Batman: Antihero or Hero?

[7Hells]

I consider Batman an Anti-hero.
Just because we, as the audience, are now more accepting of violent superheros doesnt negate Batman being conceived as an anti-hero.

The only reason people, today, dont consider Batman an anti-hero is because the definition has changed for us through societies acceptance of violence and the superheros which reflect that acceptance.
Now, to be an anti-hero, do you have to kill? Back then Batman was the definition of Anti-hero. He was violent (has killed), mocked societies rules and the governments.

So I will maintin my belief that Batman is an anti-hero and because of it he became one of the most popular comic heros to date. Denying that only denies that which made him so popular and empathetic at his conception. It is how I started reading Batman comics and it is how I read them today. He may be a G rated Anti-hero by todays standards but he wasnt when he was first born.

 

[Thespiralgoeson]

Psh, complete gibberish. Stone Cold Steve Austin is an anti-hero. Batman is a hero.

I'll give you that the original incarnation of the character that Bob Kane created was an anti-hero of sorts in that he was a killer. But what does that mean? Originally, Superman was only strong enough to lift a car over his head; couldn't even fly, certainly wasn't god-like. Things change.

Batman is a hero.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I will always appreciate that respect. Nothing better than two friends discussing differences in opinion

That's what I like to hear.

Just because we, as the audience, are now more accepting of violent superheros doesnt negate Batman being conceived as an anti-hero.

Interesting, and unexpected.

All of the "anti-heros" you listed were created 10 or more years after Batman. With one or more wars in between them.

Again, and interesting and unexpected. So you're making the case that times have changed and this has changed the way we view heroes and enti-heroes? Good play.

The only reason people, today, dont consider Batman an anti-hero is because the definition has changed for us through societies acceptance of violence and the superheros which reflect that acceptance.
Now, to be an anti-hero, you have to kill. But back then Batman was the definition of Anti-hero. He was violent (has killed), mocked societies rules and the governments.

Interesting. The one thing I see, though, is that I would consider the current iteration of Batman to be more of an anti-hero than the oldschool Batman. Times have changed but Batman has changed, too. And Batman has gone farther in one direction while society's views seem to have gone in the other direction.

Allow me to put on the chauvenist shoes for just a moment. Remember John Wayne? Badass, swaggering, slow-talking John Wayne? The Duke killed in his movies. His main caveat was that he wouldn't shoot a man in the back. That was his idea of honor.

As recently as the 80's we had Bruce Willis as John McClane in the Die Hard movies (yes they're making a fourth one now, and shooting it not far from here in Baltimore... I'll let you know how I feel about that after I see the movie) but what do we have for action heroes now?

Hell, to cast a decent Batman they had to hire a British man because American movie stars are all sissies now. Ashton Kutcher? Pshaw.

We have this rule now that real heroes don't shoot people at all. It drives me NUTS. Have you noticed how Tom Cruise in Mission: Impossible avoids shooting people dead whenever possible? Have you noticed how Uma Thurman at the end of KIll Bill Vol. 2, after spending about five collective hours hunting Bill, sits down and has pancakes with the freak and when she finally kills him, it's not an act of revenge but almost an act of defeat? What the hell message is this? That violence doesn't solve our problems? Aren't there more interesting ways of exploring that theme besides turning our heroes into pansies? I mean I loved Kill Vill Vol. 1, when it was just a badass woman killing people. Then QT had to try and preach to me. I don't need sermons from that freak, okay?

While "Eating Breakfast With Bill Vol. 2" cleans up at the Box Office, The Punisher falls flat on its face -- a movie where an angry man shoots people dead. If anything this defines Bob Kane and Bill Finger's original Batman as more of an anti-hero by modern standards, and probably less of one by the standards of its day, where cowboys and hard-boiled detectives ruled pulp fiction. I would also say that the current "dick" Batman (as created by Frank Miller and carried off into banality by nearly everybody since) is an anti-hero in the sense that, well, he's a jerk.

But by comparison, my favorite iteration of The Dark Knight - the one that coined the term "Dark Knight," in fact - is the Denny O'Neil / Neal Adams Batman from the 70's and the basic continuation of it by other creators into the mid-80's. That Batman, to me, is quite heroic. Dark and mysterious, but quite heroic, every bit as much as the light, campy Batman from the 40's, 50's, and 60's. Just without the camp. Therefore I would have to say that for most of his time in existence - basically five of his seven decades - he's been what I would consider a hero.

So I will maintin my belief that Batman is an anti-hero and because of it he became one of the most popular comic heros to date. Denying that only denies that which made him so popular and empathetic at his conception. It is how I started reading Batman comics and it is how I read them today. He may be a G rated Anti-hero by todays standards but he wasnt when he was first born.

