How is it in "Pretty Poison" that Harvey Dent passes out 30 seconds after he's poisoned, yet Batman is able to 1. Survive it, but 2. survive it in the middle of a fire and 3. survive it while jumping around, which would increase his heartbeat and spread the poison faster.
Because Batman's more badass than Harvey Dent.
This is actually a perfectly good explanation. He's healthier, more focused, more trained, and has almost certainly done his best to build up a resistance to various toxins. Any one of those things would make him last longer, add all of them up and it's not remarkable at all.
Harvey and Ivy were smooching for a very long time, so he might've taken a larger dose than Batman. Not only did Batman and Ivy not kiss for as long, Batman also started spitting afterwards. So he might not have as much in his system as Harvey did.
Another problem with the same episode is Ivy's entire mission is to punish Harvey because he was reponsible for creating the prison whose construction made the Wild Thorny Rose go (almost) extinct. Wouldn't an environmental review of the building site have turned up the fact that there was an endangered species there, and subsequently forced a move to another building location?
It's possible that the Wild Thorny Rose was considered to be extinct by whatever authorities actually mattered in Gotham. As far as we know that one plant (that Ivy did save) is the last of it anywhere on earth.
But there's a scene showing a digger uprooting one of the roses.
Gotham City is known for its corruption. There was more profit to be made if the Wild Thorny Rose was not mentioned in the environmental review, therefore it wasn't.
Also early seasons work on a weird early-twentieth-century vibe where people didn't care about things like that nearly as much. Even if it did, there's still a perfectly good possible explanation... Ivy's psycho, the rose isn't particularly endangered (it might only be "extinct" in Gotham... in that field), and her righteous cause is all in her head. As long as there are seeds, a plant is not "extinct". If you were a Mad Scientist that can mutate a plant into a Vagina Dentata monster, couldn't you clone a rose? Ivy crimes are always about control and sadism, the environmental thing is only a great excuse.
The Batman voice
Batman uses his Batman voice rather than his Bruce Wayne voice whenever he's alone with Robin and/or Alfred. This implies that either he's more comfortable in his invented superhero persona than his real lself or that this is in fact his real voice (i.e. he sees Bruce Wayne as a disguise for Batman, not the other way round). Either way, he seems to be a messed up person.
In the DVD commentary the writers directly state the Batman is his true personality while Bruce Wayne is a persona he adopts.
This is also true in the comics. At one point in the Batman and Son arc, Alfred points out that Batman's voice has been gravelly even when he's talking to Alfred and Robin, and later spends a few panels coaching him on how to do the Bruce Wayne voice again.
Also, it doesn't necessarily imply just either of those things; if he is in-character whenever he is wearing the Batman costume, even when alone or just with people who know who he is, he is less likely to make slip-ups accidentely because the habit will be with him.
Why not let Harley go?
In "Harley's Holiday", why didn't Batman just let Harley skip town? He'd have one less villain to worry about. Instead, back to Arkham with you, where the one guy who made you turn to crime is waiting.
Been a while since I've seen that episode but I can definitely tell you that Batman is (a) a control freak, who would want his enemies where he can see them, and (b) the kind of fellow who would consider it unethical to let someone as dangerous as her be someone else's problem in another town. He's obsessive and unyielding.
That episode is pretty clear that Bats honestly wants Harley cured. Add to it the episode about Arkham becoming more prison-like:
Lock-up: "I was working WITH you Batman! You apprehended the scum of the earth, and I kept 'em locked away!"
Batman: "I've seen how you treat your prisoners: forgotten and scared, without hope or compassion."
Also Batman stuck with her to protect from an Angry Cop, a vengeful Mob Boss, and the world's most over protective Dad.
In this case, Batman knows and understands full well that Harley is merely the victim of circumstance and is trying to help her from everyone else who's after her; it's only when she finally snaps under the pressure and decides to begin throwing bombs around that he has to intervene to return her to Arkham. If he'd managed to get things under control before then he'd have probably just let her go.
Also consider that by letting her skip town, he wouldn't have been doing her any favors. She had assaulted people, taken a hostage, caused several traffic accidents in a stolen car... hell, she was committing crimes I don't know the name for (What do you call it when someone sics a pair of hyenas on a security guard?). Getting outside the city limits wouldn't have voided the arrest warrant that was surely pending, it would have just gotten her outside Batman's jurisdiction. Better to capture her himself as gently as possible than let her remain at large as a fugitve, and get gunned down by a SWAT team two towns over.
I know that a dog can be considered a deadly weapon which makes the charge Assault With A Deadly Weapon so they'd probably treat the hyenas the same way.
It's usually heavily implied that the police either can't or don't capture super criminals. Considering that none of the major criminals serve their entire sentence, they break out and in Joker's case have mundane problems like not having the money to afford bullets. Had Harley skipped town even with those crimes (which lets face it are fairly minor in Batman, its not like she gased an entire city or attempted to get fear toxin into the entire city or attempted to nuke the city or. . .I'm gonna stop now.) the police would probably have taken the same hands off approach they seem to take in general. Basically if Harley is holed up in some house not hurting anybody it's safer in general to leave her be than it is to try to take her into custody.
Except both in the cartoons and in the comics we do see the police trying to catch supervillians because it is their job. Just because it's hard doesn't mean that Gordon is just going to let criminals walk free. And they may be minor crimes compared to other supervillians, but that doesn't mean anything in Gotham, why should it mean anything outside of it? And again, Batman does want Harley to get better, her being on the run is not going to help with that.
The Joker: Yes! Downed by a donut! I love Gotham Cops!
What happened to the mooks?
In "The Forgotten" Batman saves the fat villain from the massive explosion, what happened to all the mooks he just knocked out?
They probably died. To be fair, he couldn't have known chubs was going to drop an oil lamp on a crate of explosives.
And what else was Batman going to do? "Damn, no time to save every single person from the explosion the bad guy caused. Oh well, may as well stand here, save absolutely nobody, and die myself as penance."
They're fine- they were wearing helmets.
You know, those two guys in the opening didn't really do anything. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time; they're clearly surprised when the bank blows, and proceed to run away rather than, say, rob the bank in the confusion.
He was chasing them because they had stolen the Green Lantern Ring Wayne Enterprises had gotten it's hands on for study, and planned to use it to destroy Metropolis for Doctor Poison, who the daily planet was writing an expose on because he was using ground nth metal to power a furnace to burn Jonn Jonz, who the flash was trying to free.
On closer inspection, it is strange that two men would blow up the bank after robbing it. However, if they were innocent, they probably wouldn't have run from the police, climbed all the way up a fire escape, and tried to kill Batman on sight.
They were just the lookouts. There was a guy (or guys) inside wiring up the safe to blow it open. Unfortunately, either the explosives the robber(s) inside had were just a bit too powerful and/or the robber wiring them up wasn't as good as he thought he was, blowing him and a large portion of the bank up sky high in the process. The two lookouts, seeing that the plan had gone south in a hurry, decided to cut their losses and leg it, unaware that the Batman was already on their tail.
Complaining about plot holes in the opening?! Did anyone consider that the chase was just passing the bank? We don't need to know what the criminals Batman is chasing in the opening did; we just need to know that he's chasing criminals!
Knowing Batman he probably had already pieced together the clues about what these two were planning in advance. He just arrived a little too later to stop them is all. Plus they pulled guns on him first. Bad move. Batman had to defend himself.
Maybe they blew up the bank as an insurance scam?
I believe that counts as "doing something."
Batman sabotaging Clayface
What the hell was with Batman removing Clayface's one chance at being human? Earlier in that episode he said he had people wiling to help with his problems and by the time he got to Stella's place, he could clearly see that Hagen was becoming more defined feature wise, meaning that the process was working. so WTF? I would pay an arm and a leg to see the audio commentary explaining that.
