Status of Batman in the popular culture.

[bastardofmelbourne]

Hypothetically, let's say that Wayne Enterprises was one of the companies responsible for developing and selling drones to the U.S government. That's a lot of innocent blood on their hands. Now, ordinarily we could just sweep it aside and say "Well, that's life donchaknow, war and all that..."

Where did you get the idea that Wayne Enterprises builds weapons for the military? I'm not sure that's canon. Even if it was, and Wayne Enterprises built software or hardware for drone planes, that doesn't make them implicit in civilian deaths. Drone planes have numerous non-violent uses, and in fact are mostly used for surveillance.

But seriously, reading your post you seem to have said "What if, hypothetically, Batman built Reaper drones for the military?" and then proceeded as if that was canon. It's not. You just said it was hypothetical. You made that up.

Unfortunately, it still doesn't deal with the character flaws. Because essentially, any time anyone points out any flaws with Batman, all the fans come rushing in to point out all the hundreds of awesome, totally selfless charitable things that Bruce Wayne has done. Which means one of two things.

Either Bruce Wayne is a fundamentally fucked up, sociopathic nutter.

Or he's a total Marty Stu.

What in the name of Black Lightning's uncomfortably tight underpants is your reasoning here?

Seriously, how does "he has fanboys" lead to "he's a Marty Stu/sociopath?"

 

[Tyelcapilu]

Batman is much more of a modern Captain Nemo than anything else, honestly.
Captain Nemo was a rich dude, evaded the law, left his country, went on his own mission for his own values, built himself up, and, most important of all, was an anti-hero. He also was a reluctant hero- he questioned his own actions.
He's still famous to this day for his iconic character design.

The reason Batman is such a reused hero is because his world is so malleable to reuse- each story can have the same place, just a different enemy and a different conflict. It's really just taking the episodic formula of tv shows and putting it into feature-length movies.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

According to a quick Google search, DC has stated that Wayne Enterprises has contracts with the military, building warships and doing military R&D.

You're right, the drone example was made up. The point still stands though. If Batman is striving to be a philanthropist by day and a superhero at night who deliberately doesn't kill, then having contracts with the military is the height of hypocrisy. It would be no different if I went round feeding and clothing beggars, giving money to charities and shelters, then as part of my day job went and sold weapons shipments to other countries. Whatever moral high ground you're trying to take goes straight out the window.

At least Tony Stark admitted his military contracts were part of the problem, and tried to get rid of them when he became Iron Man.

Alright.

1. Canonically, Wayne Enterprises is huge. Let's look at the list; Wayne Foods, Wayne Shipping, Wayne Yards, Wayne Industries, Wayne Medical, Wayne Electronics, Wayne Entertainment, the Wayne Foundation, Wayne Steel, Wayne Biotech, Wayne Chemicals, and the Wayne Institute. There is literally no aspect of modern industry that is not in some way covered by Wayne Enterprises. You're just picking the one you want to focus on (military contracts) and ignoring the nineteen others that hurt your argument (medical research, charitable work, consumer electronics, goods shipping, and so on.)

2. You can have contracts with the military that do not involve building weapons. You can even work on helicopter gunships and aircraft carriers without building a single weapon. There's dozens of different technologies that the military uses that have no lethal application. You can't just say "Wayne Enterprises has military contracts!" and treat that as if he made cluster munitions. "He worked on warships" might mean he made guns, but it could also mean he made navigation software or lifeboats. In fact, Wayne's pathological hatred and fear of firearms means it's much more likely that he doesn't build weapons.

3. If you want to break it down, the huge scope of the military's technological needs means that there are very few famous inventors whose inventions are not in some way applied to the military. The Internet? Made for the military. Radio? Military. Nuclear science? Military. Cars, planes, ships? Military, military, military. It's infinitely reducible. If you put responsibility for the weapon's use on every person tangentially involved in the creation of the weapon - instead of, you know, the guy firing it - practically everyone in every industry has been complicit in murder. That's not even getting into whether you consider wartime deaths to be murder; if you hold to that, hundreds of thousands of soldiers and cops around the world are murderers.

4. Batman is in no way a non-violent character. I said above that even his no-murder rule is ambivalent about whether it forbids killing or murder. He's definitely not a goddamn pacifist, which is what you're treating him as.

