What do DC fans like about DC?

[Saelune]

The comics that is, incase there is any confusion.

I'm not really a DC fan. Sure, I love Batman, but a lot of people do. I do love Marvel though, and I have many criticisms of DC overall, some being showcased now with yet another reboot.

But I want to know what fans of the comics love about DC that makes them DC fans. My guess is a lot of what maybe I don't like about them is what fans do like, but maybe there is something I just don't see.

I will hold on to most of my criticisms for the start aleast, since I don't want it to just be arguments against my opinions. I just want to get a positive point of view to maybe appreciate a Comic empire that ultimately allowed for main rival Marvel to exist in the first place.

And I also don't want this to become a DC vs Marvel thing either. Use comparisons if it is relevant, but ofcourse you can love both for the same or different reasons.

 

[mduncan50]

As someone that has loved both since childhood, lo those many years ago, DC and Marvel have always approached superheroes in a fundamentally different way. DC was about gods living among people while Marvel was about people with the powers of gods. DC heroes had secret identities to blend in with humans while Marvel heroes wear costumes to hide their true identities. (Obviously this doesn't apply to every character, for instance Thor would seem more at home in the DC realm.) Also Marvel tried to make their world and heroes more grounded and relatable - real world locations, real world issues, heroes not getting along - where DC has tended to stick to the more fantastical and mythical. What it comes down to is what kind of storytelling someone prefers, and often which they get into first. I was lucky enough that I started reading Spider-Man and Batman comics at pretty much the same time in the 80s so I never really became too entrenched in one over the other.

And again, before I have fanboys from one side or the other jumping down my throat, no this doesn't apply to 100% of the characters 100% of the time, and things get borrowed and copied, but as a general rundown of the universes and philosophies I stand by it.

 

[WindKnight]

i cant really speak from personal experience, as I'm not big into either directly more through ancillary media (marvel comics I've read - an old Xmen trade, the collected edition of LiveWires, DC comics I've read - Sandman, Watchmen, Darwin Cooks take on The Spirit) but a quote from Linkara is something thats always stuck with me.

'Marvel has the flawed heroes you can identify with, DC has the idealised heroes you can look up to'.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

At the most basic surface level I just think the heroes are cooler and more powerful thus more exciting action would take place and its has Superman....a pure example of a Superhero. No gimmicks, nothing. I mean that is the thing about Marvel I don't like they have no Superman or Superman figure and no Captain America and Spiderman are not even close because none of them can stand center stage the sameway as Superman like this:

 

[Saelune]

As someone that has loved both since childhood, lo those many years ago, DC and Marvel have always approached superheroes in a fundamentally different way. DC was about gods living among people while Marvel was about people with the powers of gods.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is true. I don't remember what movie it was, but in it some guy saying why he liked Superman was because Superman was his true identity, while Clark is his alter ego, something different than a lot of heroes, like Batman or Spider-Man.

I always felt a lot of it also had to do with when each got started. When DC started, background and "reality" mattered less. It was just about beating up the bad guy. Early Marvel was similar too, but it wasn't until after WWII that Marvel found its identity, which pushed for more depth to the world.

 

[mduncan50]

As someone that has loved both since childhood, lo those many years ago, DC and Marvel have always approached superheroes in a fundamentally different way. DC was about gods living among people while Marvel was about people with the powers of gods.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is true. I don't remember what movie it was, but in it some guy saying why he liked Superman was because Superman was his true identity, while Clark is his alter ego, something different than a lot of heroes, like Batman or Spider-Man.

I always felt a lot of it also had to do with when each got started. When DC started, background and "reality" mattered less. It was just about beating up the bad guy. Early Marvel was similar too, but it wasn't until after WWII that Marvel found its identity, which pushed for more depth to the world.

I would disagree with Batman, as I would definitely consider Bruce Wayne to be the alter ego. He plays the billionaire playboy so that people wont think he's Batman, as opposed to someone like Tony Stark, who IS a billionaire playboy who happens to jump into a tin can to save the world from time to time.

