Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 211
  1. #46
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Well nobody could have predicted the specific tragedies, but common sense dictates that there'd be a lot of weird and dangerous stuff that is bound to happen. Guy was planning on dressing up as Dracula and throwing himself into situations that could result in severe injury or death every night. If the kid I was tasked with taking care of started heading in that direction, I'd put him in therapy and encourage him to use his money in other ways.
    He doesn't plan to become a Bat until his adult years in any continuity, as far as I am aware, and he doesn't start his training until he becomes a legal adult where he then goes around the world to become prepared to take care of any weird and dangerous stuff that gets thrown his way, although none of that would necessarily prepare him for the cost of such a grand endeavor.

    That and we've seen visions of Bruce that wasn't Batman that don't end up near as effective as Batman is.
    Is there a net good to Batman's existence in the modern incarnations? The way comic book status quos work, plus modern comics tendencies to escalate things, Batman hasn't had much of a visible positive impact on Gotham, and there is all his crimes against his kids and allies (in Gotham and in the JL). Maybe growing up without Alfred in pre-COIE allowed Bruce to become more self reliant instead of relying on his enabling man servant who continues to enable him as an adult? And that's why he was more well adjusted than the at times spoiled man-brat he is Flanderized as now. Like I'd see Batman as good if he was written as the hero he was meant to be/used to be, but that isn't always the case if we take a "it all happened" approach to the modern canons.
    I mean, I read plenty of modern comics where Batman saves people and stops major villains, so I think whatever the issues of his modern incarnation he is still an effective Superhero as far as the bare basics of being a Superhero...and there have been well-adjusted versions of Batman with father figure Alfred (B:TAS, Nolan more or less) so I don't think we can really point to Alfred as being responsible for his less than stellar moments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Wow I think you just might have figured out the reason modern Batman has become an insufferable man-child, having a butler who enables everything he does since childhood would turn any person into an egotistical snobby dictator. Also we all know Batman's characterization pretty much varies depending on the cast around him, writers will throw Bruce's character under the bus if it makes the other characters can look better. How many times have we seen Bruce doing his "thick headed arrogant" routine only for Alfred to give some speech and make him reconsider his decisions? A batman who started without Alfred is probably more morally conscious and doesn't require constant pet talks to realize that he's doing something wrong.

    And don't get me wrong I love Alfred and what he brings as a character but there's really something to be said about how he impacts Bruce's characterization for the better or the worse.
    Having a counterpoint who can call out and balance out your decision making seems sensible. But I feel like we're talking about another issue here where Bruce is always in the wrong so another character can seem right, which extends to the entire Batfamily in my opinion.

  2. #47
    Astonishing Member Tzigone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    writers will throw Bruce's character under the bus if it makes the other characters can look better.
    Well, they'll certainly do the reverse a lot, too. Identity Crisis still infuriates me. True, basically any character will get tossed under a bus for drama and shock value these days (and to be fair, consistency of character was hardly subject to plot demands in the golden and silver ages, too), but Batman is the most popular, which means other heroes are made less moral and less competent so he can "win" a lot. And a lot of people love him being an ******* and dominating other heroes that way*. Think it Alpha. Depressing. Just makes him ass, not a badass to me. And this has been happening with other heroes since at least the late bronze age (and it was typically intended to make him look good and them look inferior), and there was some heavy-handed stuff in early post-COIE.

    * Seriously, it sometimes seem like a lot of people don't like him treating the Batfam like crap, but thrill in him pushing his weight around and controlling (and insulting) other heroes.
    Last edited by Tzigone; 07-17-2021 at 10:55 AM.

  3. #48
    Ultimate Member Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Occupied Klendathu
    Posts
    12,885

    Default

    I tend to roll my eyes at the "Batman beats up poor people" talking point since Bruce being rich is obviously a necessity in order for the premise of the character to work but I'm also not particularly attached to Bruce the CEO or Bruce being the richest person on Earth (debatably with Lex).

    I think he'd still just work fine as is if he was just some old money type millionaire.

  4. #49
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    I tend to roll my eyes at the "Batman beats up poor people" talking point since Bruce being rich is obviously a necessity in order for the premise of the character to work but I'm also not particularly attached to Bruce the CEO or Bruce being the richest person on Earth (debatably with Lex).