5. You really, really, really, really need to specify what canon we're working with. I'm trying not to be a comic geek about this, but are we talking comics, cartoon, films? In the films he gets out of military R&D as soon as he has control of the company, and in the cartoons he simply never dealt with the military. I'm sure in the comics he's dealt with the military before - you said that you had a quote from DC? You didn't link it, so I can't tell how old it is or who said it - but the exact nature of his dealings will depend heaving on the author and the time period the comic was written in.

Anytime I point out anything that looks remotely suspect or fucked up about Batman's character, fans respond by pointing out a hundred and one things that he does that make him a totally awesome guy. From giving a guy a college fund for his kid, to giving all his employees college funds for their kids. From fighting crime at night to running his own succesful charity during the day, something he comics never really elaborate on.

What we've got here is an escalating series of character traits. For one man to be as awesome as the comics paint him is just ridiculous. If Bruce Wayne really is a man who runs one of the most profitable companies in the world, has his own philanthropic causes, is the world's greatest detective, one of the world's greatest amateur scientists, in the peak of physical fitness and master of a dozen martial arts, and fights crime after hours, as well as being a wealthy billionaire, then that makes him a Marty Stu.

Seriously, if I were to tell you that I was writing a story, and the main character had all those wonderful traits I listed above, would you tell me that I'd be writing an icon of American culture? Or would you tell me to get my head out of my arse, and stop writing such stereotypically perfect characters, and actually get soem decent characterisation, realistic expectations and real character flaws in there?

My contention is that Bruce Wayne is none of the things DC Comics tries to present him as, and is in fact a fucked up, sociopathic individual who gives in to the worst excesses of western society. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, he's either the nut job which I believe he is, or he's the Marty Stu DC presents him as. When you've got a character who is a billionaire kung-fu playboy described as the World's Greatest Detective, then there's not a lot of middle ground inbetween.

OK. So you hate Batman.

Why'd you post in this thread?

 

[AgentCooper]

Where did you get the idea that Wayne Enterprises builds weapons for the military? I'm not sure that's canon. Even if it was, and Wayne Enterprises built software or hardware for drone planes, that doesn't make them implicit in civilian deaths. Drone planes have numerous non-violent uses, and in fact are mostly used for surveillance.

But seriously, reading your post you seem to have said "What if, hypothetically, Batman built Reaper drones for the military?" and then proceeded as if that was canon. It's not. You just said it was hypothetical. You made that up.

According to a quick Google search, DC has stated that Wayne Enterprises has contracts with the military, building warships and doing military R&D.

You're right, the drone example was made up. The point still stands though. If Batman is striving to be a philanthropist by day and a superhero at night who deliberately doesn't kill, then having contracts with the military is the height of hypocrisy. It would be no different if I went round feeding and clothing beggars, giving money to charities and shelters, then as part of my day job went and sold weapons shipments to other countries. Whatever moral high ground you're trying to take goes straight out the window.

At least Tony Stark admitted his military contracts were part of the problem, and tried to get rid of them when he became Iron Man.

Unfortunately, it still doesn't deal with the character flaws. Because essentially, any time anyone points out any flaws with Batman, all the fans come rushing in to point out all the hundreds of awesome, totally selfless charitable things that Bruce Wayne has done. Which means one of two things.

Either Bruce Wayne is a fundamentally fucked up, sociopathic nutter.

Or he's a total Marty Stu.

What in the name of Black Lightning's uncomfortably tight underpants is your reasoning here?

Seriously, how does "he has fanboys" lead to "he's a Marty Stu/sociopath?"

Anytime I point out anything that looks remotely suspect or fucked up about Batman's character, fans respond by pointing out a hundred and one things that he does that make him a totally awesome guy. From giving a guy a college fund for his kid, to giving all his employees college funds for their kids. From fighting crime at night to running his own succesful charity during the day, something he comics never really elaborate on.

What we've got here is an escalating series of character traits. For one man to be as awesome as the comics paint him is just ridiculous. If Bruce Wayne really is a man who runs one of the most profitable companies in the world, has his own philanthropic causes, is the world's greatest detective, one of the world's greatest amateur scientists, in the peak of physical fitness and master of a dozen martial arts, and fights crime after hours, as well as being a wealthy billionaire, then that makes him a Marty Stu.

