Batman: Arkham Knight

Well a contingency plan to stop someone is a lot less effective if the person knows about it.

And also, not denying Batman's lack of security was criminally negligent.

So yeah, still going with the "everyone's awful" route.

So is mass murder. Yet they still let Hal Jordan through the door at the JLA. It's like the place has no standards or somethings! One of their member is quite literally a demon as is pretty much just a good guy coz he's bound to a dude who isn't an asshole (And has an awesome name).

Seriously, if we're going to go through all the insane shit the JLA members have gotten to that would get them the boot, we'll never end.

Also, I don't think the CIA should be used as a moral yardstick ever.

edited 28th Jun '15 3:43:48 AM by Ghilz

Its not about moral yardstick but simply as an organization that performs an equivalent role. The JLA is a global peacekeeping N.G.O. Superpower, it has nothing to compare it in reality except the United Nations and other secret service who for all the shady and dubious things are at core peacekeeping organizations.

I don't know too much about Hal Jordan since I don't quite care about the Green Lanterns, aside from the one in the Justice League cartoon. They did the Tower of Babel story there with Hawkgirl (a completely different character than the comics) and that version of Batman is the guy who builds the Watchtower and talks Superman into starting the League in the absence of a Nuclear Deterrent. He's much more loyal than the main DC version who basically is not an individual you can trust a great deal.

I'd point out that version of Batman has ALSO been spying on his teammates.

When you put it that way, the others are oddly nonplussed in that scene.

Well Supes already knew (Since it happened in the adventures of Superman and also he did it first by x-raying batman's cowl), Green Lantern has no secret identity- he's kept it public, neither does Wonder Woman (At this point in the show and only in the show), the Martian just just showed his. So there's only Wally to be offended about it, and he doesn't hold grudges (As his own spotlight episode in season 3 of JLU shows).

edited 28th Jun '15 4:12:41 AM by Ghilz

The key point in that scene, Batman outs his own identity to the group the same time he outs everyone else's. That's on a higher moral level than his comics counterpart. Its not like he's lying to Flash about his identity while holding his above him. And also in the Superman cartoon, it was Superman/Clark Kent who X-rayed Batman first (which I found to be a very d—kish thing for Superman to do by the way) forcing Batman to retaliate.

The Batman in the adaptations is not such an asshole as the comics version. Like even in Arkham Knigt, he tells Gordon about the Jokerclones because he has a sense of being accountable to someone, or even in The Dark Knight, he tells Lucius about the Bat Sonar and puts him there as a check-and-balance on his actions. In Tower of Babel, he does something supremely unethical, informs no one else about it as a check on his own actions and behavior and then has the gall to be offended.

In a fairness to bats theres plenty of other comics where he tells others what hes up to. In the girl from. Krypton he confers with Wonder Woman how hes not sure the new Supergirl aint part of some villains plan (tho him AND Wonder Woman keep their plan from Supes)

I think its more a case of depending on the author. Bu he was totally right in prepping those contingencies.

edited 28th Jun '15 4:34:23 AM by Ghilz

Didn't Martian Manhunter do something like the Tower of Babel just a few years before that?

It is always Depending on the Author. I cited Tower of Babel because it was the most extreme example of how unpleasant and nasty a person Batman can be, at least in the mainstream continuity. I am aware of the later Frank Miller stories which are deliberately an extreme interpretation.

But that selfishness, that messianiac self-righteousness that only he can save the world, save Gotham is very much a part of his character and in the comics he never faces consequences for that behavior. Like ideally, the superheroes after having so many of his contingency plans exploited by villains because of his deadly combination of paranoia and incompetence — first Tower of Babel, then that Brother Eye Satellite, and then the War Games story — should gang up and stage an intervention, shut down the batcave and have other heroes police Gotham until they get a Breakthrough. I can imagine it like Mean Girls, "Raise your hand if you have been victimized by Bruce Wayne" and all the Justice League and Batfamily raise their hands.