At the end of the first Clayface story, Batman offered Hagen a chance to turn himself in and get a possible cure; instead, Hagen fakes his death so he can keep his powers and his freedom. It's stated early in "Mudslide" that the MP-40 will not remove Hagen's powers, but rather wil enhance them so that he can shapeshift and hold any form indefinitely. When Batman does interrupt the experiment, he tells Hagen to come with him for a cure, just as he did the first time; Hagen chooses to fight for his freedom, despite being a wanted criminal, rather than face the music and get his cure a little later. Remember, it's not the interrupted treatment alone that kills him, it's the fact that he fell into the water while trying to *kill Batman* for *daring to suggest that he needs to go into custody for his crimes* that does it. From Batman's perspectivce, and based on the plot itself, noone is "removing Clayface's one chance at becoming human;" he's just insisting that Clayface get his cure under conditions that don't let the superpowered, willing-to-murder narcissist get away scot-free.
Maybe he didn't trust Stella not to have made a scientific error that might damage Hagen. Still, he should have foreseen that engaging Clayface in a fight was the absolute worse thing he could possibly do, considering the instability that was already present in his structure.
Well, the safe containing the MP-40 he stole from Wayne Biomedical was clearly marked DANGER. It could have been one of those cures that works at first but then slowly kills you or gives you even worse side-effects. Bruce Wayne could have known MP-40 was not safe as a long-term cure, which is why he chose to interrupt and have professionals help Hagen later ("the lab boys can take it from here"). He didn't plan on Stella freaking out and tackling him or for Clayface to engage him in a battle outside in the rain and melt.
It might have been Batman being paranoid. At the end of his first episode, Clayface fakes his death- complete with electricity and involuntary shapeshifting and final words. Maybe Batman just figured it would be best to play it safe, and it spun out of control, as mentioned above.
Also Batman was pursing Clayface for his previous crimes too, which include but are not limited to attempted murder. Had he come quietly they might have allowed him and Stella to continue the treatments. Not to mention that Clayface actually didn't give a damn about Stella and was using her to keep himself alive and maybe find a cure. This is apparent when he simply parrots a line from one of his movies in an attempt to keep her. Remember that even before his transformation Matt Hagen was an egotistical jerk, which lead to his accident in the first place.
He did yell her name mournfully as he "died", that's got to count for something. Yes, he was extremely temperamental around her, but he was dying, anyone would be in a bad mood. The thing about repeating a line from the film could be an indicator not of fault in him, but in her, as it could mean that she's more in love with his characters than him, and thus he felt he had to answer as a character rather than as the real Hagen. Also, what evidence is there of him being an egotistical jerk before his transformation?
He could also have been screaming her name in rage and desperation, as in "(DAMMIT, HELP ME) STELLA!" Also it was implied in his first appearence that his jackassery as Matt Hagen is what led to the car accident that disfigured him in the first place. His only friend was his stunt double (I think), and from the way they talk about him no one else seemed to be able to stand the guy. As Linkara points out in in the Time Force installment of his History of Power Rangers there is a difference between having a sympathetic back story and ''actually' being a sympathetic character. Clayface has a sympathetic backstory that makes us feel sorry for him, but there is no hard evidence whatsoever that he's an actual sympathetic character. I'm sorry about everything that's happened to you Matt, but you're still an asshole and a criminal.
Ivy eating plants
Poison Ivy is depicted as a strict vegan. Why would anyone who is willing to kill people over plants eat only plants? People who love animals and fight for their rights as sentient beings don't eat animals all the time to express their love. They abstain from meat. Shouldn't Ivy be a carnivore?
Ivy's insane. Logic doesn't enter into it.
You don't have to kill a plant to gain nourishment.
Not really, fruits are sweet because they're meant to be eaten. That's how they spread their seeds; animal eats fruit, poops undigested seeds, new plants grow from poop.
One wonders why she can't just absorb sunlight through the chlorophyll in her skin.
For one, it doesn't provide enough energy for sustained movement, and for another, she only gained this ability relatively late in the series' run. In fact, to this troper's memory, only in the DCAU comic books that are set after the series proper had ended. In her appearances during the earlier B:TAS seasons, she is a normal human with artificial immunity to poisons. Only her later experimentations with plant DNA change this, or actually allow her to make a plant-clone of herself and retire.
Think about mulch; it's made of plants, therefore plants use the remains of other plants as a food source. How many plants do you know that eat meat?
Venus flytraps, pitcher plants, bladderwort and assumedly the giant man eating plants Ivy is fond of.
If she's willing to cut up flowers to make poisons she'd be willing to eat fruits and begtables, most of which exist to be eaten by animals anyway.
Not from where she is standing. Poison Ivy's whole shtick is her obsessive care for plants above any and all other life. She is willing to murder people to protect some flowers. It's so pathological that she even seems to be forgetting the vital role that animals have in plant reproduction. Yet still she is willing to personally partake of the plants she so obsessively protects. Perhaps she believes that the plants are giving her permission to take parts they don't need in order to continue her struggle?
But a flower has yet to reproduce, and picking it prevents it from wilting and producing seeds. I think Ivy gets angry not because they're killing the flower but because they're interfering with the plant reproduction. As for the poisons, presumably you could make them from a single petal, which would not necessarily cause the death of the flower.
Human beings (which is essentially what she still is) cannot live on a carniverous diet. As for her being a total vegan, though...I don't know, snobbery of animals so severe that she can't stomach eating them? Or something?
Actually human beings CAN live on a carnivorous diet. Inuits do so, as fresh fruits and vegetables are pretty scarce on the Arctic tundra. Just look up "No-carbohydrate diet" on The Other Wiki. The real question is: Where does Ivy get her vitamin B12 if she's a vegan?
Supplements? I have no idea when vitamin pills were invented so I don't know if that would be an anachronism.
According to, again, the other wiki, vitamin B12 is naturally produced by bacteria — neither animals nor plants can synthesize it in and of themselves. Ivy being something of a mad biologist in her own right, it's not implausible that she could have come up with her own 'acceptable' source. Or, as suggested just above, she may just pop a supplement pill every so often.
As mentioned above, she's insane. My guess is that it's an attempt to work the plant theme further into her lifestyle just for the purpose of show. I wouldn't put it past the character. She's kind of an uppity bitch like that.
It's actually simple; she after large crimes against nature. She would have no problem with growing plants for food, but destroying the last pockets where a rare rose grows or clearing a large forest to produce cardboard will make her come after you.
Ivy doing anything but eating vegan would be insane, actually. Where do you think animals get their energy? It's basic ecology; there's a 10% transfer of energy (approximate) from one trophic level to the next. By eating plants herself, Ivy is preserving 90% of the pants that would be eaten by the animals she would be eating if she were strictly carnivorous. It's a net-gain for the plants.
It's entirely possible that Ivy's plant body can't process meat. We don't know what she is, biologically; there are no real life plant people to compare her to. Since she's willing to wear flowers as decoration and leaves and vines as clothing in many of her comic book incarnations, and since she's obviously willing to use plants in the name of science, we have to assume that she's pragmatic enough to accept small-scale damage to her babies for what she considers a good cause.
Why not rebuild the forest?
Here's what's been bugging me. In the episode, "Eternal Youth", Poison Ivy develops a serum that's powerful enough to grow entire forests in minutes. She wants to get revenge on industrialists who destroyed rain forests and other plant life. So she...turns them into trees? Small, human-sized trees? Isn't that thinking kind of small when you have the power to grow a whole new forest? And even if she was fixated on the whole revenge thing, she could have grown them over factories or businesses or something.
The process hadn't yet been made permanent. That's why they could turn the trees back into people. Presumably, Ivy wanted to keep them far from civilization until the effects did become permanent, and possibly transplant them afterwards to somewhere more suitable.
Yes, but why bother using it on humans at all? Who cares if the process isn't permanent on humans if she can restore forests? I think the only good answer for that comes back to "She's insane". There isn't enough murder in the "Single-handedly restore the rain forest" plan.
This one falls squarely under Laser-Guided Karma combined with a Green Aesop from Ivy's point of view. She's not trying to recreate the rainforest just with them, she's delivering an ironic form of punishment unto them for what she views as their sins. They destroy rainforests for greed, so she exploits their greed for longer life to transform them into part of the rainforests they so callously destroyed.
