Originally Posted by
bat39
I broadly agree with you. But, particularly off-late, there have been a lot of attempts to inject politics into it, as we've seen in some of the discussions on this very thread. I was addressing that.
As for your point, yes, there are definitely more efficient ways for a billionaire philantrophist to fight crime. But one man, even one man with billions of dollars, can't really fix a city's chronic crime problem. Though he can certainly do a lot to help. I've always been of the school of thought that Bruce Wayne and Batman's efforts did make Gotham City a better place - but they couldn't fix it completely, and organized crime eventually gave way to costumed criminals who are harder to permanently stop.
Of course, to a large extent, Batman's mission isn't fully successful because the stories need to continue indefinitely. In the Nolanverse, for instance, Batman's one-year long crusade did pretty much end the Mob in Gotham, when combined with Harvey Dent's efforts.
Thomas Wayne is obviously portrayed as an unsympathetic character in Joker because it is Arthur Fleck's story, and even in the context of the film, we're told that Arthur is an unreliable narrator. But...a lot of people have latched onto the political subtexts of this film, and its helped feed into the idea of Thomas Wayne being the real 'villain' - something that resonates with a lot of left-wing politics today. If you watch the movie itself, I don't think you're meant to cheer on when the Joker-inspired gunman kills the Waynes, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who loved that bit from a real-world perspective.