Also, Marvel didn't exist until the 60s. I know that there was Timely and Atlas before that, but Marvel comics, Marvel superheroes, and the Marvel style didn't exist until then. They brought a couple of characters from the Golden Age, but they made some fundamental changes to them to make them fit the universe.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I prefer DC mainly because DC's heroes are archetypes, as opposed to "just" people with superpowers. They're symbols in a way that Marvel heroes never quite managed.

There's a sense of modern-day mythology to a lot of DC's heroes that makes them...larger-than-life, I guess. They have more applicability. Their origin stories are like ancient oral traditions, in that the key elements are reworked and reinterpreted with each telling, becoming something new while paradoxically staying the same. You can tell a lot of different types of stories with Superman.

The flip side of that is that Marvel's heroes tend to be both more grounded and more relatable as people. Spider-Man was the poster boy for that theme for a long time, but he's been kind of undercut recently what with all the ham-fisted editorial retcons.

/rant

I think the reason why I prefer the former approach to the latter is because when you get down to it, none of Marvel's superheroes are really that relatable - even Spider-Man. He's a genius-level scientist, independent inventor of superglue-webbing, who also works as a professional photojournalist (a job that barely exists these days), was married to a hot red-headed supermodel/actress, and somehow still lives with his aunt while in his mid-thirties. The other ones aren't much better. Tony Stark is an impossibly rich playboy who is simultaneously smart enough to invent his own powered armour. The X-Men are a good parallel for persecuted minorities until you realise that all the main cast are super-hot and have awesome mutations like eye lasers and telepathy, not lame ones like super-thick tree skin [http://www.newhealthadvisor.com/images/1HT00392/image0031.jpg] or werewolf syndrome [http://1000weirdfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/werewolf-syndrome2.jpg] (image warning) - you know, stuff that would make them actual social outcasts and not superheroes. Even Daredevil, the most street-level Marvel superhero around, is a legal prodigy and has super-senses so powerful that he can read newspapers with his fingertips. The idea that I'm meant to relate more to Daredevil than Batman becomes kind of a conceit that falls apart on closer investigation.

/endrant

So I think I prefer the approach that dispenses entirely with the idea that I'm supposed to put myself in the shoes of a superhero and instead just focusses on telling me entertaining, larger-than-life stories about modern demigods. Of course, the big problem at the moment is that the Marvel movies are doing that right now, and they're doing it better than the DC/WB movies are. Not that DC isn't aiming at the same target; they just haven't quite hit the mark yet. But that's a different topic entirely.

 

[Saelune]

As someone that has loved both since childhood, lo those many years ago, DC and Marvel have always approached superheroes in a fundamentally different way. DC was about gods living among people while Marvel was about people with the powers of gods.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is true. I don't remember what movie it was, but in it some guy saying why he liked Superman was because Superman was his true identity, while Clark is his alter ego, something different than a lot of heroes, like Batman or Spider-Man.

I always felt a lot of it also had to do with when each got started. When DC started, background and "reality" mattered less. It was just about beating up the bad guy. Early Marvel was similar too, but it wasn't until after WWII that Marvel found its identity, which pushed for more depth to the world.

I would disagree with Batman, as I would definitely consider Bruce Wayne to be the alter ego. He plays the billionaire playboy so that people wont think he's Batman, as opposed to someone like Tony Stark, who IS a billionaire playboy who happens to jump into a tin can to save the world from time to time.

Also, Marvel didn't exist until the 60s. I know that there was Timely and Atlas before that, but Marvel comics, Marvel superheroes, and the Marvel style didn't exist until then. They brought a couple of characters from the Golden Age, but they made some fundamental changes to them to make them fit the universe.

Not really trying to argue about which Batman is real.

Also why I pointed out *after* WWII. Its like referring to colonial America as early US. Legally it wasn't the US, but it became it, since Captain America, Namor, and original non-Fantastic Four Human Torch are all part of modern Marvel canon.

 

[Kolby Jack]

Well for Starters, DC, in total, has influenced the industry far more than Marvel. That's not to say Marvel hasn't influenced the industry a lot, but...

