The line is quippy, but it’s silly when you look at the batman stories. Anything can be funny if you get reductionist with it
When the writers have her saving plants, they do it in a way that you root for her. Same with Mr. Freeze, those episodes and the movie is really touching, solely because of his motivation.
You don’t root for batman to beat them up or flex his wealth on them, you want Batman to help them. You want them both to get happy endings.
The stories usually end with batman stopping the carnage, while also arresting whatever CEO was cutting down trees or doing experiments on Nora. In other stories, he funds social programs and advocates for reforms as Bruce Wayne.
Maybe there are other stories where he acts like a frat boy. I skip content that has shitty writing
Yeah people that make this joke don’t pay attention the actual content. Bruce is routinely demonstrated to be a positive force with his wealth. He’s socially conscious, generous, invests in progressive causes, runs numerous charities, restricts his company from participating in unethical practices, creates jobs for convicts, and treats his employees very well.
Now, I’m not suggesting this is realistic. No one of Bruce’s wealth, in the real world, would be anywhere near as good as Wayne is depicted.
But within the context we of this world, the actual text of the stories tells us quite plainly he is a positive, progressive influence.
… and yet, he’d STILL be infinitely more effective if he either properly funded Gotham, or started actually killing evil people. Instead, he does neither… Batman still sucks balls even in the good interpretations.
.
… mind, I still enjoy most of his comics and stories, but dude is just as healthy of a role model as The Punisher: Not at all. For the opposite reasons, ironically.
IIRC, one of the films noted that his parents had tried to fund serious reform in Gotham (I think the newest film, with Robert Pattinson?), and that corruption and crime siphoned off and diverted all the money away from the causes they were trying to support. I’m not sure if that’s cannon or not.
Looking at a number of cities in the US that have historically had a serious problem with public corruption, it’s not really an either/or approach; you need to adequately fund public works, but you also need to fight the crime and corruption that tries to take all the public money away from the public.
Indeed, and that could make for a lot of fun political intrigue with good writers. It’d be a fantastic juxtaposition from scenes fighting violent criminals on the street. Genuinely show how an evil person can be a guy in a suit with a smile and no direct ill intentions. Show how criminals don’t have to be violent to be detestable.
I think a seriously done Batman, that seriously approached these topics from the perspective of Bruce intelligently fighting against these things, would be fantastic. Easily able to put The Boys to shame with good writers. If only Hollywood et. al. knew how to pay for good writers…
I think that it would just not be very interesting for a lot of people. Real legal fights are actually quite boring, and take an incredibly long time. Showing how the bad guys draw things out in thr courts and in the boardrooms, and making it interesting is def. a challenge.
No, don’t write it based purely on reality. It’s still the DC universe. Ramp that shit up to 11. A court case could be pretty interesting with people with actual crazy abilities in city wide gangs the justice system is trying to wrangle. I’m sure there is ample room to speed up court proceedings. Skipping boring bits is easy. Writing interesting events that fit in a broader universe is hard.
Simply handing drug dealers and corrupt politicians a boatload of money isn’t likely to do much of anything - he’d be bankrupt in a year and the city worse off than when he started. That’s why the Harvey Dent arc was so crucial: Batman can only do so much in the shadows, but what the city really NEEDED was a hero who could operate in the light of day (though he still needed support from the shadows).
Ofc the real answer is that the premise of the franchise is based on Batman punching people, as in physically, so his goal isn’t even saving the city so much as making satisfying wham bam pow sounds.
More “political” franchises are fewer and further between, which is why Star Wars and to a lesser degree Trek (in this regard) were so popular. Both involved a radical, violent and bloody overthrow of the corrupt forces (Trek having been in the past but in Wars it happening “live” and being the central feature).
What part of “proper” says, “hand money over, no strings attached” to you?
A serious and properly written Batman would be even better than The Boys. I love how everyone pretends it’d somehow turn Bruce in to a typical politician…
Yeah, the refusal to kill is the worst part about Batman. Like, it’s cool that you have a moral code or whatever, but when you keep putting mass murderers like the Joker in a prison you know he’s gonna escape from, you should probably think about your life choices. You kind of get why Jason Todd went a little nuts when Batman didn’t kill the Joker after he brutally murdered a child that Batman dressed up and put in his way. Holy shit, just shoot the guy in the fuckin face, you know?
As Feathercrown said, most modern stories have Bruce aware that he’s nuts. If he starts killing, then he doesn’t stop killing and things go bad. He’s essentially like on Murderers Anonymous and making sure to stay away from anything that could trigger him down an even darker road.
I mean, somebody must have agreed, because they made a whole movie about it.
This tweet is the entire premise of The Batman.
It does end kinda going back to justifying why he’s more useful in the suit instead, but at least they spend a bunch of time talking about it, I suppose.
Well yeah, but that’s not the one I’m talking about. I’d be referring to The Batman, the 2022 film starring… well, let’s be honest, starring Zoë Kravitz, but yeah, with Robert Pattinson as Batman. There are so many of these now that giving out titles is starting to be useless.
