trust them again.
I didn't bring them up!
skepticism. doubt. distrust. disbelief. mistrust. cynicism.
above all else, the giving of the pearls: Bruce has moved on. but you don't accept that because that requires you to fill in some blanks and you are a cynic who prefers to fill those blanks in with negative pessimism.
Now you are taking what I thought was a friendly chat too far. You are claiming I'm a cynic because I don't happen to think Bruce and Selina are right for each other? If you intend on being like that, this is no longer enjoyable.
it's one thing to think they aren't right for each other, period. i understand that you don't agree with the pairing and don't see it as logical. but i do think you are going out of your way to write in a negative ending that simply isn't there ~ and i don't really understand why anybody would deliberately choose doom over the happy ending. in all sincerity, i find it really sad.
but you're right, this conversation stopped being enjoyable about twenty posts ago, so i apologize for pursuing it.
I'm not writing that negative ending. I just don't think they would work. I don't choose doom versus happy ending. I love a sweet ending, if it feels earned and real, as opposed to tacked on. Bruce living a happy life is a beautiful thing, but him and Selina together just doesn't feel real to me. Him and Alfred having a cocktail together would've been enough for me.
I do accept it as canon, I simply said that I don't agree with the writing. Am I not being clear? As far as my personal life, it's none of your business, and not important.
I didn't claim it isn't what happened, just that given those characters, I don't think that's a likely scenario. I'm saying it's badly written. Where did I say, I don't think it happened? Just because an artist writes something, that doesn't mean I have to think it's an ending that works.
I'm not gonna read the book. If you have to read the book to understand the movie, it's a bad script. Do you think I'm so intent on disliking them as a couple because I actively try to not like them? The applause was for Bruce being alive and having a semblance of a life outside the cave, it wasn't him with Catwoman. Nolan's okay with emotions, but hardly great. He's best when he's using characters he didn't create, as evidenced by Alfred, Bruce, Selina, and Gordon. I don't think I'm alone in not caring that much that Rachel died.
I do watch Community, and Jeff and Annie aren't a couple. They had a kiss, and some tender moments, but that's it. I think they could work out because he's not as different from her as you think, he has convinced himself that he's a cynic, but he's actually a softy at heart. Annie and Jeff have never been a couple, and the thing that most likely keep them apart is the age difference, but even so, they aren't fundamentally different. Jeff is a good person, but has a few issues he would need to work out before hey could actually work together as a couple.
I know Jeff has feelings for Annie, that doesn't mean it would work out, and they aren't a couple. I'm not shocked that people think it's great that Bruce ended with Selina, but I do find it odd that so many insist Bruce and Selina in any incarnation are the same.
Jeff and Annie could probably only work now since Jeff has changed a lot over the show. Bruce and Selina are very different, and while the have certain similarities, those similarities aren't necessarily the healthiest things to have in common.
Here's the difference, we have plenty of times that Jeff proved he was a good guy at heart. Selina doesn't show that until the end, and she doesn't show remorse until after she lead Bruce most likely to his death. Bruce is taking it completely on faith that she's a good person at heart. Back to Community, season 5's end wasn't some revelation, it's implied numerous times that he has deep feelings for Annie. I didn't claim people have to be perfect, but I have been in enough and witnessed enough relationships (both good and bad) in my life to see what makes for a healthy, lasting one.
She might not have cared, but SHE didn't steal the money.
Since she came back & saved Batman from Bane, even helped infiltrate the stronghold to reunite Batman & Fox, I'd say his trust in her wasn't misled.
She stole something that directly lead to the loss of his fortune. She's partially responsible. She left him to die with Bane to save her own ass at the beginning, and she stole his mother's pearl earrings. He had no reason to trust her, he got lucky.
She didn't steal billions. If you steal the garage password to my house & give it to someone who uses it to burglarize my house, you didn't steal my stuff.
So people are lost causes once they show flaws? I've got skeletons in my closet & a list of character flaws...but I don't believe that gives me a right to inflate someone else's.
Sometimes you need to trust people who've done you wrong.
Besides, stealing the pearls helped get Batman back out of hibernation.