Seriously, if I were to tell you that I was writing a story, and the main character had all those wonderful traits I listed above, would you tell me that I'd be writing an icon of American culture? Or would you tell me to get my head out of my arse, and stop writing such stereotypically perfect characters, and actually get soem decent characterisation, realistic expectations and real character flaws in there?

My contention is that Bruce Wayne is none of the things DC Comics tries to present him as, and is in fact a fucked up, sociopathic individual who gives in to the worst excesses of western society. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, he's either the nut job which I believe he is, or he's the Marty Stu DC presents him as. When you've got a character who is a billionaire kung-fu playboy described as the World's Greatest Detective, then there's not a lot of middle ground inbetween.

You have a problem with how most comic book characters are written then. You also have more of a problem on the fan build up of the Batman character rather than the written portrayal of Batman.


My love for the Batman character started when I was young and not really old enough to read the single Batman issues. My brother would read Batman stories to me and when I was a bit older. This was around the time of Kids WB and the start of Batman: The Animates Series. Everyday I would run off the school bus to watch the show and the most frustrating thing ever was that my friends were not Batman fans at all. Who would I talk to about the show? Many, years later when I would take trades to my school and read during my downtime. I could relate to Batman in some strange way. It helped me through some tough dark times in my life and the best memories come from those small moments in my life. The best being Robin for Halloween and my brother was Batman. Through the years writers and directors have published different takes and versions of Batman. I found catharsis in a way. If anything at all was accomplished was that my love for the character was rekindled through the debate.

 

[Ranorak]

That's why I like Spider-man more then Batman.

(side note; I never really read the Normal continuity, but did read all of Ultimate Spider-man, just to clarify)

Peter goes out at night and beats up criminals too.
But the difference here, Peter was kid when the spider bit him.
Being the hero was partially a teenage fantasy. The older cast (Captain America and Iron Man) point this out at one point, and in fact try and teach him.

But not only that, he fucks up, and unlike Batman, he actually gets confronted with his mistakes.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

OP wanted to know why Batman was popular.

I have my answer: catharsis, and the thrill of the audience in seeing someone use violence as a way to bring justice.

I don't think you read the OP.

Spoiler: The original post

It's no secret that Batman is the most well-known and beloved superhero.
Not only in comics, movies and gaming, but popular culture as a whole.

There is a obvious explanation to this state of affairs, almost every piece
of entartainment Batman was in was a commercial , and very often a critical
success.

But i wonder, how long will it last ?

In the past, role of "the most badass person ever"(or however people describe him)
was taken by characters such as Chuck Norris, or Boba Fet.
But their "domination" faded over the years.

Do anyone thinks Batman will eventually share their fate ?

The OP wasn't asking why Batman was popular. In fact, the OP gave an answer to that question right there in his post. He was asking if there was anything that could happen to make Batman unpopular.

You've just spun that into this vitriolic, rampantly non-canonical rant about how Batman is simultaneously a sickeningly perfect character and a hypocritical psychopath, and about how his fans are mindless zealots because they disagree with you.

I read your posts, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and then you went ahead and started talking about how Batman builds drone bombers to kill Iraqi children. You're just picking fights, here.

If someone posted a thread saying "How did Stalin get so powerful in Soviet Russia", should only avowed Stalin supporters post in reponse?

Annnnnd Godwin's Law.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

That's why I like Spider-man more then Batman.

(side note; I never really read the Normal continuity, but did read all of Ultimate Spider-man, just to clarify)

Peter goes out at night and beats up criminals too.
But the difference here, Peter was kid when the spider bit him.
Being the hero was partially a teenage fantasy. The older cast (Captain America and Iron Man) point this out at one point, and in fact try and teach him.

But not only that, he fucks up, and unlike Batman, he actually gets confronted with his mistakes.

This is a trend typical to Marvel comics in general, which have historically been the more mature, morally ambiguious alternative to DC's simplistically black-and-white perspective of superhero morality. Ironically, this trend didn't survive the transition to film; compare the Nolan!Batman films to the Avengers and ask yourself which was the mature, realistic drama and which was the bright, cartoonish popcorn thriller.

