Would you be open to a Bruce Wayne who ISN'T a famous public figure?

[Restingvoice]

Yeah, I'd be quite happy to have that aspect removed from Bruce, where he's the deep-pocket benefactor to everyone. Especially on that scale. For one, it's too similar to Tony and the Avengers (regardless of who was first), and it just... for me, that amount of money for Batman is like when people talk about Superman being overpowered. It's too many advantages. It makes things too easy.

I understand that. Bruce's richness is kind of a gag at this point

I never though of Tony, but I do think Bruce is too rich. I don't really care if Thomas or Martha are new money - I just don't want Bruce so unbelievably rich. No one should be moon-base rich.

Definitely not the moon base.

But I like the old money part. He's already so tightly connected with Gotham, so having him be a descendant of one of the founders just feels right.

Dick on the other hand... it couldn't be more obvious that Snyder wrote The Court, William Cobb, and them being a descendant of the other founding father as a story for Dick as Batman. Once he stopped being Batman, all those connections just don't have the same impact.

But back to the topic, I like the long family line.

[Frontier]

I enjoy Wayne Enterprises, so that's a no-go for me at least as far as main continuity is concerned. I'd rather just have Bruce be more involved in his actual company.

Cutting back his wealth...well, I dunno. Unless we're scaling things back to Golden Age level tech Batman on a budget just seems too limiting. People will be expecting the vehicles and the gadgets and, conceptually, Bruce will need a vast (and maybe limitless) amount of wealth to maintain and build all that.

As far as how famous he is, I prefer Bruce as a public figure with a reputation if only because that emphasizes the secret identity aspect. He needs to be out there, he needs to be public, and he needs to not act like Batman. Maybe it would help support the secret identity if people didn't really know him (or maybe it would make them more suspicious), but from a narrative standpoint I think it works better.

[Fergus]

Our preferences are largely in sync, although I like Batman having a team... but I would prefer to see the Bat Family contextualized as more of a "team" than a "family." I like that they are close and familial, a found family, but literalizing the family dynamic isn't actually necessary. It starts getting problematic when Bruce is a legal adopted guardian, and also their vigilante mentor... IMO, the (original) origins for Tim Drake and Barbara Gordon are the right direction -- they are inspired by Batman and want to join the crusade.

It's been 20+ years of "Batman is a dysfunctional, borderline abusive father figure to his sidekicks who he is reluctant to accept." Instead, I'd love to see "Batman is a flawed and eccentric but generous mentor. He knows he became Batman by spending a decade training as a pupil under various masters in crime-fighting. He understands the importance of teaching his skills to other worthy pupils to achieve his goal of creating a lasting symbol of hope in Gotham."

Especially after King's run, I'm personally just tapped out on "Bruce's father/Bruce as a father" ... there are other themes and dynamics available!

All the Robins and Cass were inspired by Batman and wanted to join his crusade not just TIm and Babs.
The concept of Bruce allowing his kids to take part in his dangerous activities is problematic but not anywhere as problematic as Bruce allowing a kid from a stable safe home to join his crusade without his parents consent.


We do have your Batman. He did teach his skills to worthy pupils and he did create a lasting symbol of hope in Gotham. Dick Grayson and the Batfamily are exactly that. Batman and Robin Reborn was all about that and that hope endures into the future with Terry.

Only he did more than that he created a family and he became family to those who had none.

I like Batman as a father and the concept of the Batfamily. It's one of the things that drew me to the character sadly that side of the character has been ignored in recent years.


Todays Tec is a good argument for Bruce Wayne being a public figure and why it is necessary.
We also got a flawed caring Batdad so the abusive dad trope is only under some writers

Bruce's crusade is a two prong approach. Punching at night and striking terror as Batman and Bruce Wayne the public figure safe guarding and improving as a symbol for good by day.

Taylor showcased both perfectly in today's issue. We don't often get to see the importance of Bruce the public figure and why it is necessary so I'm glad Taylor reminded us.

