Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 73
  1. #31
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by josai21 View Post
    Personally, the only thing I want is for an author, not a comic book serial writer, but an actual writer along the lines of Neil Gaiman or the like to sit down and right Batman. Give him a definitive beginning, middle, and end. And then...let that be it. Comics are dying anyways. They're used more as experimental grounds for the larger media forms than actual story telling. I'd do this for all the main heroes personally. Give the DC Verse a definitive beginning, middle, and end.
    And just end it for everyone who still enjoys having new Batman stories to read? Why? If it dies naturally then it dies, but don't euthanize it just because you're done with it. I might not follow the monthlies myself, but I keep getting trades and minis and one shots and OGNs and hope to continue to do so for decades to come. Some of it is in continuity, some of it isn't, but basically all of it would end if WB took this suggestion. I don't see what's so appealing about just ending it. I love getting Batman stories, always will - and no, spending the rest of my life trying to collect and read all the old stuff and getting nothing new in the future doesn't interest me.

  2. #32
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,926

    Default

    Charity donations are tax deductible which is often why they are done in real life by rich people. I also have to wonder if the money Bruce donates would be a lot more adequate if he weren't also spending it on vigilante technology and weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vakanai View Post
    Perhaps, but I was thinking less why that question fell out of favor and more why has this question suddenly seemed to rise in popularity, along with the question of Batman "punching down" against the poor and mentally ill when that's not really true largely.
    Because the comics keep pointing this out and drawing attention to it. Arkham Asylum still exists despite most Gotham villains being more caricatures of mental illness, the common image of Batman is him descending upon a simple street thug and terrifying him out of his life and the guy's motivation is him deciding to take physical revenge on all criminals for something that happened to him as a child because of a common crook. And of course there's the "Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot" phrase uttered by the character in his earlier adventures.
    Last edited by Agent Z; 04-27-2020 at 08:06 PM.

  3. #33
    Astonishing Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    4,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crossfist View Post
    What do you say to or think about this particular criticism of Batman? I think "Batman" as a story does its job of justifying the need for Batman as a character. Yeah he's rich, but Gotham City (and the larger DC universe) have problems that necessarily be solved with money. And he regularly deals with people who have enough resources to bankroll armies of goons, doomsday plots, weapons, etc.

    Still, all that doesn't stop someone from seeing Batman as an elite who just wants to punch down. What do you think?
    Boring entertainment and ignores that a lot of his enemies aren't doing it for the money

  4. #34
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Charity donations are tax deductible which is often why they are done in real life by rich people. I also have to wonder if the money Bruce donates would be a lot more adequate if he weren't also spending it on vigilante technology and weapons.
    Realistically, it probably would be. But this isn't a realistic story, and if he gave up the superhero life we wouldn't have any story. Nobody signed up for "non superhero rich dude fights poverty and nothing exciting happens."

    In a universe where the Greek Gods are actually 100% real and alien invasions are a regular occurrence and readers just accept it, Bruce having a fantastical amount of money he can pour into rehabilitating Gotham while also afford being Batman shouldn't be taking anyone out of the story.



    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Because the comics keep pointing this out and drawing attention to it. Arkham Asylum still exists despite most Gotham villains being more caricatures of mental illness, the common image of Batman is him descending upon a simple street thug and terrifying him out of his life and the guy's motivation is him deciding to take physical revenge on all criminals for something that happened to him as a child because of a common crook. And of course there's the "Criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot" phrase uttered by the character in his earlier adventures.
    The common image of Batman is punching the Joker, a monstrous criminal who isn't hurting for money. A lot of the times, the simple street thugs he (and his allies, a lot of whom don't come from rich backgrounds) swoop down on are doing immediate crimes like robbing and assaulting other average, middle-lower class citizens. When its a female victims, threats of rape are usually involved. I don't see why we shouldn't side with the intervening Batman, especially in the latter case.

    The phrase is less common than it used to be. It still crops up, but it being from the 1940s means its not always still relevant to modern discussions.

