DC Extended Universe

He can if the writers give him one. There's no law saying he shouldn't. He's whatever the writers want from him. Nolan gave him a happy ending in Rises.

I wasn't aware it until I checked the film page for Justice League but JK Simmons voiced Wade Eiling in JLU. So that's twice he's played a guy who hates superheroes.

The thing is, Batman left Gotham in a worse place. He escalated things as Batman, and then quit so the good guys had nothing to fight the escalation. Whether it be Jokerz or Mutantz, Batman retiring leaves Gotham in a worse place than when he started.

Debatable. Before him, the mob had an unchallenged iron grip on the city, the police was much more corrupt, and everybody refered to Gotham as a cesspool already. The change of guard to the freaks at least made the bad guys much easier to identify and prosecute (it's only Plot Mandated Stupidity they can't be kept in jail afterwards— but the mob never went to jail at all in the first place), and for a long while, during the Dick Grayson Robin years which seem to roughly relate to the Silver Age, costumed crime was relatively benign and silly, with even Joker undergoing a lenght where he was just a goofy prankster.

Gotham's worsening seems to relate to an overall worsening of superpowered crime all around the globe, when, meta-wise, things went from the Silver to the Bronze and Modern eras. Even Metropolis underwent a parallel proccess, with Doomsday and the Death of Superman as its visible peak, and Luthor's condition becoming more and more maniacal to the point of attempted destruction of the whole city. How much of that stands in current continuity seems unclear, but still. Then, things like the Contagion plague and the Cataclysm, which resulted in No Man's Land, were hardly Bruce's fault, and the former would have been much worse, in a worldwide rate, without him.

The Jokerz and Mutants are never hinted to have started 'just as soon as Batman retired or before, and especially with the later, since the members weren't actual mutants and only took their name from their leader, who was stated to be very young himself, it's logic to infer they only showed up as such a long time afterwards.

He can if the writers give him one. There's no law saying he shouldn't. He's whatever the writers want from him. Nolan gave him a happy ending in Rises.

Denny O'Neil once said if it had been up to him he'd have ended Batman's career with Ra's al Ghul's death, after which Bruce realizes he can't keep doing heroics himself, retires with Talia (since it was O'Neil's idea after all), and leaves the mantle to either Dick or Tim while running a network of social and anti-crime support.

edited 28th Aug '16 5:30:35 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

One of the really interesting things the Nolan movies did was give Batman a tangible goal wherein once accomplished, he thinks he can happily retire. The comics usually have him just frustrated about injustice and want to fight it, with little thought about his retirement plan. The interesting thing about The Dark Knight is that he can almost see the end of the tunnel via breaking the mob and passing on the role of "hero of Gotham" to official public servant Harvey Dent.

I was disappointed at the path The Dark Knight Rises took on that end. The mob's hold on Gotham was broken and he retired, even though it was not the most pleasant method of doing so. His career was comparatively short, retiring from bad events and not from years and years of being Batman. It made it seem like his resolve was only good for one bad day.

That's why BVS making Batman in the direction of having years of cynicism from an unending war was a smart move, it was not something actually explored in the Nolan movies and basically picks up where they left off.

Maybe Clark and Barry can cure Bruce of his cynicism with the idealism that comes with being relatively new to the "volunteer firefighting squad"(being superheroes). I bet I've mentioned it before, but I really want Batman to act like an older brother figure to the JL members that are younger than him.

It's said there is a type of mentor/student relationship between Bruce and Barry, but not quite to the level of him and Robin or what we saw of Tony and Peter in Civil War.

@Napoleon De Cheese: Wow, your analysis actually revealed the DCU had much more depht than I thought. I mean, I never thought of the impact of metahuman crime in this Universe that way...

x5, I'd honestly take the mob over the Jokerz or the Mutantz. The mob is organized crime, and the average Joe that lives an up and up life will likely never cross paths with them. The Jokerz and the Mutantz though are more likely to mess with the average population than the super wealthy. The mob wants money, while the other 2 wants anarchy. They can't be predicted or reasoned with, and they're larger in scope since they're a cultural movement, rather than some guys in an organization.