Exactly. It's first and foremost intended as punishment — restoring the rainforests without getting rid of at least some of the people responsible for destroying them in the first place isn't enough for her. (And given that quite a few of them would probably just look at the new forests and go "cool, more free resources for us!", she may actually have a bit of a point there.)
So, if the resources could be instantly and largely effortlessly replenished again and again... what's so evil about people wanting to make use of them, again...?
Poison Ivy is the hypocryte. She claims to defend nature, but those are excuses to hide her need to control and torment others.
How can Mr. Freeze be both functionally immortal and unable to survive outside of sub-zero temperatures?
"Functionally immortal" means that you're immortal until something that can kill you does. In other words, you can't die of "natural causes", but you can die of anything else that's capable of killing you.
Most people would consider room temperature to fall under "natural causes" however. In his case though they were referring to him being ageless, not unkillable. There is nothing in any of the stories to suggest that a bullet wouldn't do the job just fine.
The Clock King has little clock hands on his glasses. How does he see properly?
A wizard did it.
What? You've never seen sunglasses with patterned lenses before?
So...then you've never seen a pair of sunglasses?
Clock hands, as in little straight lines in close proximity to one's eyes. Yeah, real hard to see past...
Christmas with the Joker: How do you gag somebody by sticking a candy cane in their mouth? * loses sleep thinking about these things*
It tastes too good to spit out.
Stick it in sideways, or too far back.
Who says it's a normal candy cane?
That would do it, but he doesn't.
"If you spit this candy cane out, I'll shoot you in the face. Enjoy!"
But they react to them like they're gags. They try to yell through them and such. When he puts them in their mouths mid-sentence, they keep trying to talk for a couple of seconds but don't open their mouths and drop them in the process.
The Joker just put that in your mouth, Mr. Hostage. If you drop it and break it what else is he gonna put in there next!? Sounds like maybe you ought to be careful not to drop it then.
This troper always thought that the candy canes are coated with some kind of special glue. It's strong enough to stick on the lips and not be able to spat out, but weak enough to allow for a strong enough tug to tear away.
Adding to the above: presumably, the mysterious substance coating the candy canes reacted with saliva to form an adhesive. The Joker might even have rubbed a bit of something on his hands that counteract the effects.
Unprofessional doctors in "Two-Face"
Two-face: Why do the doctor and nurse recoil so dramatically at the sight of Harvey's scars? Didn't they see him when he first came in, when the sight would have been much nastier? Besides, this is a freakin' Gotham City hospital - surely they see worse on a regular basis.
Also, since when are burn scars sky blue?
Gotham chemicals. Just look at what chemicals did to Mr. Freeze; Dent's injury is tame by comparison.
No, we might be on to something. Besides Fries, this is the same town with chemicals that turned Jack Napier into the eclectically-colored Joker and made Clayface all but invincible. In fact, that's not a bad explanation — they might have seen Harvey even more messed-up beforehand, but they weren't expecting him to be blue.
Different Doctor and Nurse? Hospitals have more than one of each.
Simpler explanation: It's a cartoon.
They might have expected his face to heal, and were shocked when it not only didn't, but possibly got worse.
LOOK at his face, it looks like it's partially melted, I know that the art style of the cartoon might not make it scary looking to you, but in real life that would be pretty horrifying.
True, but those who work in the burn ward are specifically trained to not show any negative reaction. The patients have already been through enough without their Doctors looking at them like freaks or monsters. A Nurse or Doctor reacting like they did in the show would never work with burn victims again! Of course, dramatic effect trumps all.
Remember, this is the pseudo 1940s. Doctor training was quite a bit different back then.
Remember also that even trained medical professionals are not robots who are 100% completely composed professionals every single second of every single day; it might be unprofessional, but then sometimes even doctors and nurses act unprofessionally.
What's the Statue of Liberty doing in Gotham city in "Off Balance"?
The DCU as a whole doesn't really have a New York City, so maybe the statue is a Gotham landmark in this continuity.
Isn't Metropolis meant to be the New York analogue? As for the presence of the statue, perhaps it's the doing of some sort of space-time warping supervillain or something.
DCU logic often says that both Gotham and Metropolis are NYC, albeit below and above 125th Street, respectively. A one-time Atlas of the DCU placed Metropolis in NJ, with Gotham in Delaware. Take That! Wayne's World.
Actually, it's Metropolis in Delaware, and Gotham in New Jersey.
New York exists in the DCU and several heroes have been based there at some point, from Kyle Rayner to Wally West. It's just not as crowded as its Marvel counterpart.
I always thought Metropolis was New York during the day and Gotham was New York at night.
Frank Miller once said something similar. Batman writer and editor Dennis O'Neil once said, "Batman's Gotham City is Manhattan below Fourteenth Street at eleven minutes past midnight on the coldest night in November."
That's the Lady Gotham statue. In the 40s, Gotham decided they needed more tourism, and decided to just rip off the design of the Statue of Liberty with a few minor adjustments and call it their own landmark.
This is absolutely true in the Golden Age comics, where it's called "The Sentinel of Liberty" and carries a lantern rather than a torch. It even showed up in Batman Forever.
France has a much smaller model of the Statue of Liberty on an island in the Seine River. Gotham could have its own imitation, for whatever reason.
New York City exists in the DCU; Metropolis and Gotham are based on it thematically, but they aren't meant to be its fictional-universe counterparts.
I always get Boston impressions from Gotham that and Arkham Asylum.
Baby Doll and dynamite
How did Baby Doll plan to continue her fantasy if she blew her whole cast to death with that dynamite?
She was just going to kill Spunky, who, as you know, was just a Cousin Oliver. With his death, the cast would be back to its original members, and her plan would proceed from there.
She probably had not thought it through. She's delusional.
This is just a nitpick, but in Birds of a Feather, right after Veronica and the Penguin almost get mugged, watch out for this bit of poorly-staged and pointless animation: Veronica takes the Penguin's hat off and hands it to him, only from him to immediately put it back on.
Walking in the cement
In See No Evil, Ventrix seems to have studied the jewelry shop he robs in order to make his getaway, judging by how easily he finds that a door leads right to an alleyway. So why did he fail to acknowledge that said alleyway is under construction,which includes the pouring of wet cement that would detect his footprints and slow him down should something go wrong?
The construction started after he cased the place. Poured cement dries within hours.
Yeah, but drilling the old pavement away to lay the cement takes a few days.
So he assumed he'd make it out before the new cement was poured or after it dried. What's the problem here?
He also wasn't anticipating that Batman would be there and ready to pursue him; he might have had an alternative exit in mind or a way of getting around the cement without leaving prints, but Batman changed the game-plan a bit.
The episode "The Clock King"
In the episode The Clock King, Batman drives around the city with Alfred as his chauffeur in broad daylight, and even makes a few stops in which he gets out of the car. What if someone had seen him and taken the license plate number?
And do what with it? He can't take his story to the papers because they'd just dismiss him as a kook ("Oh really, you were stalking Bruce Wayne's car and saw Batman burst out of it? Really? Security! Who let this nutjob into my office?"). And he certainly wouldn't get anywhere trying to blackmail Batman.
The hypothetical spectator could give the information to supervillains, Like Strange tried to do.
And why would they believe some random dude who claims he saw Batman appear out of Bruce Wayne's car?
Why couldn't Batman commandeer a helpful civilian's car, anyway?
If confronted he could say that that's exactly what was done. After all, Alfred being Batman's butler isn't exactly common knowledge isn't it?
The Clock King episode is a deconstruction of the Batman: The Animated Series. It seems like Batman was careless, but the first time he left Bruce Wayne's limo he was in a Blind Alley. The second time he left her was in an Abandoned Warehouse District. He could assume no one was looking at him. When we see the limo from a passerby perspective, it seems to have tinted windows, so none could see Alfred or Batman inside of it. We are not show how he get to the Bank where the Death Trap awaits him, or how he traveled to Gotham's Clock Tower.
Another one from this episode. How is the Clock King, an older dude with greying hair, able to fend off and drive back the goddamn Batman, who, as the Clock King himself claims, throws punches in a 20th of a second (Batman also claims he can throw a kick in a 30th of a second), simply by watching videos of him in action? Is this guy the Taskmaster or something?