1) Superman was the FIRST Superhero. Obviously he was not created from nothing, but the look, the feel, the essence of what a superhero is started with Superman.

2) Barry Allen began the Silver Age, the first big transition from the hokey silliness of the Golden Age to... the hokey silliness of the Silver Age. Unlike much of the Golden Age, characters that began in the Silver Age are largely still major characters today (for better or worse).

3) Alan Moore's Watchmen and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns kicked off the trend of darker, edgier material in comics. Again, that may not be a good thing to you but it no doubt influenced the industry immensely. It created the heyday of Rob Liefeld, which led to the creation of Deadpool.

Remember, less than two decades ago Marvel was facing BANKRUPTCY. That's why it doesn't own the movie rights to some of its characters. There's no denying Marvel has made a hefty comeback in recent years but that's a fairly recent development.

Aside from just influence, I grew up with DC. I watched Batman and Superman TAS, Batman Beyond, Teen Titans and Justice League and loved all of them. I watched Lois and Clark with my parents. I never really got into Marvel stuff. I watched the Spider-Man films and liked them but I never saw the X-Men movies. What Marvel stuff I did see didn't do much for me. I eventually grew to even HATE the X-Men, which is fine now because Marvel hates them too. I have my reasons for that but I won't get into them unless someone really wants to know.

Also, the one major thing DC has that Marvel doesn't is sidekicks. Some people scoff at the idea of sidekicks but the idea has always appealed to me. I can't say exactly why I tend to like sidekicks so much; maybe it's the partner/mentor dynamic, the almost automatic sense of levity a young sidekick brings to any story (not involving their death), the idea that (even though it almost never sticks because comics can't change the status quo for long no matter HOW popular it is) the sidekick can/will one day take up the mantle of their mentor and honor their legacy, eventually possibly even surpassing them, or maybe it's just because I can relate more to young kids looking up to heroes and wanting to be like them than I ever could to angsty, whiny gits angsting about how society doesn't like them or boo-hoo their life is SO HARD. My favorite character is Wally West, at least partly because he was the FIRST sidekick to take up the mantle of his mentor and eventually surpass him. It was undone later by Barry's dumb resurrection but it lasted for 20 years, which isn't bad for a comic death.

 

[mduncan50]

Well for Starters, DC, in total, has influenced the industry far more than Marvel. That's not to say Marvel hasn't influenced the industry a lot, but...

1) Superman was the FIRST Superhero. Obviously he was not created from nothing, but the look, the feel, the essence of what a superhero is started with Superman.

2) Barry Allen began the Silver Age, the first big transition from the hokey silliness of the Golden Age to... the hokey silliness of the Silver Age. Unlike much of the Golden Age, characters that began in the Silver Age are largely still major characters today (for better or worse).

3) Alan Moore's Watchmen and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns kicked off the trend of darker, edgier material in comics. Again, that may not be a good thing to you but it no doubt influenced the industry immensely. It created the heyday of Rob Liefeld, which led to the creation of Deadpool.

Remember, less than two decades ago Marvel was facing BANKRUPTCY. That's why it doesn't own the movie rights to some of its characters. There's no denying Marvel has made a hefty comeback in recent years but that's a fairly recent development.

Aside from just influence, I grew up with DC. I watched Batman and Superman TAS, Batman Beyond, Teen Titans and Justice League and loved all of them. I watched Lois and Clark with my parents. I never really got into Marvel stuff. I watched the Spider-Man films and liked them but I never saw the X-Men movies. What Marvel stuff I did see didn't do much for me. I eventually grew to even HATE the X-Men, which is fine now because Marvel hates them too. I have my reasons for that but I won't get into them unless someone really wants to know.