  5. #35
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Realistically, it probably would be. But this isn't a realistic story, and if he gave up the superhero life we wouldn't have any story. Nobody signed up for "non superhero rich dude fights poverty and nothing exciting happens."

    In a universe where the Greek Gods are actually 100% real and alien invasions are a regular occurrence and readers just accept it, Bruce having a fantastical amount of money he can pour into rehabilitating Gotham while also afford being Batman shouldn't be taking anyone out of the story.





    The common image of Batman is punching the Joker, a monstrous criminal who isn't hurting for money. A lot of the times, the simple street thugs he (and his allies, a lot of whom don't come from rich backgrounds) swoop down on are doing immediate crimes like robbing and assaulting other average, middle-lower class citizens. When its a female victims, threats of rape are usually involved. I don't see why we shouldn't side with the intervening Batman, especially in the latter case.

    The phrase is less common than it used to be. It still crops up, but it being from the 1940s means its not always still relevant to modern discussions.
    Fair enough.

  6. #36
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    Fair enough.
    I do think writers could be more sensitive to certain optics though.
    Like I don't think Batman beating up the average street thugs is a main draw for the majority of his audience either. If they were to do less of that and just focus on the OTT super crime or the low level supernatural threats he used to fight (vampires, ghosts, werewolves) I don't think it would impact his popularity all that much, and you could show how he contributes to making life for a lot of Gotham better and reduce normal crime.

    Also, while it's perhaps way too late to get rid of Arkham as a setting, more effort could be done to:

    1. emphasize that it's specifically for violent mentally ill criminals, not the only mental health facility in Gotham, and Gotham attracts an unusual breed
    2. it's run by quacks and has very few doctors who know what they are doing
    3. it's made clear that the more infamous inmates barring maybe Two-Face don't actually belong there, and they are just getting a lighter sentence. Their presence is actually dangerous to those inmates who DO belong there.

  7. #37
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Has there ever been a story where Bruce tries to buy Arkham or build his own Asylum?

  8. #38
    Fantastic Member Gotham citizen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    477

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I do think writers could be more sensitive to certain optics though.
    Like I don't think Batman beating up the average street thugs is a main draw for the majority of his audience either. If they were to do less of that and just focus on the OTT super crime or the low level supernatural threats he used to fight (vampires, ghosts, werewolves) I don't think it would impact his popularity all that much, and you could show how he contributes to making life for a lot of Gotham better and reduce normal crime.

    Also, while it's perhaps way too late to get rid of Arkham as a setting, more effort could be done to:

    1. emphasize that it's specifically for violent mentally ill criminals, not the only mental health facility in Gotham, and Gotham attracts an unusual breed
    2. it's run by quacks and has very few doctors who know what they are doing
    3. it's made clear that the more infamous inmates barring maybe Two-Face don't actually belong there, and they are just getting a lighter sentence. Their presence is actually dangerous to those inmates who DO belong there.
    Of course I agree with everything; again.

  9. #39
    A Wearied Madness Vakanai's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    5,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I do think writers could be more sensitive to certain optics though.
    Like I don't think Batman beating up the average street thugs is a main draw for the majority of his audience either. If they were to do less of that and just focus on the OTT super crime or the low level supernatural threats he used to fight (vampires, ghosts, werewolves) I don't think it would impact his popularity all that much, and you could show how he contributes to making life for a lot of Gotham better and reduce normal crime.

    Also, while it's perhaps way too late to get rid of Arkham as a setting, more effort could be done to:

    1. emphasize that it's specifically for violent mentally ill criminals, not the only mental health facility in Gotham, and Gotham attracts an unusual breed
    2. it's run by quacks and has very few doctors who know what they are doing
    3. it's made clear that the more infamous inmates barring maybe Two-Face don't actually belong there, and they are just getting a lighter sentence. Their presence is actually dangerous to those inmates who DO belong there.
    I don't know, even in the safest cities street crime still happens. I wouldn't want Batman to be completely divorced from smacking around those kind of thugs. I'd rather just balance those scenes with other scenes where he goes against middle and upper class criminals as well. I think it'd get stale or less interesting if it was just fighting colorful super villains all the time.

