Batman General Discussion

There are also an awful lot of "Elizabeths" in comics who go by "Betty." No Elizabeth under fifty goes by "Betty" in real life.

Betty is actually a quite common name for women of all ages around here.

Also, Ugly Betty.

I have heard, though I don't know for certain, that the name "Dick" isn't all that uncommon in the UK.

When's the last time you met a "Clark" or a "Bruce" for that matter? Names do come in and out of style.

edited 31st Oct '15 8:47:14 PM by Robbery

Bruce Jenner?

The only person that I actually know named Bruce is one of my brother-in-law's family members named their son Bruce Wayne and I think they named another son Clark Kent.

edited 1st Nov '15 12:26:15 PM by Halberdier17

Batman Ninja more like Batman's Bizarre Adventure

O.k I just bought the first trade of Grayson. Why can't the entire Bat-line be this fun?

gotham academy. batgirl if you are into that. robin son of batman.

Here's a musing that I found amusing:

Batman is an undisputed control freak with an extremely logical mindset, a nigh-eidetic memory, and a pathological compulsion for detective work. He's known for his near-suicidal dedication toward the cape business, and also for bringing adolescents along with himself on the beat, despite the potential and occasionally actual lethal consequences of this. Note that Batman himself was an adolescent when the trigger for his choice of lifestyle took place - a tragedy usually presented as having no deeper meaning, merely a random shot in the dark.

Batman's nemesis, and notably the one guy regularly able to leave a genuine psychological toll on him, is a chaotic lunatic with no consistent motive or method of operation, acting seemingly at random. While his obsession with Batman is freely admitted, Batman himself allots him far more attention than otherwise warranted by other similarly violent criminals. It is reasonable to assume that it's not the particular scale of violence that truly stirs him, as the random nature of this particular perpetrator.

A side notion - victims of violence often find themselves trying to replay the event in question over and over in their minds, as if to find a possible solution, a rationalization for what occurred. This often leads to self-blame and destructive behavior that may even involve other people considered as co-reenactors, regardless of any risks befalling them as well.

Put all of this together and you get one man desperately trying to replay and rationalize the random tragedy that he allowed to define his life, by way of adopting and training symbolic representations of his own child self, and focusing on the one person whose entire existence is a testament that such a tragedy is, in fact, random. As clueless and unpredictable as a bat breaking through the window.

Consequently, in defying the urge to become as lethal as the initial source and the present reminder of his trauma, he really clings on to the desire to logically explain it, and so to overcome it. A noble if ultimately futile endeavor. For this reason, his effort is not to destroy his opponents, but to solve them... including, sadly, one that may not even be solvable in the end.

In conclusion, much like how Superman's nemesis may represent the indifferent banality of evil, being someone who'd allow thousands to die if it meant raising his stock premiums, Batman ultimately fights the equally indifferent chaos of tragedy, attempting to find logic and reason for his trauma even where there are none to be had. An ultimately destructive Sisyphean struggle no doubt, but an understandable one at the very least.

---

I mean, I still think the guy should get over himself and blow most of his assorted rogues' brains out, but at least now I can regard his compulsions as making some sense in-universe, rather than being just a blatantly obvious censorship-appeasing rule patch.

edited 10th Nov '15 9:24:10 AM by indiana404

This sounds really cool.

That's been the theme with Batman and the Joker for a while now.

EDIT: Just read "The Resurrection of Ra's al-Ghul after checking it out of the library. I'm normally not a big Grant Morrison fan, but he and Paul Dini did a really good job on that one. It also confirms a longheld opinion that I've had, namley that Ra's makes a far better archenemy for Batman than the Joker ever will.

edited 2nd Dec '15 8:57:37 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar

After Death of the Family, I thought Killer Moth would make a better archenemy than the Joker.

Really, it's the pretentious defeatism that gets to me, especially if it's marketed as idealism. All the myriad non-lethal detainment options aside, the way that story ended with Batman lamenting that even if he did destroy the Joker, the universe would conspire to send a worse monster against him - that's pretty much the antithesis of superheroes, period. It may be in tune with how Batman is regarded as broken and almost as insane as his foes, but after a while, that whole theme amounts to a glorification of stubborn masochism. All in all, it's been quite some time since I've seen a Batman story that's lighter and genuinely optimistic in tone, yet without devolving into utter camp. Guy needs to catch a break.

edited 3rd Dec '15 4:11:29 AM by indiana404

This is one subject on which you and I do not disagree. Again one of the reasons I like Ra's is because Batman doesn't have to play the "no lethal force" card against him. Moreover, his organisation is so large and his resources so vast, that a victory over him feels like a genuine victory. When Batman sends the Joker back to Arkham after he kills another dozen people, it doesn't feel like much of a win, even when they don't acknowledge that he'll just bust out again. Conversely, when Batman derails one of Ra's "kill a third of humanity" plots, even if Ra's himself gets away, it feels like a genuine victory.

