Hey Marvin, I had to break this response into two posts since apparently there's too much text. Most of the "personal" stuff at the beginning and end will be in a separate post because of that, but you don't have to respond separately, yourself.
Yes and read what I write when I explain: whether you want to involve national security in batman stories or not, if it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense.
Funny that you say this, and then suggest the urban legend thing for decades makes sense (I see you're using the terminology again). If it doesn't make sense, then it doesn't. Right?
A story about superman doesn't need to involve the president but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't need to make sense outright, could give a damn if he never meets the president, it should still make sense.
If bringing the president into the story doesn't help the narrative, and it were to actually potentially destroy, then yeah, you can take liberties with how much sense it needs to make, or what presence it needs to have. Now apply that to Batman and the CIA.
That's great that you don't think batman stories need involve national security, but that doesn't change our basic ability to diagnose how much sense it would make. As for TDKR, I hear it's one of the best movies about batman ever. Though picking and choosing what is allowed in the mythos does seem to be a running theme here.
It's not just that I think that because I decided it on a whim. I've enjoyed enough to know that national security is not central, not necessary, and ultimately not convenient to the mythos depending on how you use it. Your example of "well why doesn't the goverment just shut him down" would not be convenient to the mythos.
I have already explained this. I am not sure if you're just debating this because you're really stubborn, but you keep making the same points that don't help your argument.
You also continually keep missing the point. It is all about "picking" and "choosing" with these narratives. It is not entirely about what makes sense, but what is convenient so you have the narrative you want. That doesn't "nothing has to make sense" or "everything has to make sense". You pick and choose. Writers have been doing it with Batman dor decades. Why doesn't this and that just happen? Because it's not convenient. Why can't he be an urban legend for 20 years, because it doesn't make sense, and it is not necessary to keep the mythos going, so we can question the merits of the idea, especially since it's implementation would require changing Batman "just because" or "because mysticism dude".
Now, it's funny that you bring up TDKR (Wheter people think it's a great Batman story is irrelevant) because....Why didn't the CIA bring this guy down with "the stuff they have in space"? Why is it that they only show up when the writers think it's convenient? Because showing them bringing Batman down in BB was not convenient to what they were trying to do, but they felt like it was for TDKR. So, picking and choosing
You explain how he currently does all of those important things in detail as opposed to just listing them, and I'll be sure to explain how little they will or have to change if at all. Dr. Leslie Thompkins in particular. The particular and crucial way he associates with this confident somehow being destroyed now that's he's not public...
So, no actual response. I'm disappointed Marvin. Next time, just say "I don't know". More honest
Not so funny really, I barely remember what your definition of the term was tbh.
You have demonstrated the ability to go back and dig up what I have said in previous posts Surely you can do the same now. Or not convenient?
I saw arguing the matter as an obvious tangent(and we have more than enough going), and instead of getting into it, I sought to pull the focus back to the matter at hand, I also figured I'd just stop listing it cause I knew where it lead but it seemingly still lead right back here. The patting on the back nature of your post has pulled me in, congrats. Here's the official Websters: an often lurid story or anecdote that is based on hearsay and widely circulated as true <the urban legend of alligators living in the sewers> called also urban myth . Seems relevant imo. That being said, I'd rather not get into the semantics or into the game of who can find the definition that best serves their point. I don't care what you want to call it, that batman is seen as an urban legend like equivalent is my stance. For arguments sake, I'll continue to call it 'urban legend' as per this concise Merriam citing. And yes, I also read why you then asserted that batman is then disqualified from being as such. The problem here is the very person you are giving these reasons to is currently in a debate with you as to the nature of reasons. Seeing men dressed up as alligators every night in the sewers won't stop that urban myth from being an urban myth sorry.
How would that not be the case? Also, remember that for your examples to work, you have to include Alligator signals, Alligator mobiles and all the other stuff I have told you before. You keep saying "An X sighting doesn't prove X exists!" It's not just one thing. It a series of elements (from the Batman mythos) that you have to apply to your examples for them to be valid in this discussion.
I see your reference mentions "as true..." but does anyone really believe in alligators living in sewers? I mean regular people, not crazy people. No one sees alligators, but people do see the Batman in his story, along with his stuff, and his enemies call him out publicly, etc.
Oh that's right, this is the part where you might suggest that unlike seeing men dressed up as the alligators, these sightings are of the supposed "REAL MAN DRESSED AS THE BATMAN"...Along with that, neither will signs reading there are are alligators posted on every man hole(bat symbol allusion), still an urban legend, only more organized...
/tangent.
I just had to repeat myself up there, yes, because you keep making the same mistakes.
I don't see how the urban legend thing is a "tangent" when such term in relation to this new Batman is what started this whole discussion. Maybe use some more textual smileys, that way you don't lose track of the conversation.