    I'm going to be honest, just like the Batman should kill debate before it, I don't think the question posed by this thread is actually a problem or that anything should be done about it...

  10. #40
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Realistically, it probably would be. But this isn't a realistic story, and if he gave up the superhero life we wouldn't have any story. Nobody signed up for "non superhero rich dude fights poverty and nothing exciting happens."

    In a universe where the Greek Gods are actually 100% real and alien invasions are a regular occurrence and readers just accept it, Bruce having a fantastical amount of money he can pour into rehabilitating Gotham while also afford being Batman shouldn't be taking anyone out of the story.





    The common image of Batman is punching the Joker, a monstrous criminal who isn't hurting for money. A lot of the times, the simple street thugs he (and his allies, a lot of whom don't come from rich backgrounds) swoop down on are doing immediate crimes like robbing and assaulting other average, middle-lower class citizens. When its a female victims, threats of rape are usually involved. I don't see why we shouldn't side with the intervening Batman, especially in the latter case.

    The phrase is less common than it used to be. It still crops up, but it being from the 1940s means its not always still relevant to modern discussions.
    I'd point out the Joker isn't exactly living in a mansion (Arkham is the closest thing he has to a consistent home). Most of Bruce's rogues gallery aren't rich at all, with their equipment either being things they make themselves or steal from someone else. That's nothing compared to what Bruce has been shown with.

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I do think writers could be more sensitive to certain optics though.
    Like I don't think Batman beating up the average street thugs is a main draw for the majority of his audience either. If they were to do less of that and just focus on the OTT super crime or the low level supernatural threats he used to fight (vampires, ghosts, werewolves) I don't think it would impact his popularity all that much, and you could show how he contributes to making life for a lot of Gotham better and reduce normal crime.

    Also, while it's perhaps way too late to get rid of Arkham as a setting, more effort could be done to:

    1. emphasize that it's specifically for violent mentally ill criminals, not the only mental health facility in Gotham, and Gotham attracts an unusual breed
    2. it's run by quacks and has very few doctors who know what they are doing
    3. it's made clear that the more infamous inmates barring maybe Two-Face don't actually belong there, and they are just getting a lighter sentence. Their presence is actually dangerous to those inmates who DO belong there.
    This I could live with.

  11. #41
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    51,380

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I do think writers could be more sensitive to certain optics though.
    Like I don't think Batman beating up the average street thugs is a main draw for the majority of his audience either. If they were to do less of that and just focus on the OTT super crime or the low level supernatural threats he used to fight (vampires, ghosts, werewolves) I don't think it would impact his popularity all that much, and you could show how he contributes to making life for a lot of Gotham better and reduce normal crime.
    I don't know if I'd say it's the main appeal, but I think people on a general basis do enjoy the sight of Batman swooping down and cleaning the clocks of your average crooks and leaving them tied up for the police.

    I mean, 80% of the combat in the Arkham game is Batman beating up thugs with his fists, gadgets, and stealth takedowns.
    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Z View Post
    I'd point out the Joker isn't exactly living in a mansion (Arkham is the closest thing he has to a consistent home). Most of Bruce's rogues gallery aren't rich at all, with their equipment either being things they make themselves or steal from someone else. That's nothing compared to what Bruce has been shown with.
    Should that really matter?

  12. #42
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    2,010

    Default

    I think part of it is just down to the preponderance of 'left-wing' and 'liberal' thinking in a lot of discource these days, especially in media. So naturally, everything has to be political, and looked at from the prism of class and identity politics.

    Bruce Wayne pretty much checks the boxes for every trait that left-wingers or liberals hate, or are supposed to hate. He's a rich, white male. That'd be damning enough. But he's also a rich, white male who uses violent methods to fight crime. "Fighting crime" is now basically equated with discriminating against the poor, and with fascism, according to this worldview.

