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.

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.

I think all indications are that the movie is having pretty wide appeal.

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.

"Where are you?!?!?"
"Here."

No possible purpose for that exchange, that I can see, other than the scary. He could have just taken him out.

It's good movie-making, good theater, et cetera. But the criminal was alone with Batman, in Batman's mind. He didn't know he had an audience. No reason to build up the fear there. Technically.

The only thing I had a real problem with was at the end, when Rachel says that Bruce is the mask. I felt that it was too early for that. I know the whole is Bruce the mask or Batman is an aspect that's been discussed and explored, but I thought it shouldn't be so apparent yet. I always felt that his identity got blurrier the long he was Batman. I didn't feel that by the end of the movie he'd gotten to that point.