Status of Batman in the popular culture.

[AgentCooper]

I have two major issues about Batman.

1 is as Jeffers said, Batman never actually tries to solve the root of the problem. The Wayne Foundation is a handwave a best. But this is easily fixed. A couple story arcs would be something fun to focus on. Plus, it'd be nice to possibly see Batman deal with white-collar crime for once. And maybe NOT have it be Lex Luthor.

Still, that can be justified. It'd be hard to write well. But my other problem... I'll just quote myself...

Batman has just gotten progressively more and more powerful as time went on. Some of it was because DC had to come up with a reason to justify him being in the Justice League without being a burden. Some of it was the Silver Age, which boosted the power of almost every hero in DC to absurd levels. Some of it was because eventually big fans got to write the character and wrote him to be supah speshul awesome. Not all of it was bad, but it's long since passed the point where Batman has become the Gary Stu to end all Gary Stus.

The fact that "Batman + Prep-time can beat anything!" is a serious statement should be a major red flag. It's been established he's the single greatest martial artist in the entire world. He has reflexes so great he can dodge shots miles away OR at point blank. He has a healing written in a way not unlike Wolverine. He's created the single biggest, most comprehensive survailence system in the world. He fucking KILLED THE DCU'S GOD OF EVIL. (before the reboot retconed it...)

The "Hero + Prep Time" is a trope as old as fiction. But the fact that it could genuinely be considered that Batman could take on the entire DCU and win and have the entire thing be written of as "He was prepared for the whole thing" just makes me roll my eyes. It certainly doesn't help that a common thing is that to make Batman seem smart, everyone else has to be dumb.

I still like Batman. But I HATE how they've made him Kung-Fu Detective Jesus, Most Awesome-est Man in the Universe.

I mostly blame the fans and outsiders for what I would say is building up Batman as a kung fu jesus that would knock Superman out if he looked at him the wrong way.

 

[mrm5561]

i dont see it happening as long as his games and movies continue to be awesome. plus chuck norris and boba fett were meant to be jokes from the start

 

[Xaio30]

Batman is silly. Ditch the ears, get a new name, and then I might take him seriously.

 

[AgentCooper]

You are equating one hate group to Batman. You drummed up one of the most infamously hate groups in America and took something and said this is what happens.

Yes, the KKK was a hate-group.

The fact that you're ignoring is that Batman is himself a hate-group of one. He is exactly the same as the KKK in that he sees an apparent 'flaw' in society, specifically regarding the moral structure in the area he lives in, and decides that the best way to deal with it is to put on a mask, go out and cause violence.

You can argue that Batman has a no-kill policy, unlike the KKK, but as I pointed out in my first post, that is more down to writers being unwilling to show the consequences of his actions than anything else. Any man who goes out night after night and beats the shit out of people is eventually going to have blood on his hands. People die all the time from cracked necks, punctured lungs and collapsed stomachs, and Batman is not infallible enough to prevent any of those from happening.

If someone has to put on a mask in order to carry out their branch of justice, then you really need to question just what sort of justice it is they're meting out. Batman gets away with it because his exploits are the fantasies of writers who rarely want to challenge the status quo regarding his character. In real life, masked vigilantes nearly always turn out like the KKK: violent groups who imagine themselves on some great crusade to restore order, and who target one minority group as the perceived 'enemy'.

Batman is a violent man. He is on an alleged crusade to restore order to Gotham. And he believes that it is solely criminals, specifically the low-down, working class street criminals (as opposed to the high class criminals such as fraudulent financiers, bankers and corporatiers, as well as corrupt politicians) who are the cause of Gotham's decline.

So no, in motive and behaviour, I don't see any difference to the KKK. The only difference is that because of the fantasy of his situation, writers are able to divorce him from the sort of consequences real vigilante groups nearly always incur. And I personally find that incredibly distasteful.

The reality of the situation is Batman is a flawed character who attempts to help and better a city that was not doing well to begin with.

And has only been getting worse thanks to the criminals he directly inspired and created, such as The Joker, Two-Face and Hush.

There is always the duality with Batman. He feels like he is doing the right thing and the other side of him doesn't know if what he has done has helped or hurt people.. He knows he is wrong and his moral ladder is always in question.

