Thomas Wayne: kindly doctor or abusive billionaire?

[Valentonis]

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I know nuance and superhero comics haven't always been the best of friends, but a talented enough writer could show an ultimately kind at heart doctor whose vast wealth may have led to some less than noble characteristics. It gives Bruce both an ideal to strive for, and something to be wary of. Just like in real life, most fathers aren't usually uniformly good or bad, but flawed people who try their best to be good role models.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. I know nuance and superhero comics haven't always been the best of friends, but a talented enough writer could show an ultimately kind at heart doctor whose vast wealth may have led to some less than noble characteristics. It gives Bruce both an ideal to strive for, and something to be wary of. Just like in real life, most fathers aren't usually uniformly good or bad, but flawed people who try their best to be good role models.

I second this.

[Zorintien]

I don't like the idea of Thomas Wayne as a corrupt elite or an abusive father. It undermines Bruce's quest. The thing that makes Bruce's motivations sympathetic are that his parent's death was a senseless tragedy that could have happened to anyone instead of karmic retribution from his dad being a jerk. Their deaths being warrentless is what makes us want to see Bruce succeed in stopping it from happen to anyone else.

[John Venus]

They can always split the difference. I like Dini's take in House of Hush; Thomas Wayne was a brilliant neurosurgeon but perhaps due to his privilege fell into a life of partying and drinking with his buddy Zatara (sort of like a DCU Tony Stark or Stephen Strange). Martha was a social worker from a poor background trying to raise money for worthwhile causes and they met through their mutual friend Leslie Tompkins. Thomas fell for Martha and in the process ended up straightening himself out.

Then you had the Elliots who served as a contrast to the Waynes; they were spoiled, abusive and rotten.

Usually in Batman adaptations there is a Bruce Wayne villain and a Batman villain. In Batman Returns you had Max Shrek who was one of Bruce's rival while Penguin troubled Batman and Catwoman troubled both sides. Similarly in Batman Begins you had Rutger Hauer's character as a minor antagonist for Bruce while Batman fought Darkman/Qui-Gon Jin. In B:TAS you had Roland Dagget, Ferris Boyle, the Terrible Trio, the rich assholes who tricked Penguin and in the far flung future of Batman Beyond, Wayne Industries gets usurped by the tech start up headed by Derek Powers; all of whom interacts with Bruce Wayne and serves as a contrast to him. You get the impression that Bruce was the only semi descent rich dude in Gotham.

If adaptations or comic books want to make one of the Wayne's down right evil, it might be time to dust off Philip Wayne; Bruce's original guardian from Untold Legends. (I think Snyder used him in Year Zero but not sure to which capacity since I didn't pay attention to that.)

[Jim Kelly]

I was watching the Christmas movie from 1940, BEYOND TOMORROW, and Jean Parker's character works at the Wayne Foundation. I wonder if this is just a coincidence or if the movie influenced someone at DC.

[Restingvoice]

If adaptations or comic books want to make one of the Wayne's down right evil, it might be time to dust off Philip Wayne; Bruce's original guardian from Untold Legends. (I think Snyder used him in Year Zero but not sure to which capacity since I didn't pay attention to that.)

Philip Kane. He's dead. He used to send his lawyer to take over Wayne Manor but couldn't because it's entrusted to Alfred and he didn't budge. Then he joined the Red Hood Gang, I think to secure his position as Wayne Enterprises executive when Bruce came back but ended up being used as a decoy for the leader's body. I think it's because he refused to hand over Bruce? Don't really remember the details.

[Jim Kelly]

In old continuity it was Phillip Wayne not Kane. He was the one who took Bruce in after Thomas and Martha were killed--Alfred wasn't around (he was either in the British music halls, on the stage, or fighting Nazis--take your pick). Also, Leslie Thompkins was an elderly lady, not a hot young thing, and she barely knew Bruce Wayne--Batman would only see her once a year in Crime Alley on the anniversary of his parents' death.

[Tzigone]

In old continuity it was Phillip Wayne not Kane. He was the one who took Bruce in after Thomas and Martha were killed--Alfred wasn't around (he was either in the British music halls, on the stage, or fighting Nazis--take your pick). Also, Leslie Thompkins was an elderly lady, not a hot young thing, and she barely knew Bruce Wayne--Batman would only see her once a year in Crime Alley on the anniversary of his parents' death.

And even then, Phillip and Leslie didn't show up until the bronze age (well, maybe late silver for Phillip). Before that, there were briefly seen relatives Aunt Agatha and Silas Wayne. But no indication that I recall that either brought him up after his parents died.

Though, to be fair, when first introduced, Philip and Agatha were just Uncle Phillip and Aunt Agatha, with no indication to which side of the family they were on, if I recall correctly, it was only post-COIE Philip in Who's Who that was assigned as a Wayne.

Still, I understand the weirdness that Leslie and especially Alfred were retconned back into Bruce's past and Bruce became more emotionally stunted. I don't think the two are really that related, exactly, but it does make me not like either of them in his childhoood in a guilt-by-association way.

[Jim Kelly]

They mustn't have been good guardians if Bruce is as psychologically damaged as he's been in the post-COIE comics. Maybe they should have got him some therapy after his parents were shot and killed right in front of him.

