What mainstream Batman idea you personally disagree with?

[thwhtGuardian]

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.

Yeah, I don't think it's a "leftist" take, it's just trolling pure and simple and I can never get why people take the bait.

[Frontier]

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 only time I have ever seen Joe Chill killing Thomas and Martha Wayne being in any way a cosmic comeuppance was in the Telltale series where Thomas Wayne was really a mob boss.

I think the only point to it being a hit is if you need to include Moxxon, otherwise I don't think it's all that necessary. Or put more of a mystery as to the Waynes' death. The Waynes are victims no matter Chill's circumstances for killing them.

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.

Gordon's role in the GCPD is cleaning them up from the deep corruption they are stuck in at the beginning of Batman's career. That's how we get more morally upright police characters like Renee Montoya and even Bullock.

The Bat-Signal is a testament to Batman's alliance with the police and how effective it can be.

[Restingvoice]

Yeah, I don't think it's a "leftist" take, it's just trolling pure and simple and I can never get why people take the bait.

Coz they fear that people unaware of the lore will take it as real. There have been people refusing to read or watch something because of the impression they got from social media.

[bat39]

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).

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.

Yeah, I know I was exaggerating a bit...but I feel that's the logical conclusion of these arguments if you take them far enough.

On the Joker front, yeah he does undoubtedly kill people from all walks of life. That said, in most stories, the Joker's victims tend to be, if not wealthy and powerful, then at least middle-class. Yeah, when he sets off balloons filled with Joker toxin, or when his gang rampages through the city, he kills indiscriminately. But a lot of the time, when the Joker has a named victim, it tends not to be someone underpriveleged.

I'll admit I got the idea into my head remembering the scene from an early 'Tec issue (the relaunched New 52 one) where Batman has to go through an Occupy-style pro-Joker rally. Not to mention the Joker movie and how it reframes the character as a working-class hero.

As far as the motivations for the Wayne murders go - I was okay with the original Lew Moxon story. It added a new layer to the origin in a fun Silver Age sort of way (with Thomas Wayne being the 'original' Batman...an idea which kinda foreshadows stuff like the Flashpoint Batman if you think about it!) And it helped that this was something Bruce learnt years into his career, long after he confronted Joe Chill, so it didn't really impact the actual origin and Bruce's motivations much.

That said, I love the idea of Joe Chill being a random mugger who happens to kill two of the wealthiest and most influential people in the city. Its just pure chaos, a disruption of any kind of normalcy, and its this disruption, this chaos, that Bruce spends his life as Batman fighting. But I also like the idea that the Waynes were these people who might have had a lot of powerful enemies who wanted them dead - the Court of Owls, the Mob, Lew Moxon - but in the end, it was a random mugger who got them...

[SiegePerilous02]

The only time I have ever seen Joe Chill killing Thomas and Martha Wayne being in any way a cosmic comeuppance was in the Telltale series where Thomas Wayne was really a mob boss.

I think the only point to it being a hit is if you need to include Moxxon, otherwise I don't think it's all that necessary. Or put more of a mystery as to the Waynes' death. The Waynes are victims no matter Chill's circumstances for killing them.

Thomas is sort of presented as having it coming in the Joker movie.

The Waynes are victims no matter what if we look at this logically, but politically charged readings and clickbait articles are going to keep happening and ignore analyzing characters, and they might gain more traction, for the reason Restingvoice listed. If the Waynes are presented as billionaires, people are going to be less and less sympathetic to them dying in today's climate no matter how the scene is executed. Let's give the detractors less ammo please.

Gordon's role in the GCPD is cleaning them up from the deep corruption they are stuck in at the beginning of Batman's career. That's how we get more morally upright police characters like Renee Montoya and even Bullock.

The Bat-Signal is a testament to Batman's alliance with the police and how effective it can be.

They pay lip service to Gordon and Batman cleaning up the police force, but never really effectively show Gotham being less of a corrupt hellhole. Bullock is a gray character, but I'd never consider him "morally upright."

I think people are just going to view the "effectiveness" of the police looking the other way for a vigilante who can go further than them as dangerously naïve, especially in today's climate post-George Floyd. It's too much of a hot button issue. We even have the showrunner for the upcoming HBO show based on the GCPD saying "there are no good cops on the Gotham PD," so I wouldn't expect effectiveness there. If we want Batman to evolve with the times, maybe it's just time to say goodbye to the police connection? Montoya doesn't need to be a cop anymore, and Gordon can retire. It's becoming more and more of a story liability for Bruce along with the billionaire thing. The franchise needs to read the room.