Yes, I can see why you do this now thanks. And no, I also never said that's how you do it, for I also alluded as to it's quality(if you yourself read). More importantly I noted that you yourself saw it valid enough a 'robin' to make your point with. Surely your points aren't so dubiously convenient as they can't stand on their own when faced with a new context. You suggested that even nolan needed robin in his definitive saga, no doubt because you weren't about to let me get away with suggesting the character isn't needed. I simply pointed out how such a note worthy(worthy of note) approach to Robin could be used if need be, going forward. Has nothing to do with what goes on in my head and everything to with standing beside what you put out there actually.
Marvin, they could do *anything* with Robin, or Batman and call then Robin, and Batman, respectively.What matters is "was it any good?" "Was it a worthy representation of the character?". For Nolan, that's his Robin. OK, that's Robin, but I think he sucked. One hopes that this new universe doesn't pull that kind of stuff.
Never said they didn't exist before and that it required sorcery to get photos(dont remember even implying that). I clearly said not as they do now, where people seemingly capture just about anything in their path and never miss a moment. Same way people can make a phone call at just about any moment they deem vs the way it was in the 90's(phone booths). Any sort of story breaks out in todays world and its all over social media with various captures within the hour. If this is a batman working in the late 80s into the early 2007(ish), then its very much a different 20year paradigm and one worth noting when engaged in a conversation about a story/image not getting out and onto everyones FB newsfeed to be the number one trending topic world wide.
As for these prowling photojournalists...I personally don't think there are that many clear photos of batman out there tbh. Then again, I watch a similar premise in Arrow and the issue of photos never comes up, imagine that. I doubt it ever will. The the national security agency seemly have their fair share though(go figure).
I know you didn't say that, but you sure brushed it aside, conveniently. I think that if something as wild as the Batman were to show and be active during 20 years, people (not just photojournalists) would be curious about it and would seek it out if they had the chance. Mostly the latter group, of course, since that's their living. And again, this is just one element regarding the Batman. It's not just "oh people saw a tank" or "someone has a blurry picture of something", it's many elements coming together (which surely you have memorized by now) say "yep this guy is real".
You saw alot of newspaper pictures in TDKT did you? Cause I don't really remember even one during the course of that multi decade story and he was pretty public in that, Im not sure it happens is all.
Marvin, you're almost lying here. Multi-decade story? Yeah, Bruce Wayne's! How about what really matters, how much time was Batman actually working as the Batman, in the streets? About a year, all in all.
Also, no one took a picture of him (not sure if there was footage in TDKR) and yet, no one was doubted he existed. So....Yeah. That seems to fly in the face of what you have been saying all along, which is "so they see some tank without any indication it's Batman. That doesn't prove he is real!" And yet, no one questions if Batman is real. No one even takes a picture of him, and they believe he is real. Seeing him is enough for them
So yeah, I would not use Nolan's trilogy to try and further your points, it has failed twice now, and actually shot you in the foot.
Anyway, surely you're not implying that Nolan's trilogy is some kind of definitive take on Batman? As much as I love the first two movies.
As for your question, the answer is simply, don't believe everything you read in the papers, who does anyways.
Uh...Lots of people actually. The issue with the media is more often about "how do we present this" versus "how fake is this".
They lie about terrorists, health research, corporate spending, now they are writing about superheroes running around in costume at night? I read once that there are alligators in the sewers(pictures and all), sensationalist media is surprisingly predictable.
Oh, not the conspiracy theories again! Also, I love how you simplify Batman's existence to "an article in some sensationalist newspaper" like respectable media would never touch a serious manhunt for a vigilante when he first shows up.
Don't simplify things to try and discredit a point.
Sure thing. You wanted a simple explanation as to how it's possible that the batman can be sighted and photographed all over the city literally every night yet not be considered 'real'? I posted a picture of a man in a bat suit and hockey pads being sighted and photographed in a part of a city.
Another Nolan example? LOL.
Context is everything. Not only did the Joker announce on TV that he wanted "the real Batman", not the impostor he just killed, to show up, but the real Batman himself continued being seen through his city, along with his tank.
And seeing how Nolan's Gothamites believe in the Batman without much or any pics...
Even simpler: Maybe the reason people keep seeing this guy running around town is less complicated and more obvious than you have the capacity or want to believe. People dressing in the image of this popular urban(whatever) rumor and proceeding forth.
You're just spewing this stuff to try and pretend you're addressing my points, I take it?
Mojo Jojo like reiteration:
You asked as to how eye witness accounts of various Santa's in malls are at all comparable to sightings of batman. I again not only pointed to the various faux batmen that are inspired to run around the streets. But I also decided dwell on the idea that faux anything(santa in this case) allow for a myth to live on and grow exponentially by way of awareness maybe even 20 years worth, but they also lend credence to the basic reality that the real Santa doesn't exist but rather he has various fakes. This cuts right into your argument in various ways. That as the general public, not so much the criminals, get wind of more and more dentists and such turning up in walmart costumes and black curtains, the idea that The Batman isnt real starts to fester among those that have never infact been 'punched by him'. This is also where I point to 'big foot' and the mechanism of finding out about the people in hairy suits and boots and how that generates more and more skepticism as to the real thing maybe not existing in spite of the 'sighting phenomena'.