It's actually good that you stuck with Ultimate!Spiderman, because the One More Day storyline in Prime!Spiderman totally destroyed that aspect of the character (accepting responsibility for your mistakes.) That's what happens when you let the editor-in-chief dictate the plot...

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

If someone posted a thread saying "How did Stalin get so powerful in Soviet Russia", should only avowed Stalin supporters post in reponse?

Annnnnd Godwin's Law.

Not even close. Try again.

I'm disinclined to; you just compared Batman fans to Stalinists.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

No I didn't. I gave an example of how your logic was flawed. You made an argument from the position that only the pro side of a debate could contribute, and that people on the con side weren't welcome. I gave an example of how that kind of logic, in a forum of debate, is faulty. I wasn't deliberately comparing like for like, simply giving an example.

You have an admirable talent for invention.

You said that every time you criticised Batman, a legion of his followers would arise to hurl vitriol at you. I was asking why, if you don't like Batman or his fanboys, do you go around making huge flamebait posts about how he's a psychopathic arms dealer?

It's just not very productive.

I never said that he is simultaneously both at the same time. I said that he is either one or the other. I even went into detail explaining that.

I made my argument for why Batman is a fucked up character. Others then responded by giving example after example of how he's apparently totally amazing and selfless and totally wonderful. My response was therefore that by the logic they present, if he isn't a sociopath as I argue, then he's a Marty Stu. I am not arguing that he is both, simply that he is one or the other.

Your refusal to even recognise this simple logic is tiring. What, I ask you, would you call a character who is simultaneously a billionaire, a philanthropist, a playboy, a genius scientist, the world's smartest detective, a 'brilliant' tactician, a master of martial arts and a vigilante superhero, if not a Marty Stu? Because by any standards of creative writing, that is one long list of amazing character traits with no discernible flaws to balance him out. I am not the only one. Others on the thread have commented that Batman is a Kung-Fu Jesus.

Why is it an either-or? Can't he be a flawed character who isn't Kung-Fu Jesus or Rorschach in a cape?

A tremendous amount of what you're putting forth as a blanket criticism depends on the person writing Batman. If a writer makes Batman so perfect and flawless that there's no tension in the story, don't blame Batman. Blame bad writers.

Take the animated series. At least once an episode, Batman will get hit by a two-by-four and knocked unconscious, then wake up in a death trap. This is an important part of the episode, because it shows that Batman is in danger; that adds tension. It also shows that Batman is fallible - despite being a ridiculously fit martial artist, he can still get blindsided by a thug with a wooden plank.

But then Batman escapes the death trap, through ingenuity or luck, and resolves the plot in time for the end of the episode. That's an equally important part, because it shows that Batman will persist in the face of danger and eventually succeed - the whole thing ties up nice and neat.

This isn't an unusual formula. The Nolan films follow the exact same series of events - Batman fails and gets beaten up at the end of act one or act two, then picks himself up and keeps going for the final act. Most Batman comics, if you bother to read them, do the same. As an example, Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns ends its first arc with Batman getting the shit kicked out of him by a gang leader who is younger and stronger than him. He is rescued by Robin, and later leads the gang leader into a trap where Batman has the advantage.

This is such a common play for Batman comics that it could be practically called the Batman plot, but you seem to focus on the boring, infallible Batman that stars in every bad piece of fanfiction or shitty cameo appearance, who carries a can of Plot Resolution Spray and dodges bullets by doing a cartwheel. And then you're like "He's either that, or he's a psychopathic fascist! My logic is flawless!"

Can't you see how ridiculously blinkered that is? Of course you can; you just don't care, because you want to start an argument instead of talking about comics.

That specific point was directed at the argument that by providing the military with advanced technology, Bruce Wayne is somehow reducing civilian deaths. I simply pointed out that even with the most up-to-date military technology, civilian deaths are never avoided.

That's a far cry from saying that Batman is responsible for those deaths, or that it makes him a hypocrite. But the friction on your backpedalling could set fire to asbestos, and I feel sorry for you, so we'll move on.

If Batman is truly committed to the idea of not killing anyone, then allowing his company to have ties to the military is a completely hypocritical act, something that others heroes such as Iron Man have explicitly addressed.