I don't mind the inherited wealthy and company since it gives a believable explanation for certain elements of his lore and his lifestyle:
explains how he can afford his war on crime
explains how he was able to dedicated the time and pay for all his training and travels
It explain's how he can afford to get brutalised everynight without worrying about getting up to go to work the next day. etc

[Aahz]

We still need a lot of his money to fund the League. That Satellite isn't something a starter businessman can do. Unless everyone's cool with using The Fortress of Solitude since both Atlantis and Themyscira aren't friendly to outsiders.

Superman or the Green Lanterns (or the Hawks) could probably build it without much funding.

And since they don't Rockets to fly stuff into space it is anyway much cheaper for them, as for anybody else.

[gregpersons]

I definitely prefer not as a famous, and have posted on it before. This may be a touch more famous than you are for, I'm not sure.

I nevert though of Tony, but I do think Bruce is too rich. I don't really care if Thomas or Martha are new money - I just don't want Bruce so unbelievably rich. No one should be moon-base rich. Overpowered is a thing - to me, I don't like the way the money sort of creates an obligation to Bruce, it makes other characters "owe" him, even if if they don't know about it. Him buying the DP, Lois and Clark's apartment, or even saving Jaime's father's business of rebuilding the home are bothersome to me, which I've mentioned before.

In regards to Playboy facade, I've said before I hate Brucie, but I am not more fond of the "alpha Bruce" presented for the new run, where normal people are routinely intimidated by or scared of him. Neither is appropriately grounded to me. I want a more "real" Bruce being Bruce, even if he does play up the socialite a bit, and I don't want real Bruce to be a force that dominates all those around him (have had issues with that for quite while) or just (as some descriptions seemed) like he's Batman out of costume (completely devoted to cleaning up Gotham with nothing else going on) as well as in. More consumed by his mission and with no real life outside it. I wanted actual friends and life outside the cape.

Thanks for sharing your Tumblr post, I loved it! Our views are largely in sync.

Great point about how Bruce's wealth creates a web of dependent relationships. Owning the Daily Planet and funding the Justice League means that literally every one of Bruce's friends and family are on his payroll.

I fully agree on wanting a healthier Bruce. Not for the benefit of the character — for the benefit of the stories!

I really think we've hit a dead end with Bruce's current status. It doesn't seem to get framed as "overpowered" in fan discussions, since he doesn't literally have superpowers, but that's what it is. And just like when Superman's overpowered, eventually the character descends into self-parody. It's becoming almost obligatory for characters to make meta references about Bruce's superpower being his money. The money goes hand-in-hand with what used to be seen as Batman's overpowered angle "prep time" — instead of showing us process (like a detective), instead Batman can just deliver the end result with his money or prep-time being enough explanation. It's no different than Batman having "anti-shark repellent" on hand.

Instead of killing Batman's supporting cast to bring the character "back to basics", writers should consider removing some of Batman's advantage baggage. Show us a Batman who needs to earn his privilege a bit more, earn his tools, and earn his victories. He doesn't need to be Peter Parker broke, but he the stakes will always be lower if Batman has infinite money and resources. The idea that Batman is the most "human" superhero goes out the window.

[Valentonis]

For people asking how the JL would work with a less rich Batman, remember that Batman is far from the only rich guy in the DCU. I can imagine him, Queen, Kord and the like pooling together their resources to fund the team.

[gregpersons]

I enjoy Wayne Enterprises, so that's a no-go for me at least as far as main continuity is concerned. I'd rather just have Bruce be more involved in his actual company.

Cutting back his wealth...well, I dunno. Unless we're scaling things back to Golden Age level tech Batman on a budget just seems too limiting. People will be expecting the vehicles and the gadgets and, conceptually, Bruce will need a vast (and maybe limitless) amount of wealth to maintain and build all that.

As far as how famous he is, I prefer Bruce as a public figure with a reputation if only because that emphasizes the secret identity aspect. He needs to be out there, he needs to be public, and he needs to not act like Batman. Maybe it would help support the secret identity if people didn't really know him (or maybe it would make them more suspicious), but from a narrative standpoint I think it works better.