Also, the one major thing DC has that Marvel doesn't is sidekicks. Some people scoff at the idea of sidekicks but the idea has always appealed to me. I can't say exactly why I tend to like sidekicks so much; maybe it's the partner/mentor dynamic, the almost automatic sense of levity a young sidekick brings to any story (not involving their death), the idea that (even though it almost never sticks because comics can't change the status quo for long no matter HOW popular it is) the sidekick can/will one day take up the mantle of their mentor and honor their legacy, eventually possibly even surpassing them, or maybe it's just because I can relate more to young kids looking up to heroes and wanting to be like them than I ever could to angsty, whiny gits angsting about how society doesn't like them or boo-hoo their life is SO HARD. My favorite character is Wally West, at least partly because he was the FIRST sidekick to take up the mantle of his mentor and eventually surpass him. It was undone later by Barry's dumb resurrection but it lasted for 20 years, which isn't bad for a comic death.

I'd agree that DC has had a greater influence on comics, even if only by virtue of the fact that it was around for 30 more years at the start, but I think you're underestimating the influence that Marvel has had as well. Before them it was a love fest among heroes, they never had any problems with each other, and their relationships were simplistic at best. Before Marvel teenagers couldn't be heroes, only sidekicks. Marvel destroyed the relevance of the Comic Code Authority when they couldn't gain approval for a story involving a main character having a drug addiction but published anyways and it didn't hurt sales in the least.

As for bringing some darkness to the comic world Frank Miller's work with Batman was just following up what he had already done with Daredevil a few years before, and Marvel had violent antiheroes like the Punisher, Morbius, Wolverine, and many others in the 70s while DC was still all about wearing the brightest tights possible, not to mention guys like the Hulk and Namor from just about day one of Marvel's existance.

Oh, and the bankruptcy thing had nothing to do with the comics or their quality, that was all backroom business bullshit that was all about politics and egos of people that had nothing to do with the creative stuff.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I suppose DC is just better wishfullfillment to me.

Just think about what a Batman comic done by Marvel would be like. It be a lot more focusing on his broken personal life and his personal journey towards finally getting over his parents death and hanging the cowl up before some punk with a gun gets in that one lucky shot we know will happen one day and kill him.

Now that's fine in it's own right, but thats not what I want from my super heroes. ya know how people ***** Batman is basically overpowered in his own right and basically always saves the day with some kind of ass-pull?


Well that's what I like. None of this shit is remotely real anyway, but let me indulge in a fantasy where somehow... the good guy wins, ya know?

 

[Vausch]

As someone that has loved both since childhood, lo those many years ago, DC and Marvel have always approached superheroes in a fundamentally different way. DC was about gods living among people while Marvel was about people with the powers of gods.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is true. I don't remember what movie it was, but in it some guy saying why he liked Superman was because Superman was his true identity, while Clark is his alter ego, something different than a lot of heroes, like Batman or Spider-Man.

I always felt a lot of it also had to do with when each got started. When DC started, background and "reality" mattered less. It was just about beating up the bad guy. Early Marvel was similar too, but it wasn't until after WWII that Marvel found its identity, which pushed for more depth to the world.

That was Kill Bill, and it was wrong. Bill in it states that Clark is Superman's critique on the entire human race: "He's weak. He's bumbling. He's a coward". But no. That's who Clark is. That's one of the things I love about Superman: just shy of a god, but he's probably the most human of all the DC heroes. No kidding, I still well up a bit whenever I read "All Star Superman" and get to the jumper chapter.

Now Batman I agree with though. Bruce Wayne is an alter ego that Batman puts on. Bruce died that night along with his parents and Batman was born in that tragedy.

I also second the idea of DC characters being gods among men while Marvel's characters are human with godlike potential. It's a matter of scale too. I mean consider: In the MCU, so far there have been 13 films and 2 of which had a threat that was potentially world ending. And I mean literally ending. Arguably only 1 so far given the first Avengers film was more about taking over earth than wiping it out as Ultron intended. The Dark World had high stakes as well, but the threat wasn't targeted at earth. Each of the battles they've endured has been focused on THEM, the characters or a specific city or relatively small areas.

