Printable View
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5659324]Did we watch the same film? Because while he might've been working class, and [I]somewhat[/I] sympathetic, he was in no way a hero in that film. Protagonist does not equal hero.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, he's definitely not supposed to be a 'hero' to [I]us[/I]. But in-universe, he becomes a 'hero' of sorts, albeit the kind who inspires violent anarchy by murderous thugs.
[QUOTE=Cyberstrike;5654350]Bruce Wayne should NOT be a multi-billionaire/the richest man in history, Bruce Wayne IMHO should never have a net worth more than 20 million dollars. It's rich enough to get the training and tech he needs but it's not enough so he can buy any company in the world and pay for the JLA headquarters and the rent for rest of all the DCU superheroes on Earth.
The Batmobile should be a car and not a tank. [i]Batwoman[/i] season 2 got finally got the Batmobile right it's a tricked out car but it's still a car, not another damn tank.
Batman should only have the Batmoblie and no other Bat-themed vehicles.
Batman should a jack of all trades and not a master of all trades.
Batman shouldn't be a fascist psychopath.
Batman is smart but not the smartest man in the world.
Batman shouldn't use guns in anyway shape or form.
Batman needs a sidekick I don't care if it's one of the various Robins, Batgirls, or Nightwings. He needs just needs one, so pick one and go with it.
Bruce Wayne needs to be an equal part of Batman's stories.
Batman needs a romantic relationship that is healthy don't care if it's with Vicky Vale, Silver St. Cloud, Wonder Woman, Catwoman, or a new character.[/QUOTE]
Co-signed.
[QUOTE=bat39;5659374]Yeah, he's definitely not supposed to be a 'hero' to [I]us[/I]. But in-universe, he becomes a 'hero' of sorts, albeit the kind who inspires violent anarchy by murderous thugs.[/QUOTE]
True, albeit this is one of the reasons I personally would love to see a sequel. Explore the ramifications of all that, and also to show Gothamites slowly realize what a villain he is. There's tons of potential to follow up on.
On topic, an idea I disagree with - Batman is a "mantle" that will one day be passed on to Dick/Tim/Damian/Terry/take your pick.
[QUOTE=Vakanai;5659438]True, albeit this is one of the reasons I personally would love to see a sequel. Explore the ramifications of all that, and also to show Gothamites slowly realize what a villain he is. There's tons of potential to follow up on.
On topic, an idea I disagree with - Batman is a "mantle" that will one day be passed on to Dick/Tim/Damian/Terry/take your pick.[/QUOTE]
I'm honestly torn on the idea of a [I]Joker[/I] sequel. I think they did something special with the movie and I'm averse to turning it into [I]yet[/I] another Batman franchise. But I'm also curious to see where they could go with this version of Bruce Wayne.
I daresay the Batman of the [I]Joker[/I] universe could end up being a more right-wing/law-and-order focused vigilante, since he lost his parents to a violent uprising by what I'm sure the media and powers-that-be in-universe would characterize as a left-wing anarchist. I mean, how does Batman turn out if Bruce doesn't dedicate his life to ''warring against criminals'' but instead to ''warring against anarchy'' or ''warring against populists'' or something of that sort?
[QUOTE=bat39;5659630]I'm honestly torn on the idea of a [I]Joker[/I] sequel. I think they did something special with the movie and I'm averse to turning it into [I]yet[/I] another Batman franchise. But I'm also curious to see where they could go with this version of Bruce Wayne.
I daresay the Batman of the [I]Joker[/I] universe could end up being a more right-wing/law-and-order focused vigilante, since he lost his parents to a violent uprising by what I'm sure the media and powers-that-be in-universe would characterize as a left-wing anarchist. I mean, how does Batman turn out if Bruce doesn't dedicate his life to ''warring against criminals'' but instead to ''warring against anarchy'' or ''warring against populists'' or something of that sort?[/QUOTE]
Agreed, they did something special - that's why I want a sequel. Sure, they might not catch lightning in a bottle twice, but the possibility always remains that they might. And if they don't? We're still likely to get a pretty good movie that's above average even if it isn't "great" like the original - I'll take that, gladly. I've been pretty disappointed recently with some movies (GvK, Mortal Kombat, part one of the animated Long Halloween), so the promise of a probably-at-least-good film from the creators of one of my favorite recent films would help give me something to look forward to. Plus my curiosity to see what they'd do outweighs any hesitancy over the slim possibility of a terrible sequel.