[Frontier]

Thomas is sort of presented as having it coming in the Joker movie.

The Waynes are victims no matter what if we look at this logically, but politically charged readings and clickbait articles are going to keep happening and ignore analyzing characters, and they might gain more traction, for the reason Restingvoice listed. If the Waynes are presented as billionaires, people are going to be less and less sympathetic to them dying in today's climate no matter how the scene is executed. Let's give the detractors less ammo please.

Yeah, but the Joker movie had a very skewed take on the entire mythos. If people use the Wayne's being rich to justify them getting shot then that's on them, and pretty dumb in my opinion. It's outright condoning murder.

They pay lip service to Gordon and Batman cleaning up the police force, but never really effectively show Gotham being less of a corrupt hellhole. Bullock is a gray character, but I'd never consider him "morally upright."

I think people are just going to view the "effectiveness" of the police looking the other way for a vigilante who can go further than them as dangerously naïve, especially in today's climate post-George Floyd. It's too much of a hot button issue. We even have the showrunner for the upcoming HBO show based on the GCPD saying "there are no good cops on the Gotham PD," so I wouldn't expect effectiveness there. If we want Batman to evolve with the times, maybe it's just time to say goodbye to the police connection? Montoya doesn't need to be a cop anymore, and Gordon can retire. It's becoming more and more of a story liability for Bruce along with the billionaire thing. The franchise needs to read the room.

How many still corrupt police do we see though? That don't get taken out. Bullock kind of grows out of being a gray character in my opinion.

If Batman doesn't work with the police, who lights up the Bat-Signal?

Police looking the other way for a vigilante is pretty much a staple of the genre at this point, not just for Batman. I mean, Flash is a CSI, Superman pals around with Maggie Sawyer, etc.

The showrunner is writing a show about the GCPD pre-Batman.

[thwhtGuardian]

Coz they fear that people unaware of the lore will take it as real. There have been people refusing to read or watch something because of the impression they got from social media.

People unaware of the lore don't hang out on comic book forums. It's trolling pure and simple and reacting to it just feeds them.

[Aahz]

The Idea that Batman is kind of responsible for the mayhem his villains cause.

It doesn't make much sense when Batman is member of the justice League as has saved the world more often than one can count (and Gotham even more often), but you have politicians running their campaign with the goal to bring down batman.

[Aahz]

The idea that Jason was the most reckless Robin.

He might have been the most agressive and brutal one, but they were all reckless, came all pretty close to getting killed one several occasion (or got even killed) and I think got all benched or fired by Bruce at some point and/or went out to fight crime when Bruce told them not to.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yeah, but the Joker movie had a very skewed take on the entire mythos. If people use the Wayne's being rich to justify them getting shot then that's on them, and pretty dumb in my opinion. It's outright condoning murder.

I agree it is stupid, but it happens all the same and we have to put up with it. So we may as well give it less ammo.

It's not like the Waynes have to be so absurdly rich for the story to work to begin with.

How many still corrupt police do we see though? That don't get taken out. Bullock kind of grows out of being a gray character in my opinion.

In the current climate, trying to present Gotham as still being a hellhole while also trying to pass off the idea that there is no police corruption doesn't really work IMO. Not unless writers want to just finally let Batman save Gotham and things are genuinely better outside of the unrealistic super crime that he's needed for. But they don't seem to ever want to do that.

Some would argue that presenting any positive portrayal of of a police force with no systemic issues is dangerous pro-cop propaganda/tone deaf. Least of all because they were overhauled due in part to the efforts of a rich white billionaire. I think that train of thought has the potential to get very absurd, but it's out there.

If Batman doesn't work with the police, who lights up the Bat-Signal?

Why do we even still need it in modern stories? It's not like its a very practical form of communication these days

It will always have a place as an iconic image in Batman's history, but we might not need it any longer.

Police looking the other way for a vigilante is pretty much a staple of the genre at this point, not just for Batman. I mean, Flash is a CSI, Superman pals around with Maggie Sawyer, etc.

It may not be a staple that has a shelf life much longer. Just because it was always around doesn't mean it always has to be here or that others can't have another perspective on it.

Fair on the Flash, but Barry doesn't have to also deal with being absurdly rich (like one of the richest people on the planet) and the Flash fighting street crime isn't as iconic as Batman swooping down on thugs. Even if Batman doesn't always do it as much as people think, it's an image far more associated with him.