If we take a step back from the comic book logic of it, it doesn't make sense that Bruce being a famous public figure helps him maintain a secret identity as a vigilante. It makes it, actually, much easier to connect the two, since they are both celebrities in the Gotham media. It's exactly as ludicrous as Clark Kent's glasses disguise. Bruce Wayne's disguise is... he smiles. Batman doesn't smile! Superman doesn't wear glasses!

From the secret identity perspective on narrative possibilities, it's essentially moot. That story line is always fairly narrow, and deeply well-trod by every superhero. If a character is cornered on their secret, they have a friend show up as their alter-ego, and then that's it, suspicion averted. Obviously there's fun in the secret identity conceit, but the fun comes just from having to keep an amazing secret.

I think there's more narrative advantages gained if Bruce Wayne and Batman are not BOTH public figures/celebrities, as I outlined in the OP, just by opening up Bruce as a chameleon a bit more.

On the other hand, this always remains open to other members of the Bat Family, so maybe it works best having Bruce be famous in both roles. I must say that the dinner scene issue in "War of Jokes and Riddles" is my favorite recent example of Bruce utilizing his prominent old money status to save Gotham. It was clever!

[gregpersons]

But I like the old money part. He's already so tightly connected with Gotham, so having him be a descendant of one of the founders just feels right.

Dick on the other hand... it couldn't be more obvious that Snyder wrote The Court, William Cobb, and them being a descendant of the other founding father as a story for Dick as Batman. Once he stopped being Batman, all those connections just don't have the same impact.

But back to the topic, I like the long family line.

Don't get me wrong, I've liked plenty of Batman stories that incorporate his family history or connection to Gotham to stir up some drama. But that aspect of the character wouldn't be in my top 25 favorite things about Batman, and I think it's worth challenging the concept, because I don't think that it's absolutely necessary.

In fact, I think it creates more problematic areas than it provides interesting story paths. If Bruce is old money Gotham and as Batman he's warring on criminals with infinite resources, then how do you make him the underdog? It's the same overpower problem Superman has. It's why his villains have to be, like, Alternate Reality Batman or The Devil.

Worse, if he "owns" Gotham— with his blood lineage; with his wealth and company; with Batman as the de-facto czar of Gotham— it makes Batman seem like a "nationalist" or "nativist" type of character. It begins to make Bruce seem like a cruel property owner who refuses to share, as opposed to a compassionate individual working to change the system. It makes him both Lex Luthor and Superman. Particularly in the current political climate, I think it only leads to bad optics for the character, and the idea that "he's just a rich guy beating up on poor people." I have never felt like that's the core of the character.

As I think it through, I think I prefer Batman claiming ownership of "the night" rather than "Gotham" because, obviously, you can't "own" the elements. But the current status quo does make it as though Bruce does literally "own" Gotham.

The best Batman stories find a way to make Bruce an outsider and an underdog. This is part of the reason Year One and Dark Knight Returns are great, or why Court of Owls resonated. You want your hero to appear outmatched, otherwise where's the challenge?

Again, not saying it hasn't been the status quo for some great stories. I just don't see it as essential. Batman has evolved

[Frontier]

If we take a step back from the comic book logic of it, it doesn't make sense that Bruce being a famous public figure helps him maintain a secret identity as a vigilante. It makes it, actually, much easier to connect the two, since they are both celebrities in the Gotham media. It's exactly as ludicrous as Clark Kent's glasses disguise. Bruce Wayne's disguise is... he smiles. Batman doesn't smile! Superman doesn't wear glasses!

Yeah, but they act completely opposite.

I think more people are liable to assume an isolated and secretive billionaire is Batman then a partygoing, fun-loving CEO who knows how to mingle. This actually comes up with Year One where they immediately suspect Bruce Wayne is Batman until he fakes his injury and Gordon first meets Bruce as "Bruce."

Unless people really focus on their chins, I don't see this as a Clark Kent issue.

I think there's more narrative advantages gained if Bruce Wayne and Batman are not BOTH public figures/celebrities, as I outlined in the OP, just by opening up Bruce as a chameleon a bit more.

