Quote
I don't remember every single bit of dialogue Alfred had in the movies but my recollection is that his support or opposition to Bruce being or giving up Batman was almost exclusively tied in to why Bruce was making his choices. In BB, I think his attitude of reluctant acceptance was that Bruce was trying to serve a high-minded ideal in a corrupt city rather than thrill-seeking or self-destructive personal vengeance. In TDK, he didn't want Bruce to give up being Batman just to appease some crazy ass fruit loop and, in so doing, throw his own life away and throw away the value of the symbol Batman had become.
I realize what I'm about to say is a little beside the point of what we're talking about, but here it goes: I thought the way they presented the idea of Batman being a symbol that people could look up to was poorly done, as far as the first two films are concerned. Batman intends to become an "incorruptible" symbol, but not only do you barely see what sort of impact he has on the city, he ends up destroying the city every time he drives the Tumbler and Batpod. At least in movies like Raimi's Spider-Man or Donner's Superman, you are shown - not told - how people react to the hero's impact they're having on their cities. Worse, Batman ends up corrupting his symbol anyway by covering up the Dent murders (which I find absurd, wouldn't there be more people like Blake questioning why would a crime-fighter turn into cold-blooded maniac despite all the times he saved the city? But that's another topic itself...)
Come to think of it, I personally have a hard time believing that Alfred would ever support Bruce's crusade in the first place, that's how much Batman's recklessness and stupidity bothered me. I understood that Batman being the "aspiring symbol" was supposed to be a theme throughout this trilogy and while the idea itself is good, I honestly thought its execution was poor. If he wasn't such a driving wrecking ball, I would have agreed with you.
QuoteIn TDKRises, he didn't want Bruce to come out of retirement because (A) he was completely out of shape and (B) he'd cultivated something of a death wish by that point. It's not necessarily that Alfred was pro-Batman or anti-Batman so much as he was concerned about Bruce's motives... and the most consistent element in each of those cases is concern for Bruce's life. The wrong choice or, worse, the right choice for the wrong reasons could easily end with Bruce's death.
Yeah, Bruce was out of shape, but his depression was because of his belief that Rachel would go back to him, until she died. Alfred, despite knowing the truth, kept it away from Bruce for eight bloody years. And as you know Bruce fell apart and became a recluse over time, yet Alfred conveniently decides to tell the truth about Rachel just when the city is on the brink of another crisis? Why not tell him a long time ago, if Bruce became shut inside and stopped living his life?
QuoteIf Bruce was physically and mentally prepared to act from a sense of justice, Alfred would, however reluctantly, support him.
I have a hard time believing that because Nolan and company thought it was a good idea to have the vengeful Talia go to bed with her father's killer instead of just simply whacking him. Look, I don't mean to be snob, I know all movies have flaws and lapse in logic (I even criticize the Burton movies for this too, not only Nolan's) but personally I thought the three latest movies, not just this one, could have been better thought out, to say the least. Especially if they're supposedly "elevating the genre" like I keep hearing whenever I go. I have nothing against anyone who enjoyed these movies, but I was extremely disappointed with all of them.
), and have him sent to prison where there is a strong chance he could escape, and not simply demand Bane to just kill him and be done with it?!