As for what their Batman might be like? Preferably I'm hoping they save that reveal for a theoretical Joker 3 honestly, but I imagine it'd be an even more grounded take than what we got in The Dark Knight trilogy with Bale and Nolan, or what little we've seen of Pattinson's The Batman. Who knows though. It'd be interesting to find out at the very least.
[QUOTE=Micael;5656182]I don't think they pushed the rich super hero concept because they thought that only rich dudes could be crimefighters, I believe it was just part of the wish fulfillment that's inherent in fictional characters in general and especially super heroes. It's sort of like "Batman is rich because it's cool".[/QUOTE]
I guess that makes sense when you look at it like that. It's just that in hindsight it's harder to believe since a lot of the super rich would rather rocket themselves into space for 11 minutes than pay their own fair share of taxes.
[QUOTE=bat39;5656574]It makes sense though. Its far more likely for someone with time and money on their hands to be able to take up the superhero game.
And when it comes to Marvel, I think Spider-Man and Daredevil were among the few examples of a ''middle-class Joe'' being a superhero all on his own (and frankly, Matt Murdock was a fairly successful lawyer shown to have a considerably disposable income).[/QUOTE]
Well, DD wasn't necessarily well off at every point of his career, which I guess I should've made more clear that that's what I was referencing specifically.
[QUOTE=bat39;5656574]Almost every other hero was a member of the Avengers bankrolled by Tony Stark. The Fantastic Four were wealthy enough to fund themselves. And of course you had the X-men funded and founded by Professor X.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, I was referencing Spider-Man and DD specifically. It just seemed like characters with more modest bank accounts seemed to be introduced prominently for the first time around this time. I'm obviously well aware of the Avengers (it'd be impossible not to be at this point), the FF, and X-Men.
[QUOTE=phonogram12;5661189]Like I said, I was referencing Spider-Man and DD specifically. It just seemed like characters with more modest bank accounts seemed to be introduced prominently for the first time around this time. I'm obviously well aware of the Avengers (it'd be impossible not to be at this point), the FF, and X-Men.[/QUOTE]Does Barry not count? I know he has powers, but so does DD. Though Barry's are flashier. :)
Dinah wasn't rich in the golden age [i]and[/i] didn't have powers. Clark and Diana weren't well-off, either, from what I can tell, but their power levels do keep them from being average Joes. Not really sure where Hal fits on the income scale in the silver age - well paid, I'd assume, but don't really know. His family was indicated to be upper middle class or better, though. Ray Palmer is another well-paid professional, though I can't recall anything saying he was rich (been a while since I read his silver age stuff, though) and he seems comparable to DD to me.
[QUOTE=Tzigone;5661382]Does Barry not count? I know he has powers, but so does DD. Though Barry's are flashier. :)
Dinah wasn't rich in the golden age [i]and[/i] didn't have powers. Clark and Diana weren't well-off, either, from what I can tell, but their power levels do keep them from being average Joes. Not really sure where Hal fits on the income scale in the silver age - well paid, I'd assume, but don't really know. His family was indicated to be upper middle class or better, though. Ray Palmer is another well-paid professional, though I can't recall anything saying he was rich (been a while since I read his silver age stuff, though) and he seems comparable to DD to me.[/QUOTE]
I guess I was more referring to guys on Batman/Green Arrow's level. This thread is really teaching me to be more specific! lol
The WW/BM ship. A relationship where WW is just there as a stepping stone to show how great and superior batman and his lore are. Kreep him and Superman aaway WW franchise. Those 2 priviledged white boys only bring trouble to the wonder corner.
[QUOTE=mystical41;5664965]The WW/BM ship. A relationship where WW is just there as a stepping stone to show how great and superior batman and his lore are. Kreep him and Superman aaway WW franchise. Those 2 priviledged white boys only bring trouble to the wonder corner.[/QUOTE]
Is the WW/Batman ship realy a 'mainstream' idea though? The only place its really been seen, to my knowledge, is the DCAU, and even there it was more a ship-tease (and fodder for fanfiction) than anything else. Yeah the DCEU has had a few borderline flirty moments between Bruce and Diana (possibly as a nod to the cartoons), but nothing remotely beyond that.
Compare this with WW/Superman who actually [I]were[/I] canonically a couple in the New 52 (and the animated movieverse based on it), and in various Elseworlds stories.
Honestly, these days the only thing keeping the notion of WW/Batman alive is people complaining about it ;)
And we are going to continue complaining about it so that it doesn't rear its ugly head ever again.