In the DCAU, Batman/Bruce is arrogant and cold, but loyal to his family and friends. He does trust Superman on a basic level and vice-versa. Superman knows about the Kryptonite that Batman keeps (he even jokes about it during the Cadmus story). In the Arkhamverse, Batman is a bit of a Control Freak, he's also highly possessive about being Gotham's guardian and he keeps telling everyone who tries to help him to "F—k off" essentially but at its core that comes from his combination of Chronic Hero Syndrome. He does mean well genuinely.

it does depend a lot on the story, yeah. for one example, a lot of people complain about grant morrison furthering the whole batgod thing during his run but i've also heard a lot of people say that his batman is an unusually nice, compassionate person compared to how a lot of other batman stories portray him.

personally i think writing batman is kind of hard in that sense because he needs to be flawed enough to be interesting but nice enough that he's still sympathetic.

edited 28th Jun '15 5:06:05 AM by wehrmacht

Found something from the Online game where Batman goes over plans he's working on:

He also adds that you should think carefully before you use those tactics...

Wait. Didn't Scarecrow pull that trick?

I have to say that I found the Nolanverse Batman a pretty unlikable guy. He's really very whiny and incredibly dumb. Generally speaking in the movies, Batman himself tends to be a flat character almost all the time. The real interest are the villains. That's true of the Tim Burton films and The Dark Knight (where Joker and Harvey Dent are the real heart and soul of the film). In The Dark Knight Rises, the movie is disappointing because Bruce Wayne has to be the main character and he's not terribly interesting to carry his own movie, so Not-Robin and Selina Kyle become the real interesting characters. Batman Begins is the only part where Bruce becomes interesting in and of himself and even then he's pretty douchy, I mean that whole "Damn Good Television" crack about his Batmobile joyride?

I don't read Grant Morrison's stories at all, so I don't know too much about that but I have heard that they're trying to make him nicer in recent comics. But then that's expected that whole doom-and-gloom thing is getting old and stale.

i liked the nolan movies but yeah they're pretty flawed in a lot of areas.

the problem with making bruce a legitimately compelling character in his own right has been an almost universal issue with writers because it kind of rarely happens despite their best intentions. usually it's up to the artist or voice actor to "fill holes" in the characterization and try to give him more charisma.

i blame this partly on the fact that i feel that batman's psychological issues (the reason most of the other characters are more interesting than him) are not really explored as deeply as they should be, and his origin story usually fails to highlight just how unique and special Bruce would have to be become Batman, as well as the pre-existing problems he'd need to have to justify his inability to move on in a meaningful way.

that and i feel that due to the perpetually ongoing nature of comics, bruce isn't allowed to develop or meaningfully change, i.e becoming nicer, more stable, finding peace, or even just realizing that maybe dick would be better as batman than him and just assuming a mentor role. idk, SOMETHING.

edited 28th Jun '15 5:27:48 AM by wehrmacht

Batman is totally Rorscharch in that video, "Must investigate further" and the like. Though the way he assesses his allies weaknesses is pure Ozymandias, as is the whole recording in the tape part. I like the part where he calls himself "master strategist", yes so masterful that he doesn't anticipate the archnemesis who has a global organization and endless funds and knows his identity can access his files. This is basic intelligence stuff.

I think the Batman story waiting to be written, after endless evil Superman stories that DC likes to churn out these days, is Bruce going Dark and extreme, becoming Adrian Veidt.

edited 28th Jun '15 5:42:22 AM by JulianLapostat

honestly, superman turning evil doesn't make anywhere near as much sense as batman. clark is too well-adjusted and mentally stable to go rogue.

Yet that is what we get these days. That Injustice game and the comics have Evil Superman, you have these alternative comics where Superman is a puppet for Darkseid and then the Man of Steel movie has him snapping Zod's neck and the Dawn of Justice trailer seems to paint Batman seeing Superman as a threat and a bad guy. Then there is this comic where Superman is a Stalinist(!).

