Now that it's been said: I think the Punisher is Batman with self-awarded license to kill. From what I've read of him since I was eleven (whish hasn't been too small an amount), he takes no more pleasure in the actual beatdowns of the job than Batman does. If anything, he's become more hardened than Bats. Didn't bother with the Thomas Jane flick since I heard it was a crapfest, but from what I could tell in previews, they seemed to have gotten the psyche right. He's a cold killer; he doesn't kill bad guys because it gives him any joy, but because he's lost anything that would've made him stop at killing in order to achieve "justice." There's an interesting contrast between Frank and Bruce to be made there--how each one could've become the other, ethically speaking, and why he didn't.

My read on the Punisher (and I'd cite the Dolph movie as canonically more accurate but there's some faint praise) is that he takes more joy in being right.

Not joy like you and I (hope to) have it, but the feedback-loop that reinforces his behaviour is tuned differently enough that I don't think it's just the license to kill (or firearm issue) that distinguishes between them. I see the Punisher as having a savage and heartless "See what scum you all are?" glee, and Batman more of the "This is why we can't have nice things" sort.

Perhaps because Frank had embraced some violence and aggression before his loss? And Bruce is coming from an arrested development PoV? Not sure.

I think that he's supposed to be that way

Well, but we're arguing out the cultural implications of a figure in comics, movies, and the public imagination. Does canon of the current comics hold any more sway than any other source? (I'm aware that the more general we get, the less undisputed explicit evidence there is for us to interpret.) I haven't read the current comics, but I've read several compilations that go back to the 40s. And surely Batman has changed over time, as the culture has changed.

He wanted to be the nightmare that's muttered about from felon to felon, but whose existence was denied by law abiding people in the light of day.

Even that -- with which I don't really agree -- isn't that publicity? Just publicity to a specialized audience. He gets a charge out of being scary, and it's a lot of fun to be scary to people against whom you've already hardened your heart. There's a whole other thing, the ego-massage/elitism of withheld knowledge, too.

Anyway, once your brand (tm) is emblazoned across the sky on a search light, I think the second half of the above is rendered moot. Maybe Batman intended to be unpublicized, but that intent never sticks around for long that I have seen.

with which I don't really agree

What are you basing your disagreement on? What is your source text?

He gets a charge out of being scary, and it's a lot of fun to be scary to people against whom you've already hardened your heart.

Where is the evidence that he gets a charge out of being scary? Just because I think it'd be fun -- doesn't have any bearing on his character.

He gets a charge out of being scary, and it's a lot of fun to be scary to people against whom you've already hardened your heart.

I really don't see this -- not in the movie, and not in the comics. I'm not sure Batman finds *anything* fun, but he certainly doesn't seem to get a charge out of being scary. I think he views it as a necessity; the only way to get the upper hand with the baddies.

I just want to pipe in that I'm finding this debate very interesting, even though Teppy and ita seem to be coming at Batman from a very different point of view than Nutty is. I hope Nutty's not feeling attacked or anything, and you guys keep hammering things out until there's a real psychological breakthrough and everyone's on the floor crying.

Not to butt in on the BB discussion, but the trailer for a little movie about a big ape is going to be broadcast on all NBC stations tonight at 8:59:30 pm (ET), ending at 9:02:00. Channels include NBC, Bravo, USA, and a bunch of others I can't remember right now.

Definitely looking forward to King Kong, if nothing else than for the Art Deco sets and period costumes, as well as seeing how Adrian Brody and Jack Black do.

My TiVo prompted me to record the trailer -- if you cycle through the promo messages on the main menu, you may get the option.

Also, Brad Pitt and Bono need my help.

Bono's out of luck, I fear.

I can think of a source from probably the 1970s where three boys are at a campfire, explaining Batman's looks and tools with progressive unlikeliness, until Bruce Wayne quietly disappears and shows himself to them as Batman. (They laugh and say there's no way Batman could loko so mundane.) This is in The Greatest Batman Stories Ever Told, a compilation that came out in the middle 90s.

In that same volume, several instances of enjoying the fear of others, notably one story called something like "Midnight and Three" (a throwback, noir-style tale which I enjoyed immensely).

In Kingdom Come, Batman taunts the criminals who have been caught doing their bad things. (It's Lex Luthor, IIRC.)

Those are examples off the top of my head. I bet, going over 60+ years of comics, we'd find quite a few examples to support my cause. Not to the necessary detriment of any other interpretation, but I do think my interpretation has some merit.

Just because I think it'd be fun -- doesn't have any bearing on his character.

I think that does have bearing on his character. Assessing why the audience might wishfully cast themselves into a character's role can provide plenty of clues as to why the character has cast himself into that role. It's kind of a meta approach, but for so powerful a figure of wishing, I don't think it's inappropriate.

Also, Brad Pitt and Bono need my help.

What does Brad need your help doing?