There's also a difference between realistic and believable. That's the line that professional writers often have to try and straddle. Character motivation is a key element of that; as is setting, tone, and atmosphere. Pacing enriches believability. Proper foreshadowing allows unrealistic elements to be introduced to a story believably. Even just a few lines of pseudo-science can turn a Plot-Device into a believable, acceptable element of the story. Ultimately, writing as an art form is the perfection of believability.
Balancing believability against realism is about knowing when to be realistic, and when not to be. Characters should behave in a realistic fashion even when the world around them is not. It's not realistic that an alien looks exactly like a human and can fly, but it can still be believable if presented properly. However, if someone who's never heard of such a thing watches Superman take flight for the first time, then shrugs his shoulders and walks away like it's nothing special, that's unbelievable.
I've seen two attitudes with believability as it applies to superheroes. One attitude is to constantly try to enrich the storytelling by finding ways to improve believability. Sometimes these go awry. Some writers think "Darker and Edgier" automatically equates to "more believable". Other writers think "realistic" is necessary for "believable", even as it applies to impossibly unrealistic elements like Kryptonian superpowers.
The other attitude is that it's just superheroes, so don't take it too seriously; the notion that the contrivances of the genre are, themselves, sacred. That it is more important to conform to the generally accepted notions of the genre, and to just wash believability under the rug. This is the attitude that results in things like Green Lantern's terrible CGI mask; why does Green Lantern have a CGI mask when nobody is fooled by it in-universe and a space-cop has no use for a secret identity? Because goddammit, superheroes have masks and secret identities, and Green Lantern is a SUPERHERO.
Why does Bruce Wayne need to wear a mask when the only loved one he has to protect, Alfred, has demonstrated he is capable of taking care of himself and Bruce when necessary? Because superheroes have masks and secret identities. Except when some writers try to justify it and say that, no, it's because he's trying to be a symbol of fear and terror to the criminal element. Except he's not a symbol of fear and terror because everyone knows he won't kill you, which is, itself, because superheroes don't kill and Batman is a superhero.
No work of art is perfect. Believability is a constant struggle. But when you shrug your shoulders, give up, and go, "Look, I don't care about making my story believable, just accept the bullshit I'm trying to throw at you, or don't," that is terrible writing. A story doesn't need to be realistic to be believable.
edited 3rd Jun '13 10:05:39 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Watsonian justifications for Doylist issues really irk me as well. It's just that superhero comics weren't meant to be taken any more seriously than Pulp stories, and some characters just don't work that well in a gritty Darker and Edgier setting. They actually become less believable, or appear mentally unhinged. And when their whole surroundings are warped to accomodate them, the whole thing loses purpose. As Squirrel Girl put it, the comic book world becomes something to escape from.
edited 3rd Jun '13 10:25:20 AM by indiana404
Most of these characters can work in a more believable setting. If anything, the Dark Knight Trilogy pretty thoroughly proved that. The problem isn't that superhero stories can't be told without taking tons of artistic license with the world around them; the problem is that they can, but people refuse to let them.
This is really more of a DC problem than a Marvel one. Marvel's made a lot of efforts over the years to tighten up the believability of their universe. Some have been great, some have been terrible, but the fact remains that they try. DC clings to the archetypal notions for the sole virtue of the notions themselves. Green Lantern needs a secret identity. Superman needs a secret identity because superheroes have secret identities. Batman needs a secret identity because superheroes have secret identities. It doesn't matter how much or how little sense it makes, or how believable it is that an intergalactic space cop needs to keep aliens from planet Rigel 9 from realizing that he's Hal Jordan, some asshat from a planet they've never heard of. It's a core aspect of the superhero archetype, it HAS TO be there.
It even applies to character motivations. The Joker doesn't need a motivation; he's just the villain. It doesn't matter if Superman's reasons for being the Messiah are believable; he's Superman, therefore he is. Hal Jordan is the greatest Green Lantern there ever was on his first day of work because he's Hal Jordan, the Green Lantern, and that's all the explanation that needs. This is not good storytelling. Recognizing that and making an effort to improve upon it is commendable, but sticking your feet in the ground and saying, "I don't care, this terrible writing is what superhero comics SHOULD BE," is why DC has plenty of fans in the animated world, where cartoonish elements are more acceptable, but has been struggling for years to get a good live-action film off the ground that wasn't directed by Christopher Nolan, a man who actually understands everything I've mentioned here.
It doesn't need to be realistic. It just needs to be believable.
edited 3rd Jun '13 10:32:59 AM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.I'm still not getting the "Batman contaminates crime scenes" thing. How often does he actually break into a crime scene after the police have arrived? From the Batman stories I'm familiar with, he's usually either responding to a crime in progress or getting information about the crime from Gordon; he doesn't magically know where to find a dead body before the police do.
And a lot of the detective work he does is based on illegal surveillance and confessions extracted through threats and torture, which would be inadmissable evidence in court even if Batman was somehow made to testify. However, if Batman assaults a criminal, then he himself is creating a crime scene, giving the police reason to investigate. And if, in the course of this investigation, it's discovered that the victim's fingerprints match those found at a different crime scene, well . . .
![]()
Or rather, it needs to be consistent. What I mean is, say, when it's implicitly acknowledged that the Joker will return whenever he suffers a Disney Villain Death, it actually makes it easier for the Bat to just drop him off a cliff, call it a night, and not angst about being a killer. Marvel has reached a pretty good equilibrium in that regard, where most characters are Genre Savvy about their own lives, and barely bat an eyelash whenever someone gets Back from the Dead, or turns out to be Actually a Doombot - they roll with it just fine, and don't play it for drama nearly as much. They don't take themselves too seriously, so they don't need to justify every Necessary Weasel.
Conversely, I feel DC has been trying too hard to instill its heroes as "Gods Among Us" , with so many HandWaves that it might as well start flying like JLU's Flash-copter. A little hint of self-acknowledgement, a little indication that their world is a bit too silly to take seriously, and it would do them more good than tons of retcons, reboots, and justifications.
The problem is that Gordon relies on the Bat too much, to the detriment of whatever honest cop remains on the force. Involving Batman in the investigation at all is grounds for a mistrial if it's found out. Even solid evidence can be dismissed as planted. Thus, counter-intuitive as it seems, the most legally effective Batman was the campy Adam West version, who was officially on the mayor's beck and call.
edited 3rd Jun '13 11:36:27 AM by indiana404
Yeah, I can get behind that. The 2003 Teen Titans cartoon is probably my favorite take on traditional superheroes, and that show ran more on Looney Tunes logic than anything else.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I think that some characters do better in a non-shared universe and I think Batman is a prime example of that. It's hard to take the grittier, more grounded world he's supposed to live in and remember that Superman is on his speed dial and he spends some of his free time in an orbiting satellite. I think Punisher has the same issue.
(Alot) Are you saying Superman is an Ubermensch ? He's definitely not one by the definitions of this site. He's much more the Fettered. He limits himself to social laws and morality, not rejecting them. He doesn't try to change the world BECAUSE he thinks it's not his place. If he changes the world to be better, judged by his view of better, would still be a lesser world than a world which people themselves make.
And his responsibility is his morality, his empathy. As is mine. And yours (I assume). And everyone elses. If someone needs a hand, I'll help them because I believe it's the right thing to do, not because of any law, if there was one. That doesn't make me an Ubermensch either.
edited 3rd Jun '13 11:55:26 AM by Anteres
![]()
![]()
To me, it's far more believable that in a world where superheroes a) exist and b) are respected and beloved, that the legal system has adjusted to them being there. Saying Batman contaminates crime scenes when I don't know if that's come up in any DC comic ever, would seem to suggest that their legal system has got something in place there. And that seems highly plausible to me. That the DCU Earth is so similar to ours is the idea that I have to handwave.
Also, they don't fingerprint victims. They only fingerprint you when they make an actual arrest. If you've never been arrested, then they don't have your fingerprints on file. And on top of that, like DNA evidence, fingerprinting still aren't accurate enough to base a conviction on. Convictions are typically based on a variety of things; you can't really base your case around any one element and expect the jury to rule in your favor. If your fingerprints match AND your DNA matches AND you have witness testimonies that it was you on the scene AND you have corroborating evidence retrieved by the police, etc. etc., you can get a conviction. There isn't really a guaranteed Conviction button; you just have to build a case out of the best evidence you can gather, and try to do a better job prosecuting the suspect than the defense will defending him.
That's what makes Batman such a difficult figure; because he's an anonymous figure who regularly interferes with police investigations, no motive needs to be proven for his activities. An anonymous figure like Batman is Schrodinger's Criminal; because his identity cannot be proven, his motives cannot be proven. This makes any investigation that features his involvement questionable.
If Frank Johnson finds the villain's hideout and phones in an anonymous tip to the police, who then enter the warehouse and capture the villain, a defense attorney can attempt to claim that Frank might have planted evidence, but Frank himself can step up onto the stand and defend himself. He will be thoroughly questioned in front of judge and jury as to his involvement in the case so that no doubt remains as to who he is and what role he played in the events.
Conversely, if Batman breaks into the warehouse, beats up the villain and all his goons, then calls the police to come retrieve them, nothing in the warehouse is admissable; because when the defense calls Batman to the stand to testify as to the events that transpired, no one will come forward. When the defense presents the possibility that Batman himself planted the evidence found in the warehouse that links the villain to the crimes, no one can argue against it. Batman was alone in the warehouse, his motives are unknown, he cannot represent himself in court or testify to his side of the story, so ultimately, there is no way to prove the extent of Batman's involvement.
Without being able to prove what happened between Batman entering the warehouse and the police's arrival on the scene, and nobody to testify to the events that transpired other than the villain himself, these events, as well as everything that was found on the scene after Batman departed it, can all be called into question and nobody can prove that they are valid.
Law is very complicated. This is why people are paid thousands of dollars to debate it in front of a room full of people.
The idea that the law has adapted to accomodate anonymous, masked vigilantes comes with its own set of terrible issues, not the least of which being that it basically throws the Constitution out the window.
edited 3rd Jun '13 12:07:06 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.![]()
![]()
Um, acting under a secret identity doesn't look like abiding by social laws, making him morally unaccountable to anyone not in the Justice League, and he's proven capable of overriding their better judgement, by force if he pleases. He puts personal morality above social accountability - that is the trait of the Ubermensch. The same can be said about a lot of superheroes, really, but it's he who takes the cake.
Conversely, it's actually Marvel's laws that are kinda tweaked to allow superhero intervention. Namely because most of the capes are supervised by S.H.I.E.L.D. , who treat them as unofficial secret agents, having full knowledge of their identities. That's actually the main difference between a government-backed team like the Avengers, and an unaccountable pantheon like the JLA.
edited 3rd Jun '13 12:19:53 PM by indiana404
We have no idea the legal differences in place, so it's kinda pointless to speculate but Batman is hardly anonymous. As a member of the Justice League, he's high profile (again shared universe problem). Yes, it could be (and has been) someone else under the cowl but perhaps a criminal needs to show a reasonable possibility that that wasn't THE Batman. Like I said, it's pointless to argue. It's just as possible that crime scene laws in the DCU have always been different.
All I'm saying if the argument that Batman contaminates crime scenes and thus criminals go free is rendered moot by the fact that in ten years of in-universe Batman, that hasn't happened. If it did, every criminal attorney would have jumped on it and possibly Batman, but definitely Jim Gordan would have had to do something about it. It would have happened, it hasn't happened, therefore something is different.
![]()
Superman would only be ignoring the law if he used his secret identity to evade the legal consequences of his actions. When does he do that ? He IS accountable. If the police or government think he's done wrong, Superman is the MOST likely to go to them to explain himself and try to sort it out, barring serious extenuating circumstances. Batman would say "Screw you guys" but not Superman.
He might have Clark Kent who can 'evade' his actions as Superman but he takes responsibility AS Superman so that's not an issue.
The fact that the writing has always been bad is not an excuse to continue writing poorly.
There is no legally-acceptable way to require the defendant to prove that it wasn't the Batman that took down the villain. That is ridiculous and makes a complete mockery of the law. It turns the entire criminal justice system into a Kangaroo Court, in which anyone could have anyone arrested and say the Batman did it. That's the problem with the Anonymous Vigilante Law Enforcement system: it is completely and absolutely corrupt, moreso than any other legal system that you could possibly put in place.
It's the Soviet Union under the KGB. The law is enforced by anonymous members of the population, who take it upon themselves to act in accordance with their own interpretation of the law. The fact is, anyone can put on a mask and be a superhero. The Joker can become Owlman, defender of justice, and start putting random people in prison because a superhero said they committed crimes. If this is acceptable in a courtroom, the law itself becomes worthless, and police become minions of the anonymous enforcers that secretly govern the nation. The nation as a whole becomes a worse cesspool than Gotham ever was.
If your neighbor decides he doesn't like you, he can put on a mask and make you disappear, and there's nothing you can do about it, and the law can do nothing to protect you because the law is on his side as long as he wears a mask. This is a terrible and absolutely corrupt system. It is also completely unconstitutional; in fact, preventing this exact scenario is one of the reasons why the Constitution even exists to begin with.
edited 3rd Jun '13 12:39:34 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Criminals going off the hook actually does happen, when you think about it. The Insanity Defense may really be used by the prosecution - since any solid evidence is busted, the only way to at least keep the hardline crooks of the street is to admit them in Arkham... which hence earns the status of a very poorly ran facility, losing credibility, funding, security budget, and therefore turning into the Bedlam House Cardboard Prison we all know and love.
As for Superman's responsibility, I ask again, responsibility to whom? Can he be voted off the League? Can he be arrested or at least made to pay the damages bill the next time he eats some evil-inducing kryptonite and thrashes a Conveniently Empty Building? Not by any ordinary law abiding citizen, that's for sure.
edited 3rd Jun '13 12:42:32 PM by indiana404
I didn't say that WAS the reason, just an suggestion. And again, it's not poor writing. Batman takes down the bad guy and then they're released on a legal technicality ? Over and over again, for ten years in universe. It's an acceptable break from reality.
You think it's unbelievable. I don't. We disagree, fine. But the point was IN-UNIVERSE, does Batman help or hinder. As IN-UNIVERSE, this issue hasn't come up, criminals go to jail and DCU America hasn't descended into a totalitarian hell, we can safely assume there's something else going on. And therefore it's not an argument that is valid from an in-universe perspective.
![]()
DCU has prisons from metahumans. They could stick Supes in one of those. But even if it was that it would be difficult or even impossible to keep him in jail if he wanted out, that's doesn't make him impossible to arrest. That certainly doesn't make him an ubermensch, and it doesn't make him less responsible for him actions. He consents to living under the law. If the police tried to arrest him, again barring exceptional circumstances, it's a rare version of Superman who wouldn't go with them. He COULD attack them, or flee but I could do the same. He's just be more likely to succeed.
And if Batman can be voted off the League, why would Superman be different ?
edited 3rd Jun '13 12:58:49 PM by Anteres
![]()
But that's just it. You can't just say, "It works because it does so shut up." That's terrible writing. You can get away with a token explanation for fantastic, patently-unrealistic elements such as alien superpowers or magic science weapons, but for things that actually do exist like the law or human psychology, you can't just go, "Everything is different because it has to be or else my story wouldn't work!" It has to be justified. If you want to put your story in the real-world United States of America, then you need to be willing to abide by the way the United States works, or else come up with an explanation for how it works differently and why.
Otherwise, that's just plain bad writing to expect the audience to justify your bullshit for you. You can't just sweep it under the rug and then get defensive and go, "It's just superheros, superheroes are terrible stories anyway, stop holding me to higher standards!" when someone challenges you.
edited 3rd Jun '13 1:06:38 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Yeah, in-universe they also elected Lex Luthor for president, while Superman took a break from supermanning, in order to go on a walkabout and give lengthy speeches to little kids on how "over there has to stand for itself"... when dealing with heavily armed drug-dealers. I don't see how that could go wrong at all.
For that matter, "responsibility" isn't a vaguely defined moral notion; it's a physical limitation a person is burdened with by other people. So when a guy can simply walk out of jail whenever he wishes to, and then hide behind a pair of glasses, that's anything but responsible.
edited 3rd Jun '13 1:07:23 PM by indiana404
I did not say that. I said it is an issue that doesn't arise in-universe, thus it isn't a valid argument for an in-universe criticism of Batman. You think it's terrible writing, again I say acceptable break from reality. That's irreverent.
It's like injuries. Bruce Wayne, after ten years being Batman plus years of brutal training beforehand, should be damn near crippled. He doesn't heal (normally) with magic healing crystals or with alien super-science. He is supposed to heal like a normal man. He clearly doesn't. Is that terrible writing or an acceptable break from reality ? Again, I'd say the latter.
edited 3rd Jun '13 1:13:25 PM by Anteres
Does anyone remember when the Black Panther defeated the Silver Surfer by putting him in an arm-bar?
That's bad writing. The author even outright admitted he had no idea what the Surfer's capabilities were. It's indefensible because it's completely inconsistent with the characters' respective abilities. Nobody tried to defend it by going, "Well, it happened in canon, therefore it's justified. The Black Panther can put the Silver Surfer in an arm-bar because he did, and that's all there is to it."
Self-justifying canon is the worst kind of writing. "It's possible because I wrote it," is the exact mindset that Squirrel Girl is a walking parody of.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.
I agree. that was bad writing. If the author is going to write Silver Surfer, a well-known and popular character, he should know what he can do. But there's a difference between not doing research and ignoring something because it'll throw the story. Your average legal drama mangles the law as badly as Batman does because most people don't care about the technicalities. It's the same here. Comic fans went nuts with that arm-bar. They don't care Batman contaminating a crime scene not being mentioned.
But again, saying Batman contaminates crime scene and criminals are released when that doesn't happen in-universe makes in an invalid in-universe argument.
But it's a perfectly valid argument when discussing the portrayal of the characters in the comics. Because ultimately, the comics bend over backwards to pretend that Batman's behavior isn't psychologically deranged by ignoring the realities of it. Batman exists in a world in which the universe itself goes out of its way to pat him on the back and tell him that he's doing a good job and should continue doing it, a world in which the law works exactly the way Batman wants it to, criminals are exactly the kind of people Batman wants them to be, and Batman is never wrong. Any element of reality that would inject an unfortunate truth into this world are conveniently ignored by the fabric of reality.
Which is basically the same kind of world many insane people live in, they just don't usually have a huge audience of people agreeing with them.
edited 3rd Jun '13 1:28:11 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

edited 3rd Jun '13 10:01:38 AM by indiana404