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.

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.

But your wanting it doesn't make it so. I, on the other hand, love superego Bats, and am quite happy with both the movie and current canon.

I'm not going to harsh on a Spiderman movie for showing Spiderman true to current canon, because I know that Spidey isn't often that appealing to me. Although I can (and will) bitch about the movie, I'm bitching about not liking narrative choices that I think would have served a character I don't really like, not that they should have rewritten Spiderman into a character I'd like more.

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.

I think here you're falling into the same trap Teppy almost fell into -- it gets soupier and more confusing the longer Bruce goes on as Batman.

It's *Batman Begins*, he's just getting started.

I would find a Batman who is all superego and no cattle pretty boring.

I just don't see any evidence in Batman Begins (to bring it back to *just* the movie) that Batman gets any joy out of scaring the crap out of Gotham's criminals. I don't see him getting a charge out of wielding the seemingly unchecked power he has.

Sean, do you think that Batman becomes more id and less superego as time goes by? I'm feeling the reverse. As he loses hope, the structure gains a tighter grip on him.

do you think that Batman becomes more id and less superego as time goes by?

Hmm.... No, I think not. I agree with you, that, as you say, as he loses hope, the structure gains a tighter grip (what a great way to put it), but that's the murkier emotional morass I see developing over time that I think I was refering to.

Because they told us so. Not in the comic, but they told us so.

This is why comics are an acquired taste that I will never fully acquire.

I'm in no way saying that people have to like the movie, or even have to like this Batman.

I just wonder whether the filmmakers made a mistake, hewing so closely to a narrowcast Batman, when all other indicators say it was supposed to be a wide-appeal movie. (The explosions and crap also left me cold, and there's a whole separate argument to have about city-ness and lack thereof, so it failed on many axes, for me.)

But the idea that the Batman depicted is inconsistent with any usable (and not explicitly time-stamped) definition of Batman? That I reject.

I'm not sure I can parse this sentence to unpack your real meaning. But, like I said, the depicted specimen isn't usable for me, and I found him narrow, dull, blunted. He neither thrilled me nor made me empathize. If that's what he is like in the comics, then I guess there's a reason I don't read the current comics. Other people may like him like that, more power to them.

The commercial I am thinking of, P-C, is from some years back, where a guy on a football team is totally crushed in a tackle. They take him off to the sidelines, take off his helmet, and ask him, "How many fingers am I holding up?" He says: "Three."

Coach says, "Who am I?" Player says, "Coach."

Coach says, "Who are you?" Player gets this amazed, delighted look on his face: "I... am Batman!"

You know, I can't remember what the commercial was selling at all. I just remember that, after the product placement, there's the player, standing up, shouting, "To the Batmobile! Away!!"

Sean, do you think that Batman becomes more id and less superego as time goes by? I'm feeling the reverse.

His superego gets stronger, I think, *because* he's afraid of his id getting out. (And I'm speaking more about comics canon now, rather than the movie.) I think Batman believes that if he loosened his control one tiny bit, he would go nuclear. Think of the scene in Bruce Wayne: Murderer where he's in jail and beats the CRAP out of the 3 inmates who come to his cell. That wasn't a Bat-whooping; that was savage.

Or the JLA storyline (I can't remember the name) where most of the JLAers are split into their super identities and their civilian identities, and it turned out that Bruce, pure distilled Bruce, was unbelievably violent.

I think he believes that would happen if he ever let the superego have a nap. And it's probably true. But then, once he went nuclear, I think the id would burn off the anger and he'd no longer have the drive to be a vigilante.