I don't think I ever said she stole his money, I believe I said she helped steal it or directly lead to it. If you stole the garage password, and then gave it to someone who stole my stuff, you would be responsible. This isn't some small blemish, she has a GIANT rapsheet. It's asinine that you are comparing whatever skeletons you have to a person with a history of grand larceny.
"Sometimes you need to trust people who've done you wrong."
Where'd you read that platitude? Don't trust people if they haven't earned it, or have shown that they can't be trusted. Otherwise, you become a doormat.
You stated she stole billions; whether you altered it now to back peddle I can't prove, but you've got several poster making the same point.
I never stated she was innocent. Her initial theft led to several things, good & bad. She just steal his money. She even stated "I'm sorry you lost all your money," not "I'm sorry I help steal all your money."
The skeletons in my closet aren't supposed to be held up to Kyle's crimes, but to illustrate a point; we've all made mistakes. I grew up very privileged then most people I knew. I got opportunities less fortunate people didn't. It's pompous of me to judge people who didn't get those same opportunities.
And you're only a doormat if you blindly trust everyone. I deal with people who lie to me on a daily basis. The key is to know how to see people for who they are. You can tell the ones who deserve trust when given a positive outlet.
Call your kids "stupid", "losers", & "worthless", guess how they'll grow up thinking about themselves?!
No I wrote, "she cost him", not that she stole his money. She did cost him that money by stealing his prints. She's not indirectly responsible, she stole something that directly lead to him losing his fortune.
She even stated "I'm sorry you lost all your money," to which Bruce responded "No you aren't." Bruce is right, she was full of crap. She wasnt' sorry. She didn't start having any remorse until she saw what happened to the rich people after Bane took over.
Your skeletons don't illustrate your point well because there's a grand canyon of difference between a few white lies and stealing for decades as a way of life. Lack of privilege doesn't excuse immoral behavior. People used to be far poorer than we are now, and yet most resort to theft. What possible reason do you have for dealing with liars? What good comes of that? In this case, Bruce is making himself a doormat since in the case of TDKR, she hadn't shown herself to be trustworthy until she helped in the third act. Even then, that's not enough to believe she could be trusted enough for a romance to work between them.
You need to learn to look at the whole puzzle & not just a couple pieces. Reading people means you understand what makes them tick. Not everyone I come in contact with through work are deceitful. Some are just stuck in bad situations.
Being a great detective means I don't just look at the evidence, but involves seeing how everything fits into place. Body language, origins, current situations reveal more then deeds. Once you learn how to unlock people to figure out what makes them tick, you can see who are the ones that want to be saved & who doesn't.
I'm not sure how this pertains to Catwoman and Batman.
It does seem to have gotten off on a very long tangent.
It's not prejudice, and it's not true that people commit crimes because they're poor. Bruce is constantly proven wrong, so I wouldn't use his dialog as evidence of much. Nolan's great at a lot, but understanding human behavior isn't necessarily one of them. Selina's line is a rationalization from a theif. We get it, you LOVE Nolan, but he's not the end all be all when it comes to Batman, and his films have issues.
And I don't believe anyone stated Batman & Kyle are as iconic as Lois & Kent.
"Most think they do, including the Nolan bros, and it's an iconic couple from the comics (perhaps even more so than Lois and Superman)" - Jaedon Granger
That's 1. I'm not a Kent fan, but even I would say that trumps just about any other comic coupling.
Hush didn't do anything more then exploit insecurities both had. It's the same as mindfucking.
If a dozen guys exploit the seeds of doubt their buddy has about his girlfriend cheating, the guy will begin to misread things & actually be convinced she's a cheater.
He exploited what was already there.
If people you work/go to school with 1 day decide to make comments about you looking sick to the point you believe it by day's end; are they proving you really are sick?
No, but she is a master thief who's in it for the thrill and can't be trusted.
Maybe she just needs an opportunity to prove to herself otherwise.
There's multiple schools of thought for criminology. I've always believe societal factors craft criminal behaviors. I've never put much weight into the theory criminals are born. Some people just need to be given a chance to see another way.