The assumption is that Clark Kent having these powers will be a threat for merely existing, whereas Batman having endless money, unchecked and unaccounted for private military assets, being a wealthy private citizen who's shown a gift for subterfuge in hiding company assets, will not be a threat? I mean in Watchmen the real bad guy is not the superhuman, he's so far beyond humanity he doesn't care about ruling them, the real bad guy is the Badass Normal billionaire scientist.

edited 28th Jun '15 5:50:53 AM by JulianLapostat

We have Luthor for villains with huge piles of cash and gadgets.

We have Darkseid or Sinestro for villains with world-conquering superpowers as well, so there's no need to do Evil Superman stories either.

Obviously exploring a superhero going rogue is fascinating but lately there's this unspoken assumption that Batman in any alternate continuity will always be this Purity Sue who stands against the Tragic Villain Superman. In the DCAU you had Fascist!Bruce in the Justice Lords story, but its not explored in other continuities.

edited 28th Jun '15 6:11:07 AM by JulianLapostat

also worth noting that in the justice lords storyline, the other bruce was the one who decided that it wasn't right and helped the main world bruce overthrow them and save the rest of the JL.

True, but he's still a fascist and he was the one who sent the Justice Lords to that universe and then he sends the Justice League to fix his mess, so I sense a backdoor coup there.

The DCAU Batman tended to be pretty vulnerable too. Like "Never Fear" where Scarecrow has a toxin that removes fears and Batman becomes a reckless Blood Knight that DCAU Robin takes out and hogties because he's a flight-risk. There's this another episode where he gets possessed by Brainiac and Superman(dressed in the Batman outfit) and Robin save him. So he gets mind-controlled unlike the comics where that seems to happen to others.

No, the Batmobile itself is tremendously bad design. If I wanted to play with the Mako, I'd play Mass Effect 1. Tho, I think the Mako handles better. I know Bioware wasn't stupid enough to have the Mako run obstacle courses.

Sorry, it's pure pretentiousness on Rocksteady's part.

I have not played Mass Effect 1, so I don't get your reference.

Luke Plunkett at Kotaku compares it to the vehicles in HALO: http://kotaku.com/i-am-in-love-with-the-batmobile-1713776181

And how exactly is it "pretentious"? Don't see how that applies to the Batmobile's design.

One of the reasons I like The Dark Knight Rises is because it's that final Batman story wehrmacht talked about. Bruce recovers from his pain and stops being Batman.

And yes, it's high time we had a story about Superman fighting Evil Batgod.

edited 28th Jun '15 9:21:05 AM by ElkhornTheDowntrodden

Batman's unique in that he's had more final stories than any superhero character - "The Autobiography of Bruce Wayne", "The Dark Knight Returns", In the DCAU you had Batman Beyond and Epilogue, "The Dark Knight Rises" and now "Arkham Knight". They are all different mediums and different continuities but each one does what Alan Moore said a final superhero story should do, give the characters an element of time, allow them to progress or resolve certain issues, if not showing their deaths at least showing their final days so that all their earlier adventures have a resonance.

Other superheroes are not so lucky. Superman has had "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" (for the Silver Age) and I suppose "Superman Returns" is a final story (in the context of the first two Donner films) in that there's an element of time, there's a resolution to the Lois Lane romance that is bittersweet (they have a kid but he'll call another man Daddy). DCAU Superman never had that resolution unfortunately. None of the other DC stories really have had that either. I mean Barry Allen had an amazing death scene that got retconned, Hal Jordan had a tragic finish that got retconned too, and Wonder Woman hasn't either.

The Marvel superheroes have never had final adventures in both comics or adaptations. Its always endless spinning wheels. Like Spiderman 3 is not a final Spiderman story though it should have been. Marvel unlike DC had that radical real-time adventures in the earlier years and then they shifted to comic book time and because of that characters aged more and changed more in the first issues than they did since then. So its rather sad that there's no real finish for people who followed the characters originally.

edited 28th Jun '15 9:48:22 AM by JulianLapostat