I never said they rose up immediately after Batman retired, but the escalation he cause would directly lead to them. If not for Batman, there wouldn't be all the costumed crazies running around, since they're a reaction to him (except on Gotham!). And if not for the costumed crazies, you likely wouldn't have these gangs of youths modeled after them.

Batman's retirement is an interesting idea that needs to be explored more. I can see what you're saying.

If not for Batman, there wouldn't be all the costumed crazies running around, since they're a reaction to him (except on Gotham!)

Batman the Animated Series kind of proved most of them still would be around, even without wearing costumes while pulling crimes off.

Croc was born a mutant and commited crimes long before arriving to Gotham, Batman had nothing to do with his turn to crime. He was stated to come to Gotham to take over the gangs, not to directly take on Batman. Clayface II, comics-wise, was just a crook who chanced into shapeshifting waste without Batman's intervention. He'd still be around too. Zsasz never wore a costume or was inspired by Batman either. Stirk and Amygdala are also pshysically gifted and mentally twisted in ways that have nothing to do with Batman. Poison Ivy was Woodrue's fault, and although without Batman she'd still be terrorizing Seattle instead, she'd still be a master poisoner and ecoterrorist. Not to mention without Batman her Poison Tomorrow plot would've fucked Gotham and the whole world anyway. Penguin was born and raised into what he is without Batman's involvement whatsoever. Dent would've never become Two-Face, but then the mob would've likely iced him anyway, so he wouldn't be able to do any good for Gotham anyway.

The only major Rogues that no doubt wouldn't have harmed Gotham in any way if not for Batman are Joker and Bane, not counting relatively harmless wannabes like Catman (who has antihero leanings anyway) and Killer Moth (largely a joke).

So, no Batman means you'd probably end up having most of the Rogues and the Mob running around at once on the same city, with a much more crooked and careless police force and no vigilantes other than Ragman, I suppose .

The Superhero Paradox and Create Your Own Villain tropes have always been popular, and frequently used. This has led to a common misconception that all supervillains were created in response of the hero, which is true from an editorial point of view (the writers created them to give the heroes challenges), but not necessarly from an in-universe point of view. In fact in many cases this is the reverse.

Ben Affleck just shared this footage

I don't know why he posted it; does it mean we will see Deathstroke: The Terminator in the solo Batman movie?

Or in the Justice League film. I'll admit, that would be interesting.

Two-Face and Joker are created by Batman. The League of Assassins has an interest in Gotham solely because of Batman. Bane only comes to Gotham because of Batman. These are off the top of my head. Not all of his rogues are made by him, but a good chunk are.

Rampant unfounded speculation begin!

edited 29th Aug '16 7:35:34 AM by Cruherrx

I aknowledged Joker, Two-Face and Bane, read the post again and this time please pay attention.

The League of Assassins is supposed to operate globally, and any time Ra's is heading their plans tend to be worlwide genocide in nature, so in the end they show an interest everywhere.

edited 29th Aug '16 7:46:20 AM by NapoleonDeCheese

Two-Face and Joker are created by Batman.

Only if the Red Hood backstory is true in Joker's case; it's been established he is constantly modifying his backstory. And even if it was true, Batman's role in it (causing him to slip in the chemical) was pretty minor; frankly, I saw the scene, he could have just as easiy fallen trying to escape a warden of the factory. It's not like in the Burton movie where Batman really did push him.

As for Two-Face and Bane, Napoleon both mentioned them in his list and said what there was to say regarding this. Also Bane wasn't technically made by Batman; sure he came for Batman, but for all we know he would have come for a different character (most likely a crime lord) had Batman not been there.

The League of Assassins has an interest in Gotham solely because of Batman.

.... No, they did not. I don't know the details nor do I know all the versions, but in most I saw they usually intended to destroy Gotham anyway and Batman just happen to get Ras' interest on the way. Their purpose was to destroy Gotham because it was corrupt and in their mind unsavagable, not because Batman was in it.