That one spends a bunch of time talking about how Bruce Wayne isn’t doing anythign with his money to help because he’s too busy seeking revenge and gets into the weeds about how charitable donations from billionaires end up being used. It’s weird. And long. But it’s actually alright.
He is obviously not mentally healthy, taking out his rage on the streets. He tries to portray his actions as morally justifiable, but it really isn’t.
Because he is vengeance, he isn’t Bruce Wayne. By not being a good Bruce Wayne, he is actively harming his community in wasting billions on crime. The Riddler attacking Bruce Wayne makes sense because Bruce Wayne has to be complicit in the use of the Renewal Fund. And if Bruce isn’t aware, Alfred should be.
And when being a cosplay detective, Batman sucks. He misses several clues due to his rich white privilege. Batman believably becomes the pawn of the Riddler because Batman is too stupid to be better. In the end, Batman’s best use is being a thug to beat the crap out a Mafia don’s henchmen.
Using the Riddler was a brilliant idea. He starts out sympathetic, and like a more violent version of Batman that brutally murders corruption. There’s a deleted scene with the Joker that implies Bruce has a hard time totally disagreeing with Riddler.
That changes over the movie as he’s confronted with what vengeance looks like. As much as he shouts about it in Arkham, him and Riddler are pretty much the same. That’s what makes the Riddler’s final scheme so pivotal I think. It explicitly becomes about vengeance – convince disaffected extremists to gun down everyone in the high ground, where the newly elected mayor is having an election party, while flooding the rest of the city. It’s explicitly revenge and vengeance, and pointedly, the new mayor is shown as trying to be a good guy and not like the corrupt fucks.
The whole movie is a huge lesson to Bruce that vengeance won’t do anything and that he hasn’t done anything to actually help the city. To help, he has to let the past go, and try to be a positive influence.
The movie was really realistic and down to earth, like you said, and I like it’s messaging a lot. I’m hoping sequels keep that setting while Bruce starts to do more with his wealth to actually help, like the new mayor was urging him to do.
Totally agree though, the movie depicts what a real life Batman would look like – driven by hate and anger and fury. Not a symbol or force for good. Not yet, anyway.
The line is quippy, but it’s silly when you look at the batman stories. Anything can be funny if you get reductionist with it
When the writers have her saving plants, they do it in a way that you root for her. Same with Mr. Freeze, those episodes and the movie is really touching, solely because of his motivation.
You don’t root for batman to beat them up or flex his wealth on them, you want Batman to help them. You want them both to get happy endings.
The stories usually end with batman stopping the carnage, while also arresting whatever CEO was cutting down trees or doing experiments on Nora. In other stories, he funds social programs and advocates for reforms as Bruce Wayne.
Maybe there are other stories where he acts like a frat boy. I skip content that has shitty writing
Yeah people that make this joke don’t pay attention the actual content. Bruce is routinely demonstrated to be a positive force with his wealth. He’s socially conscious, generous, invests in progressive causes, runs numerous charities, restricts his company from participating in unethical practices, creates jobs for convicts, and treats his employees very well.
Now, I’m not suggesting this is realistic. No one of Bruce’s wealth, in the real world, would be anywhere near as good as Wayne is depicted.
But within the context we of this world, the actual text of the stories tells us quite plainly he is a positive, progressive influence.
… and yet, he’d STILL be infinitely more effective if he either properly funded Gotham, or started actually killing evil people. Instead, he does neither… Batman still sucks balls even in the good interpretations. . … mind, I still enjoy most of his comics and stories, but dude is just as healthy of a role model as The Punisher: Not at all. For the opposite reasons, ironically.
IIRC, one of the films noted that his parents had tried to fund serious reform in Gotham (I think the newest film, with Robert Pattinson?), and that corruption and crime siphoned off and diverted all the money away from the causes they were trying to support. I’m not sure if that’s cannon or not.
Looking at a number of cities in the US that have historically had a serious problem with public corruption, it’s not really an either/or approach; you need to adequately fund public works, but you also need to fight the crime and corruption that tries to take all the public money away from the public.
Indeed, and that could make for a lot of fun political intrigue with good writers. It’d be a fantastic juxtaposition from scenes fighting violent criminals on the street. Genuinely show how an evil person can be a guy in a suit with a smile and no direct ill intentions. Show how criminals don’t have to be violent to be detestable.
I think a seriously done Batman, that seriously approached these topics from the perspective of Bruce intelligently fighting against these things, would be fantastic. Easily able to put The Boys to shame with good writers. If only Hollywood et. al. knew how to pay for good writers…
I think that it would just not be very interesting for a lot of people. Real legal fights are actually quite boring, and take an incredibly long time. Showing how the bad guys draw things out in thr courts and in the boardrooms, and making it interesting is def. a challenge.