That's why I like the Joker's "clown prince of crime" gangster persona more than the serial killer he is nowadays. Serial killers don't make for great supervillains - there's not much to do about them, being mad dogs and all, and since the hero usually arrives after the initial damage is done, there's always the sense of acting too little, too late. At least someone like the Punisher can provide a sense of closure; Batman feels more like a taxi driver back to Arkham.

Give the Joker an organization and some loftier goals, random as they may be, and have Batman foil him and save the day. Speaking of which, ditch the narrative that Gotham has remained a wretched hive even after Batman's involvement - for one, it makes no sense in a universe with the whole Justice League in it, and again it's a defeatist dark-for-the-sake-of-darkness attitude. Let the city be mostly reformed, and have Batman appear only for the trickier, Arkham-related cases - that's the whole point of the Bat-signal in the first place... though I suppose a phone would work just as well.

Again, no disagreement here. While they're at it, give him some actual fighting skills. Or at least enough gadgetry to compensate for his total lack of them.

If you guys want some classic cheese, we're watching '60s Batman in the Synchtube coven.

This is a signature.

I feel like that might have been a bit of a fourth-wall leaning observation.

realistically speaking, if he did off joker, he would just come back, or someone else would take his place because that's how these comics work.

i wouldn't disagree with you that something is wrong about this set-up, but i don't think he's necessarily wrong, per se.

also, i basically agree with all of this.

I feel like the Joker has become very, very, one-note and I'm not sure why writers keep playing him up as an edgy and deranged serial killer whose sole aim is to mess with Batman.

The DCAU Joker fell into this trap later on, but the one in BTAS had a lot of range. He could be very comical in one entire episode or scene, and be incredibly sinister and scary in another episode or scene. What was remarkable about this was that it didn't feel like wrong or inconsistent characterization, it just felt like the Joker was just THAT messed up that he could have these absurd mood swings. It meant that you could use him in a wide variety of stories and gave a greater amount of depth to the character.

Yeah I can kinda see Bruce's point, like yeah the Joker is horrible and awful and evil, but if he died he could come back in like 100 ways and be even worse.

Or... he could be better.

The thing about the classic supervillains is that they can have a range from genocide to petty theft and still be entertaining. There's really no reason to go for shock value, unless the hero in question reacts by changing his methods, at least for that particular story. Now, since this ain't gonna happen with Batman, such stories devolve into pointless angst, especially now as even the Joker has realized that the Bat-family is just as immune to death as he is.

Simply put, we all know that in comics, the Status Quo Is God; that doesn't mean, however, that it should be bad. Especially not with heroes high both in idealism and available resources. Angsting over complete monsters ruining his life is Wolverine's deal, not Batman's.

COULD he? Sure. Would he be? The current trends in Batman-media storytelling make me think "probably not". As things currently stand, Batman has been pushing the Darkerand Edgier angle to unreasonable proportions for a while. The problem is, as you've noted before, that this ends up running into several problems with the longform comics medium, and writers acknowledging them doesn't do all that much good because they're completely powerless to make any kind of truly permanent change. This ends up affecting other Batman stories in different mediums as well.

I wouldn't object to Batman becoming a bit Lighterand Softer; dude could probably catch a break, have Gotham be a bit more clean. maybe go out and help other places (since he has the time and money), have an adventure or two. He IS a member of the justice league and has a bunch of pretty competent sidekicks to take care of the city while he's gone. maybe he could actually be a detective or something.

but i have to wonder when we're going to get a writer that wants to do that in the main batman comics.

edited 6th Dec '15 10:44:49 PM by wehrmacht

The way I see it, the Joker springing back from situations where he should have been killed is an acceptable break from reality. It's something that normally happens between stories, and it's not really necessary to address it. However, the problem is usually set up differently - there's a cardboard prison (which oftentimes is a legitimate problem in real life), a man gleefully unhindered by any circumstance short of getting an extra nostril, an obviously corrupt and deficient system all around... and a guy who vehemently refuses to go the extra mile regarding any of it. Alan Moore did it right by having him simply not wanting to kill the Joker; but any story where he restrains himself because it would be "too easy" or out of fear of a non-existent slippery slope - that's about as cringeworthy as it gets.

To contrast, someone like the Punisher operates in a similar environment, perhaps even worse. But can you accuse him of not trying hard enough? Of not using any method he has at his disposal? Of course not. When it comes to use of force, killing is the final solution available in reality, so when a fictional character resorts to it, that's about as far as I'd expect them to go; any consequent resurrections are obviously beyond their ability to prevent.