Two questions about "Mask of the Phantasm", more precisely the "Batman vs GCPD" scene: First, how does Bruce survive that fall towards the end? Second, how come that no one in the GCPD is able to recognize Bruce Freakin' Wayne after he has lost his cape and cowl? For that matter, couldn't he have used smoke bombs or something to hide himself at least? Reminds me of Batman 701 where Bruce is shown to have a spare cowl in his utility belt. Then again, Grant Morrison being Grant Morrison, Bats might have been in a Batgod moment...
He was a good distance away, they mostly only saw him from behind and emotions were high. The cops were probably too focused on catching up to him to really notice and absorb his face. It's not a very desired charateristic of a police officer, but it probably happens a lot in the real line of duty when the situation has a high level of excitement; even police officers are still only human, after all.
Tim's Robin suit
The Robin suit...how the heck from TAS to TNA, how does Dick's old Robin suit totally get a new look yet some HOW be a perfect fit for little Tim Drake! Tim was like a young teenager in that series! When Dick left he was in college! The size and height difference! It just doesn't add up!
A planned, but never animated, scene from "Robin's Reckoning" would've shown Dick when he first became Robin as a much younger child right. Tim probably found a costume from that point in his career.
Four words: Alfred. Scissors. Sewing machine.
I'm pretty sure Tim wears an entirely different suit from Dick's old suit. because in Over the Edge when the police are chasing Bruce and Tim through the Batcave, Dick's old Robin suit is knocked over.
Except that's entirely non-canon. While it's likely that Tim wears an entirely different suit "Over the Edge" is a Scarecrow-induced nightmare and might not accurately portray anything to be honest.
Regardless, the suit Tim wears has to be one of Dick's old ones that just happens to fit Tim. When Tim comes in during The New Adventures, he's not recruited by Batman, he puts on a Robin costume on his own initiative and follows Batman and Batgirl to fight Two Face. Even Alfred wouldn't have been able to fabricate an entirely new costume in the time it takes for Tim to follow them (he got there halfway through the fight, so unless the delivery truck he hitched a ride on was faster than the Batmobile, he had to have left soon after Barbara and Bruce).
How come Paul Dini gets credit that belongs to Alan Burnett? I am constantly at a loss as to why Alan Burnett is left out when talking about the DCAU. This is not a knock on the amazingly talented Paul Dini, but Paul and many other writers worked FOR Alan, who was the driving creative force behind most all of the DCAU on the writing side, just as Bruce was on the art and production side.
Could you be more clear about what bothers you?
Not the original poster, but this is an issue that definitely makes me scratch my head as well. By and large, when people discuss the DCAU they seem to always credit it as a Bruce Timm/Paul Dini production, to the point where it's often referred to as the "Timmverse" or "Diniverse". What's strange about this is that Timm's partner and the head of the B:TAS writing staff was in fact Dini's boss, Alan Burnett. Paul Dini is, of course, a fantastic writer, but there is absolutely no logical reason why Burnett should get passed up for the credit he is due. If you take a look at the original B:TAS series bible, it's clear that in its early stages the show was shaping up to be a decent but unspectacular action cartoon; it's Burnett who was most responsible for making it into something truly special. So dude, where's his respect?
Presumably waiting for him to step up and ask for it. Bruce Timm and Paul Dini probably get more credit because they were visible in working on the show and making it known they were working on it. Burnett either may not care or just may not be good at self-promotion.
Ra's losing his son
The Showdown episode's main story is Ra's Al Ghul's narrative of Jonah Hex foiling his plan to conquer America in 1883, and capturing his son and second-in-command, Arkady Duvall, who subsequently served 50 years of hard labour before wandering away, his mind shattered by the hardships he'd suffered. The old man Ra's kidnapped from the Gotham retirement home at the beginning of the episode is revealed to be a seemingly vegeative Arkady. How could Ra's, with all his intellect and resources (this is the man who deduced Batman's identity based on a worldwide survey of goods that could be used as Batman's equipment) have taken 60 years (assuming this is 1994-1995) to find his son, let alone lose track of him? And how did Arkady end up in a retirement home in Gotham having (presumably) spent years as a near-mindless homeless derelict?
Your assumption is wrong. Look at the cars people are driving, the clothing they are wearing and the weapons they use. Look at the planes as well and the World's Fair in Mask of the Phantasm is clearly the 1939 World's Fair. 50 years after 1883 would have been 1933, crazy old Arkady had probably been wandering around for less than a decade. He certainly hadn't been wandering around in that condition for nearly sixty years.
Well, remember that Arkady got captured partly because Ra's abandoned him, feeling he was unfit as an heir. He probably didn't keep track of him in prison because he had no more use for the boy. He may have a lot of resources, but he's not omniscient; he's still human, after all. Later on, he probably assumed he had died in the interim, or he was too busy with other plots to bother looking for a disowned son that he had no interest in, and who he probably didn't want trying to usurp him. Ra's then got some information on him much later and decided to go see his son.
Ra's didn't spend 60 years looking for his son; he only came for him when he was dying. Maybe you watched a completely different episode than the rest of us, but during the flashback Ra's was disgusted by Arkady's behavior and seemed to respect the bounty hunter far more than he respected his son. Ra's came to get Arkady because he was on his deathbed, but he was otherwise uninterested in his son.
When Matt's becoming Clayface
When the goons are giving Matt Hagen an overdose of the chemical that turns him into Clayface, are they pouring it down his throat or just over his face? It's shown in silhouette, so it's hard to tell.
Down his throat.
The magic camera
Watch 'Heart of Ice'. Watch the heart breaking scene when Batman sees Fries getting jumped by the big rich guy, and turned into Mr. Freeze. Now, really, that's one hell of a security camera, idn't it? Cutting to different angles that a security camera wouldn't show, going back and forth between faces for dialogue, conveniently being RIGHT there for incriminating action shots...that security camera is fucking amazing.
Yeah, the creators pretty much went on record to say this doesn't make any sense, but they did it for dramatic purposes.
This is incredibly common I'm going to suggest it as a new trope.
I'm pretty sure it exists as a trope already, actually.
"Mask of the Phantasm". Pre-Batman Bruce Wayne fights some thugs but gets distracted with Andrea and is defeated. Makes sense. However, afterwards he makes a rather drastic conclusion out of this that he should give up the relationship alltogether, since he "cannot be on the line with somebody waiting for him at home". Wait, isn't this the exact way every single soldier/policeman/firefighter/rescuer in the world operates? They are on the line, their relatives are back home worried sick. Obviously she's not supposed to be on the front line, but what makes him so different that he suddenly cannot combine dangerous work with family life?
Bruce isn't saying that nobody can handle it. He's saying he, personally can't handle it. He gives more or less the same reasons to Wonder Woman when she comes onto him in JLU.
Check the divorce rates between civilians and military and police personell. It's a fair statement to say that not MANY people can handle it. Bruce is just humble enough that he refuses to ruin another life, and potentially children's lives, by trying.
It's also good to remember that Bruce is not a policemen, a soldier, or any wholesome part of society. He's an emotionally damaged, obsessive vigilante who has poured every ounce of his passion into a crazy pursuit (just look where he ends up in Batman Beyond). I think it's wholly in keeping with his character for him to realize that there is no place in his life for a family. The fact that he takes on apprentices complicates this, but he always was a pretty disfunctional father figure.
Baby Doll and Croc
In Baby Doll's second appearance, why was she acting all kiddy-like when she was at home with Crocky? It made sense for her to act like that when they were committing crimes, since that's her schtick, but why act that way at home when she wants to have a relationship with him?
She's nuts. How did you miss that part from her first episode?
But she does act like a normal person in her first episode, when she wants to. Which leads us right back to the question. Is it possible, that Killer Croc is a pedophile and enjoys her acting like this? You know what, let's just drop this question.
Being nuts doesn't preclude occasional lapses into lucidity. As for Croc, you forget that he spent all his free time hanging out with bar floozies. If he was a pedophile he would have stayed home with Babydoll. It's quite apparent he sees her as a slightly annoying partner in crime, nothing more.
