It's not all the same. A parental figure is different to a childhood friend because a childhood friend is on more equal terms than a parental figure.
It's exactly the same in the sense it's a companion, someone he loves and trusts. That was your whole beef with this. It takes away from Bruce's loneliness. Having people like that around you childhood friend or parental figure, takes away from that loneliness.
Could you please stop with the name-calling? It is extremely childish and immature.
Ok, I apologize and retract the name label, but you are someone who relies on pedantics to try and construct an argument to validate your point of view.
Who was introduced in the comics after the first two Nolan films came out, in 2011, so was probably inspired by Rachel Dawes.
Even if that's true, so what? Have you heard of any fan outrage over this? That's my point. Bruce having a childhood friend doesn't change a thing. That's why DC did it.
But Tommy Elliot turned to Hush and became a villain, although yes, that is one example you could use, although not a very good one:
While at a summer camp with Bruce, Tommy attacks a boy and ends up in a psychiatric ward; he blames Bruce and his mother for his outburst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush_(comics)
Not really the best childhood friend that Bruce could have.
Tommy Elliott didn't become Hush until they were adults. And regardless of Tommy having a violent outburst that got him put in hospital for a while, he still remained best friends with Bruce. Bruce stood by him.
They were still best friends. That's how Bruce fondly remembered him. Like with Rachel it made sense that he made a friend before his parents were killed. Before he was damaged by it. But he was never going to turn his back on people he cared about just because his parents died. Bruce is not that kind of person. People call Batman a loner, but he has more friends and allies than you can shake a stick at.
It was implied Vicki Vale had already figured out that Bruce Wayne is Batman, so Alfred letting her into the Batcave was not really as controversial as so many people make out.
No offense I don't really care what you personally think about it. It's not the point, and I'm not getting into a Batman '89 discussion here. The point is it's the only example I've ever heard of about trust issues with Bruce and Alfred over a love interest. One that had a big fan backlash. And even criticized by the writer of the movie.
In comparison to what you're saying here, which is a non entity issue.
How could he give up being Batman if he hadn't even become Batman yet?
I assume that's a rhetorical question.
He was giving up on his quest/promise to be Batman. Throwing away what he spent years preparing himself to do. Bruce was willing to give all that up for a girl. It's not even the same as Begins/TDK where Bruce could only consider being with Rachel AFTER he has saved Gotham. He was not going to give up before he even started, or give up when the city still needed him just to be with a girl. But he was in MOTP.
And where does it reference him wanting to give up Batman for her years later? I haven't seen the movie in a long time, so could you please point this out.
In the scene after he has sex with her. At Wayne Manor. She drives off in her car after he kisses her goodbye and says he'll see her tonight. Alfred says it's great to see them together again, and asks what this means for his alter ego. And Bruce says he loves her, and after all this Phantasm business is settled then they can be together. He then looks at his parents portrait, and Alfred reassures him that they would have wanted him to be happy.
Oh TDKR.....