If he knows he is wrong, why is he still compelled to go out at night and beat people up? Why doesn't he just focus all his efforts on philanthropy and social reform, a path that has been proven to work? Is it because he's not a noble individual, and isn't crusading for Gotham's benefit, but simply gets a thrill from lashing out and hurting people?

I'm no psychoanalyst, but if I saw someone brutally beat the crap out of another man on the street, and it turned out it was due in part to the fact that he watched his parents get gunned down in the street... I'm going to assume that that man's violence has less to with any sort of noble intentions, and more to do with the fact that watching his parents get murdered has obviously had a disastrous effect on his mental well-being. In the same way that people who get beaten in childhood often tend to lash out violently later in life. That sort of trauma has negative psychological consequences, and trying to dress those violent impulses as some sort of noble crusade does nothing to actually heal the mental harm caused in his youth. A man beating his son isn't on some noble quest to restore discipline in the youth of today, no matter how badly he was beaten in his own youth. A man beating people up at night isn't on a quest to restore law and order, no matter how many of his family he saw gunned down in his youth.

I'm talking about the DC Universe not the REAL LIFE. Quit projecting into this. I'm done arguing with you on the similarities and you using the KKK as an example. If you will find a equal vigilante party with in the DC Universe then I will continue this part of the conversation.

I told you he is trying to right the wrongs he has caused. He knows he has affected other people lives negatively and giving up on the Batman mantle would be worse then if he just stopped patrolling Gotham on his own stopping petty crime.

Hes tried helping Harvey Dent with facial Reconstruction and therapy and he has to live with that fact. The Harvey Dent he once knew is never going to come back.

You are exploring only the surface of what Batman is and not looking at the bigger picture. You are trying to paint Batman with a broad bush as this unjust vigilante who happens to be a fascist. He is this one man trying to make a difference in the world.

 

[BrotherRool]

Batman is very adaptable. I'd be willing to be that even today there are a lot of different takes people have on Batman (from the ultra-excuse-violent indulgance of Miller to the nobleness) and comics last more than almost anything else. So he'll stick around.

I think he's downshift this time round has already started though, we've got a huge dark and gritty backlash at the moment (to the point that even mentioning those words deserves number 1 on Bobs list of most boring opinions) and Batman sort of started that. The Dark Knight saga has ended, the Avengers are on the up swing, people are questioning if there are bad reasons that people like Batman. These all seem to be negative pop culture trends to Batman. I imagine we'll see an identity shift soon and the next Batman comic/interpretation to hit it big won't be a Killing Joke sort of thing, but something a bit more silly and fluffier, not Adam West silly, but something fun and friendly. Probably with a Robin. Then again, although Skyfall was a swing to the silly compared to it's previous films, people are still praising the darker more realistic vibe. And people aren't necessarily digging the Hobbits lighter tone, so maybe these things aren't so cut in stone. I still think they're probably examples against the current though.

EDIT: Also my picture is a coincidence =D I'm not a Batman megafan or even comic reader or anything

 

[Zen Bard]

Do anyone thinks Batman will eventually share their fate ?

He has already fallen from grace many times before. And yet, he always rises.

...like a Dark Knight (I see what you did there!)

The Batman idea - vigilante crime fighter by night masquerading as wealthy playboy by day - is an old one. It was borrowed from "The Mask of Zorro", which itself was borrowed from "The Scarlett Pimpernel".

The beauty of "Batman" is that, as another poster noted, he's adaptable. So while the core mythology is the same, the presentation can be tweaked to better fit the times.

In film, Adam West's "Batman" had the right light approach for the swinging 60's, whereas the gritty realism of the Nolan/Bale Batman could only exist in the 21st century.

But for their times, both were fanatic hits.

Batman will always continue as an American cultural icon.

After all, bats are great survivors.

 

[GiantRaven]

If Batman were a real life character, would he be the most terrifying, amoral individual this side of Charles Manson? You can bet your life on it.

It's a good thing Batman isn't real then, really. There's a whole lot of fiction that's great that features characters that would be utterly repulsive and terrifying if they really existed. I don't see why there's any point in singling Batman out in that.

 

[WolfThomas]

Batman, Superman and Spiderman. Maybe Wolverine too. These heroes are big pop culture icons, they're probably going to outlive comics. They'll wax and wan in different years, but they'll always be there.

