That would actually be a pretty cool premise. A hero who promises he will kill himself once all evil is defeated, as what he does although for good is evil itself. But people love him too much so they themselves become evil to keep him around.
I guess kinda like a incredible situation, but more dark because the protagonist just wants to die instead of raise a family.
One of the bad guys becomes a good guy not because it’s the right thing to do but because he genuinely wants to see if the hero will kill himself but the only way to promise to not be evil again is to be a good guy. Since the bad guy either has to die or stop fighting for the hero to be happy, but he wouldn’t really trust the bad guy if he just stopped. So although he occasionally messes up the bad guys is pretty good now
Am I the only one who finds it reassuring that the well-armed ninja billionaire who lives out a childhood revenge fantasy every night has a set of rules he follows?
I tried to go back and watch the Dark Knight Batman movies because I remembered enjoying them when they first came out.
There’s an early scene where there is a Batman impersonator and he goes “what’s the difference between me and you” and Batman goes “I’m not wearing hockey pads”
It’s supposed to be a real zinger. As I watched it though the realization hit me that what he’s really saying is “because I have money so the rules don’t apply to me” and then I realized that that’s kinda the entire point of Batman. He’s a billionaire that’s decided he’s wealthy enough that silly things like laws don’t apply to him.
Really made me not enjoy the movie and I ended up turning it off.
I think that’s why I like Spiderman so much. He’s a vigilante who genuinely struggles to make ends meet at times and has gone through so much that he arguably deserves to completely stop protecting people and yet, he continues anyway.
I like the idea of a Batman story where it's slowly revealed that he's the villain. There'd be his most sympathetic villains revealed to be people that are fighting the morally correct fight, while Batman is just fighting to maintain the status quo.
The sequel would have the Joker trying to undermine the public trust in the systems that maintain the status quo
Hard to do when he doesn’t fix the other issues in Gotham and he just beats up villains lol, man needs to use his wealth to influence politics for the better
And there are stories where Gotham is literally cursed to be evil. You start pulling edge cases and you throw out everything that matters. There’s probably a story where Gotham and Metropolis switched vibes and Superman is an autocrat Spaze Nazi exterminating shoplifters and petty thugs
Why is it Batman’s duty to forfeit his morals and kill the Joker and not on the state of New Jersey for their revolving door of crime in their penitentiaries like blackwater and appalling lack of proper facilities to deal with dangerous and deranged meta humans instead sticking them in a rotting facility made in the 20’s.
Hell why isn’t this on the federal government after so many years of chronic and sustained neglect. They have what amounts to a nightmare scenario for the department of defense and just let it sit like a festering wound.
Why do we blame a single crazy billionaire, instead of the horrendous circumstances surrounding them.
Yea, it’s always been weird to me that Batman alone is being judged for not using lethal force. If that were part of any consistent values, wouldn’t every person who has had chain of custody of Joker, or even proximity to him, be morally obligated to kill him?
If random cop that has had Joker in handcuffs, or random doctor who has been treating Joker, or even every other super hero on the planet hasn’t extra judiciallly executed Joker, why should Batman bear the obligation to do so?
I was about to make the argument that if batman killed the joker the only consequence for him would be his compromised morals, but if someone else killed the joker while he was in custody then they would at least lose their job and most likely go to jail and that’s not comparable. Then I remembered that if a cop killed him they’d just get paid leave before they were acquitted of the murder and worst case would have to get a job in a different city. So yeah ACAB.
Then I remembered that if a cop killed him they’d just get paid leave before they were acquitted of the murder and worst case would have to get a job in a different city.
That only became a possibility when they cast Nick Creegan.
Yea, it’s always been weird to me that Batman alone is being judged for not using lethal force.
Batman is the focus of the narrative and the audience. Of course he will be the focus of the criticism. But technically yes, a lot of others in universe do also share responsibility for any further victims of the Joker. After a certain number of escape, spree, capture, escape, spree, etc cycles surely they must have realized he cannot be rehabilitated and will continue the remorseless mass killings until he dies.
or even proximity to him, be morally obligated to kill him?
This is a compelling idea for sure, and could definitely lead to interesting questions in other cases. Let’s say the Joker has a body count of at least 1000 victims, how far back do you have to walk that number before such an obligation is no longer reasonable. Would a serial killer with 40 victims also be such a clear and present danger that they’d represent a moral imperative for their elimination? Or does it have to reach comic book levels of obscene?
But he spends a fuckton of his money to change things, though?
Pretty sure it’s even a point in the comics that he hires a bunch of ex-cons and stuff specifically so they don’t have to resort to a life of crime again.
Then each of their relatives or families becomes vengeful and likely homicidal. You have to do it right and end their entire bloodlines. Even the innocent ones. Anakin style. Lessons from Queen of Fables. Totally not the evil thing to do. The empire did nothing wrong.
They always have excuses in the comics. I think the latest one of “the Joker has a super Joker toxin in his heart that’s released when he dies to turn whomever kills him into an even worse Joker” to be quite forced.
By the way, the Batman Who Laughs really overstayed his welcome.
In the next series “The Batman Who Laughs”, they showed that the mainstream Joker also had this failsafe too and no spoilers because the plot kinda builds around that.