Manu Bennett is behind that mask and is playing Jason Todd!

Wasn't at you. Count the arrows properly next time. Wink.

No. Bane came to Gotham to test his skill against Batman. That's the kind of danger Batman attracts to Gotham. I could sit and nitpick specific villain origins, but that isn't the point. It's a consistent theme in the comics, cartoons and movies that Batman makes criminals desperate, so they turn to more radical means to be able to operate. It only makes sense that both sides are in an arms race for survival, so when Batman decides he's had enough and retires, that still leaves the super criminals that formed as a response to him.

Now if Batman retired and gave his tech to the GCPD, that would be a different story.

Manu Bennett won my heart forever as Crixus. He ripped it out of my chest when he got beat up by Thea in Season 3. DAMMIT, ARROW!!!!!!!!

edited 29th Aug '16 8:00:07 AM by Cruherrx

Well, the "arms race" would always exist because Batman isn't the only costumed Hero in the world.

I know it wasn't specifically directed at me, but I had addressed the issue regardless, so the point still stands.

edited 29th Aug '16 8:08:53 AM by NapoleonDeCheese

No. Bane came to Gotham to test his skill against Batman.

Yeah, and as I said he could have easily come for some other big criminal to test his skills against; I admit that's entirely speculation, but who knows?

Probably. But hypotheticals of that nature aren't very productive for this kind of thought experiment.

I already gave you a reply though. I mentioned those guys because obviously your interpretation of their significance isn't the only one that can be made. Nor is it even one the comics lend much credence to, in that they consistently say that without Batman, Gotham wouldn't send him these criminals. The ending message of Death of the Family is Batman saying he's afraid to kill Joker because Gotham might send him something worse. Things would escalate further.

Nah. That's not Bane's character. But let's not make this about specific examples of bad guys.

edited 29th Aug '16 8:09:12 AM by Cruherrx

I could sit and nitpick specific villain origins, but that isn't the point.

Of course it is. You can't throw blanket generalizations born in large part from widely accepted Fanon while ignoring what is on the printed page and the shows' plotting, and still accept it sticks as unchallenged truth. In-universe, most Batman villains would still be plaguing Gotham one way or another without Batman around. The nebulous way Joker's origin is, even he could've popped anyway; even actual comics have toyed with this possibility, and that's a continuity with a much more defined origin for him. If anything we're being generous and mostly accepting the Killing Joke origin for this.

If you sit and talk about specific villain origins, they can be spun in any direction to suit any argument. That's why it's better to speak generally.

Yeah, there's no fanon in anything I've said.

They're fictional characters. If the writers ever want to turn the DCU into a Sugar Bowl, they could. But then we wouldn't have any more dark and edgy stories. And who wants to read a story about the Justice League going on a camping trip? Or having a sleepover? O helping people at a soup kitchen? Or anything other than fighting super villains? Or having Clark be successful at Swiper, No Swiping!?

True, we have seen the idea put forward that Batman makes crooks desperate, so they apply to increasingly extreme means and/or personalities in order to counteract him; we've also repeatedly heard the notion floated that Batman creates his villains (they become villains to fight him, or adopt their particular gimmick to do so) or attracts them to Gotham by his presence. In "Under the Red Hood" Jason Todd even puts forward the notion that, as crime must exist, it's better to just manage it rather than try to eradicate it. All of these, thugh, are at best flawed, or at worst false. The "making crooks desperate" thing would apply to any effective means utilized to stop criminals (I'm forced as well to remember that one crook said in The Dark Knight film that you have a better chance of hitting the powerball than encountering Batman). There was an episode of Batman: The Animated Series that successfully addressed and countered the idea that Batman creates his enemies. As for Jason Todd's idea of managing crime, it's patently silly because it ignores the reasons and causes of crime, as well as the times in history when crime as we know it was non-existent, or the places today where the crime rate is extremely low. All of these are flawed notions put forth by writers to make themselves sound deep, and they've given fans something to choke on for years.

edited 29th Aug '16 8:13:54 AM by Robbery