I know it annoys Wonder Woman fans when a relationship with Batman rears its ugly head. But the truth is that Wonder Woman
would be bad for Bruce too. Bruce needs a woman who can heal him, get him to move forward to become a grownup man. Whatever
you want to say about Selina Kyle at the end of the day her take no crap, let us move you forward Bruce is good for him. Vicki Vale
may have been better for him idealistically, but she never reached him the way Selina does. Any relationship between Bruce and Diana
would be temporary, it would break up because of the kind of man Bruce is. Besides, it would require Diana making a personal connection to
Gotham City, which I'm not sure she wants to do. Bruce is always in one form or another going to be connected to Gotham City, whether
he is fighting crime or not. Is that something that Diana really wants to do? I don't think so, nor do I think she wants or needs to anyway.
Comics never really have the main characters growing old then dying. But a real life Diana would have to deal with the problem of how to build
a relationship with a man who lacks immortality, is going to live somewhere else from where she grew up. As for Superman and Wonder Woman let me
just say this. You can take the boy out of Kansas, you can't take Kansas out of the boy. No way Diana is going to live in Smallville.
We have the original Earth-2 model for what happens with Bruce and Selina, along with various hints from the modern Earth. There seems
an inevitability to their relationship. Yes, you can imagine other women, but it doesn't seem like a natural fit. Like pretending other women than
Lois Lane are going to marry Superman. You can do the exercise, but there is a reason they have ended up together for these 80 plus years.
[quote]Bruce needs a woman who can heal him, get him to move forward to become a grownup man.[/quote]I think that's a terrible burden to put on a relationship. I think it's a bad depiction in comics, too. Yes, she will be a supporting character (almost definitely - few as big as Batman), but a relationship should never be one person "fixing" another and should never be all give and no take for one party. Like - what does he do for her, what does he bring to the relationship I also don't think he should need healing and that he should already be grownup man. But DC apparently disagrees with me.
We humans aren't always perfect. Plenty of people get married with one or both partners having things to work
out. The reality of Bruce Wayne is that he needs some time for growth. That is the truth for any woman who
gets him. But Bruce brings a lot to the table. He's smart, wealthy, all of that romantic searching has been a desire
to be better. Besides, if you really love someone the faults they have are ones you figure can be worked on over time.
It isn't just a comics convention, you really do get the sense that women find Bruce desirable as a person. Heck,
even Lois Lane in an animated feature has a relationship with Bruce. If Lois Lane sees something in you it suggests
you bring a lot to the table.
[QUOTE=RobinGA;5667681]We humans aren't always perfect. Plenty of people get married with one or both partners having things to work
out. The reality of Bruce Wayne is that he needs some time for growth. That is the truth for any woman who
gets him. But Bruce brings a lot to the table. He's smart, wealthy, all of that romantic searching has been a desire
to be better. Besides, if you really love someone the faults they have are ones you figure can be worked on over time.
It isn't just a comics convention, you really do get the sense that women find Bruce desirable as a person. Heck,
even Lois Lane in an animated feature has a relationship with Bruce. If Lois Lane sees something in you it suggests
you bring a lot to the table.[/QUOTE]
I [b]loathe[/b] Lois being into Bruce, so that's not a good place to start with me. Nor is "she gets the man all the women want." While we may all know Bruce in the main character, within the fiction, they do not. He should treat her as as much main character as she does him, support her as she does him. All the support and sacrifice and work in the relationship going one way just does not work for me. And I really, really hate "all that's needed for a badboy to be good is the love of a good woman" and "all that's needed for a emotionally stunted manchild to grow up and be healthy is the love of a good woman" isn't any better. There's is absolutely no logical/reasonable way to me that being in a relationship is going to "fix" Bruce. No reason it would.
How can someone else be responsible for healing Bruce, and by what mechanism would she do so? Especially without going all King-ish and totally diminishing all the other important people/relationships in his life as inferior and/or less important?
I really don't get "he needs time for growth" - he's had years to do that, already (and mostly gotten worse). But if it's time he needs, then he'll need that time with or without a woman involved. And better that he use that time, get healthy, and then find someone rather than basically be a user, using her to heal himself while not returning the favor. I don't like the "broken" version of Bruce, but if we're going with that version, at least try to sell me on the idea of two broken people fixing each other, rather than one-way dynamic with her as the caregiver (hell, I have problems with that dynamic with Alfred, muchless a partner).
There's nothing wrong with marrying someone with flaws - there is something wrong with the idea that one partner is supposed to fix those flaws in the other.