The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
You know, all of this is kind of explained in The Dark Knight.
He uses his power as both the billionaire playboy and the Bat to successfully battle the Mob, effectively shutting it out of Gotham entirely.
And then some psycho in clown makeup swoops in bum-jumps the whole fucking thing.
Doesn't Joker not show back up there until AFTER batman makes a return, and it "triggers' joker to go nuts again? Its been years since i read dark knight, but i remember people blaming joker going crazy on the return of batman. Or im just fucking nuts, and totally confused.
Also "King Penis of Fuck Mountain" was not something i came up with. Someone else in the PA forums said that, and i thought it was pretty hilarious. Forgot who...
Nowhere close. Do you actually believe the Bruce Wayne we see in the comics right now is supposed to be pushing a hundred? Timelines for legacy characters are perpetually shifting and fluid. This is pretty obvious stuff, shouldn't really have to be explained to someone who isn't just trolling.
+1
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
We're not providing grist for some sociological paper or something, are we? Because I don't follow your intentions with this thread.
NakedZerglingA more apocalyptic post apocalypse Portland OregonRegistered Userregular
Xaquin- I understand it's a comic, and to a degree it's somethng that DOES bother me with all super heroes. KNowing that at the end of the day nothing is really going to change can be frustrating, but i guess thats just the nature of main stream comics. For some reason it really bothers me with batman. Maybe because he is just a human it bothers me more?
Thats why i was asking for any suggestions that might be different.
I kind of appreciate when i hear that a creator has a specific ending for a character/story, and you never really know what will happen.
Your real question is why Batman dosen't realize he's fighting outside the law for an incredibly decrepit and broken legal system in Gotham.
You would expect an ounce of awareness or at least, recognition of this fact, and like, any amount of self-awareness that's he's playing a game he'll never win, and THAT'S why he keeps going.
But nope, must grimdark driven MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEAAAAAD.
Your real question is why Batman dosen't realize he's fighting outside the law for an incredibly decrepit and broken legal system in Gotham.
You would expect an ounce of awareness or at least, recognition of this fact, and like, any amount of self-awareness that's he's playing a game he'll never win, and THAT'S why he keeps going.
He absolutely realizes that.
Lots or bad posts in this thread, and posts that make me wonder if they're posted by people who have ever actually consumed any Batman media.
Also "King Penis of Fuck Mountain" was not something i came up with. Someone else in the PA forums said that, and i thought it was pretty hilarious. Forgot who...
Xaquin- I understand it's a comic, and to a degree it's somethng that DOES bother me with all super heroes. KNowing that at the end of the day nothing is really going to change can be frustrating, but i guess thats just the nature of main stream comics. For some reason it really bothers me with batman. Maybe because he is just a human it bothers me more?
Thats why i was asking for any suggestions that might be different.
I kind of appreciate when i hear that a creator has a specific ending for a character/story, and you never really know what will happen.
I like to think of comic books as an exaggeration of real things that happen in real life. Corruption, black markets and underground economies, rape, murder, etc. If you think about it, all of these aspects exist in the comic book world, and all of them exist within Gotham. They're themes to which we're all familiar and thus can draw a connection with in the story, but they're imagined, and therefore are far greater and more incredible than anything that is actually real. A certain amount of suspension of disbelief is necessary for any story, really. It's easy to simplify what causes crime by looking at some random survey which at the time and even currently may hold some merit, but if these things were so easy to control and solve then don't you think the global economy and/or society as a whole would have done something about it some time ago? There is no universal equation to crime, and there are a million different variables as to what and why crimes happen. Unfortunately, you often can't predict them, but you can take steps in which you can prepare for them and how they are handled. I think that's where Batman comes in.
There's actually a pretty good book that I read about Batman and Batman's psychology called... wait for it... Batman and Psychology. The immediate question it poses is whether or not Batman is crazy, and the final conclusion at the end of the book after all of it's posturing is that no, Batman is not crazy. In the world that Batman lives in, Batman is quite sane.
Batman exists to take those unknown and almost unquantifiable variables of crime and prepare for them. He does this in a number of ways, but the one that your most familiar with involves him punching criminals in the face because that's what sells comics. However, as it was already mentioned by a number of people in this thread, Bruce spends an enormity of his wealth on funding nearly half of Gotham: schools, hospitals, charities through the Wayne Foundation, orphanages, science research and development, construction, etc., etc., etc. I remember there was even a Forbes article (I think it was Forbes) that listed the richest characters in fiction and Tony Stark edged out Bruce Wayne, and the reason they mentioned was because Bruce spends an exorbitant amount of his money throughout Gotham City. Now, let's look at real life...