Dahl's particular brand of delusion is a fixation on the role she played as Babydoll. As such, she's only ever happy when she's being Babydoll. You'll notice that whenever she acts as a mature, relatively sane and lucid person, she seems dull and sullen, not happy. So when she decides that being with Croc will make her happy, she acts happy in the only way she really knows how—as Babydoll. She's playing house with him, and he knows it and is annoyed by it, but puts up with it because they work well together.
This is my least favorite episode of the entire series for several reasons, among them Baby Doll's behavior ("I'm not a baby! I'm not a child!" Really Mary? Then stop acting like one!), but your explanation is brilliant.
To be fair, considering that Baby Doll is a psychologically and emotionally screwed up and conflicted lunatic whose madness centres around fixating on a twisted version of childhood, 'stop acting like a child if you don't want to be treated like one' isn't exactly the most useful advice to give her (since if she could do it that easily she, y'know, would).
Speaking of Killer Croc. Wasn't he about to receive the death penalty in that episode? When Batman got him back to prison, how did Croc escape capital punishment? Also, why was he the only super villain to receive it?
Because Croc is one of the few actually successful murderers in the series (Albeit before we actually get to see him) who is also not insane.
Yup, Croc usually doesn't manage an insanity plea... the few times he winds up in Arkham seem to be because writers get stuck in the mindset of "Arkham is where Batman's villains go" rather than thinking it through. And he probably wasn't put right back in the chair because, well, now they've gotta go through the process of revising his sentence to include his escape attempt. Which sounds ridiculous but our justice system can work like that sometimes. Thus he didn't walk right back into the execution chamber, thus he had time to escape again later.
It should also be noted that sometimes, criminals who are not deemed insane but have either special needs (like Mr. Freeze) or are not containable by normal prisons are put in Arkham. Croc was shown to be able to bite through chains without any trouble. I'd say it'd be tough to keep him in a normal prison.
There was actually an episode that dealt with Croc and Arkham—specifically, "Sideshow", where he was being transferred from the Asylum to prison. Based on some commentary by a few reporters riding along ("Croc's finally being found responsible for his actions, huh?"), it's assumed that briefly after his first appearance the insanity defense worked, but eventually the courts changed their mind.
Reading in both brain sides
In "Perchance to Dream" Batman figures out, that he's dreaming, when he tries to read the newspaper and can only see nonsense. He says, that it's because only one part of a brain is active in a dream and suchlike. At least in this troper's experience it's entirely possible to read in dreams - books, labels, messageboards were major parts of it. Now, it's possible to guess it's a dream, when you understand, that you're not "reading" as much, as "get the meaning instantly", but he never alluded to that. Furthermore, if it's not controlled by the Hatter, only a "very good dream", it should be, well, a dream. Dreams rarely have a coherent structure and oftentimes jump from event to event, from location to location, with little transition in-between. Look at some of David Firth's stuff, to see a really good portrayal of dreams.
Personal experience has taught me that you can get a sort of "feeling" about the dream environment, depending on what your mind is trying to relay to you. For example, your dream can create a totally original person you've never met, but have the feeling it's someone you've known your whole life. It can feel like years have passed when it's been mere moments. Heck, maybe the transitions and cutaways were the same for Bruce as they were for us. What's more, Hatter's machine obviously had some control, as evidenced by A) Tetch saying he couldn't/wasn't supposed to wake, and B) the fact that his dreams were all positive, alluring and inviting. One could argue that while the device could not implant dream ideas into Batman's mind, it could "guide" his unconcious thoughts into a dream world so pleasant he'd never want to sacrifice it for the waking world.
The mere fact that all writing appears as nonsense to him is an immediate tip-off that what he's seeing is not real. The newspaper shouldn't be gibberish, it should be perfectly legible. This combined with the fact that the last thing he remembers before waking up as Bruce Wayne is some contraption swooping down on his head while he was chasing the Mad Hatter, yeah, it's pretty logical he would conclude it was all a dream.
As implied above, the important thing is that Batman knows he can't read in his dreams.
What the troper was tryin to say, is that it's entirely possible to read in dreams. It's just a common urban legend, that you can't.
thanks to this episode it's become a running gag whenever this troper reads something in a dream to immediately remark "screw you Batman I CAN read in my dreams!"
I've read that the 'tell' that alerts you you're in a dream is very subjective, for some people it's reading, for some it's time telling. We can assume that Batman's 'tell' is reading, and being Crazy Prepared, he's probably experimented with lucid dreaming to find this out in advance.
Nah; he actually says "its impossbile to read in a dream", and says its because dream and reading are controlled by two different sides of the brain.
This Troper has had many dreams that felt like normal days, sometimes to the point of being unable to keep track of which day it is. Also, even though the Hatter isn't controlling the dream directly, he is influencing it. We know he somehow made sure that in the dream Batman would get everything he wanted. If he can do that then he should be able to prevent the place/time jumping that happens in a lot of dreams.
The original post made a point about the episode cannot being a dream because dreams rarely have a coherent structure and oftentimes jump from event to event, from location to location, with little transition in-between. I think that Bruce’s dream really didn’t have a coherent structure, because it is impossible to construct a dream life, your own Wonderland: Batman, like everyone else, has conflicting desires, and Bruce Wayne’s mind is playing a Xanatos Speed Chess game with itself trying to accept his new reality because Be Careful What You Wish For: Bruce Wayne gets his Tragic Dream and his parents are alive, And Then What? That means that Alfred is not a Substitute Parent but a reserved employee. Selina Kyle is not a criminal but her fiancé! And Then What? she is the reliable Betty and not the exciting Veronica. If Bruce never had the need to become Batman, And Then What? That means Bruce Wayne’s beloved Gotham City would be an even worse Wretched Hive. Deus ex Machina: The Batman is patrolling the city again! and Bruce Wayne could be happy living his Idle Rich life after seeking therapy with Leslie Thompkins… everything is forced to Bruce, nothing makes sense, everything advances the plot to a direction… and if you want to be really picky, the dream takes more than one day, but Bruce only lives less than 26 minutes from event to event, from location to location, with little transition in-between the episode show us. (it's because he is a cartoon, of course)
Barbara and Bruce
The whole implied relationship between Barbara and Bruce. It just grosses me out. Yeah, I realize that they aren't that far apart in age, but Babs is Bruce's surrogate son's ex, and the idea that they might go out (or that their personalities begat a realistic adult relationship) just doesn't jive. Also, what narrative purpose does it serve, besides being a Base Breaker that Bruce Timm put in the revamp of the show for shits and giggles?
Well their relationship did fall completely to pieces, for what it's worth. And I think that was supposed to be the point. It was never a serious adult relationship. Barbara was still flying on her schoolgirl crush. And Bruce...I doubt Bruce ever really connected with her at all, which was probably why they broke up in the first place. Once Barbara came to her senses she realized that without her hormones pushing her forward there was nothing between them. It's supposed to demonstrate how emotionally detached Bruce is and how much Barbara has grown as a person when we finally see her again in Batman Beyond.
You're not the only one, it's even gross for characters in-series as it's implied that Bruce's relationship with Barbara was the final nail in the coffin and the reason Nightwing no longer associates with either of them.
The episode "The Underdwellers"
In The Underdwellers, why does Bruce "guns are a coward's weapon" Wayne have a room filled with them?
They're for display, probably inhereted from his family.
You've also got to have guns to work with to learn how to defend yourself against them. He'd need to know how to take one away from someone (without getting himself shot or setting it off), how to take it to pieces, how to disable it, etc. He'd need guns to prepare himself to deal with guns. It's also entirely possible that some pragmatic corner of his mind lets him know that there may come a time where his life or the life of someone he loves could depend on a "coward's weapon" and he'd rather have one and feel bad about using it in such a situation than not have it. (This is kinda-sorta borne out in Batman Beyond... Bruce's refusal to pick up a gun does not extent to letting himself get beaten to death.)
Also in The Underdwellers, why does Batman act like he knows nothing about children? He's already raised Robin for nine years. Alfred also claims that he knows nothing about children, but he's gone through Dick AND Bruce. Why are the creators just pretending that Robin doesn't exist?