Now look at DC: The first movie in the DCEU was Man of Steel and it started with the entire Earth under threat and ended with thousands of people dead and millions if not more in damages. You have to scale it up pretty hard from there or make it so that every single movie has a threat to earth now if Superman is involved or it will feel like the stakes are low.

 

[Saelune]

I suppose DC is just better wishfullfillment to me.

Just think about what a Batman comic done by Marvel would be like. It be a lot more focusing on his broken personal life and his personal journey towards finally getting over his parents death and hanging the cowl up before some punk with a gun gets in that one lucky shot we know will happen one day and kill him.

Now that's fine in it's own right, but thats not what I want from my super heroes. ya know how people ***** Batman is basically overpowered in his own right and basically always saves the day with some kind of ass-pull?


Well that's what I like. None of this shit is remotely real anyway, but let me indulge in a fantasy where somehow... the good guy wins, ya know?

I know Marvel does it plenty too (Daredevil Season 2 is a prime example), but ugh, that clip is one of the few major flaws with Batman I have. Up until Jason Todd shot at Batman instead of actually killing Joker, he is basically saying my opinion verbatim. (Also Zsasz, fuck that guy) I know I'm kind of sidetracking my own topic, but it seriously bugs me to no end.

 

[mduncan50]

As someone that has loved both since childhood, lo those many years ago, DC and Marvel have always approached superheroes in a fundamentally different way. DC was about gods living among people while Marvel was about people with the powers of gods.

That's an interesting way to look at it. I suppose that is true. I don't remember what movie it was, but in it some guy saying why he liked Superman was because Superman was his true identity, while Clark is his alter ego, something different than a lot of heroes, like Batman or Spider-Man.

I always felt a lot of it also had to do with when each got started. When DC started, background and "reality" mattered less. It was just about beating up the bad guy. Early Marvel was similar too, but it wasn't until after WWII that Marvel found its identity, which pushed for more depth to the world.

That was Kill Bill, and it was wrong. Bill in it states that Clark is Superman's critique on the entire human race: "He's weak. He's bumbling. He's a coward". But no. That's who Clark is. That's one of the things I love about Superman: just shy of a god, but he's probably the most human of all the DC heroes. No kidding, I still well up a bit whenever I read "All Star Superman" and get to the jumper chapter.

Now Batman I agree with though. Bruce Wayne is an alter ego that Batman puts on. Bruce died that night along with his parents and Batman was born in that tragedy.

I also second the idea of DC characters being gods among men while Marvel's characters are human with godlike potential. It's a matter of scale too. I mean consider: In the MCU, so far there have been 13 films and 2 of which had a threat that was potentially world ending. And I mean literally ending. Arguably only 1 so far given the first Avengers film was more about taking over earth than wiping it out as Ultron intended. The Dark World had high stakes as well, but the threat wasn't targeted at earth. Each of the battles they've endured has been focused on THEM, the characters or a specific city or relatively small areas.

Now look at DC: The first movie in the DCEU was Man of Steel and it started with the entire Earth under threat and ended with thousands of people dead and millions if not more in damages. You have to scale it up pretty hard from there or make it so that every single movie has a threat to earth now if Superman is involved or it will feel like the stakes are low.

I'd agree with that. In Marvel comics if the world is at risk it is an Event. In DC comics, if the world is at risk, then it must be Thursday. Not sure how well that will translate for DC in the movies, as audiences may become incredulous to the fact that the world is at risk yet again, as the movies go on. I'll feel better once we can see a smaller movie from one of their big heroes. But then there's lot of things I'd like to see from DC movies at this point.

 

[shrekfan246]

I eventually grew to even HATE the X-Men, which is fine now because Marvel hates them too.

This actually kind of hits on one of the points for me, and branches off into a bunch of other things I like/dislike. Basically, before Marvel did their Battleworld thing, it was impossible for me to even begin to parse what was going on with things like the X-Men comics, what with all of their double-crossings and double-agents and the deaths of Xavier and Jean Grey, and teams run by Magneto, and then the actual X-Men splitting into two different groups who were following Cyclops and Wolverine...