 

[AgentCooper]

I'm talking about the DC Universe not the REAL LIFE. Quit projecting into this. I'm done arguing with you on the similarities and you using the KKK as an example. If you will find a equal vigilante party with in the DC Universe then I will continue this part of the conversation.

I have repeatedly responded to your assertions that this is about the fictional universe.

Within the fictional DC universe, the writers can do whatever they like, as the stories told are directly constructed from their fantasies. Therefore, trying to argue that Batman is inherently awesome because he doesn't cause social unrest within his universe is flawed. Batman is nothing more than what the writers write him as. The mandate currently passed down from DC is to make him as 'awesome' as possible, so that is how he is portrayed.

Therefore, if we want to find Batman's true worth as a character, it must be by taking his actions and holding them up to real life scrutiny and standards. If I wrote a homophobic, sexist character, no matter how much I claim "No this character is awesome! Honestly, he's the most awesome character ever, that's how awesome he is!" you're going to point out that he's homophobic and sexist.

Likewise, when looked at in the cold light of day, Batman's methods are anti-social, ineffective and downright sociopathic. His consistency within the setting of the DC-verse is irrelevant, as the setting of Gotham has been specifically written to accommodate his behaviour. Not through any extensive exploration of his methods, but simply because the writers can handwave away anything they don't like or want to tackle. If we want to know how worthy Batman's values and methods are, we need to compare them to real world values.

This happens all the time. This is how fictional analysis works. We look at a character's motivations and actions, and judge them based on how we react to them. It is because of this that we are able to label fictional works like Birth Of A Nation as being inherently racist, despite being works of fiction.

Now you say you want an example of an in-universe vigilante group? While I don't think that would do anything to resolve the argument, I'll give you a humourous example:

Back in the 1950s, DC decided to produce a story arc where Superman went up against the KKK. Not only did he go up against them, he fought and defeated them. And while on the surface this looks like a story of good triumphing over evil, underneath it's actually a very disturbing parable.

Superman is a vigilante operating outside the bounds of the law taking out the KKK specifically for being a vigilante group operating outside the bounds of the law. Within the context of the universe, his own actions are hypocritical. He, and the other DC superheroes, are doing nothing different from what the KKK are doing. Not even on the whole 'murder' front. Not only has Superman historically killed himself (Google tells me he straight up executed three Kryptonians back in the 80s), he endorses and supports other heroes who have also killed: Batman (in the early years of his comic, he straight up shot criminals, as well as shooting Darkseid more recently), the Flash (murdered a man who crashed his wedding), Green Arrow (shot Prometheus in the face), Wonder Woman (snapped Max Lord's neck), and Green Lantern (where to even begin...).

So yeah... in-universe, Superman decided to stop the KKK from being a murderous vigilante group, despite being part of the Justice League, a sometimes murderous vigilante group. A group Batman is himself a founding member of. If you cannot see the blatant hypocrisy in that, then I really don't know what else to say.

I told you he is trying to right the wrongs he has caused. He knows he has affected other people lives negatively and giving up on the Batman mantle would be worse then if he just stopped patrolling Gotham on his own stopping petty crime.

How would giving up Batman make things worse? What exactly would happen? Because from where I'm sitting, all that would happen is that he'd stop providing inspiration for the 'super-villains' of Gotham, the Gotham Police would be able to get on with their jobs unmolested, and Bruce Wayne would be able to focus full time on philanthropy, and trying to instigate some kind of social reform. And if you don't think social reform can achieve anything on a large scale, I kindly direct you to Martin Luther King, and the Civil Rights movement. The emancipation of an entire race, brought about by entirely peaceful means.

Hes tried helping Harvey Dent with facial Reconstruction and therapy and he has to live with that fact. The Harvey Dent he once knew is never going to come back.

1) He's helping one guy, a guy who he personally knew. Is he extending that same courtesy to the hundreds of low level criminals who he has no doubt crippled, paralysed and disfigured in his war on crime? Because believe it or not, having your shins broken by an angry bat-guy with the build of a professional wrestler is not the sort of thing you easily heal from. People who go through the sort of injuries Batman regularly dishes out end up in wheelchairs, on crutches, and getting limbs amputated. That's the sort of thing that happens when you get the shit mercilessly kicked out of you. Does the courtesy of professional medical help only apply to you if you're one of the wealthy elite that Bruce knows personally?