I respect your opinion, of course, and your considerable skills at building your case. But I still don't think I agree with you.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Batman is the original Anti-hero.

His dark, brooding demeanor......his violent, dark tactics.

Essentially, he is the most heroic Anti-Hero, I think. He's so close on the crisp, yet his good heart is what keeps him on the right path.

But, considering everything.....I think the Batman is an Anti-Hero. Although, I think he's as close to the line between Hero and Anti-Hero as anyone can ever get.

I don't think to be an Anti-hero you need to kill. I think the violence, and the level of it that the hero is willing to go to....or is capable of counts.

Batman won't kill you. But.......he'd make you want to be dead. He's crippled eniemies before, putting some mob boss in a wheel chair a couple of years ago....and he didn't regret it. He's broken countless arms, legs, body parts of his eneimies....and his interrogation tactics have to be questionable to some, at least.

And if it's a matter of death..... He's left Hush to die at the hands of the Joker. He's caused the death of a few villians too, by accidentally killing them.....some mugger got squashed by a train b/c of Batman in TEC a few months ago.

 

[7Hells]

Bah, how can you compare Batman to a cowboy...you should be slapped for that!

Comparing movies (especially today considering war) to comics in order to statute the publics idea of acceptable violence by superheros is stretching it a bit. Comics are a completely different medium. The intent of violence will always be toned down in movies (unless horror) because the nature of that medium is so much more graphic than comics. though you could argue that because comics are mainly for children the same would apply but I consider that a different kind of censorship.

The one thing I see, though, is that I would consider the current iteration of Batman to be more of an anti-hero than the oldschool Batman.

If you are talking about the depiction of Batmans general attitude and the mood of the current comics(Miller I assume) I'd agree with you to an extent. Though it seems more of a personal issue Batman has rather than the way he deals with crime in general.

Therefore I would have to say that for most of his time in existence - basically five of his seven decades - he's been what I would consider a hero.

Thats what is tricky about being an anti-hero he is still a "hero" for the most part whereas someone like Catwoman is delinated more from the "anti".
If you juxtapose Batman to his superhero counterparts from around the same age there is no question which one would be considered the antihero. The costume alone lends itself to the pigeonhole. Yet its the practicalities of the way Batman dispenses his enemies that makes him an anti-hero to me. He is quite a violent guy. There is traditionally much more blood and/or defeat depicted in a sadistic nature in Batman Comics when compared to other comics from the same conceptual era.

But I still don't think I agree with you.

I will never expect you to. Just being here and posting in this forum tells me that you, as I, are a diehard fan and as such we will always have a fairly concrete vision of our personal Batman.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Bah, how can you compare Batman to a cowboy...you should be slapped for that!

Comparing Batman to a violent badass who takes the law into his own hands? You're right, my dear, HOW DARE I?!?!?

Comparing movies (especially today considering war) to comics in order to statute the publics idea of acceptable violence by superheros is stretching it a bit. Comics are a completely different medium. The intent of violence will always be toned down in movies (unless horror) because the nature of that medium is so much more graphic than comics. though you could argue that because comics are mainly for children the same would apply but I consider that a different kind of censorship.

Again I come back to Die Hard which I watched last night... wherein every gunshot that hit human flesh left a massive blood splatter on walls, windows, etc. Wherein The Bruce runs barefoot over broken glass and leaves one hell of a trail, and is then seen in a bathroom sitting on a sink pulling glass out of his feet and tossing it into the bloodstreaked porcelain. Or another of my favorites, RoboCop, wherein Red Foreman and Dr. Romano blast the living hell out Peter Weller at pointblank range and, having actually shot most of his limbs off (which we witness first-hand) they deliver the coup-de-gras and leave him for dead. Or Braveheart, where limbs were flying like a busy day at the Mos Eisley Cantina.

The point I'm making here, Sev, is that movie violence being toned down is a fairly recent conceit, and one that I hate with a passion. It takes a singular lack of courage to make an action movie that doesn't show realistic violence. The only exceptions we get are movies like Saving Private Ryan (another movie I love, and which has the greatest, most horrifying and starkly realistic combat scenes ever put to film) but where it's designed expressly to convey the message that war is hell. Which hopefully, being intelligent individuals, we already knew.