[batnbreakfast]

I'd love for the Batman giving us a Leslie Thompkins that stands shoulder to shoulder with Oldman's Gordon and Caine's Alfred. From reading this thread it seems Paul Dini (again) did it best when it comes to Thomas.

[Frontier]

They mustn't have been good guardians if Bruce is as psychologically damaged as he's been in the post-COIE comics. Maybe they should have got him some therapy after his parents were shot and killed right in front of him.

I think it was less that they weren't good guardians and more just how emotionally traumatizing the incident at such a young age was on Bruce's psyche.

I'd love for the Batman giving us a Leslie Thompkins that stands shoulder to shoulder with Oldman's Gordon and Caine's Alfred. From reading this thread it seems Paul Dini (again) did it best when it comes to Thomas.

Leslie could use more appearances in outside media (and not go as off the rails as the Gotham version did).

[Jim Kelly]

I think it was less that they weren't good guardians and more just how emotionally traumatizing the incident at such a young age was on Bruce's psyche.

It seems to me that the post-COIE editors have tried to have it both ways--giving Bruce all this emotional support in his youth, after losing his parents, from the likes of Alfred and Leslie--yet insisting that his experience was so tragic he was damaged for life.

Whereas the pre-COIE editors presented a young Bruce that didn't have much support, left on his own to choose his own path, yet ended up a stoic humanitarian, not overly self-involved with his grief and always doing good for others--a fairly well-adjusted mature person.

[SiegePerilous02]

It seems to me that the post-COIE editors have tried to have it both ways--giving Bruce all this emotional support in his youth, after losing his parents, from the likes of Alfred and Leslie--yet insisting that his experience was so tragic he was damaged for life.

Whereas the pre-COIE editors presented a young Bruce that didn't have much support, left on his own to choose his own path, yet ended up a stoic humanitarian, not overly self-involved with his grief and always doing good for others--a fairly well-adjusted mature person.

It seems post-COIE comics take a more dramatic and traumatic stance on death in general. Didn't Byrne say he kept the Kents alive partially because he couldn't imagine Clark not becoming someone like Batman if they were dead? Which is pretty stupid logic IMO.

It at least makes a little more sense with Bruce due to the violent nature of his parents' deaths, but it still seems a bit much. Like Peter Parker has his ups and downs in his life, but he never became an edgy traumatized anti-hero and he was partially responsible for the violent death of his loved one. Yet none of that can touch Clark for fear he might crack and Bruce has to gradually become more and more dark and depressed? Seems less mature than just treating death as a sad but natural part of life you have to live with but can move on from. And weirdly, comic book resurrections are more common place in the modern era.

[Tzigone]

I'd love for the Batman giving us a Leslie Thompkins that stands shoulder to shoulder with Oldman's Gordon and Caine's Alfred. From reading this thread it seems Paul Dini (again) did it best when it comes to Thomas.

I'm the reverse - I'd much prefer not reinforcing Leslie as part of Bruce's past. I'm not a fan of it (or Alfred as part of his childhood). I mean, I loved Caine's paternal Alfred in the first movie, but the more I think on it, the more I dislike the concept of it in the comics, and heavily promoting Leslie in that fashion is likely to bring her into that role in the comics more (if movie is a success), and I would rather it be abandoned in the next reboot. Alfred's changed role is a lost cause for me now, but Leslie's isn't.

It seems to me that the post-COIE editors have tried to have it both ways--giving Bruce all this emotional support in his youth, after losing his parents, from the likes of Alfred and Leslie--yet insisting that his experience was so tragic he was damaged for life.

Yep.

Whereas the pre-COIE editors presented a young Bruce that didn't have much support, left on his own to choose his own path, yet ended up a stoic humanitarian, not overly self-involved with his grief and always doing good for others--a fairly well-adjusted mature person.

Actually, I'd argue that for most of the history, pre-COIE generally told us nothing at all in regards to how much or little emotional support child!Bruce had. He was on good terms with all the relations we saw, even if they weren't seen often. I recall precisely one flashback to his childhood that showed Bruce with any relative other than his parents (when we saw Joe Chill's mom as uncle's housekeeper). There may be others, but certainly not many, and they weren't big stories, even in the bronze age. Though, admittedly, Philip did say he'd be working often. But there was affection with Mrs. Chilton in that case. And in 1980 he regarded her as in many ways like a "second mother." Called her "Mom Chilton" on first appearance. But even that was 30 years in. And I never liked young Bruce in the Robin costume, btw.

It seems post-COIE comics take a more dramatic and traumatic stance on death in general. Didn't Byrne say he kept the Kents alive partially because he couldn't imagine Clark not becoming someone like Batman if they were dead? Which is pretty stupid logic IMO.

'Tis true.

[John Venus]

I prefer Alfred and Leslie remaining as Bruce's surrogate parents. In fact, it's been way too long since Leslie played a part in Batman's mythology. The role seems to have been usurped by Lucius Fox. I prefer a younger Lucius thought but I think there is room for all three. In the older comics, it was kind of unrealistic for Alfred to be butler/medic/actor/mechanic/bat poop cleaner. So having Leslie serve as the medic and later on Lucius serve as Q to Batman was more believable.