I'm confused. Are you talking abou the "police hoax" thing again? Because that doesn't really matter. It's an extrene fantasy scenario that tou came up with. I see your point, but ultimately it is irrelevant. This isn't about "ways to make a myth stay popular", it's about "would Batkan be considered a myth, for so long, knowing what we know of the character, unless they were to change the character.
As for my communication, I have my moments I suppose. English isn't actually my first language(hardly an excuse) but we make do, I also tend not to really care on forums tbh.
I see. I suspected as much, but I wasn't sure, really. I apologize about that.
You do happen to have all my focus this time around. As for the walls, I find it reduces things vertically not to break things up. But that's just preference. As for the obligatory snyder reference, I happen to like and respect Snyder for a whole litany of reasons actually but you're not one miss out on an opportunity to assume and use that to support a point.
Sure, you can do your text walls, and I'll do my multi-quote.
You can't be serious(unless I'm missing something). Are you asking me why batman can't just exist and people know? I never said that approach couldn't happen or wouldnt be valid, that's not what this discussion is about so why you are asking me that baffles tbh. Im actually proposing the skeptical analysis as to why he may not actually have ever existed in the context of the urban myth premise, nothing more.
Right, you can do both, but one makes sense, while the other doesn't, when you consider the entire mythos and not just this new idea because "hey, new shiny!"
And where did I saycriminals don't believe he doesn't exists; outside your assertion that they couldnt? You do realize how possible it is that a good amount of the criminals that are currently afraid of batman have never actually encountered him right? They've just(get this) heard the stories and the warnings from all over. Such a thing doesnt have to be grounded in fact or experience, just broken telephone rumor fueled by fear. Not too uncommon among the superstitious and cowardly. See that's kinda how fear myths work: Stay out of the sewers or encounter 20 foot long reptiles, yet it may have never actually happened
"Criminals, stay out of Gotham streets or Gotham all together or else youll encounter the batman or worse this batman ghost demon man bat creature that seemingly protects the city(unconfirmed).."you see where I'm going. Youd have to be trying not to.
So, in 20 years, I would assume Batman would encounter "a lot" of criminals. Unless he only goes out every other weekend, (of every other year!) But...I would hope that would not be the case. Not very Batmany.
The really tragic part of this past bit here is you somehow misunderstanding that I never actually said the criminals doubt his existence. I'm perfectly fine with killer crock and penguin and thug2 all knowing him on an intimate basis, yet the general pubic thinking he a silent ghost. This again plays into blade 3.[/B]
I hope you're not asking me to watch Blade 3, I saw like the ending. It wasn't very good, and I have no plans to see the rest any time soon.
Anyway, of course regular Gothamites don't know him that well, but they know he exists. Some should talk to him.
This is typical you. If only you actually went about proving this as opposed to simply repeating it over and over perhaps it would stop getting thrown in your face. You assert: "Because people won't believe in it". Ok, why not? Sorry but that's like if people are never seen to have walked into a dark strange alley and things turn sour, then no one will have enough evidence to believe in such a warning. Are you certain? I mean you are literally just assuming as to what people will do based on little more than your inclination and Im supposed to concede an argument on your good word? What's more you seem so certain, are you certain enough to entirely debunk the basic plausibility present here? That same level of plausibility that so much of this (sort of) material is predicated on? Without of course side stepping the issue entirely ala central intelligence..cover ears and stomp feet. I doubt it. What's more, when did I ever say batman is never seen? This is you not even trying again. You're basically assuming word of all of batman's work being done as it pertains to the fight against crime simply won't happen unless he exits. This friend, is the fundamental misunderstanding here.
I have said it before. Multiple times. For this approach to work he would need to be a different Batman. Otherwise it doesn't make sense, for the reasons I have explained again and again. And read belove for the rest.
Here's an assumption of my own, if tmr(or back in 1988year one imo(or 1888)) your media and police chief's issued statements about a jack the ripper terrorizing the city under the full and half moon every month(bat symbol allusion), will "people" far and wide "need to see" this in order to believe and in turn be terrified of it. I don't care how many times you repeat yourself tbh, Im more interested in your actual rhetoric.
Sigh. Because, Marvin, people are not that gullible any more. This is not rocket science. A criminal in 2014 or the 80's won't simply believe a Batman exists anymore if he never shows up.
Can we drop this police hoax thing, it's really getting in the way of what the actual discussion is about. It's basically the inverse of what we're supposed to be discussing here.
Superman(and the rest particularly Aquaman) taking an official photo with a faux batman doesn't seem likely. Read it twice.
I read it twice. It was was even more dumb the second time.
What you're proposing is that people only become real if they take a picture with the president.
