WTFAW: Batman

Ladies and Gentlemen, today’s subject (as if the title wasn’t enough of an indication) is about Batman.

Obviously, with how popular Batman is, some people have come up with theories about him. And inevitably, I find myself not agreeing with some of those theories. As such, I’d like to address two theories in particular and explain why they do not add up.

The two theories in question concern Tim Burton’s Batman (1989) and Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises (2012), respectively. If you haven’t seen these movies and don’t want spoilers, stop reading now.

Otherwise, let’s begin.

The first theory is that in Batman, The Joker wasn’t the one to kill Bruce Wayne’s parents. Instead, Batman projects all criminals he face into that role.

Dave: See, it makes sense, due to Batman’s motivation to fight crime. His desire to prevent any child’s life being destroyed by some thug with a gun.

Right you are, Dave. It delves into the psychology of Batman.


As with many fan theories, it requires you to completely ignore crucial details that would otherwise completely destroy the theory.

In this case, that detail takes the form of a phrase.

You ever dance with the devil in the pale moon light?

It is the phrase used by the Joker in Vicki Vale’s apartment, before he shoots Bruce Wayne.

Dave: So? Why is that phrase important?

Because it is the same phrase he used when he killed Bruce’s parents, and it’s only AFTER Bruce hears this phrase that he starts thinking about the death of his parents.

Whereas in other versions, the killer is known to be Joe Chill, in this movie we’re shown that the murder was unsolved, and the killer never apprehended. That phrase, coupled with the fact that the killers accomplice called him “Jack”, made Bruce realize that this is the man who killed his parents.

Rather than delving into the psychology of Batman, this is more to establish their connection, in that they are both responsible for creating the other.

Also, in Batman Forever, as Dick Grayson is determined to kill Two-Face, the man responsible for murdering his family, Bruce tells him that killing Two-Face won’t make the pain go away. It’ll only make it worse.

He says that, because he knows from experience. Killing the Joker, the man who killed his parents, didn’t change anything.

Dave: Well, the “Batman is projecting” idea is compelling, because it doesn’t deviate from Batman’s lore.

True, but the problem is that Batman isn’t shown to do that to any other criminal he faces, BEFORE OR AFTER! There is nothing to suggest he is projecting, beyond wishful thinking!

The second theory I’d like to spotlight is the theory that at the end of The Dark Knight Rises, Batman actually DID die. He never repaired the autopilot, and his appearance in the café in the end is just Alfred hallucinating, consumed by grief and guilt.

Now, this theory I’m very happy to be able to disprove, considering it is needlessly dark and unhappy.

My argument is fairly simple. See, the idea is that Alfred is just imagining Bruce Wayne being in the café, because he never actually fixed the autopilot. Which would mean the idea of the autopilot being fixed was also constructed by Alfred’s grief-wracked imagination.


Alfred wasn’t there when Lucius Fox was told the autopilot had been repaired! In fact, he wasn’t there when Fox told Batman the fucking thing didn’t work!

If the scene where Lucius was told the autopilot was repaired was just a figment of Alfred’s wishful imagination, that’d require him to know it was broken in the first fucking place!


Dave: But this theory makes sense! Batman would NEVER EVER EVER abandon his mission!

But he didn’t abandon it! He left his mission to Blake! Gotham needs a protector, but it doesn’t have to be Bruce Wayne, who we’re shown is broken down and worn out by this point.

The whole reason he did it to begin with was because nobody else was willing to. Blake was the solution to that problem!

And as for things Batman would “NEVER EVER EVER” do…. remember how, in the second movie, they go on and on about how Batman has one rule, and the Joker trying to force him to break that rule? Namely, how Batman never kills?

Dave: Yeah?

I suppose the COLD-BLOODED MURDER OF RA´S AL GHUL doesn’t count as killing?

Dave: That wasn’t murder! He didn’t kill him. He just didn’t save him.

Ah, so Batman is allowed to kill someone, provided he’s using a loophole?

He had the opportunity and capability to drag Ra’s out with him, and have him face justice for his crimes (and don’t try to give me any bullcrap about him being untouchable by the law), but instead he chose to knowingly abandon Ra’s to die in an accident HE WAS RESPONIBLE FOR!


By that same logic, he could’ve thrown the Joker from the building in The Dark Knight and have him plummet to his death, since “he doesn’t have to save him”!

There is no difference!

But sure, Batman breaking his One Rule by killing someone is fine, but him going:

you know, my legs and back are all but ruined at this point, I am pretty much unable to protect Gotham without an exoskeleton, and I have a chance to live happily ever after with a woman I love as well as leave an example to others, while also letting someone younger continue my legacy…

No! That’s just impossible! Clearly, the only rational explanation is that Alfred is going senile!

That’s all I’ve got for now. I’ll probably be able to find some more theories about Batman, and I might touch upon them somewhere down the line.