If you are talking about the depiction of Batmans general attitude and the mood of the current comics(Miller I assume) I'd agree with you to an extent. Though it seems more of a personal issue Batman has rather than the way he deals with crime in general.
Thats what is tricky about being an anti-hero he is still a "hero" for the most part whereas someone like Catwoman is delinated more from the "anti".
If you juxtapose Batman to his superhero counterparts from around the same age there is no question which one would be considered the antihero. The costume alone lends itself to the pigeonhole. Yet its the practicalities of the way Batman dispenses his enemies that makes him an anti-hero to me. He is quite a violent guy. There is traditionally much more blood and/or defeat depicted in a sadistic nature in Batman Comics when compared to other comics from the same conceptual era.

I guess it's a POV thing here. I mean I get what you're saying - that in a sense Batman is a far more visceral, violent type of person than Superman. And I love Superman, but I love Batman more. But Batman being a bareknuckled streetfighter to Superman's saintly persona doesn't, to me, make Batman an anti-hero. Because by that standard every real-life hero is an anti-hero, and there are no true heroes. Which I suppose is an attitude that you could have, but again, one that I don't necessarily share.

To me the difference in Superman and Batman is in their level of empowerment. Superman has superhuman powers. He's like an angel. He's a Messianic figure. He has powers far beyond any human and so he must use them carefully because he doesn't want to do any real permanent harm to anyone. He wants everybody to be cool with each other, and his favorite punch is the one he doesn't have to throw. He's like a saint.

Batman is, well... more realistic. He's a human being who wants to do the right thing, and, just like in the real world, doing the right thing sometimes involves getting one's knuckles bloody, and Batman's not afraid to do that. He fights because it's the most effective tool he has. But he doesn't kill. He believes in locking the bad guys up and giving them a chance at rehabilitation. He never really gives up on them. In that sense he's as close as most human beings ever get to being saintly: he does his own dirty work, BUT all he wants is to help people. You can question his methods but to me fighting isn't a sin. Maybe I'm out on a limb on this one -- me and Malcolm X, who probably would have distrusted me due to my pinkness, but the older I get the more I believe the man may have had a point about self-defense -- when I say that even if you prefer not to throw a punch, you can't let that stop you when it becomes necessary.

A cop who's afraid to shoot his gun is no use on the street. A pacifistic soldier is worthless in the field. But cops and soldiers can be, and often are, heroes.

I will never expect you to. Just being here and posting in this forum tells me that you, as I, are a diehard fan and as such we will always have a fairly concrete vision of our personal Batman.

Amen. I always figure that one of the main reasons for being here is to share our views with other people, and to discuss them with other people who have thought about this crap as much as we have. What makes me respect your views is that you have obviously put a lot of thought into them, and you're able to discuss them intelligently. Any time somebody does that, it elevates this place.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Batman is a hero. Antiheroes don't go out of their way for anyone. Batman does just that. He goes out of his way risking his life many times to save those in need and to stop criminals from success all over Gotham. Sure he used to care less if a common criminal dies(sometimes he still does) but he acts out as a hero.

Well, the Punisher goes out of his way to risk his life to save innocents all the time.

Batman does not care when one of the "bad guys" die. It might his cold demanor, or just the fact that it's all part of the game....but he won't exactly cry or mourn the death of a villian.

 

[7Hells]

Again I come back to Die Hard which I watched last night... wherein every gunshot that hit human flesh left a massive blood splatter on walls, windows, etc.

Like I said the intent of the violence is different. The villians are normally the characters laying out the debauchery on the heros in the movies. Whereas Batman is a hero that lays out brutality on the villians. The intent of the violence is competely different when the character that is considered the hero is the one brutalizing people as well as the other way around. Thats what makes him different from a regular hero, thats what makes him an anti-hero.

But Batman being a bareknuckled streetfighter to Superman's saintly persona doesn't, to me, make Batman an anti-hero. Because by that standard every real-life hero is an anti-hero, and there are no true heroes.

I understand your point that being a realistic superhero, like Batman, gives him little alternative in dispensing his justice other than bloody violence when compared to someone like Superman who could just overpower his opponent without violence because of his impermeable state. Yet Superman wasnt the only superhero back then. Every Superhero was depicted in that saintly manner (except Plastic Man with his comedic hero style) and not all of them had the same protection enabling a non-violent battle. Yet Batman still surpassed them in violence and monumentally surpassed them in darkness of tone. There isnt a single superhero from his era still popular today that would be comparable to the Batman comics' mood and only one in existance(though long forgotten) that could be compared to it at that time.

But he doesn't kill.

That depends on whether or not you consider Batmans earliest comics to be canon.

Amen. I always figure that one of the main reasons for being here is to share our views with other people, and to discuss them with other people who have thought about this crap as much as we have.