I'm just going to c&p from a Forbes article (not to seem like a shill for Forbes or anything...), because they can describe it more succinctly than I can.
"The nation’s official poverty rate in 2011 was 15.0 percent, with 46.2 million people in poverty. After three consecutive years of increases, neither the poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the 2010 estimates.
We could certainly argue that that’s way too high a figure for a rich country like the United States. In fact, many people do so argue. But we do have something of a problem with this figure. We could lift all of these people up out of what is defined as poverty at a cost of around $550 billion. That’s in the 3 or 4% of GDP range*. Which would be pretty good really, being able to solve something as large as poverty for such a small cost.
We get that number by looking at what the poverty threshold is. A little over $11,000 for an individual adult. There’s a little under 50 million people in poverty so if we gave them each $11,000 then they wouldn’t be in poverty. Problem solved and over for that cost of around $550 billion.
Note that this is our upper end cost. For we don’t say that a family of four (2 adults, 2 children) are in poverty if they get less than $44,000 a year. While the old story about marriage, that two can live as cheaply as one, isn’t in fact true it is true that living costs do not double for two people. So we say that a family of four is in poverty if they make less than $23,000. But we are, just for the devilment of it, saying here that we’re going to treat every single poor person as an individual adult and give them $11,000 a year and thus there will be no poverty in the US. That costs us $550 billion. That number is also assuming that no poor people have any market income at all: this really is the top end estimate."
I know the article is talking about the United States as a whole, but regardless of however you want to divide that, any number you come up with easily exceeds even the most generous of Bruce Wayne's net worths. And here we're talking about real life, and not even the exaggerated world in which Batman lives.
There's a constant theme in Batman where Bruce is very aware that what he's doing is a battle that he will never really win, that he has bitten off FAR more than he can chew, and that crime nor poverty nor any of the things that he's fighting will ever really end, but he can't and won't just sit by and watch these things happen when it's well within his power to do something about it. There are so many aspects to how Batman attempts to help Gotham outside of being Batman they're almost too numerous to really list, but those things and those stories aren't what sell. Nobody wants to read a story about how Batman solved the global defect (except for me, I think). People want to read about the other differences he makes-- the stuff that is otherwise outside of your and my ability to do...
Train yourself to be good at everything, dress up like a giant bat, and punch criminals in the goddamn face.
I hate Batman because at some point he went from being a really smart, skilled guy, to the best everything ever. Which tends to marginalize and make irrelevant many characters I quite like, whose skillsets tend to be narrower, and more specialized.
But, the idea that Batman doesn't do things to help the poor and downtrodden, is false. In addition to the various charities, he sometimes takes a slightly more direct hand.
And in Batman: Snow, he hires an ex-con in danger of sliding back into a life of crime, as a consultant. I'm sure there's more examples of him hiring criminals. I feel like there must have been a story where he buys some supervillain's technology, or something.
It does tend to be a trope of the rich business owner/superhero genre. Off the top of my head, I know both Ted Kord and Tony Stark hired supervillains/henchmen, who couldn't find legitimate work.
Alright, this thread has served whatever marginal purpose it had to begin with. In the future, save your "I hate" whichever character threads for the bitching thread or some other place on the internet
Posts
Doesn't Joker not show back up there until AFTER batman makes a return, and it "triggers' joker to go nuts again? Its been years since i read dark knight, but i remember people blaming joker going crazy on the return of batman. Or im just fucking nuts, and totally confused.
Also "King Penis of Fuck Mountain" was not something i came up with. Someone else in the PA forums said that, and i thought it was pretty hilarious. Forgot who...
Basically, "real-world solutions" don't apply in a setting full of super villains.
Also, because comics.
Nowhere close. Do you actually believe the Bruce Wayne we see in the comics right now is supposed to be pushing a hundred? Timelines for legacy characters are perpetually shifting and fluid. This is pretty obvious stuff, shouldn't really have to be explained to someone who isn't just trolling.
Thats why i was asking for any suggestions that might be different.
I kind of appreciate when i hear that a creator has a specific ending for a character/story, and you never really know what will happen.