There's only so much you can do with Batman as a purported myth, as the comics exhibited. Maybe if it were like an Elseworlds or a fresh from the start take, but not on an ongoing, mainstream, basis in my opinion.

[gregpersons]

Yeah, but they act completely opposite.

I think more people are liable to assume an isolated and secretive billionaire is Batman then a partygoing, fun-loving CEO who knows how to mingle. This actually comes up with Year One where they immediately suspect Bruce Wayne is Batman until he fakes his injury and Gordon first meets Bruce as "Bruce."

Unless people really focus on their chins, I don't see this as a Clark Kent issue.

Right. That scene in Year One was a brilliant move on Miller's part. It's easy to forget that prior to this, Gordon was basically an old buffoon. As he developed Gordon into a more competent character, he had to address head-on why this detective couldn't put 2 and 2 together about Bruce Wayne and Batman since... it's right there.

He's got the motive. The means. They both show up around the same time. Forget about the chin, they have the same build. If you happened to see Bruce in a bathrobe with spiky unkempt hair, he'd have Batman's exact silhouette. Gordon correctly deduces Batman's identity and sees through Bruce's performance, too. If Bruce hadn't demonstrated his value, particularly by rescuing Jim's son, Gordon might've ended Batman's career before it began. (There's an interesting "Dark Tales of the Multiverse" elseworlds scenario to explore!)

There's only so much you can do with Batman as a purported myth, as the comics exhibited. Maybe if it were like an Elseworlds or a fresh from the start take, but not on an ongoing, mainstream, basis in my opinion.

Right. I agree. I don't think "Batman as an urban legend" is a sustainable status quo, nor am I suggesting it! Even when it was most actively deployed during the Rucka/Brubaker era, I always thought it was missing the point a bit.

It seems to me Batman clearly does want people to know he exists -- just now how he exists. "Batman" is a performance (the Nolan trilogy nailed this better than most of the comics had until that point) by an individual who understands the value of theatrical imagery and communicating via symbols. The true Bruce Wayne is a spy: he can competently assume different roles to complete his objectives. The true Bruce Wayne is creative: he invents an identity, method, and means. The true Bruce Wayne is ambitious and process-oriented: he's setting the bar impossibly high, but dedicating every ounce of the rest of his life to completing it.

So, Batman being famous is a given... building a specific reputation is the express purpose of the project. It's entirely pointless if Batman is an unknown element in Gotham.

The question I'm presenting is — narratively, can you imagine a status quo with the standard famous Batman, but an anonymous Bruce Wayne?
And if you're open to that, what new facets of Bruce's character could be explored if he had to be more DIY by necessity?
What new situations could arise from Bruce Wayne having the freedom of anonymity, even as he builds Batman's presence?

I'm interested to read about the ideas that come to mind for people of how stories might look, or how it could work with this variable of the character adjusted.
I think it's more fun to explore possibilities than say "well that hasn't happened, so no" (speaking generally; not accusing you or anyone specifically of doing that) so that's where I'm trying to drive the conversation.

[Tzigone]

Yeah, but they act completely opposite.

I think more people are liable to assume an isolated and secretive billionaire is Batman then a partygoing, fun-loving CEO who knows how to mingle. This actually comes up with Year One where they immediately suspect Bruce Wayne is Batman until he fakes his injury and Gordon first meets Bruce as "Bruce."

That makes no sense to me. I like the old-school version where Gotham is home to so many people and they've no reason to suspect any particular one. Of course, there were fewer amazingly expensive things then. Liked that, too. And how the hell would any normal person know Batman's personality? Gordon, maybe, but anyone else - heck no. He shouldn't stick around and chat.

However, I don't want Bruce Wayne an isolated and secretive billionaire, either. I'd rather him like he used to be. A socialite. A bit of playboy. A parental figure to whatever kid. An intelligent enough man (maybe a good businessman if you like him involved in the day-to-day) who donates to charity and likes to engage in recreational activities more than work (if you don't like him involved in the business). But definitely not the Brucie guy he was later. And I don't even like Batman as the isolated billionaire. As I said, badass, alpha Bruce that we might be getting is as unwelcome to me as the fake Brucie.