2) How does he know Dent isn't going to come back? Isn't he just presuming the worst there? Is he a trained psychiatrist? If Dent isn't going to come back, why is Bruce putting him through therapy? Surely by assuming that Dent is never going to recover, Batman is simply reinforcing his negative image of the man in order to internally justify his continued violent behaviour towards him?

You are exploring only the surface of what Batman is and not looking at the bigger picture. You are trying to paint Batman with a broad bush as this unjust vigilante who happens to be a fascist. He is this one man trying to make a difference in the world.

I am looking way beyond the surface here. You seem to be the one content to look at the surface image of Batman as a champion of truth and justice, without looking at any of the unfortunate implications that his behaviour brings. Implications such as it's alright to go round beating working class people up on a nightly basis if you're a wealthy billionaire playboy with mental health issues.

The entire concept of Batman is something so terrifying, so utterly horrible that it would be an outrage if it were to occur in real life. Society should not be a place where guys can dress up in costumes, go round and beat up people they don't like, no matter who they are. Such behaviour is anti-social, and causes far more problems than it fixes, if it fixes any at all... which it doesn't.

There is nothing wrong with what Batman does in theory and I told you he knows what he is doing is not always right. If he left and stopped being Batman and help just the normal people of Gotham that would only work that side. There is only so much room for talking and action. Even if he brought reform to all governing systems to Gotham the rogue gallery is still there. That changes nothing. Crime is going to exist no matter how well the city flourishes.

I gave you one example of how he helped one person. Do you want mt to cite every single event in the history of Batman mythos. I will do it upon request.

How do I know he can't be helped. In most Batman stories told he is either treated and presumably "cured" only to revert back to what he was before or Batman was the cause of him reverting back into his former self.

Why are you making this out to be that Batman just fights random strangers in the night to sustain some blood lust and ruthless goal?

I told you there was always repercussions for his action in any timeline or universe that surrounds Batman. Most actions have a long term repercussions and others have short term. In Batman Beyond he admits that everything he has done has either helped or hurt people and he has to come to terms for that. I also suggest reading Battle for Cowl.

Batman has been around for decades and different takes and writers have had the opportunity to depict Batman as symbol or a man who is trying to find what he should be doing in society. Considering cross over stories have offered more meat to the story then stand alone Gotham tales.

 

[AgentCooper]

There is nothing wrong with what Batman does in theory and I told you he knows what he is doing is not always right.

There is nothing wrong with what Batman does in theory and I told you he knows what he is doing is not always right.

Nothing wrong... not always right.

...what the hell?

If there is nothing wrong with what Batman does, then by definition it is all right. If he is not always right, then that means there is something wrong. That's how right and wrong work. Sorry, but you contradicted yourself in the opening sentence of your post. That doesn't give your argument a lot of weight.

If he left and stopped being Batman and help just the normal people of Gotham that would only work that side. There is only so much room for talking and action.

Again, the Civil Rights Movement. Within the context of a lawful society, peaceful movement is all you need to achieve everything short of a revolution. That includes reducing crime.

Even if he brought reform to all governing systems to Gotham the rogue gallery is still there. That changes nothing.

Then fucking arrest them. How hard would it be for Gotham Police to arrest the Penguin, Freeze and the rest, and put them away somewhere they can't fucking escape? Why does it take a nutjob in a mask to put away criminals who should, by any standard, be within the remit of the fucking law enforcement? Especially considering that the masked nutter putting them away is the same guy responsible for inspiring a bunch of them in the first place? Get the police on them, put them in jail! It's not a difficult concept, and it has a hell of a lot more accountability than beating them up in some back alley somewhere.

Crime is going to exist no matter how well the city flourishes.

Which is why you have the police. To have an open, accountable law enforcement agency who operate within the boundaries of the law.

I gave you one example of how he helped one person. Do you want mt to cite every single event in the history of Batman mythos. I will do it upon request.