No, don’t write it based purely on reality. It’s still the DC universe. Ramp that shit up to 11. A court case could be pretty interesting with people with actual crazy abilities in city wide gangs the justice system is trying to wrangle. I’m sure there is ample room to speed up court proceedings. Skipping boring bits is easy. Writing interesting events that fit in a broader universe is hard.
Simply handing drug dealers and corrupt politicians a boatload of money isn’t likely to do much of anything - he’d be bankrupt in a year and the city worse off than when he started. That’s why the Harvey Dent arc was so crucial: Batman can only do so much in the shadows, but what the city really NEEDED was a hero who could operate in the light of day (though he still needed support from the shadows).
Ofc the real answer is that the premise of the franchise is based on Batman punching people, as in physically, so his goal isn’t even saving the city so much as making satisfying wham bam pow sounds.
More “political” franchises are fewer and further between, which is why Star Wars and to a lesser degree Trek (in this regard) were so popular. Both involved a radical, violent and bloody overthrow of the corrupt forces (Trek having been in the past but in Wars it happening “live” and being the central feature).
Did I say, “hand them money” or “properly fund”?
What part of “proper” says, “hand money over, no strings attached” to you?
A serious and properly written Batman would be even better than The Boys. I love how everyone pretends it’d somehow turn Bruce in to a typical politician…
Yeah, the refusal to kill is the worst part about Batman. Like, it’s cool that you have a moral code or whatever, but when you keep putting mass murderers like the Joker in a prison you know he’s gonna escape from, you should probably think about your life choices. You kind of get why Jason Todd went a little nuts when Batman didn’t kill the Joker after he brutally murdered a child that Batman dressed up and put in his way. Holy shit, just shoot the guy in the fuckin face, you know?
That’s kind of the point. Bruce is just as mentally unwell as the villains he fights.
As Feathercrown said, most modern stories have Bruce aware that he’s nuts. If he starts killing, then he doesn’t stop killing and things go bad. He’s essentially like on Murderers Anonymous and making sure to stay away from anything that could trigger him down an even darker road.
Yea… At a certain point, Batman becomes 100% culpable because he had a guaranteed end handed to him and didn’t take it.
The dude plain solves Trolly problems incorrectly.
I mean, somebody must have agreed, because they made a whole movie about it.
This tweet is the entire premise of The Batman.
It does end kinda going back to justifying why he’s more useful in the suit instead, but at least they spend a bunch of time talking about it, I suppose.
I actually haven’t seen the one in the screenshots, is it this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_%26_Robin_(film)
Well yeah, but that’s not the one I’m talking about. I’d be referring to The Batman, the 2022 film starring… well, let’s be honest, starring Zoë Kravitz, but yeah, with Robert Pattinson as Batman. There are so many of these now that giving out titles is starting to be useless.
That one spends a bunch of time talking about how Bruce Wayne isn’t doing anythign with his money to help because he’s too busy seeking revenge and gets into the weeds about how charitable donations from billionaires end up being used. It’s weird. And long. But it’s actually alright.
And that movie makes him my favorite Batman.
He is obviously not mentally healthy, taking out his rage on the streets. He tries to portray his actions as morally justifiable, but it really isn’t.
Because he is vengeance, he isn’t Bruce Wayne. By not being a good Bruce Wayne, he is actively harming his community in wasting billions on crime. The Riddler attacking Bruce Wayne makes sense because Bruce Wayne has to be complicit in the use of the Renewal Fund. And if Bruce isn’t aware, Alfred should be.
And when being a cosplay detective, Batman sucks. He misses several clues due to his rich white privilege. Batman believably becomes the pawn of the Riddler because Batman is too stupid to be better. In the end, Batman’s best use is being a thug to beat the crap out a Mafia don’s henchmen.
This is what a real life Batman would be at best.
Using the Riddler was a brilliant idea. He starts out sympathetic, and like a more violent version of Batman that brutally murders corruption. There’s a deleted scene with the Joker that implies Bruce has a hard time totally disagreeing with Riddler.
That changes over the movie as he’s confronted with what vengeance looks like. As much as he shouts about it in Arkham, him and Riddler are pretty much the same. That’s what makes the Riddler’s final scheme so pivotal I think. It explicitly becomes about vengeance – convince disaffected extremists to gun down everyone in the high ground, where the newly elected mayor is having an election party, while flooding the rest of the city. It’s explicitly revenge and vengeance, and pointedly, the new mayor is shown as trying to be a good guy and not like the corrupt fucks.
The whole movie is a huge lesson to Bruce that vengeance won’t do anything and that he hasn’t done anything to actually help the city. To help, he has to let the past go, and try to be a positive influence.
The movie was really realistic and down to earth, like you said, and I like it’s messaging a lot. I’m hoping sequels keep that setting while Bruce starts to do more with his wealth to actually help, like the new mayor was urging him to do.
Totally agree though, the movie depicts what a real life Batman would look like – driven by hate and anger and fury. Not a symbol or force for good. Not yet, anyway.