So by your logic… Would you become a triple killer by killing a double killer? Or a serial killer by killing a single serial killer? What about the trolley problem if the single guy is a serial killer then? I need answers
Due to the transitive property of murder, you have valid points.
But you always let the trolley kill the old person instead of the murderer; the murderer can stop murdering, the old person can only be stopped by killing them. In all other cases the murderer gets trolley’d.
By the additive property of killing, you’d be a triple killer if you killed a double. Serial killers get the title by killing people all in a row. If they’re not in a row it doesn’t count.
The trick to the trolley problem is to yank the brake, jackknife the trolley cars, and hit everyone. This would make you a septuple killer, and earn the ‘Badass Moves’ achievement.
I always think of Batman is a crazy person that he knows he’s a crazy person. Which is why he has to strictly follow rules he set for himself.
If Batman broke his rule against killing, within a few years people of Gotham would have to worry about getting killed by the Batman for jaywalking. Batman knows that he has the potential of going this way so he has to follow his rules to prevent that from happening.
I have felt that way since getting more into it and noticing how every character is broken, mentally, in some way. Bruce over the loss of his parents has been traumatized by death and refuses to acknowledge that some people really need it (Joker). The comics themselves acknowledge this often, with characters pointing out how he’s insane for dressing like a bat and fighting bad guys.
In a world where bad guys routinely obtain super powers and put on costumes to do crime, one guy with a bunch of money fighting crime in a bat suit doesn’t sound so far fetched. I mean his best friend is literally an immortal alien from Kansas, who could, should he fancy it, murder every criminal as they step over some arbitrary benchmark for criminality. Beating them to a pulp and turning them in is just a sick hobby they get away with.
It sounds crazy, even in that world, when you realize Superman exists. The Flash exists. People with actual, bonafide super powers exist. And then there’s Bruce Wayne. A rich playboy with PTSD, no super powers, fighting villains that often do have super powers.
Yeah that’s why the Joker is a great nemesis for Batman. They’re both crazy people, they’re both are aware that they’re crazy, only difference is one has rules and the other doesn’t. That’s basically all that separates them.
I feel like portraying Batman as someone does kill people is boring because there’s not psychological aspect to it.
Was just going to say if total number of killers was the only important metric, you could have one person kill the rest of the killers. Then the meta-killer could kill all other people, just in case there are undiscovered killers hiding amongst them.
This is the greatest part about the latest movie, The Batman. At the beginning you do have the depressive rich boy obsessed with revenge, being brutal and cruel to criminals is sort of his point. But as the movie progresses he starts to shift to realize that he shouldn’t be pursuing revenge against the criminals, for it isn’t bringing him any resolution, but instead should be striving to save and protect the victims. The shift is dramatic, specially with the thematic use of Nirvana’s Something In The Way as musical background, and it’s paired in a holistic way with his public face. Bruce Wayne comes out of the shadows to become the philanthropic playboy. Another facade, but one that fulfills just as an important role, by pushing Gotham rich society to charity and financial aid work for the ones in need, that is of course rarely if ever depicted, because it’s not superhero work. But it is important because is the part of the rich boy actually using his fortune to enact positive change in the world that the superhero persona can’t, just like the superhero does things the regular person can’t, capturing crazy criminals and saving people from over-engineered elaborate terrorist ploys.
I never got how batman is so popular, he’s just a crazy rich person with the most plot armor of any superhero. Also he could pretty much fix Gotham with his money but he instead spends it on gadgets to beat up mentally ill people.
Bruce Wayne already is pouring in billions into Gotham social services. He is like the billionaire we want but never get in real life. Some things just aren’t solved with money in their universe.
Batman isn’t just some crazy rich person. He is the world greatest detective since issue #1. Better than even Sherlock.
He can not only stand his own next to power houses like Superman, but he also plays an extremely crucial part of the Justice League: the information gatherer.
To say it in gaming terms, Batman isn’t DPS or tank. He is support. And damn good at it.
That’s kinda what I mean as far as suspension of disbelief is, concerned: billions would fix any city unless you aren’t trying to fix anything and no matter how smart you are you won’t stand up to someone with actual superpowers without a metric ton of plot armor. Like a kryptonian, someone with the speed force or even just magic could vaporize batman with barely any effort.
Like the comics and other media where batman is up against just normal humans I can understand though still not my favourites but the ones where he’s against actual superpowers you usually get some bullshittery.
I’m no expert in comics by a long shot but that’s just been my impression when I did read some batman. The one where batman was actually a patient in arkham and all the villains were just doctors, guards and patients was my favourite though.
Tell that to Boston, which squandered 22 Billion dollars on a highway project disaster. Boston may have had a huge issue with corruption, but Gotham is literally cartoonishly corrupt and decrepit.
Yea, that’s what I’m implying, batman is either corrupt, stupid or unrealistic when it comes to helping Gotham with money.
I kinda like the depiction of him as an out of touch billionaire(The type that thinks bread costs 50 bucks or doesn’t know people pay for housing) that just builds orphanages or something but has no idea on how to actually fix issues, just believes he does. That would be quite realistic actually.
Add comment