You gave me an example of Bruce Wayne showing favouritism towards one of his former friends, himself a wealthy member of Gotham's elite. That one deed does nothing to alter the fact that Batman will have been responsible for crippling and disabling hundreds of Gotham's underclass. How will having so many disabled people affect Gotham's Welfare Bill? Has Batman been directly responsible for any tax rises made to pay for the rise in Disability Benefit? What will happen to all those mooks beaten up by Batman if they're now unable to use their legs, and are thus greatly reduced in their future employment prospects?

How do I know he can't be helped. In most Batman stories told he is either treated and presumably "cured" only to revert back to what he was before or Batman was the cause of him reverting back into his former self.

Wait... if Batman is the cause of him reverting, then surely that's all the reason you need to get rid of Batman?

Why are you making this out to be that Batman just fights random strangers in the night to sustain some blood lust and ruthless goal?

Because that's the image of him presented in the comics, the films and the games. He goes out at night, finds some low level crime going on, then proceeds to march in and beat the ever-loving crap out of anyone involved. That's how he is portrayed.

I told you there was always repercussions for his action in any timeline or universe that surrounds Batman.

HA!

Most actions have a long term repercussions and others have short term. In Batman Beyond he admits that everything he has done has either helped or hurt people and he has to come to terms for that.

By allowing a teenager to take up the mantle, become Batman and engage in the same anti-social behaviour that caused him and others so much hurt.

You know how at the start of the series, Terry's father is murdered by the Jokerz? You know who you can trace the responsibility of that murder directly back to? Old Brucey, and his need to keep fucking things up as Batman, and providing the Joker with his inspiration.

Yep, Bruce really learnt the consequences of his actions there.

Batman has been around for decades and different takes and writers have had the opportunity to depict Batman as symbol or a man who is trying to find what he should be doing in society. Considering cross over stories have offered more meat to the story then stand alone Gotham tales.

He's a character who satisfies people's urges for violence, conflict and easily identifiable moral quests. There's nothing more noble to it than that. Batman provides people with a legitimate way for people to see criminals getting beaten up by a masked avenger for their crimes. It's vicarious entertainment, watching someone else mete out the justice we wish we could deliver ourselves. It's the same reason why thrillers like Death Proof and Dirty Harry took off in the 70s. Humans enjoy violence, but we don't want to admit it in society. So instead, we create elaborate fantasies where a man dressed up as a bat(!) goes round beating up people who are acceptable targets in society, as part of a supposed moral quest to stamp down on crime.

He knows that some things he does are wrong and he fully admits going over board but that is a truth he has to accept. He knows the line crosses and what he does mimics and borderlines on the criminal level. He has to play above the law and that's the point. Gotham would be WORSE if he just left. The police in the comics are either presented to be slow with the detective skills or just overly ignorant. See the police in Spider-man comics.

The most dangerous villains escape high maxim security from Arkham. No prison is 100% secure and even if they dedicate high level of public or private money they will still escape. We are not talking about normal inmates here. Tell me how they would be able to tame someone like Killer Croc and Bane going crazy on the streets.

I wasn't talking about Terry taking up the mantle of Batman. But, you bring it up. I'll bite. It was always Terry's choice to be Batman. Bruce gave him many chances to quit being Batman and it was nothing by force. It was always Terry's choice. Bruce has to atone for sins. Bruce and Batman are two different people in one body. In your previous post. Superman and countless others have called out Bruce on his tactics as Batman. In Justice League: Unlimited Batman is portrayed more of a down to earth superhero then a ruthless vigilante you have problems with.

You keep bringing up police and social and justice systems. The systems work differently then in the real world. and you will never have a clear answer on what constitutes necessary since each hero has to struggle for their place and figure out if they really help or if they don't. That is Batman. He is self aware and people know he is a self destructive and that's what I like about him. At his best he is a great crime fighter and his worst he is borderline mentally unstable and self destructive that can control the situation around him. Batman will always be an interesting character to me. All the versions of Batman lead to one universal point and don't stop there.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

snip

While that was an entertainingly long deconstruction of Batman as a role model, I have some points.

- Your comments regarding the effectiveness of vigilate justice in preventing crime can feasibly be applied to almost any crime-fighting superhero - of which there are many who aren't Batman and the Punisher; those are just two of the most popular - and, indeed, to any cop or detective drama show where the focus is on capturing and punishing the perpetrator. The popular understanding of justice as a retributive force is unfortunately too entrenched to be avoided entirely, and "Social Justice Man" wouldn't make a very entertaining comic book.