Right. That scene in Year One was a brilliant move on Miller's part. It's easy to forget that prior to this, Gordon was basically an old buffoon. As he developed Gordon into a more competent character, he had to address head-on why this detective couldn't put 2 and 2 together about Bruce Wayne and Batman since... it's right there.

I thought Gordon was not at all a buffon when he was Barbara's supporting character in the bronze age.

It seems to me Batman clearly does want people to know he exists -- just now how he exists. "Batman" is a performance (the Nolan trilogy nailed this better than most of the comics had until that point) by an individual who understands the value of theatrical imagery and communicating via symbols. The true Bruce Wayne is a spy: he can competently assume different roles to complete his objectives. The true Bruce Wayne is creative: he invents an identity, method, and means. The true Bruce Wayne is ambitious and process-oriented: he's setting the bar impossibly high, but dedicating every ounce of the rest of his life to completing it.

Batman is absolutely theatrics and performance. My problem is I don't want Bruce Wayne to be a performance for real-guy Batman (a very heavy element since the 90s, at least), but to be a well-rounded person who's 80-90% genuine, while just hiding the superhero part of himself. I don't want every interaction in everyday life with everyone outside his family to be fake. I've commented similarly on Clark Kent as a false personality.

I kinda like the idea of villains, criminals, or the general population thinking of Batman as a force of nature, almost. I mean, they know he's a real person, but they don't think of him eating food or going home or anything but he shows up and criminals go down. Some wondering if he's meta. At least in the early days. It's not sustainable with the police, at least those who ever interact with him (Bullock, Montoya, etc.). Hey, does anyone remember the issue (Batman #423 "You Shoulda Seen Him...") with the cops all telling stories about Batman? Ended with a couple kids sleeping over at Bruce's house until their aunt came to get custody.

[Frontier]

He's got the motive. The means. They both show up around the same time. Forget about the chin, they have the same build. If you happened to see Bruce in a bathrobe with spiky unkempt hair, he'd have Batman's exact silhouette. Gordon correctly deduces Batman's identity and sees through Bruce's performance, too. If Bruce hadn't demonstrated his value, particularly by rescuing Jim's son, Gordon might've ended Batman's career before it began. (There's an interesting "Dark Tales of the Multiverse" elseworlds scenario to explore!)

I don't think it'd be that obvious .

That makes no sense to me. I like the old-school version where Gotham is home to so many people and they've no reason to suspect any particular one. Of course, there were fewer amazingly expensive things then. Liked that, too. And how the hell would any normal person know Batman's personality? Gordon, maybe, but anyone else - heck no. He shouldn't stick around and chat.

I don't think quantity of citizens is really a factor so much as, the kind of person Batman is, there's a limited possibility of the kind of person who could physically and financially pull off the kind of stuff Batman does. He's no average joe.

I think Batman's personality stands out pretty well when you see how he operates. The fact that he doesn't chat is as indicative as anything else.

However, I don't want Bruce Wayne an isolated and secretive billionaire, either. I'd rather him like he used to be. A socialite. A bit of playboy. A parental figure to whatever kid. An intelligent enough man (maybe a good businessman if you like him involved in the day-to-day) who donates to charity and likes to engage in recreational activities more than work (if you don't like him involved in the business). But definitely not the Brucie guy he was later. And I don't even like Batman as the isolated billionaire. As I said, badass, alpha Bruce that we might be getting is as unwelcome to me as the fake Brucie.

So B:TAS Bruce, basically.

I thought Gordon was not at all a buffon when he was Barbara's supporting character in the bronze age.

He did figure out Babs was Batgirl.

[Tzigone]

I think Batman's personality stands out pretty well when you see how he operates. The fact that he doesn't chat is as indicative as anything else.

Not really. It just means he's done with you and on to the next thing (from a criminal's perspective).