You can't make up for it easily. It would take years of her living clean to be trusted. I never claimed criminals are born, but they aren't just a byproduct of nurture either. People have free will. Your last comment comes off as incredibly naïve. Criminals are often given chance after chance, but they don't change. They will have periods where they try to better themselves, but eventually will often fall back into bad habits.
Every journey involves a first step.
Correct, criminals and cheating partners have been given chances numerous times, some fall back into old habits.
I've always been more interested in what causes that regression then writing them off as being given chances. I'm not naive, some people will just never change. But I also don't give up on everyone because they can't break negative cycles. Some people can't do it alone.
I don't give up on everyone, it depends on the transgression. Things like drug habits and serious crimes like B and E are very difficult to get away from, and after seeing it happen up close to two people, there comes a time when it's best to let the person go.
Back to Catwoman, I think the relationship is interesting but I think they have too many fundamental differences for them to have long term happiness. Bruce has psychological issues of his own he would need to work out before he could be in a happy, healthy relationship.
Then it sounds less like you have an issue with Batman & Kyle and like you have an issue with Batman in any relationship.
Again, I don't think they are that different fundamentally. Both have psychological issues from childhood incidents that crafted who they are. Both use an alternate persona to express it.
So, a lot of villains have the same story, something traumatic happened and they become costumed villains. That doesn't make them and Batman fundamentally the same. Batman took his pain and channeled it into something positive. I don't have a problem with Batman in any relationship. You haven't been paying attention, I simply disagree that he and Selina are right for each other. It's not a relationship that can last. It's full of conflict and interesting but it won't end well.
Those villains couldve channeled their pain into something positive instead of negative. People can make that choice.
I have been paying attention. You stated:
"Bruce has psychological issues of his own he would need to work out before he could be in a happy, healthy relationship."
How does that statement only exclude Kyle instead of include every relationship?
Anything worth something takes work. It would be a successful relationship if both worked for it.
They could have, but they didn't. That's the point, that's what makes them bad guys. Morality requires choice. The difference between this and the other relationships is he's not at opposite ends of the law with people like Dick and Alfred. There are definitely romantic feelings with Selina, but despite what the Beatles say, love isn't all you need.
Exactly, those villains didn't & Batman did. That's why you can say Batman could've just as easily chosen to be a villain.
I've never gotten the impression Batman has had full disclosure with any of his protégés or Alfred.
I never stated they only needed love, just that itd need work. Being in a strong relationship means accepting your partners flaws.
No, that's not what that means. To say that could've doesn't mean it's like a flip of the switch. They had a psychology that lead them in a certain direction, and the difference between a psychology that leads people to theft and murder vs. fighting for justice is the grand canyon.
There's a HUGE difference between accepting a few flaws and accepting that your partner likes to steal.
The only difference between is that Batman choice to channel is pain as an outlaw vigilante, whereas Kyle channeled it to be a thief.
Her desire to steal is a character flaw. Batman recognizes it, why else would he allow Kyle to run about? His circumstances made Batman an outlaw. Her circumstances made Catwoman a thief.
Some of us can see people for who they are, not just who they pretend to be due to necessity. Kyle was a thief out of necessity based on her childhood drama.
In a court of common law, both commit burglaries. Many cases Kyle steals, but Batman threatens and/or assaults inhabitants of the structure...which is a more severe crime?
That's a big difference, and hardly the only one. Stealing isn't a mere character flaw. White lies and lack of tact are character flaws, constant grand larceny is black mark on the soul. Thieves aren't misunderstood people who steal out of necessity. Circumstances didn't make Batman a vigilante, choices did. Batman goes outside the law to get justice because the law won't uphold the law and protect people. You're dropping context completely. She doesn't just steal. She has murdered before, and she's also committed assault and battery.
Kyle killed Black Mask and who else? Kyle would never get convicted of murder, only manslaughter at best.
Kyle has done as much good over the years as she has bad. Sure she's continued to steal, but has given the loot to those who need it. Just like Robin Hood.