Two things. First I'm not certain that Batman/Bruce Wayne really did much raising of Dick Grayson. For starters he was already an accomplished acrobat, not to mention he tracks down Zucco which means that Dick was already pretty mature and probably didn't need a whole lot of raising but more to the point Alfred probably did all of the real parenting duties for Dick just as he had with Bruce. Bruce was likely primarily responsible for honing him into a crime fighter. The second point is that child in the Underdwellers was a child who'd been brutally beaten and abused for a long time. Dick and Bruce both came from happy families and both were taken in within days if not hours of the tragedy that robbed them of a normal life. Those kids were damaged in away that neither Bruce nor Alfred were adequately equipped to deal with.
Which would be relevant, if the abuse was actually addressed, but it was clear from Bruce's: Feed him, bathe him, put him to bed ideas about child rearing, that is not the issue. They're implying that they've never had a kid in the manor before and know absolutely nothing about children (Alfred even says as much). Alfred's bumbling attempts to take care of Frog can be excused by all the child has been through, for I'll agree he is very different from Dick, but it doesn't explain why they're both acting like this is all entirely new territory.
Frog was mute, wasn't he? Or at least acting the part. Having a mute, resistant, rambunctious kid in the house probably is an entirely different thing than a communicative, cooperative (if rebellious) kid. Bruce's "feed him, bathe him, put him to bed" probably worked fine for Dick. But beyond that, Rule of Funny... they couldn't do those sort of gags with Batman and Alfred being fish out of water re: kids with Dick, so they did it with Frog.
I will give you Ruleof Funny for Alfred's inepitude. I can accept that, however what really bothered me is when Alfred says he knows nothing about children. He has raised two of them! I think he would know a little something at this point. And as for Dick being well behaved, he's a young, energetic child with incredible acrobatic skill. I think he probably got in his fair share of shenanigans when he was young.
Well, Alfred claiming he knows nothing about children could be Fridge Brilliance: One of the kids he raised was Dick Grayson and there was nothing wrong with him... but the other was Bruce Wayne... Batman Beyond shows how him turned out, and isn't pretty... Alfred at The Dark Knight Saga continually angsts about his young master destiny.
Thorne's two gimmick
In "Two-Face", Harvey hits several places which all happen to have two-related names. At first, this seems to reflect Two-Face's gimmick, but then you realize that all of these places were owned by Thorne. Why would Thorne use so many "two" places as fronts? Why did Thorne hide his files with E. Doubleday? Does Thorne have a two-obsession himself?
Two possibilities. It's either just a contrived coincidence serving as a Red Herring for both Batman and the viewer (though ironically, that red herring would quickly go on to become Two-Face's real gimmick), or Thorne controls so much of Gotham that Harvey could pick and choose targets that are both owned by Thorne and also have thematic names (partly because that's his gimmick, and perhaps also to distract the Gotham PD and Batman from his real target). He certainly did get lucky with "E. Doubleday," though.
Entirely possible Thorne has some connection to the number two. Doesn't have to be an insane obsession like Harvey's though... maybe two's just his lucky number, or his mom was born on February 2nd, or something like that.
Kids out at night
In the episode where the kids were telling stories about Batman, um, why were three kids (four counting the Joel Shumacher kid) wondering the streets of Gotham at night. They have parents because the mention them, but the parents sort of suck in that case. Gotham is the worst place to be alone, DURING THE DAY. At night, it's suicide. And there's an arsonist on the loose.
There are ALWAYS arsonists and such running around Gotham. It's not like they're particularly more safe inside. This is Gotham we're talking about, and these are Gotham kids. they know the score.
Plus, as we all know, it's utterly impossible for kids to sneak out and do stuff at night without telling their parents.
Also, Gotham is full of horrible people, some of which could also be terrible parents who don't care what their kids do or where they are.
And it's night like 90% of the time in Gotham, when else would they go outside?
Just for the record, The Batman Aventures issue # 16, "The Killing book", deals with The Joker finding some cherubic children at midnight who recognize him as "that guy The Batman is always beating", prompting The Joker becoming a Moral Guardian who kidnaps the comic writer and artist that is corrupting those childrens with lies. He also steal the children's candy.
Crane as Scarecrow in "Lock-Up"
In Lock-up, if Crane wasn't going back to crime, why was he in his costume.
Simple. He was lying.
If you knew Bolton was coming for you wouldn't you suit up and prepare to fight back the moment you could? There is also the fact that a lot of Gotham's criminals are only comfortable in costume.
Is Crane supposed to be 6 ft tall in this? If he is, how the hell tall is Bolton?
Two-Face's costume speed
In Judgement Day how is Two Face able to get into costume without anyone seeing overpower the guards, all within a few seconds (the penguin turns as Harvey leaves, goes to the vault places loot in and the Judge is standing there.)
Insanity lends strength, maybe it lends speed too. Or Harvey actually practiced quick-changing the costume while he was the Judge. And it's not like they're both elaborate, skin-tight getups, he basically just had to pull the Judge costume on over his own clothes.
Clerks in a villain shopping spree
Ok, so when Harley and Ivy kidnap Bruce Wayne in "Holiday Knights", how did all of the clerks in the "Bergduff's" department store completely fail to react to the two super villains on a shopping spree? It's not like they were out on parole; it had been established earlier in the episode that they were both fugitives, and trying to lay low to avoid the cops' attention. They were wearing their costumes and everything. The store employees just didn't care that a pair of notorious, wanted criminals were there as long as their money was good? Also, they had a billionaire mind-controlled, and they made him buy them jewelry and clothes? They could have used the zombifying lipstick to enslave the cashier and walked out with anything in the store they wanted; why didn't they make Bruce Wayne transfer a couple million to a numbered Swiss bank account or an offshore holding corporation? I always assumed that Ivy and Harley were supposed to be smart, but this particular caper was pretty dumb.
You're right, they're recognized supervillains. People are going to know what they can do—it's likely that the standard procedure for Gotham citizens, when faced with a supervillain, is "Just leave them alone until Batman shows up." Honestly, it's probably safer than the alternative of either confronting them, or risking them seeing you call the cops.
I always assumed in Gotham that if you saw a rogue, you ignored the problem until it went away. Confronting them is suicide.
And while they certainly could have used the lipstick on the cashier, that's not the point. They're not out to commit any crimes — as such —, they're simply on a grand shopping spree complete with having a rich and famous (and conveniently mind-controlled) 'sugar daddy' along to pay all their bills.
This is Bruce Wayne - known crazy/eccentric playboy rich twit. If he wants to dress two fashion models up as supervillainesses and take them shopping who's going to complain? they're not breaking any laws and they're paying for everything.
Bruce faking incompetence
In "Night of the Ninja", Bruce is losing to Kyodai Ken on purpose because Summer Gleason can't be allowed to see him beat the ninja... why? When he does get serious, he doesn't win by throwing gas grenades or Batarangs, he just does karate on him. Summer had already been told that they studied at the same Dojo, and Bruce is quite visibly larger than Kyodai. Would it really have looked so suspicious if Bruce beat a (he could claim) slightly more skilled opponent by virtue of being in a higher weight division?
Study at the same dojo doesn't necessarily mean, in Gleason's eyes, that Bruce could take a professional ninja. Aloof Billionaire Bruce Wayne knowing some karate because he was bored for a while and decided to go to a dojo is one thing. Aloof Billionaire Bruce Wayne beating a full-time ninja, however, is gonna be suspicious. Also, size isn't necessarily that big of a factor with karate.
Furthermore, that same episode stressed that fighting styles are like fingerprints. Even if Gleason didn't get suspicious that Bruce Wayne could defeat an experienced ninja, all it would take is for her, or someone else, to find footage of Batman in action and comparing his moves to those of Wayne's, and his cover is blown.
That's something else that's always bugged me. I really don't buy this idea that every person's fighting style is so distinct that you can instantly recognize them decades later just by fighting them again. It sounds like one of those cheesy martial arts myths, like the Death Touch.