Actually, in reference to what I said before: it was Batman 423 "You Shoulda Seen Him..." and Batman is different to every cop that saw him that night, because he was operating in different context every time. So how are they - or anyone who doesn't interact with him extensively - ever going to identify him with one personality/real person? And for some of these aspects, there's simply no reason to every see Bruce Wayne in such a circumstance.

So B:TAS Bruce, basically.

Honestly, I liked B:TAS, but loathed what it became later so very much that I have not rewatched in an age. I can't remember. But really, most times up through the early 90s, Bruce's everyday personality seemed okay with me, even in the latter years when Batman got more jerkish.

[Frontier]

Not really. It just means he's done with you and on to the next thing (from a criminal's perspective).

But I think that's indicative of his persona and what he's like, especially contrasted with other heroes or the people he works with, like Robin.

Again, Bruce probably wouldn't act that way with people.

Actually, in reference to what I said before: it was Batman 423 "You Shoulda Seen Him..." and Batman is different to every cop that saw him that night, because he was operating in different context every time. So how are they - or anyone who doesn't interact with him extensively - ever going to identify him with one personality/real person? And for some of these aspects, there's simply no reason to every see Bruce Wayne in such a circumstance.

Especially because he doesn't act at all like Batman as Bruce Wayne .

I think there's enough of a standard of how Batman operates for people to gleam if you pay attention enough, but he is a very complex enough as a hero to leave several different impressions. Bust most people think of Batman as a dark, brooding, standoffish caped crusader.

[Restingvoice]

Don't get me wrong, I've liked plenty of Batman stories that incorporate his family history or connection to Gotham to stir up some drama. But that aspect of the character wouldn't be in my top 25 favorite things about Batman, and I think it's worth challenging the concept, because I don't think that it's absolutely necessary.

In fact, I think it creates more problematic areas than it provides interesting story paths. If Bruce is old money Gotham and as Batman he's warring on criminals with infinite resources, then how do you make him the underdog? It's the same overpower problem Superman has. It's why his villains have to be, like, Alternate Reality Batman or The Devil.

Worse, if he "owns" Gotham— with his blood lineage; with his wealth and company; with Batman as the de-facto czar of Gotham— it makes Batman seem like a "nationalist" or "nativist" type of character. It begins to make Bruce seem like a cruel property owner who refuses to share, as opposed to a compassionate individual working to change the system. It makes him both Lex Luthor and Superman. Particularly in the current political climate, I think it only leads to bad optics for the character, and the idea that "he's just a rich guy beating up on poor people." I have never felt like that's the core of the character.

As I think it through, I think I prefer Batman claiming ownership of "the night" rather than "Gotham" because, obviously, you can't "own" the elements. But the current status quo does make it as though Bruce does literally "own" Gotham.

The best Batman stories find a way to make Bruce an outsider and an underdog. This is part of the reason Year One and Dark Knight Returns are great, or why Court of Owls resonated. You want your hero to appear outmatched, otherwise where's the challenge?

Again, not saying it hasn't been the status quo for some great stories. I just don't see it as essential. Batman has evolved

People think he's a rich guy beating up on poor people because they're only looking on the surface, and just either forget or don't know that he doesn't beat up people if they surrender first, the people he beat up are dangerous and he gives them jobs. It's an image problem that happens out of the story, not in the story, so it doesn't matter much for me.

While he has infinite resources, he can't just use every one of them. Most of them still have to go to the Enterprise, and he still has to keep things a secret.

I think that's the problem for me. Writers are too busy making him cool that they just skip the struggle. Batman Year One works well because they want to show that struggle.

He's still rich with old money in Year One, he just doesn't have the pull and contact he has now, and they detail his struggle instead of skipping it for the rule of cool today.

They no longer depict how people can find out he's Batman if he's not as careful as anything relevant.

It's like the "I'm Batman" problem where that's the answer to why he can do anything. The riches become a crutch instead of adding a layer of complexity.

Oh yeah, I just like the old money element but it's not that essential for Batman doing what he does, as long as he has enough resources.