For Batman however, the issue isn't even about killing - are there no freeze rays impounded in the cave; no Phantom Zone projectors he could borrow; no Green Lantern-run prison he could pull some strings to send the Joker to? Options aplenty, so when failure is the one to consciously pick, that's not deep and dramatic, but contrived and ultimately boring. Never mind that whenever a less-restricted operator like Deadshot staples the clown to an exploding chopper, it really raises the question on what kind of hero Gotham needs and deserves. Dollars to rubles he'll be getting the full anti-hero treatment in Suicide Squad, what with Will Smith playing him and all.

edited 7th Dec '15 3:47:16 AM by indiana404

A lighter and softer Joker would be nice, but it'd demand for a lightening of the whole set on itself; the Joker reflects the Batman era we are in- Grim Pulp Forties switched to campy Fifties and Sixties then to Hardened Bronze Age, then to Extreme Grimderp. What you are asking for is more along a general Batmythos revamp, which is good, but somehow you choose to near obsessively focus it on the Batman and Joker themselves because that's your recurring Single-Issue Wonk you'll preach on and on and on and on and on.

Truth is a nicer and softer Batman and Joker wouldn't work in a grim Gotham or even overall DCNU like the one we currently have. Because writers, especially DC writers, nowadays have this fetish they have to corrupt everything at reach, and when you come up with a lighter and softer spot the others around it 'infect' it rather quick. 'Oh, they're lighter and softer, so they're a joke, they need to have some fixing done'. That's the mindset we have now.

edited 7th Dec '15 6:20:08 AM by NapoleonDeCheese

... they're the most visible and hence best representative of the current failings of the DCU as a whole. Marvel's Daredevil shares the dark and tortured technical pacifist attitude, but at least he doesn't have tons of cash and leet-everything-skillz great enough to causally deal with alien invasions and angry gods or what have you. Spider-Man is just as determined in his moral stance, but his fighting style doesn't include throwing blades at people or keeping guns on any vehicle he owns but not on his person. The Punisher uses fear to manipulate his enemies, but when they call his bluff, well, it ain't a bluff. And all of them fight enemies with much greater resources, so the issue doesn't come up on why they can't easily deal with them.

Meanwhile, Batman has become a growling badbutt par excellence, while the Joker has been inflated into a villainous Squirrel Girl, only played seriously. And because of their otherwise popularity, this becomes endemic to the greater DCU as well. There's your infection - it's not just an issue with him, but that any other title Batman appears in will either feature a lecture on morality and methodology (from a guy who still brings children to firefights and has zero respect for constitutional rights like privacy and freedom from torture), or a hand wave dismissing the enemy du jour as somehow inhuman, allowing for a nice little massacre.

Bottom line, the matter is about consistency. Batman hasn't switched from the pulpy 40's to the campy 60's etcetera, but actually lugs the baggage of all these ages, even as they clash with one another more and more. All I ask, on the other hand, is for a little consistency, and perhaps a few less downer endings in stories about what was originally designed to be an escapist character.

edited 7th Dec '15 7:25:31 AM by indiana404

And because of their otherwise popularity, this becomes endemic to the greater DCU as well. There's your infection

No, I don't agree on this basic assumption of Batman being the source of all darkness within DC. I think it's something that has expanded from pretty much all sides practically at once— a better case might be made for the X-Men bringing the grim dark wangst to Marvel, especially in the nineties, and even then that's arguably almost as unfair. In both cases, however, writers and editors for the overall universe don't seem to understand what works for a part of the line won't and shouldn't necessarily work for the whole.

It should be noted that the main starting bell for DC's modern grim and grittification, the Death of Superman, came shortly before the similar starting point in the Batman line, Knightfall, and without the financial success of the former the later would probably have been aborted at the last minute or at least shortened drastically.

i think the main issue is that writers don't seem to understand or care what the limitations of the DC corporate/storytelling structure are.

if you wanna do a darker batman story, fine, but in order for that to function in a way that makes sense, things just can't keep happening again and again in an annoyingly cyclical fashion.

batman keeping his code wouldn't be much of an issue if the Joker didn't break out every single time. If he does break out again, just put him somewhere harder to break out of and make sure he stays there.

but that's not how comics work, so doing all this grimdark stuff and lampshading it is just frustrating because you can't actually change any of it. It just makes Batman look needlessly impotent when all his enemies are these horrible psychopaths and he basically just slaps them on the wrist and puts them back in Arkham until they break out again.

indiana is 100% right that Batman is keeping a lot of needless baggage from a bunch of earlier eras when they don't make sense anymore. The no-kill code is absolutely a bullshit Grandfather Clause that doesn't have much good reason to stay anymore, but it wouldn't be an issue if the world Batman lived in accomodated it. BTAS understood this, but modern Batman comics aren't like that.

edited 7th Dec '15 7:53:11 AM by wehrmacht

Basically, for all the Beagle Boys escape jail every week, no one asks why Scrooge Mc Duck doesn't put bullets in their brains, because all they do is stealing shit. Remember when Batman villains could be challenging by simply pulling a massive theft job and escaping with the loot?