You would expect an ounce of awareness or at least, recognition of this fact, and like, any amount of self-awareness that's he's playing a game he'll never win, and THAT'S why he keeps going.
But nope, must grimdark driven MY PARENTS ARE DEEEEAAAAAD.
He absolutely realizes that.
Lots or bad posts in this thread, and posts that make me wonder if they're posted by people who have ever actually consumed any Batman media.
don't ever read Cerebus
There's actually a pretty good book that I read about Batman and Batman's psychology called... wait for it... Batman and Psychology. The immediate question it poses is whether or not Batman is crazy, and the final conclusion at the end of the book after all of it's posturing is that no, Batman is not crazy. In the world that Batman lives in, Batman is quite sane.
Batman exists to take those unknown and almost unquantifiable variables of crime and prepare for them. He does this in a number of ways, but the one that your most familiar with involves him punching criminals in the face because that's what sells comics. However, as it was already mentioned by a number of people in this thread, Bruce spends an enormity of his wealth on funding nearly half of Gotham: schools, hospitals, charities through the Wayne Foundation, orphanages, science research and development, construction, etc., etc., etc. I remember there was even a Forbes article (I think it was Forbes) that listed the richest characters in fiction and Tony Stark edged out Bruce Wayne, and the reason they mentioned was because Bruce spends an exorbitant amount of his money throughout Gotham City. Now, let's look at real life...
I'm just going to c&p from a Forbes article (not to seem like a shill for Forbes or anything...), because they can describe it more succinctly than I can.
"The nation’s official poverty rate in 2011 was 15.0 percent, with 46.2 million people in poverty. After three consecutive years of increases, neither the poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the 2010 estimates.
We could certainly argue that that’s way too high a figure for a rich country like the United States. In fact, many people do so argue. But we do have something of a problem with this figure. We could lift all of these people up out of what is defined as poverty at a cost of around $550 billion. That’s in the 3 or 4% of GDP range*. Which would be pretty good really, being able to solve something as large as poverty for such a small cost.
We get that number by looking at what the poverty threshold is. A little over $11,000 for an individual adult. There’s a little under 50 million people in poverty so if we gave them each $11,000 then they wouldn’t be in poverty. Problem solved and over for that cost of around $550 billion.
Note that this is our upper end cost. For we don’t say that a family of four (2 adults, 2 children) are in poverty if they get less than $44,000 a year. While the old story about marriage, that two can live as cheaply as one, isn’t in fact true it is true that living costs do not double for two people. So we say that a family of four is in poverty if they make less than $23,000. But we are, just for the devilment of it, saying here that we’re going to treat every single poor person as an individual adult and give them $11,000 a year and thus there will be no poverty in the US. That costs us $550 billion. That number is also assuming that no poor people have any market income at all: this really is the top end estimate."
I know the article is talking about the United States as a whole, but regardless of however you want to divide that, any number you come up with easily exceeds even the most generous of Bruce Wayne's net worths. And here we're talking about real life, and not even the exaggerated world in which Batman lives.
There's a constant theme in Batman where Bruce is very aware that what he's doing is a battle that he will never really win, that he has bitten off FAR more than he can chew, and that crime nor poverty nor any of the things that he's fighting will ever really end, but he can't and won't just sit by and watch these things happen when it's well within his power to do something about it. There are so many aspects to how Batman attempts to help Gotham outside of being Batman they're almost too numerous to really list, but those things and those stories aren't what sell. Nobody wants to read a story about how Batman solved the global defect (except for me, I think). People want to read about the other differences he makes-- the stuff that is otherwise outside of your and my ability to do...
Train yourself to be good at everything, dress up like a giant bat, and punch criminals in the goddamn face.
If you want to read a deconstruction of the narrative, I'd recommend 'Kick Ass' by Mark Millar.
But, the idea that Batman doesn't do things to help the poor and downtrodden, is false. In addition to the various charities, he sometimes takes a slightly more direct hand.
And in Batman: Snow, he hires an ex-con in danger of sliding back into a life of crime, as a consultant. I'm sure there's more examples of him hiring criminals. I feel like there must have been a story where he buys some supervillain's technology, or something.
It does tend to be a trope of the rich business owner/superhero genre. Off the top of my head, I know both Ted Kord and Tony Stark hired supervillains/henchmen, who couldn't find legitimate work.
Tumblr Twitter
Ok that's just mean, I may be upset over Batman bashing, but you don't trick people into reading Kickass!