Why is Batman a Terrible SUPERHERO??? My real opinion.!!!!!

[dietrich]

batman scaring everyone is another trope you haven't addressed as how can he work his stuff on someone like mangog or darkseid who will die laughing when a human dressed in a costume tries to stop them.

Does that trope exist? Isn't it just street criminals that he's supposed to strike fear. Batman does a better job of striking fear than other bright coloured heroes who look like children's entertainers. Though someone like Joker is far scarier than Batman.

[JamesC]

Batman's 'no killing' makes perfect sense.
Batman's mission is to bring criminals to justice, not to decide on the punishment himself. Whether or not The Joker should be killed is up to the Judge, Jury and other tenets of the legal system.
If you want to read about a character that summarily dispenses lethal justice (fully legally) then go read about Judge Dredd! If you want to read about a homicidal vigilante read The Punisher.

The prep time thing gets a bit silly but there are plenty of real-world examples of a weaker combatant defeating a technically, physically, numerically stronger opponent. Its the 'David and Goliath' thing taken to the Nth degree. If the story is good, I don't have a problem with it. If you're only bothered about stats, go play Top Trumps!

[MajorHoy]

. . . The prep time thing gets a bit silly but there are plenty of real-world examples of a weaker combatant defeating a technically, physically, numerically stronger opponent.

You mean like the way the colonies outlasted the superior British troops during the American Revolutionary War?

(The U.S. forces have also been on the losing end of more modern wars because while they may have had superior weapons and resources, they were at a disadvantage when it came to "home field advantage" and other logistic-related problems.)

[Orujo-man]

Batman is hero, a "dark" hero. He breaks the laws everytime, impose his view to the others like him and basically lies, manipulates and do everything in his range to complete his goals. That's why he needs a moral anchor to make sense. Both for himself as for others.

Apart it's a symbol for Gotham. The citizens are inspired by him, the heroes respects him, some criminals are afraid of him, some seek defiance him.

Any symbol needs to be incorruptible in some sense. Maybe in his morals, his ideals, his mission or his actions. The people looks at him and trust him.

(And that's why no one trust in politicians).

[Flash Gordon]

Batman doesn't kill because he's a children's character. He's a guy dressed as a bat with a teenaged boy as his sidekick, speeding around in a cool car to catch a dude named "The Penguin".

It's not his fault he's placed in hyper violent stories now (some of which are quite good, don't get me wrong). He's meant to be a superhero, not an executioner.

[Mr. W. Dodds]

Good points Flash, simply stated. We all need to accept and enjoy comics for what they are. They were originally, and always have been, intended for young minds. If we can't enjoy that, we should look elsewhere for our entertainment. And I'm not advocating for dumbed down stories. The writing and artwork can (and should) be enjoyable to adults as well. But it is what it is.

[Agent Z]

As to point number 1-he has killed many times across different decades, both in and out of mainstream continuity. But murdering the Joker to prevent further deaths, while arguably justifiable, means he is superseding the judicial system in the most extreme way. A court could always sentence him to death, but they'd have to overcome the hurdle of his insanity. The Killing Joke and The Red Hood are two classic stories that involve him confronting the question of not killing the Joker, so you should be glad the rule is in place. Also saying something like "The Joker and Penguin aren't people" dehumanizes criminals, which is dangerous and fascistic.

Point 2-fans exaggerating Batman's abilities aren't his fault. The "Bat-God" phenomenon is overplayed and rarely happens in comics.

Point 3-Hard to argue with this one, though you'd have to incriminate every other Justice Leaguer the same way. You could argue with any of them, and especially Batman, that they'd be worse off without his intervention and adoption.

How is he not doing that already?

[Agent Z]

Does that trope exist? Isn't it just street criminals that he's supposed to strike fear. Batman does a better job of striking fear than other bright coloured heroes who look like children's entertainers. Though someone like Joker is far scarier than Batman.

As both Nolan's The Dark Knight and Priest's The Mission showed, Batman is no more terrifying than any mobster or corrupt cop who will kill you rather than threaten to. If anything, Wonder Woman and Aquaman, who do kill their enemies, would do a better job of scaring people.

[Lightning Rider]

How is he not doing that already?

Because murder is far more extreme than making citizen's arrests.

[Agent Z]

Because murder is far more extreme than making citizen's arrests.

What Bruce does is not a citizen's arrest. It's vigilantism which involves, torture, violation of privacy, evidence contamination and child endangerment.

[JamesC]

What Bruce does is not a citizen's arrest. It's vigilantism which involves, torture, violation of privacy, evidence contamination and child endangerment.

Agent Z, you've pretty much hit on an age old ethical thought-problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

There's absolutely nothing to say that your stance is wrong, or that it's not logical, but there are plenty of people who would see things differently. Follow the link and try to imagine what Batman would do (probably switch the tracks and send Robin to get the other guy off the tracks before the train hits).

[Agent Z]

Agent Z, you've pretty much hit on an age old ethical thought-problem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

There's absolutely nothing to say that your stance is wrong, or that it's not logical, but there are plenty of people who would see things differently. Follow the link and try to imagine what Batman would do (probably switch the tracks and send Robin to get the other guy off the tracks before the train hits).

I fail to see what this has to do with Batman's methods.

[JamesC]

I fail to see what this has to do with Batman's methods.

It's all about personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions or inaction.
Batman won't kill the Joker under any circumstances, even if that ultimately results in more death in the long run because of what Joker goes on to do.
Basically, Batman won't switch the tracks to kill one person, even though that could save more people in the long run.

[Rocco]

1st I would look in the mirror...that answers that genius

2nd I would say..WHEN THE JOKER HAS YOU PINNED WITH YOUR CHILDRENS LIMBS SCATTERED AROUND YOU..AND YOUR BEGGING FOR MERCY....

you might consider BATMAN a hero then...then again..you'll probably complain instead




coming soon
http://community.comicbookresources....m)-NEED-VOICES

[Lightning Rider]

What Bruce does is not a citizen's arrest. It's vigilantism which involves, torture, violation of privacy, evidence contamination and child endangerment.

Well some of what he does can be characterized as such and some of it can't. But none of it is as extreme as deciding guilt and handing out a lethal punishment.