    I think he'd still just work fine as is if he was just some old money type millionaire.
    Anyone who thinks Batman just beats up poor people should see this scene:


  5. #50
    Astonishing Member Tzigone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    I think he'd still just work fine as is if he was just some old money type millionaire.
    How old money does he have to be to you? Because I waffle on my opinion on the sort of "royalty of Gotham" that we wound up with the Waynes. Would his parent or grandparent earning the money be too new - certainly wouldn't call a it old if it were Thomas or Martha who made the fortune. Though really, I'm thinking about the length of time the family was prominent in Gotham (and the degree of prominence) rather than precisely when the fortune was made, though the two do tend to go hand in hand.

  6. #51
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaius View Post
    I tend to roll my eyes at the "Batman beats up poor people" talking point since Bruce being rich is obviously a necessity in order for the premise of the character to work but I'm also not particularly attached to Bruce the CEO or Bruce being the richest person on Earth (debatably with Lex).

    I think he'd still just work fine as is if he was just some old money type millionaire.
    I really hate it too. Bruce being billionaire rich doesn't seem to be necessary and it has opened up a can of worms. The wealth is mostly a plot device to explain how he can afford his equipment and take time off from a job to devote most of his time to vigilantism, but the escalation of the "epic" stories requiring all sorts of highly advanced weapons, computers and vehicles that he needs to buy has sort of forced them to escalate his wealth. Along with the idea that he needs to finance the entire goddamn JL at times, which I don't think he needs to do. Old money millionaire with much less advanced equipment at his disposal would be preferable. He can get by with one or two Batmobiles that he has to maintain, and a couple other vehicles, but not 100s of each. He should be shown as making considerable effort to spread his wealth to the city and it having a positive change for regular crime rates.

    And I don't like the "beats up the poor/mentally ill" argument. I think there are definitely interpretations of Batman that can be viewed as edging close to that, and writers should always be cautiously aware of it. but a character like him who has been around this long and through so many iterations shouldn't be viewed that way as a default. Most of his villains are not hurting for money nor do they act realistically mentally ill, and there are explanations in-universe for why they'd end up in Arkham. People make it sound like he's out to beat up that harmless, homeless schizophrenic vet living in a cardboard box or people with depression/anxiety instead of serial killers and terrorists. It's a surface level glance from people who don't really take the time to understand the character's full history.

  7. #52
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I really hate it too. Bruce being billionaire rich doesn't seem to be necessary and it has opened up a can of worms. The wealth is mostly a plot device to explain how he can afford his equipment and take time off from a job to devote most of his time to vigilantism, but the escalation of the "epic" stories requiring all sorts of highly advanced weapons, computers and vehicles that he needs to buy has sort of forced them to escalate his wealth. Along with the idea that he needs to finance the entire goddamn JL at times, which I don't think he needs to do. Old money millionaire with much less advanced equipment at his disposal would be preferable. He can get by with one or two Batmobiles that he has to maintain, and a couple other vehicles, but not 100s of each. He should be shown as making considerable effort to spread his wealth to the city and it having a positive change for regular crime rates.

    And I don't like the "beats up the poor/mentally ill" argument. I think there are definitely interpretations of Batman that can be viewed as edging close to that, and writers should always be cautiously aware of it. but a character like him who has been around this long and through so many iterations shouldn't be viewed that way as a default. Most of his villains are not hurting for money nor do they act realistically mentally ill, and there are explanations in-universe for why they'd end up in Arkham. People make it sound like he's out to beat up that harmless, homeless schizophrenic vet living in a cardboard box or people with depression/anxiety instead of serial killers and terrorists. It's a surface level glance from people who don't really take the time to understand the character's full history.
    I think people really overthink Batman's money. Like, he has cool gadgets and vehicles and runs a big company. Why can't it be that simple?

  8. #53
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I think people really overthink Batman's money. Like, he has cool gadgets and vehicles and runs a big company. Why can't it be that simple?
    That'd be ideal, but the way things are these days, it's just not realistic for people to not overthink it.

    The absurdly rich and the CEOs are actively making things more miserable for the rest of us, and people are having less patience for media that portrays the rich positively. I think the surface level glance at Batman's character is very lame and devoid of understanding and nuance of the character, but often times surface level glances are all people are going to give to determine if they like a character or not. Making Bruce one of the richest people on the planet instead of independently wealthy or even "just" a millionaire isn't really necessary or doing him any favors with younger generations who are going to be turning a more critical eye to the media they consume. Superhero comics end up being very political, even if at times by accident, for better or worse.