Superman has Maggie Sawyer, but he does not interact with her or police in general nearly as much as Batman. He could lose any police ties and barely be phased.

Again, aside from Gordon be an important character, Batman + the police combo is not really as important to the character as you think that he couldn't survive severing ties at this point.

The Idea that Batman is kind of responsible for the mayhem his villains cause.

It doesn't make much sense when Batman is member of the justice League as has saved the world more often than one can count (and Gotham even more often), but you have politicians running their campaign with the goal to bring down batman.

It also avoids giving the villains agency for their own actions. I think the BTAS episode "Trial" really should have definitively put this one to bed by now.

The villains have both themselves to blame and everyone in Gotham at various points in the system play a part in letting them continue to run amok, not just Batman.

[Restingvoice]

People unaware of the lore don't hang out on comic book forums. It's trolling pure and simple and reacting to it just feeds them.

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

[Frontier]

I agree it is stupid, but it happens all the same and we have to put up with it. So we may as well give it less ammo.

It's not like the Waynes have to be so absurdly rich for the story to work to begin with.

But people like that will always just look for more ammo, no matter how absurd. Like, it probably doesn't matter how wealthy the Waynes are, just that they're rich to begin with.

I mean, Thomas Wayne is a doctor! Does being rich negate that or the fact that he's saved lives?

In the current climate, trying to present Gotham as still being a hellhole while also trying to pass off the idea that there is no police corruption doesn't really work IMO. Not unless writers want to just finally let Batman save Gotham and things are genuinely better outside of the unrealistic super crime that he's needed for. But they don't seem to ever want to do that.

Some would argue that presenting any positive portrayal of of a police force with no systemic issues is dangerous pro-cop propaganda/tone deaf. Least of all because they were overhauled due in part to the efforts of a rich white billionaire. I think that train of thought has the potential to get very absurd, but it's out there.

I think the idea is that the corruption isn't anywhere near as rampant as it was in Batman Year One but that the main issue of the police force is they are powerless against the Supervillains and messed up crimes that make Gotham Gotham.

I mean, they were also overhauled through the effort of Batman and one good man with integrity and he's like the main face of the police force. I don't think Batman as a franchise should be seen as pro-cop propaganda unless it outright shows the police doing shady/bad stuff and Batman not doing anything about it.

Why do we even still need it in modern stories? It's not like its a very practical form of communication these days

It will always have a place as an iconic image in Batman's history, but we might not need it any longer.

I feel like trying to do away with the Bat-Signal is an extremely hard sell. It's just too iconic.

Fair on the Flash, but Barry doesn't have to also deal with being absurdly rich (like one of the richest people on the planet) and the Flash fighting street crime isn't as iconic as Batman swooping down on thugs. Even if Batman doesn't always do it as much as people think, it's an image far more associated with him.

I don't think Barry being wealthy matters at all when he uses his experience as a police scientist to solve crimes like a police detective. And Flash fights street crime as much as Batman does, just quicker. I think most people think all Superheroes fight street crime to some extent.

Superman has Maggie Sawyer, but he does not interact with her or police in general nearly as much as Batman. He could lose any police ties and barely be phased.

But then you'd lose great characters like Maggie and Dan Turpin.

Again, aside from Gordon be an important character, Batman + the police combo is not really as important to the character as you think that he couldn't survive severing ties at this point.

I'd say it's important in as far as making his mission more effective. Usually Batman not working with the police makes his job harder and more complicated.

[HsssH]

The franchise needs to read the room.

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

[Restingvoice]

Some would argue that presenting any positive portrayal of of a police force with no systemic issues is dangerous pro-cop propaganda/tone deaf. Least of all because they were overhauled due in part to the efforts of a rich white billionaire. I think that train of thought has the potential to get very absurd, but it's out there.

Why do we even still need it in modern stories? It's not like its a very practical form of communication these days

It will always have a place as an iconic image in Batman's history, but we might not need it any longer.

It may not be a staple that has a shelf life much longer. Just because it was always around doesn't mean it always has to be here or that others can't have another perspective on it.

Fair on the Flash, but Barry doesn't have to also deal with being absurdly rich (like one of the richest people on the planet) and the Flash fighting street crime isn't as iconic as Batman swooping down on thugs. Even if Batman doesn't always do it as much as people think, it's an image far more associated with him.