I jumped into DC's stuff with the New 52, and while it didn't completely shed the baggage of the pre-universe, it used little enough that it was just easy to follow. Even pre-52, I had some solid idea of things I could look for that interested me, because a lot of the good Batman stories are either their own runs or collected into easy compilations, and certain comic lines like the Justice League and Justice Society were routinely relaunched so they didn't just have 500+ issues to try sorting through. With Marvel's comics, every big story or event since the early '00s seems to have been some massive crossover thing, and most of them have been poorly received too so it's impossible for me to just look them up for opinions because I'm not nearly as critical of comics as all of these other people are. But it just meant that I could never figure out where to actually start reading. I eventually settled on a bit of Daredevil and Spider-Man, and I've got a few others now too but then I just went to the Ultimate Marvelverse because at least that one I could comprehend. I haven't actually started reading it yet because holy wow I don't have the time to do everything I want and I'm like two months behind just on DC comics, but the All-New, All-Different thing seemed like as good a time as any for someone like me to start following their comics, just like the New 52.

Also, I really liked the armored looks most of the DC characters got for the New 52. Batman's New 52 suit rubbed me up all the right ways.

As stupid as I find some of DC's decisions (read: how utterly bloody pointless Convergence was and how they're apparently trying to do their own All-New, All-Different thing now because they don't know what to do with the New 52 anymore), I just think it's a bit easier to get into and follow.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I suppose DC is just better wishfullfillment to me.

Just think about what a Batman comic done by Marvel would be like. It be a lot more focusing on his broken personal life and his personal journey towards finally getting over his parents death and hanging the cowl up before some punk with a gun gets in that one lucky shot we know will happen one day and kill him.

Now that's fine in it's own right, but thats not what I want from my super heroes. ya know how people ***** Batman is basically overpowered in his own right and basically always saves the day with some kind of ass-pull?


Well that's what I like. None of this shit is remotely real anyway, but let me indulge in a fantasy where somehow... the good guy wins, ya know?

I know Marvel does it plenty too (Daredevil Season 2 is a prime example), but ugh, that clip is one of the few major flaws with Batman I have. Up until Jason Todd shot at Batman instead of actually killing Joker, he is basically saying my opinion verbatim. (Also Zsasz, fuck that guy) I know I'm kind of sidetracking my own topic, but it seriously bugs me to no end.

Ohhhhh but thats what makes it sooooo good!

We all know on some level, Jason Todd is right. Fuck the joker, ya know?

But he's not realizing that the line of difference between Batman and Joker is really razor thin. If Batman kills Joker? He will kill TwoFace. And penguin. And Riddler. And anyone else that hurts the innocent.

 

[Vausch]

But then there's lot of things I'd like to see from DC movies at this point.

Like a good one?

That would be nice. Superman doesn't need to start with a world ending event, he just needs to be in a situation that can be best resolved by him. Back at All Star Superman, Supes was given more power than he'd ever had before and he still went through some of the most human moments in the entire series. Realising that even with his godlike powers he still couldn't save his dad from the most common way for someone to die was an especially strong moment.

Y'know that's another thing I hated about Man of Steel. On top of Pa Kent's pre-death argument with Clark that ripped off Spider-Man (the movie) he died in the most overblown way possible. The point of Pa Kent's death was as I mentioned: Sometimes you just can't save everyone no matter how much power you have and no matter how much you want to. That moment in the comic when Clark suddenly stops hearing his dad's heart, rushing to him shouting "I can save him! I'LL SAVE EVERYONE!" then immediately cutting to the funeral with him giving a tear-filled eulogy was just so powerful. Many props to Grant Morrison.

 

[Saelune]

I suppose DC is just better wishfullfillment to me.

Just think about what a Batman comic done by Marvel would be like. It be a lot more focusing on his broken personal life and his personal journey towards finally getting over his parents death and hanging the cowl up before some punk with a gun gets in that one lucky shot we know will happen one day and kill him.

Now that's fine in it's own right, but thats not what I want from my super heroes. ya know how people ***** Batman is basically overpowered in his own right and basically always saves the day with some kind of ass-pull?