It's true when you think about it; people do have their own little tells and postures and quirks that you could recognize them from. If you took any two fighters trained in the same martial art, put them side by side and examined everything about them you would notice that even using the same fighting style they don't move and fight exactly the same. If you spent enough time practicing with a person you'd be able to spot out all the little unique things about their stance, the same way you'd be able to tell someone's tells in Poker if you spent enough time playing against them. It's not "you fight them once and instantly remember everything," it's "I've been doing this with you for so long I can recognize all those little details nobody else would notice."
Clayface's turn to crime
Why did Clayface become evil? He just got the ability to take on any face he wanted. He could've become the most highly paid actor on Earth, but instead, he goes into a breakdown about how his career is over. He claimed it was because he couldn't hold a form for too long, but he clearly shows he's able to hold a form at least long enough to get a shot done.
"Become evil" is a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding. He was, firstly, out for revenge. Then he was trying to find and make himself a cure. At no point did he decide, "You know, I'll be evil from here on in."
He was never exactly the nicest guy to begin with. His jerkass behavior leading to the accident that disfigured him in the first place.
Plus, the guy's just become living, unstable mud. If ever a time came where a bit of an irrational breakdown was justified, surely that's it.
Knockout brain damage
In Never Fear, how long was Scarecrow supposed to be unconscious for after Batman strangled him. He blacks out on the train and seems to still be out when Batman and Robin are walking down the street. The train scene takes place at night while the street scene the sun seems to at least be rising. How did Crane not get permanent brain damage?
...Because it's a cartoon. If you're going to bring real-world science into this, Batman should have dislocated his shoulder a thousand times by now just from swinging around on those grappel lines.
The Retro Universe
What happened to the Retro Universe when the series became The New Batman Adventures>
It was quietly ignored, and as far as it goes In-Universe, things never changed. Call it a Retcon.
Batman giving Thorne Bane's tape
The ending of "Bane". Batman delivers the beaten Bane to Thorne's office and...leaves him there. Uhm...what? Why isn't he taking Bane to prison? Then he plays a recording of Thorne's assistant conspiring with Bane to eliminate Thorne, while said assistant is in the same room. Uhm...WHAT?! Doesn't Batman realise that he's just sentenced her (and likely Bane as well) to death? I'd probably understand if he'd used the recording to make her testify against Thorne or cooperate with him in another way, but that was just pointlessly cruel! Hell, ethical considerations aside, wasn't dissent in enemy ranks working to his advantage?
He might figure Thorne is too smart to just outright kill her... after all, Batman's got a copy of the tape, too. She disappears, Batman drops the tape with the police, Thorne's gotta spend a lot of time and money in court. Also you don't know that thirty seconds after he walked out, a bunch of cops Batman called earlier didn't sweep into the room and find Thorne there with Bane and go "Hey, proof you're working together, you're under arrest!"
In addition to the very real likelihood that Batman is on his way to the cops with a copy of the tape or has already notified them and that they're just behind him, and in addition to the fact that at that point Bane clearly isn't going anywhere under his own volition, we should also remember that Thorne's assistant isn't exactly a virtuous innocent in this situation; a central part of her whole plan to double-cross Thorne in the first place was the death or critical injuring of Batman himself, which is not something that's likely to put her very high in his 'people to give a shit about' list. She decided to take the gamble and put herself in that situation, and the chips didn't land her way, so as far as Batman's concerned she can deal with the consequences.
"Baby Doll". If the girl couldn't age, how could she speak in an adult voice? Sure, she an actress, but should her vocal cords allow that?
(My understanding of hypopituitarism is limited so please bear with me.) It's not that she doesn't age, it's that her pituitary gland doesn't produce as much growth hormone as it should. According to The Other Wiki, people with severe growth hormone deficiencies can be as short as 48-58in tall and develop facial features reminiscent of a Kewpie doll, which seems to match Baby Doll's symptoms. However, she still would have gone through puberty eventually (albeit several years delayed) which could account for her adult voice.
The same episode. Why would those thugs, including one quite competent martial artist, work for her? She's a hapless and unemployed actress, how сould she afford their services and even if she could, what exactly prevented the thugs from just taking whatever money she had by force?
One could ask the same thing about most of Batman's rogues gallery. Where does the Joker keep finding A) minions crazy enough to work for him, and B) enough money to pay them?
True, but Joker is an adult, a capable fighter, meaning he can stand for himself, very smart and a hardened criminal, meaning he can devise enrichment schemes to either raise funds by himself (in many heists we see it's just him and Harley) or entice minions, and, last but not least, a scary-as-fuck psycho, who can probably intimidate regular goons into submission. More or less the same can be said about other major villains. Baby Doll seems to lack all of those advantages.
Baby Doll is an adult too, even if she doesn't look like one. And she can adopt an adult voice and act like a grownup when she chooses, so it's not like she always looks, acts, and sounds like a toddler. On top of that, we saw in "Love is a Croc" that her child-like appearance can apparently be pretty useful for a criminal enterprise.
There are always plenty of people desperate/lazy/stupid enough to work for the promise of easy money through crime. Especially in Gotham. Basically the city has a large enough criminal element that any goofball with a gimmick can round up a gang by calling around and saying "We'll knock over a few banks, you in?" and at least four or five guys will say "Beats flipping burgers!"
Big Bad Harv
What happened to Big Bad Harv? Is he still knocking around Two-Face's head?
"Big Bad Harv" is Two-Face.
So he changed his name after the explosion?
No, Big Bad Harv is just the name for the alternate personality that later took over Harvey's psyche and became Two-Face.
Yeah, "Big Bad Harv" was just a moniker that either Harvey's therapist or Thorne slapped on the personality. Or that Harvey himself used to refer to it. Once the personality is itself in charge it decides to take a name more fitting to the trauma that allowed it control in the first place.
Big Bad Harv and regular Harvey were merged following the trauma of the explosion, psychologically - with the surface scars representing that duality. That's what the coin is for, and it's why Harvey isn't a totally violent monster when he becomes Two-Face. Remember that at the end of 'Two-Face Part Two', he basically breaks down in front of Grace. So regular Harvey and Big Bad Harv were merged, and the silver dollar Big Bad Harv merely used to flip as a trademark to show him in control became his manner of dealing with the duality in his mind.
Selina and zoos
In "Tyger, Tyger", Selina Kyle goes to the zoo and complains about the tiger being imprisoned. Uh...does she not realize that zoos are at least half about rehabilitation and other reasons the animals would be better off in captivity?
Not all zoos are created equal. The Gotham Zoo might be more of an old-timey "shove the animal in the cage and throw it scraps once a day" zoo. Or Selina might just have an irrational view of zoos. We even have a trope for that.
The second's more likely than the first. Selina occasionally edged into being as nuts about cats as Poison Ivy was about plants, in this iteration.
It is Gotham though. Given how everything else in the city is run I wouldn't be surprised if their zoo is as bad as Arkham.
Zatanna's magic costume
In the climax of Zatanna, Batman and the nominative guest-star spend the episodes climax dangling from the cargo-hold, and then clambering around the outside of the villain of the weeks plane while it's in flight. During all of this, how do Zatanna's high heels stay on?
Well, she is a magician.
Skin tone colored straps?
Superhero costumes get a pass, else these pages would be filled with nothing but. Batman's cape probably should have caused his death a few dozen times over at least, but doesn't because he looks much neater with it than without it.
"Jump in a river" means "Climb a bridge"?
Why did Mad Hatter's first victims climb up to the top of a bridge first? All he said was for them to go jump in a river.
Operative word, jump. Not "stumble down to the edge of the river and then hop into it". Jump into the river. But also because of conservation of detail in a cartoon, and "Go jump in a river" sounds snappier than "Find a bridge of a suitable height that your subsequent plunge into the water will be fatal and jump into the river from there."
It's also clear that Tetch's technology uses more than simple voice commands, both here and in other episodes; that's what the red headband is for. Even at the very beginning of the episode, he directs the rats he controls into complex actions without having to narrate every step of their "tea party."