As for these two theories, I think I’ve proven my point. If you disagree, feel free to comment and offer additional arguments. But before you do, ask yourself this….

Are you prepared to dance with The Devil in the Details?

Back to Main Page


WTFAW: Frozen

Ok, for those of you who aren’t familiar with this theory, the idea is that Elsa’s and Anna’s parents didn’t actually die in the shipwreck, and in fact the shipwreck itself is the opening to Tarzan. They abandoned ship, washed ashore on an island, had a child and lived in a tree house before being killed by Shere Khan’s bitchy cousin.

It’s a neat little theory, which is actually part of a bigger theory from fans to tie together all Disney movies into one central time-line. Elsa’s and Anna’s parents were on their way to Rapunzel’s wedding, when they got caught in the storm that sank their ship.

So, how is the theory complete and utter bullshit? Let me count the ways, Ladies and Gentlemen.

First of all, I would like you to take a look at the couple in this picture.

Let’s call this “Exhibit A”

Now, compare them to the couple in this picture.

Which probably makes this “Exhibit B”

Notice any differences? Such as how Tarzan’s dad has a massive mutton-stache? Or how the mother has shoulder-length hair?

Dave: Sea travel takes a long time. Growing your hair out doesn’t take long. He could have grown a handlebar moustache and she could’ve grown her hair out.

I’m sorry, Dave, but that doesn’t add up for several reasons. After all, the theory is that they were on their way to a wedding. You mean to tell me the very orderly and neat King of Arendelle didn’t bring a barber with him to a WEDDING or, if he did, randomly decided to grow a huge mutton-stache and the Queen, in a similar burst of spontaneity decided to grow her hair out?

Seems a bit far fetched, if you ask me.

Dave: Well, it’s still plausible!

But growing out a mutton-stache takes what? Three weeks? A month? Two? I admit, I’ve never tried growing out a mutton-stache, but I can assure you growing the voluminous, well maintained ‘stache Tarzan’s dad is rocking takes longer than two weeks.

And they can’t have been away for MORE than two weeks, since Anna told them “See you in two weeks” before they left! In the time it takes to grow a mutton-stache, THEY WOULD’VE COME HOME!

Oh, and before Dave chimes up again, I’d like point out how, according to his theory, the King and Queen miraculously went from blonde and brown haired to dark brown and ginger, respectively!

It’s magical! Almost like they were completely different people or something!

Also, observe their clothing. Notice the regal, fancy and Sami-inspired clothing the royal couple is wearing, compared to the noticeably more simplistic, VICTORIAN clothing of Tarzan’s parents.

Dave: So the idea of changing clothing is unheard of to you?

No, but changing into clothes from a completely different time period for no good reason strikes me as a bit odd.

Now, I’d like you all to observe the following picture.

You may recognize this as the royal couple boarding the ship taking them on their ill fated journey.

Note the ship size
Please note the size of the ship

Now, I’d like you to take a look at this picture, in which we see Tarzan’s parents leaving the sinking ship, to set up a new (albeit short lived) home in the jungle.

Again, notice the ship size?
Again, notice the ship size?

Isn’t it amazing, Dave, how the ship managed to not only sink, come back up and CATCH FIRE, but also grow from a brig to a man-of-war?

Dave: Disney magic…?

Shut up, Dave.

I could probably end this here… But I won’t.

Instead, I’d like to present what I’d like to call the “Trump card”. This is a detail many seem very happy to ignore, since it pretty much sticks a dagger in the whole theory.

If you observe the second and third picture, you may notice something. Something that is missing from one picture, but present in the other.

Look closely. REALLY CLOSELY! Can you see it yet?

Here, let me circle it for you, if you still can’t see it.


Again! This trip was supposed to take two weeks! And yet, by the time they sank, they already had a fucking kid! Explain that, Dave!

Dave: Uhm…we don’t know how long pregnancy take in the world of Disney. Maybe it t-

No, Dave.

Dave: well, maybe they were thrown off course for nine months. That would-

They had a photo of themselves, from before the trip took place, where they had the kid.

Dave: Maybe they fell into a time vortex which threw them into a parallel universe where they merged with their alternate selves that look differently, who were working class in London rather than Scandinavian nobility and had a boy instead of two girls….

Do you really need me to explain in how many ways that theory is stupid?

Dave:…. not really, no….

Thought not…

Now, here’s my theory. It’s a bit unorthodox, but I’ll talk you through it.

Frozen and Tarzan has absolutely nothing to do with one another. The only thing they have in common is that they both feature a shipwreck, and even then, they have a lot of differences.

You see, this whole theory spawned from a joke by one of the people who made Frozen. A joke, as in “not to be taken seriously” and sure as hell not to be considered canon. I know some fans just love the idea of all of Disney taking place in one continuity. I’ve no problem with those kinds of theories… All I ask is that they add up.

But this one simply doesn’t. And if you still believe it does, I think it’s time that you, if you pardon the expression….Let It Go.

Back to Main Page