Well that's what I like. None of this shit is remotely real anyway, but let me indulge in a fantasy where somehow... the good guy wins, ya know?

I know Marvel does it plenty too (Daredevil Season 2 is a prime example), but ugh, that clip is one of the few major flaws with Batman I have. Up until Jason Todd shot at Batman instead of actually killing Joker, he is basically saying my opinion verbatim. (Also Zsasz, fuck that guy) I know I'm kind of sidetracking my own topic, but it seriously bugs me to no end.

Ohhhhh but thats what makes it sooooo good!

We all know on some level, Jason Todd is right. Fuck the joker, ya know?

But he's not realizing that the line of difference between Batman and Joker is really razor thin. If Batman kills Joker? He will kill TwoFace. And penguin. And Riddler. And anyone else that hurts the innocent.

Except he wont, or if he does, its to those who deserve it. But then I am of the mind that you kill the Emperor of the Sith, then just...DONT conquer the Galaxy. Seriously Bruce, its called free will.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

I suppose DC is just better wishfullfillment to me.

Just think about what a Batman comic done by Marvel would be like. It be a lot more focusing on his broken personal life and his personal journey towards finally getting over his parents death and hanging the cowl up before some punk with a gun gets in that one lucky shot we know will happen one day and kill him.

Now that's fine in it's own right, but thats not what I want from my super heroes. ya know how people ***** Batman is basically overpowered in his own right and basically always saves the day with some kind of ass-pull?


Well that's what I like. None of this shit is remotely real anyway, but let me indulge in a fantasy where somehow... the good guy wins, ya know?

I know Marvel does it plenty too (Daredevil Season 2 is a prime example), but ugh, that clip is one of the few major flaws with Batman I have. Up until Jason Todd shot at Batman instead of actually killing Joker, he is basically saying my opinion verbatim. (Also Zsasz, fuck that guy) I know I'm kind of sidetracking my own topic, but it seriously bugs me to no end.

Ohhhhh but thats what makes it sooooo good!

We all know on some level, Jason Todd is right. Fuck the joker, ya know?

But he's not realizing that the line of difference between Batman and Joker is really razor thin. If Batman kills Joker? He will kill TwoFace. And penguin. And Riddler. And anyone else that hurts the innocent.

Except he wont, or if he does, its to those who deserve it. But then I am of the mind that you kill the Emperor of the Sith, then just...DONT conquer the Galaxy. Seriously Bruce, its called free will.

I mean yeah, for a well adjusted person one kill might just be one kill.

But Batman isn't well adjusted, the only reason he does what he does is that he's filled with rage and he's desperately trying to fill the void inside himself. Some people turn to substance abuse, he risks his life every night dressed up in costume.

I liken it to an alcoholic. A normal person can have a few drinks and stop, but an alcoholic will drink and keep drinking till they pass out because once they break that seal and lose their inhibition... they have no sense of willpower.

And so fine, lets say he starts killing bad guys. Most of them? Probably deserve it. But what about someone like Harley? Sure she's hurt people, but she's just as much Joker's victim as she is an accomplice. Does she get murdered too? Catwoman doesn't kill people, but she is a thief and who knows how many security guards she's crippled or maimed with that whip, does she get a pass? What about the guy on the street corner slinging dope to help his mom pay the rent?

And when Superman eventually comes to stop him, and you know he will, will Batman have to kill him to because he's standing in the way of justice?

I think there are characters that can be pragmatic enough to make that hard decision, soldiers in our own military do that all the time. But I don't think Bruce can, cause he's fucked up inside, he's one mistake away from being Frank Castle.

Which back on topic, is why I'm glad DC kinda skimps over this. Once again, Batman saves the day and doesn't kill the joker. The story goes on forever, because do we really want to see the story where Batman goes "Why am I doing this?" and he gets a girlfriend and realizes he can't put the horrible shit in his past behind him? I mean I'm glad he got a happy ending in The Dark Knight trilogy, but that's not Batman.