Again, aside from Gordon be an important character, Batman + the police combo is not really as important to the character as you think that he couldn't survive severing ties at this point.

Those people also forget that it's a very traumatized billionaire who saw his parents gunned down by a robber in front of his eyes, meaning he's already one in a billion among real life billionaires.

Right from the start Bruce already can't be equated with real life billionaires who avoid taxes, don't pay their employees reasonably, or have a secret bank account... no wait, that last one he probably has.

Bat Signal is mentioned in New 52 as more a symbol for people than for communication. A sign that someone's out there looking out for them, especially when the city's burning for the millionth time. Of course, it would be nice if the next writer don't just forget about it... just like the increased security in Arkham...

Oh, btw, there are already people who want to cancel Flash because Barry's a cop, and there are already a lot who rejoice that Dick quits BPD because there's too many criminals (in the force) so we're getting there.

I agree with the image of Batman swooping down on thugs, and since the thugs are people needing money they go to the villains, that's relevant to the view that Bruce should just empty his vault and give it to people.

However, we also shouldn't ignore that they're carrying canisters of fear gas for people of all economic status, and they're pointing machine guns at him. It's not like he can just stand there and... you know what, never mind, he can take a machine gun point blank, but point is, those guns need to go first and the thugs contained. So proper solution is Silent Predator mode instead of fisticuffs.

Then the aftermath is important, a job offer once they serve time, assuming the prison is pure. That's a different problem. Blackgate doesn't have as bad reputation as Arkham, but it's still pretty bad, so at least Gotham State Penitentiary needs to be mentioned more often.

I would be fine with GCPD being corrupt again, the problem is it will be a regression of Batman and Gordon's success. This is why people is against this. Bruce's already not like real life billionaire, the current state of GCPD is a result of constant struggle. It's ignoring what the story has brought up to this point just because real life isn't the same as comic.

This is my biggest problem with all of this. Because Batman is more symbol than character, people want... or they don't want anything, they don't care... they just want to mock him for not fitting current real life climate... when real life and comic is on the opposite end of Hypertime branches right now.

So if the problem is because people outside comic can't be assed to learn the lore, because they just want to meme, but the meme will affect people perception and the character's reputation and DC/WB worry about that... then it's not a comic problem that needs a comic solution, it's something that adaptation should address.

That, or, introduced a very powerful corrupt individual or group, The Court of Owls maybe, since they often don't do anything, that shows that yes, GCPD is still corrupt and they want Gordon out, and this will be a constant conflict, or they managed to kick him and his team out, and this is the new status quo.

Not apocalyptic, just subtler and fit the popular perception. If they want. I personally don't care, but that's one solution.

[bat39]

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

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.

Bruce Wayne watched his parents being murdered in front of him by a mugger, and that experience traumatized him enough that he declared a lifelong war against crime. Do note, it's not a war against poor people or the mentally ill...its a war against crime, which yes, is committed by many poor people and quiet a few mentally ill people (in Gotham at any rate), but also by plenty of rich people and a large number of people of sound mind.

And yes, being a billionaire gave him the freedom and the ability to quiet literally pursue his one-man war on crime in a way that a man with lesser means most likely would be unable to. But when Batman is out there beating up some thug, he's not thinking "Yay! I'm a rich guy and I'm having fun giving a beatdown to this poor sap". At best, he's thinking "I've taken down this criminal, so that nice lady down the street is safe", at worst he's thinking "You dare threaten an innocent in my city? You're gonna be in a world of pain!"

When you get political ideologies into the picture, you can twist anything to be, well, anything. You can turn 'good guys' into 'bad guys' and 'bad guys' into 'good guys'. You can justify the most horrifying atrocities. You can turn society upside down. There's no real anchor, no real common points of reference, when you start taking any political viewpoint to its logical extreme. Which is kinda the state of the US right now, and other parts of the Western world, but that's another story.

Honestly, if you ask me, I think it makes the most sense for Bruce Wayne, if he thinks about politics at all, to be a moderate or a centrist of some sort. Because ultimately his life's work is to maintain order and prevent chaos, and if you go too extreme to the left or the right, you're starting down the path to chaos.

And frankly, that's the 'safest' direction to take the character in. Let him be the guy trying to save the city from the Mob and super-villains and terrorists. Let him be the guy who helps maintain some semblance of sanity and order, so that the politicians and civil servants and everyone else can then work on improving that status quo. That way, you can be true to the character, while not alienating the bulk of your audience.