What mainstream Batman idea you personally disagree with?

[thwhtGuardian]

No, but they see the tweet when it's trending

Yes if they're specific fans such as Marvel fans or Arrow fans but haven't touched Batman

It's still just trolling and most people know it, so worrying about it silly.

[thwhtGuardian]

And what about people who don't care about these left-leaning talking points? Should they leave the room?

Except they're nor real talking points

[SiegePerilous02]

And what about people who don't care about these left-leaning talking points? Should they leave the room?

They're shallow talking points, but ones that keep popping up anyway. It will happen no matter what because people are annoying and dumb, but Batman can be adjusted a bit to mitigate some of the criticisms without changing him too much.

The answer is apparently ''Yes''

Jokes apart, this is why I'm opposed to trying to pin superheroes down to a left/right binary or partisan politics (especially contemporary partisan politics). Because ultimately, these are stories about human beings and how they deal the world around them, not about ideologies.

I'd rather just avoid adding political ideologies in superhero stories as well, but since the beginnings of this genre has Captain America punching fascists in the face, it seems they've always been there to one degree or another, whether we want them to be or not.

I don't think Batman is a corrupt billionaire, or shouldn't qualify as a hero because he's rich (bad writing takes aside). He's a fantasy character who lives in the same universe as Superman. His morals are on the page for us to see, because he's fictional and we can know what he is thinking. But since the topic keeps popping up to the point where he's mocked on SNL, the Lego Batman movie has a "doesn't pay his taxes" joke that landed for the audience and people are walking around with t-shirts of his face with "EVIL" stamped on it, a shallow glance at the character can reinforce the meme for people who don't want to delve too deeply into the character's lore (because who does that aside from people like us?) and have strong opinions on real world events that further colors how they see the characters. Even some comic creators who'd be more knowledgeable have thrown shade at him (Kelly Sue DeConnick on her opinion of Batman: "There are no ethical billionaires."). Yeah these are human stories, but the humans who consume them always bring their human opinions to the readings. Batman leaning closer to reality than most other heroes (at least comparatively) really doesn't help him here.

And does Batman really have to be so absurdly rich, like "known across the globe and one of the richest people on the planet" rich? No, I don't think he does. People have to just deal with the fact that he's rich and can also be a good person, but that level of wealth is putting a bigger target on his back for criticism that we can probably just get rid of. It's only there so we can justify him paying for the JL headquarters or so Jim Lee can draw a double page spread of 20 highly advanced Batmobiles anyway. It's not there for any important story or character reason.

[HsssH]

They're shallow talking points, but ones that keep popping up anyway. It will happen no matter what because people are annoying and dumb, but Batman can be adjusted a bit to mitigate some of the criticisms without changing him too much.

I agree that things like Bruce being the richest man on Earth should be toned down, there is no reason why he has to fund the entire JL. But his relationship with Gordon/police and batsignal to me are way too important to remove.

[bat39]

They're shallow talking points, but ones that keep popping up anyway. It will happen no matter what because people are annoying and dumb, but Batman can be adjusted a bit to mitigate some of the criticisms without changing him too much.



I'd rather just avoid adding political ideologies in superhero stories as well, but since the beginnings of this genre has Captain America punching fascists in the face, it seems they've always been there to one degree or another, whether we want them to be or not.

I don't think Batman is a corrupt billionaire, or shouldn't qualify as a hero because he's rich (bad writing takes aside). He's a fantasy character who lives in the same universe as Superman. His morals are on the page for us to see, because he's fictional and we can know what he is thinking. But since the topic keeps popping up to the point where he's mocked on SNL, the Lego Batman movie has a "doesn't pay his taxes" joke that landed for the audience and people are walking around with t-shirts of his face with "EVIL" stamped on it, a shallow glance at the character can reinforce the meme for people who don't want to delve too deeply into the character's lore (because who does that aside from people like us?) and have strong opinions on real world events that further colors how they see the characters. Even some comic creators who'd be more knowledgeable have thrown shade at him (Kelly Sue DeConnick on her opinion of Batman: "There are no ethical billionaires."). Yeah these are human stories, but the humans who consume them always bring their human opinions to the readings. Batman leaning closer to reality than most other heroes (at least comparatively) really doesn't help him here.

And does Batman really have to be so absurdly rich, like "known across the globe and one of the richest people on the planet" rich? No, I don't think he does. People have to just deal with the fact that he's rich and can also be a good person, but that level of wealth is putting a bigger target on his back for criticism that we can probably just get rid of. It's only there so we can justify him paying for the JL headquarters or so Jim Lee can draw a double page spread of 20 highly advanced Batmobiles anyway. It's not there for any important story or character reason.

So your argument is basically that DC needs to pander to left-wing talking points with their biggest property?

I suppose if there was hard evidence that the majority of DC's audiences in the United States and globally are believers in socialism and in ''Defund the Police'' rhetoric, then maybe it makes sense for DC to lean this way - make Bruce Wayne poorer, turn the GCPD into absolute villains (as opposed to merely a sometimes corrupt police department), have Batman go easy on violent criminals but spend his nights targeting billionaires etc.