    Now of course, the vast majority of Batman fans across the globe just prefer to enjoy his adventures. But a lot of the discussion forums tend to revolve around left-wing politics these days, so naturally Batman is an easy target.

    Look, the foundation of the Batman mythos is a young rich kid being victimized by a criminal and then devoting his life to victimizing criminals in turn. Its all about preying on the predators, be it a street thug, crime lord, corrupt city official or homicidal maniac in a costume. There are some interesting political discussions to be had with the character, but beyond a point, he's really not meant to be political.

  13. #43
    Extraordinary Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    I think part of it is just down to the preponderance of 'left-wing' and 'liberal' thinking in a lot of discource these days, especially in media. So naturally, everything has to be political, and looked at from the prism of class and identity politics.

    Bruce Wayne pretty much checks the boxes for every trait that left-wingers or liberals hate, or are supposed to hate. He's a rich, white male. That'd be damning enough. But he's also a rich, white male who uses violent methods to fight crime. "Fighting crime" is now basically equated with discriminating against the poor, and with fascism, according to this worldview.

    Now of course, the vast majority of Batman fans across the globe just prefer to enjoy his adventures. But a lot of the discussion forums tend to revolve around left-wing politics these days, so naturally Batman is an easy target.

    Look, the foundation of the Batman mythos is a young rich kid being victimized by a criminal and then devoting his life to victimizing criminals in turn. Its all about preying on the predators, be it a street thug, crime lord, corrupt city official or homicidal maniac in a costume. There are some interesting political discussions to be had with the character, but beyond a point, he's really not meant to be political.
    yeah, I think Batman should chiefly be about protecting the innocent (no matter their background) from predators (no matter what form they take). There's an inescapable element of revenge fantasy with Batman, but to what degree it is implemented varies between versions. i vastly prefer a more mellow Batman who uses violence sparingly, and is chiefly concerned about protecting the innocent rather than punishing the guilty.

    And I think a lot of the discourse doesn't delve into too much depth beyond looking at the boxes being checked off. With how much material there is of Batman, there is doubtless plenty that ******* their claims...but also plenty that goes against it. He isn't any one thing.

    I also think his origin helps people relate to him no matter the background. Having your parents torn away from you violently is every kid's nightmare. It doesn't matter that he's rich, no child should ever have to experience that.

  14. #44
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,566

    Wink

    This topic reminds me of a parody video (one of my favorites) about Batman/Bruce Wayne -

    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  15. #45
    Fantastic Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    345

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    I think part of it is just down to the preponderance of 'left-wing' and 'liberal' thinking in a lot of discource these days, especially in media. So naturally, everything has to be political, and looked at from the prism of class and identity politics.

    Bruce Wayne pretty much checks the boxes for every trait that left-wingers or liberals hate, or are supposed to hate. He's a rich, white male. That'd be damning enough. But he's also a rich, white male who uses violent methods to fight crime. "Fighting crime" is now basically equated with discriminating against the poor, and with fascism, according to this worldview.

    Now of course, the vast majority of Batman fans across the globe just prefer to enjoy his adventures. But a lot of the discussion forums tend to revolve around left-wing politics these days, so naturally Batman is an easy target.

    Look, the foundation of the Batman mythos is a young rich kid being victimized by a criminal and then devoting his life to victimizing criminals in turn. Its all about preying on the predators, be it a street thug, crime lord, corrupt city official or homicidal maniac in a costume. There are some interesting political discussions to be had with the character, but beyond a point, he's really not meant to be political.
    Don't think it has anything to do with politics or where you stand on the right-left wing divide. Like at all.

    For someone who's MO is "War on Crime" (irrespective of the source), there's just a more effective way of combating it. Purely from a practical standpoint.

    Sure I loved Batman just swooping in and punching bad guys...as a kid. But now (mid-30s) can't stop my brain thinking of the bigger picture and ponders the more practical approaches.

    Yeah I know they're comics and the suspension of belief must be done to a degree (e.g. Arkham's revolving door) but at the same time...

    Not everything is politically affiliated/ connected.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •