Well, I started this discussion with the avowal that I don't know a thing about current canon, so it's possible that my view is just antiquated. I don't think it's fair to say it's wrong, however; I'm not exactly middle-aged, and I'm recalling character points from within my lifetime.

the mere fact that I'd wish that upon myself, ever, highlights why he gets to do it and I don't

That's why it's a fantasy. You get to indulge your propensity for violence without ever breaking the law.

I'll admit that the meta approach can be a little alarming, since it comes from outside the text, and can sometimes outright contradict what is stated on the page. The idea is to delve past stated authorial intent and dig up all the available interpretations. That I skew heavily toward the "that too is ego-massage" interpretations is possibly a sign of how distrustful I am of the formal definitions of heroism.

I've got to start reading comics again.

Which Batman title should I read?

I think I'm not explaining myself well, Nutty. "My" Batman would distrust anyone who wanted to do his job too much, since he doesn't regard it as a joy. It's a grieving process for him, and atonement for a crime he didn't commit, and a way of putting forth a legacy.

That's why the fact that I think it's cool has no bearing on whether or not he does.

I'm not alarmed by the approach to this particular text. I just don't think it has a point here, since I'm making flawed assumptions to make it work.

All the possible interpretations aren't that interesting to me.

Well, I started this discussion with the avowal that I don't know a thing about current canon, so it's possible that my view is just antiquated.

I do that all the time. I've made Ple roll her eyes so hard they unscrewed from their sockets and rolled under the couch and got covered with cat hair.

I don't think it's fair to say it's wrong, however; I'm not exactly middle-aged,

::checks calendar. Oops, 44 tomorrow::

But Kingdom Come is AU. I mean, if we're trying to come up with a psychological profile of the "real" Batman (inasmuch as he's fictional), we have to use canon to do so.

Actually, this is a thing too -- or two things. (1) How did you know that Kingdom Come was AU? I didn't. Anyway, do you think that people had thought of Willow as an evil, gay leatherqueen before that one episode? And after, despite its being an AU, wasn't your view of real-Willow changed a bit, against all formal logic? AUs have a lot more power than you seem to be giving them.

(2) Who is the "real" Batman? And relatedly, whom is this movie speaking to? Batman has legs way beyond comic books -- he shows up as punch lines in commercials, e.g. (and what a fun commercial that was!!) As a not-really-comics person, who is relying on general cultural knowledge, I shouldn't feel so left out in the cold, should I?

he shows up as punch lines in commercials, e.g. (and what a fun commercial that was!!)

Which one? I do not recall whether I have seen it.

Unless you mean that Scooby-Doo trailer.

In news completely unrelated to Bat:

It looks like Keith Richards really will be in POTC!!!

How did you know that Kingdom Come was AU?

Because they told us so. Not in the comic, but they told us so. Batman has fascinating AUs -- both changes to his past and to his future. But if he could develop into a taunter it in no way makes him a taunter now.

wasn't your view of real-Willow changed a bit, against all formal logic?

Not significantly. I sure wouldn't have called her bi until Joss made the changes. Her potential changed. Not who I saw on screen at the time.

And relatedly, whom is this movie speaking to?

I think the movie is speaking to whoever buys a ticket or watches a trailer or listens to a discussion of it. I'm in no way saying that people have to like the movie, or even have to like this Batman. But the idea that the Batman depicted is inconsistent with any usable (and not explicitly time-stamped) definition of Batman? That I reject.

He is in line with current canon, and neatly so. None of the previous movies were aligned with the canon around their release, not in tone.

I shouldn't feel so left out in the cold, should I?

It's quite possible that the movie's not for you. Movies leave me out in the cold all the time, and I don't hold it against them. Well, not all of them.

eta:

Well, it looks like Richards is probably in PotC:

Johnny Depp, who reprises the character of Captain Jack Sparrow in the upcoming Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, told SCI FI Wire that he and director Gore Verbinski are still trying to schedule scenes with Rolling Stones rock star Keith Richards, who will play Sparrow's father, but that it looks promising

I think I'm not explaining myself well, Nutty. "My" Batman would distrust anyone who wanted to do his job too much, since he doesn't regard it as a joy. It's a grieving process for him, and atonement for a crime he didn't commit, and a way of putting forth a legacy.

No, I get this. I just don't buy it. Or, I think it's too simple and want to find the messy soup of conflicting emotions underneath. I'm totally willing to buy the idea that Batman is tuned into KRZY, but I would find a Batman who is all superego and no cattle pretty boring.

Maybe it's perverse, but I prefer my hanging judges to acknowledge, or at least know, all of the confusingness of their own bad impulses. Proves they're human.

(1) How did you know that Kingdom Come was AU?

Someone mentioned it to me. I disremember who.

I didn't. Anyway, do you think that people had thought of Willow as an evil, gay leatherqueen before that one episode? And after, despite its being an AU, wasn't your view of real-Willow changed a bit, against all formal logic?

Actually, no. But I lack imagination.

AUs have a lot more power than you seem to be giving them.

Maybe it's because they don't have much power to *me,* so I assume that they don't have a big impact on other people, either. To me, AUs are just what-ifs, and as a reader/viewer, I think what-ifs are nifty, but they aren't "real," in terms of the canonical narrative.