Who knows? I suppose the fate of Batman and DC lies in the fate of the United States, the Western world, and liberal democracy and society in general...

[SiegePerilous02]

I agree that things like Bruce being the richest man on Earth should be toned down, there is no reason why he has to fund the entire JL. But his relationship with Gordon/police and batsignal to me are way too important to remove.

I will concede the cop thing at this point mostly because of Gordon (personally I don't trust cops as a whole anymore, but I also don't subscribe to "all cops are bastards" either), but yeah the level of wealth needs to go.

So your argument is basically that DC needs to pander to left-wing talking points with their biggest property?

Not pander, just possibly have more awareness so the left wing talking points have less ground to stand on.

Unless you're really attached to his level of wealth being "billionaire" for some reason (when it serves no real story purpose besides paying for stupid Bat Mecha Suits) and think toning that down constitutes pandering.

[hairys]

Unless you're really attached to his level of wealth being "billionaire" for some reason (when it serves no real story purpose besides paying for stupid Bat Mecha Suits) and think toning that down constitutes pandering.

The problem is that Tynion is on record as saying that Bruce being a billionaire is unrealistic because he would've used his money to solve all of Gotham's problems already, without ever explaining how.

No one cares if Bruce is really a billionaire or "just" a millionaire. (And, in fact, if we go back to 1939, I wouldn't be surprised if Batman has spent more years as a millionaire than as a billionaire in the comics). Just don't make the change for a stupid reason is all we're asking.

[BlueElf94]

I disagree with the idea that Bruce exists in this perpetual grief state over his parents, where his every heroic act comes from some selfish place of catharsis. To me, his parents' dying ultimately galvanized him and made him a stronger, better person.

[Tzigone]

I disagree with the idea that Bruce exists in this perpetual grief state over his parents, where his every heroic act comes from some selfish place of catharsis. To me, his parents' dying ultimately galvanized him and made him a stronger, better person.

For me, he's someone motivated, but not consumed, by what happened to his parents. He is not still that traumatized little boy (or shouldn't be, anyway). It's sort of infantilizing. Now, I don't agree that their murder made him stronger (or that trauma usually does). But it did give him focus. It hurt. Sometimes it still does. But he doesn't think on them everyday. His life isn't consumed by Batman. He has fun. He is not an ultimately unhappy person.

And you know what, as fare as a mainstream idea I personally disagree with - I think Bruce and the others should sometimes enjoy those galas and parties. Good food, nice drinks and some of those rich people are even friends.

I do think Bruce has gotten too rich - to me, it's almost another aspect of BatGod at this point. I particularly dislike when he uses the money in a way that indebts other heroes to him. It's even worse when he does so without them knowing (as happened a bit with Jaime back in the 2006 series). That aspect to me is another way to them not his equals, to make them owe him something. Like with the Daily Planet - no, just no.

[SiegePerilous02]

The problem is that Tynion is on record as saying that Bruce being a billionaire is unrealistic because he would've used his money to solve all of Gotham's problems already, without ever explaining how.

No one cares if Bruce is really a billionaire or "just" a millionaire. (And, in fact, if we go back to 1939, I wouldn't be surprised if Batman has spent more years as a millionaire than as a billionaire in the comics). Just don't make the change for a stupid reason is all we're asking.

Yeah that's basically what I'm saying though...? Why not just leave him as a millionaire?

Yes the "solve all of Gotham's problems with money" hot take loses some of the merits it has because nobody ever explains how that would work, but it's not like there has ever been a very intelligent reason or need for his wealth to be inflated that much either.

And you know what, as fare as a mainstream idea I personally disagree with - I think Bruce and the others should sometimes enjoy those galas and parties. Good food, nice drinks and some of those rich people are even friends.

I do think Bruce has gotten too rich - to me, it's almost another aspect of BatGod at this point. I particularly dislike when he uses the money in a way that indebts other heroes to him. It's even worse when he does so without them knowing (as happened a bit with Jaime back in the 2006 series). That aspect to me is another way to them not his equals, to make them owe him something. Like with the Daily Planet - no, just no.

Yeah just having them enjoy the galas or acknowledge that the people there are a mix of morals would be fine. Veronica Vreeland should make the jump over to the comics. She's rich, but more of the "spoiled sweet" variety and not a corrupt *******. And I think Gotham DOES have plenty of corrupt rich people to get that point across that we don't need to make the Waynes corrupt (at least Thomas, Martha and Bruce). The only problem is there isn't any other consistent rich influential folks in Gotham besides the Waynes.

[Tzigone]

And I think Gotham DOES have plenty of corrupt rich people to get that point across that we don't need to make the Waynes corrupt (at least Thomas, Martha and Bruce).

Well, I'm sick of them making previously good people evil and corrupt (or even just really unpleasant). Thomas, of course. It's happened with Zor-El and Jor-El and Allura. And so many more. Do not like. But that's not at all a Batman-specific thing to me.