Totally agree :heart:

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Like I said the intent of the violence is different. The villians are normally the characters laying out the debauchery on the heros in the movies. Whereas Batman is a hero that lays out brutality on the villians. The intent of the violence is competely different when the character that is considered the hero is the one brutalizing people as well as the other way around. Thats what makes him different from a regular hero, thats what makes him an anti-hero.

Oooh, you're a slippery minx. But I think I gotcha. The intent of the violence is different? In Die Hard, The Bruce shoots, beats to death, blows up, hangs, or drops off a roof something like seven terrorists who have captured the Nakatomi tower. They're the bad guys, he's the good guy, trying to save the hostages (including his wife Holly).

In spirit that is really not unlike Batman beating the crap out of guys who are terrorizing Gotham City. Except Batman doesn't generally kill them.

I understand your point that being a realistic superhero, like Batman, gives him little alternative in dispensing his justice other than bloody violence when compared to someone like Superman who could just overpower his opponent without violence because of his impermeable state. Yet Superman wasnt the only superhero back then. Every Superhero was depicted in that saintly manner (except Plastic Man with his comedic hero style) and not all of them had the same protection enabling a non-violent battle. Yet Batman still surpassed them in violence and monumentally surpassed them in darkness of tone. There isnt a single superhero that is popular today that would be comparable to the Batman comics' mood and only one in existance(though long forgotten) that could be compared to it at that time.

Well remember, Superman was the first superhero. He is the hero from whence "superheroes" get their name. Batman showed up in 1938 but Superman was only a few years before. That makes Batman among the first. The thing about Batman was that he was essentially commissioned as another Superman... National Comics was happy with Superman's success and wanted another hero in that mold. Which explains the cape and the briefs outside the tights, and the identical boots, the logo on the chest, & etc. Part of the reason Batman was so different from Superman was because Kane and Finger didn't want to just rip off Superman, but they had to create a hero that kind of had the look and the intrigue. So they gave him the super-suit but made him more of the hard-boiled detective type. I suppose you could say that makes him an anti-hero, but to me it just makes him a different kind of hero.

That depends on whether or not you consider Batmans earliest comics to be in canon.

And of course they are. But again, I don't think it was as big a deal in those days, when comic books were about hard-boiled detectives, cowboys, soldiers, and the like, for whom killing bad guys was a day at the office. Remember that Batman was basically a combination of Superman and Dick Tracy. It was as though Clark Kent turned into Dick Tracy in a cape.

Totally agree :heart:

 

[CConn]

He may be a G rated Anti-hero by todays standards but he wasnt when he was first born.

That's an interesting point. That the definition of hero/anti-hero is living, it can be changed by time.

But, technically, if the definition can change over time, and our view of the word can change over time, why would Batman's definition remain stagnant?

Why would he forever be an Anti-Hero if the very definition of Anti-Hero has changed? Wouldn't are definition of Batman change too? Couldn't we say he used to be an anti-hero, but has now aged into plain heroism?

 

[Keyser Sushi]

That's an interesting point. That the definition of hero/anti-hero is living, it can be changed by time.

But, technically, if the definition can change over time, and our view of the word can change over time, why would Batman's definition remain stagnant?

Why would he forever be an Anti-Hero if the very definition of Anti-Hero has changed? Wouldn't are definition of Batman change too? Couldn't we say he used to be an anti-hero, but has now aged into plain heroism?

Or that he did exactly the opposite? I do believe that he began life as a hero, that our definitions of what is heroic changed, his behavior also changed, to keep him heroic over the times... and perhaps recently -- say in the last ten to twenty years -- has become more of an anti-hero.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Well, he was a big ***** for a good long while back in the day.......

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Well, he was a big ***** for a good long while back in the day.......

Yes, because they dumbed him down and made him kid friendly.

Which is sort of odd since young boys (their primary audience in those days) like heros who jack people. Always have, always will.

 

[7Hells]

That's an interesting point. That the definition of hero/anti-hero is living, it can be changed by time.

But, technically, if the definition can change over time, and our view of the word can change over time, why would Batman's definition remain stagnant?

Why would he forever be an Anti-Hero if the very definition of Anti-Hero has changed? Wouldn't are definition of Batman change too? Couldn't we say he used to be an anti-hero, but has now aged into plain heroism?

I think the definition of antihero is subjective to when you first heard of the concept. My definition wont change with the times but I think it would be naive to believe Batman, as a superhero, cant change.
I just cant see how anyone that would beat an enemy to a bloody pulp could be considered a hero in the pristine sense of the word like Superman.

 

[7Hells]

I don't think to be an Anti-hero you need to kill. I think the violence, and the level of it that the hero is willing to go to....or is capable of counts.

