For being "capitalist scum", and also being the head(or majority stockholder) in his corporation? Do you think they see him as a "greedy" fuck that has done nothing but exploit people?

OR

Do they see Wayne as a successful businessman that has developed a valuable enterprise(with what would have to produce a demanded product) which has created probably thousands of jobs in multiple sectors of development in Gotham and other areas in the United States economy?

I suppose it would depends on whether he "paid his fair share" or cut corners to avoid taxes and whether he did and philanthropic work. If they knew he was Batman and was trying to help the average man, they obviously wouldn't hate him.

NotWearingHockeyPads wrote:I suppose it would depends on whether he "paid his fair share" or cut corners to avoid taxes and whether he did and philanthropic work. If they knew he was Batman and was trying to help the average man, they obviously wouldn't hate him.

Now are we talking corporate taxes? Or just the federal income tax? A majority of occupiers seem to believe that people like Wayne should have to pay a higher tax rate(as if that would somehow "fix" government spending/investments).

And has he not "paid his fair share" by creating all the jobs, and developing into the economy like he has?

THX-1234 wrote:

NotWearingHockeyPads wrote:I suppose it would depends on whether he "paid his fair share" or cut corners to avoid taxes and whether he did and philanthropic work. If they knew he was Batman and was trying to help the average man, they obviously wouldn't hate him.

Now are we talking corporate taxes? Or just the federal income tax? A majority of occupiers seem to believe that people like Wayne should have to pay a higher tax rate(as if that would somehow "fix" government spending/investments).

And has he not "paid his fair share" by creating all the jobs, developing into the economy like he has?

I didn't really think about which taxes. I would agree with you that higher taxes doesn't fix anything and that creating jobs is "paying your fair share," but I'm just trying to think like and Occupier.

Unless Bruce has changed his public-persona in the intervening 8 years, then no, an 'Occupy Gotham' movement wouldn't see him as a successful and justifiable businessman. In their eyes, he's inherited the wealth of his parents and spends his days crashing expensive cars, burning down mansions, swimming in restaurant fountains, jetting off with ballet dancers and falling asleep when he's actually 'at work'. Even Wayne Enterprises have a history of developing tech for the armed forces. In BB, Bruce hoped to control how far WayneTech was going, but it's still not good.

From some of the information coming out, So maybe he might have a better public-image.

But when it comes out that Bruce has been Batman all along too, and it will, I don't think the initial reaction will be positive. It's a rich boy running around and smashing up the city. Bruce's "rising" will be to transcend the image of Batman, transcend the image of the playboy, and become a hero as simply a man (regardless of wealth).

Would an 'Occupy Gotham' think of Bruce favourably or negatively? Negatively during BB and TDK. But if he's been doing good for the 8 years before TDKR, then maybe a little more kindly.

thedisabledcubicle wrote:Unless Bruce has changed his public-persona in the intervening 8 years, then no, an 'Occupy Gotham' movement wouldn't see him as a successful and justifiable businessman. In their eyes, he's inherited the wealth of his parents and spends his days crashing expensive cars, burning down mansions, swimming in restaurant fountains, jetting off with ballet dancers and falling asleep when he's actually 'at work'. Even Wayne Enterprises have a history of developing tech for the armed forces. In BB, Bruce hoped to control how far WayneTech was going, but it's still not good.

From some of the information coming out,

it sounds as though Bruce has become more philanthropic and has put significant time and money into green-endeavours; recycling and what sounds like a perfect energy source.

So maybe he might have a better public-image.

But when it comes out that Bruce has been Batman all along too, and it will, I don't think the initial reaction will be positive. It's a rich boy running around and smashing up the city. Bruce's "rising" will be to transcend the image of Batman, transcend the image of the playboy, and become a hero as simply a man (regardless of wealth).

Would an 'Occupy Gotham' think of Bruce favourably or negatively? Negatively during BB and TDK. But if he's been doing good for the 8 years before TDKR, then maybe a little more kindly.

Good points on Wayne, and people's perception of him. Although, Wayne currently has no say on what is going on with the company, right(I may be wrong)? I thought those duties were left on Fox? Bruce is simply majority shareholder(and this is only him investing on his savings). There are a number of businessmen invested in such companies(like Buffet, and Gates) that make diddly off of them.

What would be Occupy Gotham's perception on Wayne Enterprises as a whole?

THX-1234 wrote:What would be Occupy Gotham's perception on Wayne Enterprises as a whole?

Pre-TDKR (if the info about green-technologies is true), then probably unfavourably. It's a close-call, as Thomas and Martha Wayne clearly wanted to make Gotham better, but there's no denying that WE have been producing some dangerous products and letting them disappear abroad.
If you're talking about taxes and whether they pay their fair-share... then, I don't know. And thank God that sort of stuff isn't in the films, because wow, that'd be a shit Batman film. Bruce Wayne sat at his desk filling out tax forms and collecting receipts. Wow.
If you're talking about social-worth and whether WE are providing jobs, then there's not a great deal of evidence to support that either. Of course, they are providing jobs, but it's not tangibly addressed in the film. The only staff we ever see are board members and Coleman Reese.

'Occupy Gotham'? Anti-Wayne Enterprises, despite the initial developments in Gotham's past, and anti-Bruce Wayne, because he's mostly perceived as a playboy brat.

This just better not a be a super liberal or conservative film. I trust Nolan is smart enough not to take Catwoman's apparent agenda (leaving so little for the rest of us, etc.) and making it some 99% film. I also really don't see how having clean energy would factor well into this. I don't think that's "the instrument of their liberation." I maintain that we can speculate, but we really know nothing.

I've debated elsewhere on these boards, but I would find it difficult to be on Bruce's side if this were to have undertones of the 99% vs 1% movement.

I mean, it sounds as though it's the Occupy ideology that Bane will use to get people fighting alongside him, but if I lived in Gotham... and I could see an insanely rich guy supporting a police-force that is exercising extreme crime-crackdowns based on a lie about another dead rich guy, then I'd probably be on Bane's side too.

Obviously, the real 'turn' in the movie is that Bane must be shown to be too-extreme and evil, whilst Bruce/Batman needs to have his 'hero' status confirmed.