I actually feel sorry for those who can just right off everyone that's done something wrong. Joker, Copplepot, Nygma, all probably criminals who don't wont to be saved & never will. Dent & Kyle are both characters with flaws that have shown they can be saved. Sure there have been backslides because when life get rough, it's easy to fall back into bad habits. That's why they need people to believe in them & help them. Not just kick them to the curb like everyone.
It was a decision for Batman to be an outlaw & assist the system. Again, he could have just as easily projected his rage at the system then at criminals.
Are we just talking about the modern age of comics.
She's not Robin Hood, she doesn't take from the rich to give to the poor, nor was that even what Robin Hood did. People keep forgetting that those poor had their money stolen by Prince John and the Sheriff. Robin Hood wasn't some redistributionist. Selina steals primarily for herself and rationalizes it by stealing from people "who can afford it" as if that somehow makes it good.
Dent can't be saved. He's murdered people in cold blood. The best he can do is refrain from killing again, but the black spot on his soul will never come out.
The fact that it was a choice doesn't mean he could just as easily been evil. It isn't in his character. He's a good person at his core, and he's always wanted justice. You make it sound like this tenuous tightrope walk and if Batman slips up even an inch, he could become the thing he fights to stop. That's not who the character is. He's a character with principles.
What version; up to n52. Other then Black Mask, I've not been aware of her killing anyone else. The last several years had her giving to the poor, not keeping everything for herself.
"Black spot on the soul"
So, Anakin Skywalker can't be saved?
Jason Todd can't be saved?
Hal Jordan can't be saved?
Kent can't be saved?
Ollie Queen can't be saved?
It is a tightrope. I'm surprised this seems to be a surprise, but even "good guys" walk a tightrope.
I guess ultimately people only get 1 chance with you. Anything less then your moral code is a black spot that can't be removed.
I'm pretty pessimistic, but even I think there's a chance some lost souls can be saved will some help.
Some people can change, despite their "black spots", they just need someone to believe in them & help them find their way.
No, you can't save Anakin, how can you possibly save someone who murdered millions, possibly billions and helped enslave an entire galaxy? I'm happy that his last act was to save his son, but that doesn't redeem him.
If we're talking up to the new 52, then I assume that means the silver age. From what I've read, she killed more than just Black Mask.
Hal was possessed, doesn't count.
It's not a tightrope. Batman doesn't cross that line and he's not one move away from becoming the Joker.
Your last comments have to be some of the most asinine ever. I don't give people just one chance. It depends on the severity of the crime. And stop using strawman arguments. I said people RARELY change, not that they can't. Reestablishing trust takes time. And that whole "they need someone to believe in them" is pure mushy, bleeding heart, bull. It's not true, they only change when they find something to live for, for themselves. The onus for someone to change their ways isn't on anyone else.
You don't seem to realize that pointing to a fictional story doesn't prove your point about human nature.
I guess we'll have to ultimately agree to disagree.
If Anakin wasn't worth it, he wouldn't have the Jedi astral projection.
If you're under the impression Kyle killed more then just Black Mask, I'm receptive. Who & what's the body count?
That possession crap only came about at Rebirth. Until then, that was Hal.
You can't be that close to the edge & never risk crossing the line.
So, people who kill have black spots on their souls and cannot be redeemed. Law Enforcement & Military personnel who've had to take lives get lumped in their as well? After all, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
It's only "mushy bull shit" to people not willing to give someone a chance. Positive reinforcement benefits, doesn't bull shit a person.
yeah, trust takes time. Thats why I only trust the people that I know what makes them tick. I know who they really are. Even if they fall from grace.
Batman is the same way with Kyle, Todd, & Dent.
Are you honestly claiming some insight into actual people based on what George Lucas wrote? In real life, are Dahmer, Mao, or Castro capable of saving? Dent can't be saved, he's a lost cause. If you want to use
"That possession crap only came about at Rebirth. Until then, that was Hal." So I see we can cherry pick. If that's the case, only the silver age Catwoman matters, because she killed several times.