I really do waffle on whether Bruce should even be "the prince of Gotham", as it were. With weight to the Wayne name and a long history (back to colonial times, at least, in some versions) of Waynes being prominent in Gotham. It really kinda feels like overkill.

[Frontier]

Yeah just having them enjoy the galas or acknowledge that the people there are a mix of morals would be fine. Veronica Vreeland should make the jump over to the comics. She's rich, but more of the "spoiled sweet" variety and not a corrupt *******. And I think Gotham DOES have plenty of corrupt rich people to get that point across that we don't need to make the Waynes corrupt (at least Thomas, Martha and Bruce). The only problem is there isn't any other consistent rich influential folks in Gotham besides the Waynes.

Silver St. Cloud should make a comeback as a genuinely nice and good rich person.

[Tzigone]

Silver St. Cloud should make a comeback as a genuinely nice and good rich person.

I liked that she was able to leave and leave fairly happily. If she comes back, she'll either end up dating Bruce again (something I don't want, given I like someone breaking up with hero, being done, and still being okay) or end up dead (again).

And sticking a "nice and good rich person" in to make a point is just as much pandering as the putting in bad rich people just to be bad and rich. Have good and bad as suits the story. I'd love for Bruce to have some friends, though. But not more lovers and ex-lovers. Platonic friendship gets the short in of the stick too often. Particularly would like someone who doesn't know his secret - at least for a good while. Someone who won't be drawn into the adventures.

[bat39]

For me, he's someone motivated, but not consumed, by what happened to his parents. He is not still that traumatized little boy (or shouldn't be, anyway). It's sort of infantilizing. Now, I don't agree that their murder made him stronger (or that trauma usually does). But it did give him focus. It hurt. Sometimes it still does. But he doesn't think on them everyday. His life isn't consumed by Batman. He has fun. He is not an ultimately unhappy person.

And you know what, as fare as a mainstream idea I personally disagree with - I think Bruce and the others should sometimes enjoy those galas and parties. Good food, nice drinks and some of those rich people are even friends.

I do think Bruce has gotten too rich - to me, it's almost another aspect of BatGod at this point. I particularly dislike when he uses the money in a way that indebts other heroes to him. It's even worse when he does so without them knowing (as happened a bit with Jaime back in the 2006 series). That aspect to me is another way to them not his equals, to make them owe him something. Like with the Daily Planet - no, just no.

I agree with you on the motivation bit. I love how they handled it in the Nolanverse - his parent's murder isn't what directly motivates Bruce to become Batman. Rather its his realization that their deaths (and the subsequent killing of Joe Chill ordered by Falcone) were just a symptom of the larger web of corruption in which Gotham was enmeshed...and that is what he sets out to destroy. Bruce becoming Batman in the Nolanverse is arguably as much, if not more, about continuing his parent's legacy of using their wealth to help Gotham, than it is about 'avenging' them.

The way I see it, Bruce's broodiness and unhappiness (when he is depicted as broody or unhappy) is not due to his childhood trauma, but more due to the tragedies he suffers during his career as Batman, the violence, death and corruption he witnesses on a nightly basis, and the growing realization that his actions, while improving things in the short-term, don't see to have made as much of a difference to Gotham as he thought they would.

I liked that she was able to leave and leave fairly happily. If she comes back, she'll either end up dating Bruce again (something I don't want, given I like someone breaking up with hero, being done, and still being okay) or end up dead (again).

And sticking a "nice and good rich person" in to make a point is just as much pandering as the putting in bad rich people just to be bad and rich. Have good and bad as suits the story. I'd love for Bruce to have some friends, though. But not more lovers and ex-lovers. Platonic friendship gets the short in of the stick too often. Particularly would like someone who doesn't know his secret - at least for a good while. Someone who won't be drawn into the adventures.

Agreed.

Unfortunately, whenever they introduce Bruce having a friend, that friend usually ends up being a villain. Tommy Elliot and Lincoln March spring to mind.

Lucius Fox seemed to be one of Bruce's few friends who was good...but he's an employee, and he was ultimately folded into the Bat-family anyway.

[marhawkman]

I liked that she was able to leave and leave fairly happily. If she comes back, she'll either end up dating Bruce again (something I don't want, given I like someone breaking up with hero, being done, and still being okay) or end up dead (again).

And sticking a "nice and good rich person" in to make a point is just as much pandering as the putting in bad rich people just to be bad and rich. Have good and bad as suits the story. I'd love for Bruce to have some friends, though. But not more lovers and ex-lovers. Platonic friendship gets the short in of the stick too often. Particularly would like someone who doesn't know his secret - at least for a good while. Someone who won't be drawn into the adventures.

Honestly in DC seemingly every rich person is involved with either funding super-exploits, or directly involved.

Batman's wealth has gotten used as the source of funding for a lot of super group bases over the years. Not SOLE funding, but... part of it. So in that context, yeah, he kinda needs to be a billionaire.

Personally I think his "no killing" rule is a symptom of insanity and not an indication of moral character.