Freeze targeting Bruce
Out of all the people Mr. Freeze could have attacked in his "destroy your hope" vendetta, why did it have to be Bruce Wayne? As Bruce points out, Wayne Enterprises is directly responsible for Nora's recovery, and we know from the tie-in comics that he still loves her even after his Despair Event Horizon. So why Bruce Wayne? (Aside from the fact that he's a protagonist). There are plenty of important and well known socialites that he could have made a point by targeting, ones that have done nothing for him. Why did he target someone who'd actually (financially at least) made his life marginally less miserable? In addition, isn't Ferris Boyle still alive? Why didn't he attack him? Even if the man's in jail, Victor was clearly out for blood earlier.
To attack innocent people who even tried to help him is Mr. Freeze's hat as a Woobie, Destroyer of Worlds, and about Boyle, I believe the producers wanted to do a storyline where Victor kills him for real, but they didn't have the chance.
When was it his hat? In his debut episode, he was out for revenge against a man who ruined his life. In Deep Freeze, he was trying to restore Nora. In a Christmas special for the tie-in comic, he was trying to honor Nora's memory. And in theSubzero movie he was trying to keep Nora from dying. Attacking people for helping him, or targeting people that have never wronged him when it gained him nothing only showed up in and after Cold Comfort. ...As for Boyle, I suppose we'll have to assume Victor killed him offscreen and we just didn't hear about it because nobody cared.
About the hat thing, I have noticed that every villain has a theme (for example, The Mad Hatter is a Dogged Nice Guy)who has maybe two great stories following that theme, but then the writers don't know what to do with him and they use Motive Decay. So poor Mr. Freeze is obliged to cross the Despair Event Horizon every time he appears only because that was his original theme at "Heart of Ice", no matter that, by definition, you only can cross an horizon once.
Freeze didn't cross the horizon in "Deep Freeze" or in Batman and Mister Freeze: Subzero. So no, becoming violently depressed is not his theme either.
Another thing I am intrigued is that some people have wrote that she is a Bumbling Sidekick that commits mistakes that foil The Joker or Poison Ivy plans. I don’t remember all her episodes, but I would say that Harley didn’t do any mistakes, instead of that, The Joker or Poison Ivy blamed her because they are sociopaths and it’s Never Their Fault.
I don't remember exactly every thing she does in the series, so, aside from the Would Hurt a Child thing (which is a fair point but much further along in her development as a villain), correct me if anything invalidates this, but I think you're mistaking the Harley from the comics with the Harley from the show. They're not the same person. Harley is almost always playing a subservient role to Joker in his schemes, and except for dealing with Catwoman (and Batman, obviously), she never directly hurts anyone in anything other than self defense. When acting alone she is very willing to let people go and be reasonable about it, such as her dealing with Veronica Vreeland. The Woobie aspect of her character is that she, a good person deep under all the denial and mania, is coerced into committing criminal behaviors in the first place just to get attention from the people she loves, both of whom are verbally and physically abusive to her. I hope I'm making sense here. She can be a morally gray character and still have people want to give her a hug, basically. And she's too bubbly and cheerful to really qualify as a Jerkass Woobie.
Mad Hatter and Batman's identity
So Mad Hatter has an unconscious, I repeat UNCONSCIOUS Batman in his hands, and instead of taking the mask off, what does he do? he hooks Batman up to a machine to make him dream a perfect life. Beyond a few technical flaws with this(how does Batman obtain nourishment or excrete waste while hooked up to this?) the obvious question would be WHY didn't he rip Batman's mask off? Or why didn't he just sell Batman to some other criminal for a pile of money?
He answers this in the episode. He was willing to give Batman his perfect life just so he'd stay away from him. Why not take off the mask? It's best answered in Justice League Unlimited and the Great Brain Robbery. Lex and Flash switched bodies and Lex did unmask flash and had no clue who he was. Which isn't that unusual, we don't really have any clue how famous Bruce Wayne actually is. We know he's rich and famous but most people couldn't identify the top ten richest people in the world by sight. It's also a universal rule amongst super villains not to unmask the heroes, they just don't it's in the rules. Probably in part due to self preservation even against heroes who don't normally kill they seem to quickly develope cases of "I don't have to save you" when someone learns their ID. Finally as for your technical flaws we really have no way of knowing how long Batman was under. It's possible it was the exact twenty minutes we saw. Don't tell me you've never had a dream where you just seemed to stop being someplace and then were someplace else?
For the last one, Hatter's motivation obviously was to keep Batman in the Lotus-Eater Machine for a long time, potentially indefinitely. The question is not how Batman ate and pooped in those twenty minutes, but how was Jarvis planning to arrange for those needs later. The answer to the first question is not an answer at all, because, as usual in those cases, it's not about whether or not it would work - it's about not trying. It would've cost Jarvis nothing to take the mask off, and even if he doesn't recognise the man, who cares? At the very least he could be on the lookout for Batman in normal life, leak his identity into the criminal underworld and so on, should his plan fail. Knowledge is power. As for compunctions against unmasking Batman, only Joker ever showed them.
In plenty of stories Batman's mask is booby trapped and if he doesn't recognize him he doesn't recognize him. He can't leak his ID because (without a picture) he wouldn't be able to describe him well enough for other people to figure him out. He could very potentially gain absolutely no knowledge except that Batman is six foot whatever, muscular build, dark eyes, dark hair, square jaw. Even with all that information Ras had to use several other hints to piece it together and he's magnitudes smarter than Hatter. And to the how did Hatter plan to deal with Batman's physical needs? Why bother? If bats says in the Lotus-Eater Machine until he dies of starvation that'll keep him out of the way indefinitely. Hatter appears to have genuinely believed he was doing Batman the biggest favor he could manage which might also explain why he didn't remove the mask. He wanted to do right (in his own twisted way) by Batman.
And about the last questions WHY didn't he rip Batman's mask off? Or why didn't he just sell Batman to some other criminal for a pile of money?, Mad Hatter was never interested in money nor revenge, before his Motive Decay at "The Worry Men", he is a Dogged Nice GuyWho Just Wants To Be Loved. That's exactly the pathetic and scary part about him.
He went at Batman with an axe at their very first encounter. That's not very nice.
In "the Laughing Fish", why do all the fish infected with Joker venom have teeth? Most fish don't have teeth, let alone sets that are so squared and human-like.
Maybe the seas off Gotham have one heck of a Pacu Problem?
Where the heck was Joker during "Lock-up"?
Was he out robbing banks? I wonder if he was scared of Lock-up as well.
You can hear his laughter running through Arkham when Bolton is brought in as an inmate at the very end. My personal headcanon is that he was Too Kinky to Torture, and after the first few sessions, he whispered stuff into Bolton's ear that made Bolton leave his cell the hell alone and start pushing the less-hardened rogues.
Alternatively Joker may be seen as too dangerous to bring out of Arkham as a witness.
The army could use the villains' powers
Why not try to convince them to join the army? Scarecrow's fear gas could frighten the enemies, causing them to kill each other. Bane's venom can create super soldiers. Croc can be a one man army with his tough skin. Poison Ivy's plant powers can be useful in the jungle. Even if they say no, they could pay Scarecrow and Bane a LOT of money for their chemicals.
Because they're a bunch of unstable, greedy, petty psychopaths who can't be controlled or directed.
For some of this there is probably some kind of legal parameter that prevents any country from developing these as weapons. Even when you ignore things like Venom which is apparently addicting, Croc being a mutant that may not be reproducible (a surprising amount of Comic Science is one time only BS) and Scarecrow uses Chemical Weapons which are outlawed IRL and with good reason.
This question was answered at the Justice League episode Task Force X: Amanda Waller recruits Clock King, Deadshot, Plastique and Captain Boomerang as a Black Ops team. Notice that they all are sociopaths, not psychopaths, and they can be controlled because they only think about themselves. Also, Waller has to do this as a Black Ops operation because there is not way this will be approved by the public, so both of the above objections are justified.
Are the BTAS batmobile and TNBA batmobile one and the same?
I can't tell if it's the same car from BTAS with a redesign or a totally different car.
But for the Joker, it was Tuesday
From "Joker's Millions", did Bruce seriously plan to find out it was a body double working for Joker by bringing up some random incident from a month ago? I don't care if it actually worked, he's the freaking Joker! He throws rich guys off of buildings all the damn time!