  9. #54
    Ultimate Member Gaius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Occupied Klendathu
    Posts
    12,885

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I really hate it too. Bruce being billionaire rich doesn't seem to be necessary and it has opened up a can of worms. The wealth is mostly a plot device to explain how he can afford his equipment and take time off from a job to devote most of his time to vigilantism, but the escalation of the "epic" stories requiring all sorts of highly advanced weapons, computers and vehicles that he needs to buy has sort of forced them to escalate his wealth. Along with the idea that he needs to finance the entire goddamn JL at times, which I don't think he needs to do. Old money millionaire with much less advanced equipment at his disposal would be preferable. He can get by with one or two Batmobiles that he has to maintain, and a couple other vehicles, but not 100s of each. He should be shown as making considerable effort to spread his wealth to the city and it having a positive change for regular crime rates.

    And I don't like the "beats up the poor/mentally ill" argument. I think there are definitely interpretations of Batman that can be viewed as edging close to that, and writers should always be cautiously aware of it. but a character like him who has been around this long and through so many iterations shouldn't be viewed that way as a default. Most of his villains are not hurting for money nor do they act realistically mentally ill, and there are explanations in-universe for why they'd end up in Arkham. People make it sound like he's out to beat up that harmless, homeless schizophrenic vet living in a cardboard box or people with depression/anxiety instead of serial killers and terrorists. It's a surface level glance from people who don't really take the time to understand the character's full history.
    Yeah, his concept still if he was just some old money type whose famous in Gotham but most outside the region probably wouldn't have heard of the Waynes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I think people really overthink Batman's money. Like, he has cool gadgets and vehicles and runs a big company. Why can't it be that simple?
    Trust me, I'm right there with you in that I think people overthink Bruce being rich and forget it's just so he can have all the "wonderful toys" and have the time to be a detective ninja. But I don't think being this .1% CEO type is a necessary component of his character like Tony Stark.
    Last edited by Gaius; 07-17-2021 at 06:31 PM.

  10. #55
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    3,731

    Default

    Batman being a failed hero who can't save anyone, protect Gotham and alienates/ mistreats his allies.

    Batman refusing to kill, especially when it comes to the Joker.

    Batman being unable to be happy or the 'Bruce Wayne is the fake persona' narrative.
    Last edited by king81992; 07-17-2021 at 08:34 PM.

  11. #56
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    That'd be ideal, but the way things are these days, it's just not realistic for people to not overthink it.

    The absurdly rich and the CEOs are actively making things more miserable for the rest of us, and people are having less patience for media that portrays the rich positively. I think the surface level glance at Batman's character is very lame and devoid of understanding and nuance of the character, but often times surface level glances are all people are going to give to determine if they like a character or not. Making Bruce one of the richest people on the planet instead of independently wealthy or even "just" a millionaire isn't really necessary or doing him any favors with younger generations who are going to be turning a more critical eye to the media they consume. Superhero comics end up being very political, even if at times by accident, for better or worse.
    The problem is that once you start examining Batman from a left-wing lens, the whole thing falls apart and you might as well retire the character. From a left-wing perspective, Joe Chill is the hero (or a sympathetic figure at any rate), and Thomas and Martha Wayne, and later Bruce, are the villains. From a left-wing perspective, the GCPD isn't just a corrupt police department that Batman has to fight in his early years and which Gordon had to clean up, but a fundamentally evil organization. From a left-wing perspective, the Joker is probably a hero because of his 'mental illness' and because his crimes are mostly targeted against the powerful and the well-to-do.

    I think Batman so far, due to his sheer popularity and the power of the brand, has been able to rise above the politics rapidly flooding media these days, but who knows?

  12. #57
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bat39 View Post
    The problem is that once you start examining Batman from a left-wing lens, the whole thing falls apart and you might as well retire the character. From a left-wing perspective, Joe Chill is the hero (or a sympathetic figure at any rate), and Thomas and Martha Wayne, and later Bruce, are the villains. From a left-wing perspective, the GCPD isn't just a corrupt police department that Batman has to fight in his early years and which Gordon had to clean up, but a fundamentally evil organization. From a left-wing perspective, the Joker is probably a hero because of his 'mental illness' and because his crimes are mostly targeted against the powerful and the well-to-do.