This may surprise you: Iron Man kills people. He actually shoots them in the head with his repulsors. He does it all the time; he kills like fifty people in his first film and nukes a fleet of sentient aliens at the end of the Avengers. It's one of the traits of Marvel heroes that they're more flexible about causing death than the DC roster is.

Your comparison is a bad one, is what I'm getting at here.

I'm not picking fights. I'm just responding to the points people bring up.

Those points are being brought up to refute your shitty argument. They wouldn't exist if you hadn't come into this thread, plonked your ass down, and said "I hate Batman! COME AT ME BRO"

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I told you this before but they have the Wayne Foundation to help the needy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Enterprises

The Wayne Foundation is a token effort thrown in by writers in an effort to make Batman not look like a fascist, without actually having to do any real writing in order to do so.

How many Batman stories actually feature the Wayne Foundation? How many writers have actually focused on Bruce Wayne's efforts to use philanthropic means to combat crime? How many writers have actually looked at or explored just how succesful such an endeavour could be? Not even a fraction compared to the amount who have simply written more stories where Batman solves crime through yet more judicial use of violence.

It's self-serving power fantasy at best, with nothing more than a token effort made to please the 'left-wing hippies'. If writers were serious in exploring Batman's effect on crime, the Wayne Foundation would actually be a heavily explored, core concept of the character, rather than a rarely used device created only to be used as a shield whenever someone calls Batman out for being a Fascist.

Ya know they even have a Batman character for you.

He's called Anarky.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Hypothetically, let's say that Wayne Enterprises was one of the companies responsible for developing and selling drones

That's a pretty darn big hypothetical.
Hypothetically, if WE is working on improving crop sustainability & low cost low tech irrigation systems he's saved more lives & prevented more suffering than any human being ever.
But it's HYPOTHETICAL.

What. The. Fuck?

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.

I've met and spoke with guys who's served out in Iraq and Afghanistan. And the common consensus seems to be that the people really, really don't like us being over there, shooting their countries up. And I imagine, hypothetically, they'd like it even less if they found out that a wealthy American philanthropist and famous vigilante was also responsible for financing and selling the drones that are currently blowing things up all across the Middle East.

Just a hunch though.

Well my experience has been very different. The apartment next to mine is occupied by two young ladies from Iraq--they
love America & american soldiers.
Waitress in Denny's on the corner is older lady from Iraq--loves America & american soldiers.
Bus driver I see & chat with 3-5 times a week is from Afghanistan--loves America & american soldiers.
Brother of co-worker served two terms in Iraq, has endless stories of making friends, helping people & being
appreciated by Iraqi people.
examples could go on and on...
Not to mention all of the students at the local university who gravitate to me & begin conversations
because they assume that I'm middle eastern (based on my looks) but if you talk to them same story--love US/citizens/soldiers.
[/quote]

It was implied that the college fund was something available to all WE employees, but skewed more heavily to those from less fortunate backgrounds.

Well gee, isn't that just great.

Unfortunately, it still doesn't deal with the character flaws. Because essentially, any time anyone points out any flaws with Batman, all the fans come rushing in to point out all the hundreds of awesome, totally selfless charitable things that Bruce Wayne has done. Which means one of two things.


Either Bruce Wayne is a fundamentally fucked up, sociopathic nutter.

Or he's a total Marty Stu.

Hold the phone! I think I see where a lot of the problems here are arising from....
Yes--Batman is a TOTAL Marty Stu.
That's the kind of fantasy being created/marketed here.
Superman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Thor, Iron Man..pretty much *any* of the so called-"super-heroes".
(arguable exceptions being Hulk & Dr. Strange but that's a discussion for another time....)
The question is, do you think that this makes all the stories for those characters bad?
Personally I don't, and I can think of other well-loved fiction where the main characters are
Mary Sue's/Marty Stu's that remain arguably excellent works.
(The original resolution to the Batman origin/Joe Chill story reads like a freaking Greek Morality play)
If you don't like a piece of work because it contains that aspect, well that's your taste but I
think you are cutting yourself off from a lot of great fiction.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

Really, there are more billionaire playboy superheroes than there are poor average-joe superheroes. The ones who aren't billionaires are usually de facto gods, like Superman or Thor.