"So, people who kill have black spots on their souls and cannot be redeemed. Law Enforcement & Military personnel who've had to take lives get lumped in their as well? After all, one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
It's only "mushy bull shit" to people not willing to give someone a chance. Positive reinforcement benefits, doesn't bull shit a person."
We really will have to stop because your constant strawmen are bugging me. Does it make you feel superior to claim points that I never made and then knock them down? Not once did I say I'm not willing to give anyone a chance. There's a huge difference between kill and murder, stop with the damn strawmen.
As I said, agree to disagree. I'm more interested in the 'why' then the 'what.' It gives me more insight to what makes a person tick.
Not everyone is as concerned with the 'why' as I am. It's not as easy to understand as the 'what.'
I get this feeling that you were involved with someone who cheated on you.
Assuming it's true, that's not an argument, it's ad hominem.
It's not posted as an argument, just as a piece of the puzzle that crafts your opinions & decision-making.
It's all apart of profiling people. I'm better at it when I can physically see people to read them.
And even though your past isn't what we're discussing, it's a good way to illustrate what could make both Batman & Kyle possibly go opposite directions.
But you've pointed out something that everyone knows, our experiences shape our perceptions. If we have experience, either first hand or as a witness, it can shape how we interpret the world and the people in it. It isn't the only thing, though.
Depends on what it is & it's severity.
I'm not stopping anyone. You can like what you want, doesn't mean I have to be silent, and it's your prerogative to not converse. I'm not tearing it apart, I'm saying I don't buy it.
"Because he knows that she's a good person"
How? What basis does he have for that?
I never claimed Bruce made the same mistake twice, simply that his instincts were not all that good. He's constantly falling for stuff or underestimating his opponents.
This is cool actually.
I feel like this new direction of Batman&Catwoman just might work. I don't see any harm in change of story, so long as it's done right. Alfred continues being a badass.
No, not feeling this show in the slightest. The amount of times Gordon has been round to Wayne Manor to give Brucie his little pep talks, Gordon should sure as hell know that when Batman eventually comes around, he is Bruce Wayne. Not to mention that the majority of Batman's villains will be accompanied by nurses when he comes of age.
Plenty of writers have implied that Gordon knows Bruce is Batman, and 50s isn't that old. If the proto villains on the show are in their late 20s to 30s, just at 15 years since that's around the amount of time Bruce has before he becomes Batman.
Most likely because the mooks in the feature division have decided that Batman is off limits on TV. It's a clever way around it.
I'm all for changes in the interpretation of Batman lore as long as they are written well and not introduced in a convoluted way. After the last two episodes I'm enjoying the show a lot more and for the first time I'm genuinely excited to see what comes next.
A question for those who constantly complain about changes this show makes:
What difference does it make?
Gotham is not meant to be a prequel to any of the movies.
Gotham is not meant to be a prequel to the comics.
Gotham is not meant to be an actual prequel to ANYTHING but their own universe they're creating. And at the end of the day we're never going to see that world. Does it matter if Gordon hangs out with young Bruce when we're NEVER going to actually experience the later world of Batman? Does it make a difference if Selina and Bruce are friends? Does it matter if every single character isn't the exact same age? No, it doesn't. None of it ruins their later relationships because those later relationships will never actually exist.
Would have been super awkward if that kid called tails.
For some reason when I read the title for this episode I heard Joker from TDK in my head.
"Harvey Harvey Harvey Dent. Oh, excuse me, I wanna drive"
Let me add a "if you still complain about ages, differences in the story,..., and still watch the show, you're just a fucking idiot."
Nolan's trilogy gets praise (and rightly so), but it altered details to fit the specific story. These are just interpretations like Elseworlds stories are.
Although those aren't THE reasons why I don't watch the show, they certainly didn't help to peak any interest for me.
Thank you Mister Fallen for saying what needed to be said!!
As expected, Harvey Dent walks in front of the projector screen, casting a dark shadow on half of his face...
What are the odds we hear Harvey Dent say "you don't wanna see my bad side" on this show?
Over/under on number of lines of dialogue Dent says that include the word "face" tonight: 85.
This is an archive of Batman-News.com from 2010 to 2025. For the latest news, check out BatmanNews.com