- I don't know what canon you're operating from, but Batman is generally not considered responsible for the creation of Joker, Two-Face, et al. You really have to specify whether you're working from comics, cartoons, films, TV series, whatever, because in some he's tangentially responsible and in others he's totally unconnected from the villain origin. He's sometimes responsible for the Joker falling into the pit of chemicals, but the "going homicidally insane" part is usually the Joker's business. He's definitely not responsible for Two-Face, though, who in most canons is disfigured in court by a gangster, and who suffers from diassociative identity disorder in the first place anyway.

Spoiler: Spoilers for the Hush arc

The only villain I can name off the top of my head he's "responsible" for creating is Hush, and that's only in the sense that he's responsible for Hush being a jealous, homicidal psychopath envious of his fortune and orphanhood.

- Your comments regarding his company's "exploitative" business practices are really non-canon. In most canons, any morally gray practices engaged in by Wayne Enterprises are ceased when Bruce retakes control of the company, and the usual CEO Lucius Fox is an incredibly benevolent man (hell, he was played by Morgan Freeman). You're spot-on about the embezzlement, though in most canons Bruce is the owner of the company anyway so it's his money to play with.

- As to whether the money could be put to better use, yes, it probably could. Superman could also stop all wars, and the Flash could supply infinite energy to the entire world by running on a treadmill. Green Lantern has a ring that literally does anything, and he uses it to make giant green boxing gloves. This is comics; the plot can't be "And then the hero used his limitless wealth/power to solve everybody's problems!" That would be boring.

- Yes, Batman has probably killed people. Batman's no-murder rule boils down to how the fan wants to read it; it can be that he literally doesn't kill anyone and never has, or you can be more realistic and surmise that he has accidentally killed people by punching them to the curb, but that it wasn't murder because he didn't intend to kill them. To be fair, we haven't much trouble with cops like Gordon using lethal force deliberately; it's not totally unacceptable to have Batman do it accidentally. That's how I read it.

A lot of these points boil down to rules of drama - Batman can't fight crime with wealth because it's boring, he has to fight crime with punches because that's exciting, he can't be acknowledged to have killed people because then why doesn't he just kill the Joker, the embezzlement is never addressed because he needs a cool plane, etc. - and the only two points you made that were categorically wrong was that statement that Batman was directly responsible for his villain's existence and that his company engaged in exploitative business practices. That's just non-canon.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Plus all the jobs he creates as one of those horrible vile 'captains of industry'.
There are in fact good companies that take good care of their employees, and it is pointed out time and time again
that Wayne enterprises is among those.
Remember the BTAS episode where he actually sought out the man he had pursued when that man had
taken a job as a lookout for one of the Joker's capers and gave the man a job as a security guard at WE?
And then every time he went to the facility where the man worked, stopped and asked about his kid, and then
set up a fund to send the man's kid to college? Yeah, wish my boss was that horrible.

Is this the same Wayne Enterprises which has contracts with the military building warships, providing them with electronics equipment and generally doing a lot of military R&D?

Yeah, I'm sure it's great being an employee of Wayne Enterprises. I'm sure it's not so great being an Arab or African whose family gets wiped out by a new missile invented by WE. In fact, I;m sure that would be a pretty sucky thing in general.

Also, I'm sure the guy mentioned in TAS was very grateful for being arbitrarily chosen to have his kid sent to college for free by the boss. I wonder what all his equally hard-working co-workers must have thought on such a random display of affection. Did Wayne then go round giving everyone college funds for their kids, or was that just one random act of kindness that will now earn that man the enmity and jealousy of his fellow staff members?

Yes, terrible WE creates the technology that allows for the more accurate placement of weapons fire, significantly reducing the number of civilian casualties.
BTW, how many Iraqi people, Afghani people & American Military people do you know, because I know quite a few and
I think you have a very skewed sense of the situation(s) over there. Or at least you are presenting your debate points as though you do.
It was implied that the college fund was something available to all WE employees, but skewed more heavily to those from less fortunate backgrounds.