    I think Batman so far, due to his sheer popularity and the power of the brand, has been able to rise above the politics rapidly flooding media these days, but who knows?
    I hope he continues to rise above it. I can sympathize with a lot of the views of the left-leaning lens, but at the same time I know the character and various parts of his history enough that it becomes frustrating. Because there are things that dispute it.

    Joe Chill at one point being hired to kill the Waynes by gangsters/corrupt officials worked much better for this reason and should be brought back, IMO. It allowed them to be straight up victims, whereas if it's a botched robbery from a desperate criminal at the end of his rope, it makes it seem like the Waynes are getting some form of cosmic comeuppance. We have Frank Miller's Batman of all versions leaning into this version of events and Bruce understanding and forgiving Joe Chill , but I feel like that gets lost in the shuffle for Batman swearing vengeance on all criminals most of the time.

    The Joker thing....honestly, people have no excuse for the stupidity of that one (not you, but those you are pointing out). Nobody should hold him up as a hero for the mentally ill, he's way too mentally competent and straight up evil for that to work, and he kills everybody. All we'd have to do is show him tormenting Charlie Collins or Carl Francis in some BTAS episodes for his own sick amusement to dispel that.

    The cop thing is mine field of controversy. If not for Gordon's character being so important, I think Batman's alliance with the police would be phased out by now considering the current political climate. They pay lip service to how corrupt Gotham's cops can be, but it doesn't make Gordon look good since he's in charge of them.

  13. #58
    Astonishing Member Tzigone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    The problem is that once you start examining Batman from a left-wing lens, the whole thing falls apart and you might as well retire the character. From a left-wing perspective, Joe Chill is the hero (or a sympathetic figure at any rate), and Thomas and Martha Wayne, and later Bruce, are the villains. From a left-wing perspective, the GCPD isn't just a corrupt police department that Batman has to fight in his early years and which Gordon had to clean up, but a fundamentally evil organization. From a left-wing perspective, the Joker is probably a hero because of his 'mental illness' and because his crimes are mostly targeted against the powerful and the well-to-do.
    That is a vast twisting of left-wing perspectives. Especially on the Joker (who kills on a mass scale and has for decades, so does hurt more non-rich).

    Joe Chill at one point being hired to kill the Waynes by gangsters/corrupt officials worked much better for this reason and should be brought back, IMO.
    Oh, I dislike that one a lot. It makes it too personal to me. Too specific. To me, it is important that what happened to the Waynes (or the Graysons) could happen to anyone. Everyone is endangered by criminals, and Batman, in taking them down, is protecting all people. There shouldn't be any specific individuals that he's targeting. For similar reasons, I prefer the shooter to be caught quickly and long before Bruce is grown.
    Last edited by Tzigone; 07-18-2021 at 07:07 AM.

  14. #59
    Extraordinary Member Restingvoice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    9,574

    Default

    The Left doesn't really care if Bruce is rich as long as he shares the riches. I pointed out in the Nightwing #2 discussion thread that people online loves that Dick is shown sharing his riches with the homeless. They need something visible like that, and people have shared examples of Bruce doing that.

    However, that doesn't matter because the ones who say he's a rich boy beating up the mentally ill or whatever else just do it for the memes and clicks or to make fun of the concept for giggles and laughs at how comic fans are so serious with their answers.

  15. #60
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
    Oh, I dislike that one a lot. It makes it too personal to me. Too specific. To me, it is important that what happened to the Waynes (or the Graysons) could happen to anyone. Everyone is endangered by criminals, and Batman, in taking them down, is protecting all people. There shouldn't be any specific individuals that he's targeting. For similar reasons, I prefer the shooter to be caught quickly and long before Bruce is grown.
    Honestly, you still get that effect even if he's deliberately targeting them. Bruce wants to be the "Dark Knight" who wasn't there for him and protect everyone from all walks of life from being victimized. You get that either way with Joe Chill, but the deliberate hit removes the unfortunate implications of a lower class criminal killing rich folks because he's desperate and orphaned (but still absurdly wealthy) Bruce swearing vengeance on him and all like him.

    I do agree I want Joe Chill to be known as the assailant and brought to justice either before Bruce is an adult or very early in his career as Batman, if only for him to get closure and put that behind him so he can be more well adjusted.

Posting Permissions

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