Batman won't kill you. But.......he'd make you want to be dead. He's crippled eniemies before, putting some mob boss in a wheel chair a couple of years ago....and he didn't regret it. He's broken countless arms, legs, body parts of his eneimies....and his interrogation tactics have to be questionable to some, at least.

I agree, as an audience, we are so eager to relish in the victory of our hero getting the bad guy we disregard the lengths he takes it at times. And Batman always takes it further than any superhero from his era and most superheros in general.

 

[CConn]

Or that he did exactly the opposite? I do believe that he began life as a hero, that our definitions of what is heroic changed, his behavior also changed, to keep him heroic over the times... and perhaps recently -- say in the last ten to twenty years -- has become more of an anti-hero.

I could definitely see the logic to saying the Frank Miller-style Batman is an anti-hero (hell, DKR Batman definitely is). And in continuity, Batman did definitely degrade into that. But now, DC's starting to try and shift away from that more extreme and unlikable characterization so, hell, he may be switching back to hero again.

Still, the whole definition of anti-hero is very much up to interpretation. My dictionary defines it as "A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage." Traditional heroic qualities could mean anything. Batman's definitely courageous, and belives in the sanctity of life, and law and order, and all of that stuff, so by that standard, I'd say any version outside of DKR would be a hero.

 

[7Hells]

And here is part of the wiki definition (which also supports your dictionary definition)
In some instances, anti-hero has come to refer to a protagonist of a work whose actions and motives are villainous or questionable.

Thus, anti-heroes can be awkward, antisocial, alienated, cruel, obnoxious, passive, pitiful, obtuse, or just ordinary. When the anti-hero is a central character in a work of fiction the work will frequently deal with the effect their flawed character has on them and those they meet along the narrative. In other words, an anti-hero is a protagonist that lives by the guidance of their own moral compass, striving to define and construe their own values as opposed to those recognized by the society in which they live. Additionally, the work may depict how their character alters over time, either leading to punishment, un-heroic success, or redemption.

 

[Cobblepot]

I don't consider Batman to be an Antihero, but I wouldn't mind if I did.
I'm a huge Batfan but even I sometimes wished he'd get more brutal and ruthless.

I remember a comic from the 80's (with Aparo art) where Batman takes the murder of a blond woman personal. (Because he rescueded her from a fire and later he met her as Bruce Wayne, only to find her stabbed to death one night later). Later in the story he finds the killer and in a fit of rage he breaks his arm and gives him a brutal beating.
If Gordon didn't stop it he might have killed the guy.
Later Batman gets a call that this man could not have been the killer of the girl. But Bruce isn't upset that he lost his temper, he's upset with the fact he let the real killer make one more victim.

Now I don't want to see Batman losing his temper everytime, I would like to see him more vengefull and brutal with criminals (other criminals besides the Joker). I wouldn't even mind if he actually killed a couple in his rage sometimes, or show how he really doesn't care if the perp ends up in a wheelchair or as a vegetable.

 

[7Hells]

The intent of the violence is different? In Die Hard, The Bruce shoots, beats to death, blows up, hangs, or drops off a roof something like seven terrorists who have captured the Nakatomi tower. They're the bad guys, he's the good guy, trying to save the hostages (including his wife Holly).

Thats a bit different because we arent emotionally invested in "a group of bad guys". We are invested in the main villian. He was doing what he had to do, being outnumbered by faceless men, for a specific purpose. So his intent is different. His intent is to save those hostages including one we are emotionally invested in. Im not saying there arent instances with Batman that have him saving innocents and/or a character that we are emotionally invested in but his true violence peaks when he is serving "his own" form of "justice". Batmans "justice" is usually much more violent compared to the normal superhero definition (superman).

Part of the reason Batman was so different from Superman was because Kane and Finger didn't want to just rip off Superman, but they had to create a hero that kind of had the look and the intrigue.

I could easily argue Batmans creation was intended to be the exact opposite of Superman. Superman is all about protecting and saving. Batman is more about delinating his own justice and, in that, saving and protecting those who would be subject to or have been subject to the criminals wrath. Though they both have the same outcome (hero) the use of their violence is in contrast mainly due to their intent.

Remember that Batman was basically a combination of Superman and Dick Tracy. It was as though Clark Kent turned into Dick Tracy in a cape.

I dunno about that I see many more differences between Superman and Batman aside from Bruces detective work.

 

[MaskedManJRK]

"The difference between us that, deep down, Clark is essentially a good man, while I...deep down...am not." -- Batman: Hush

My opinion is, Batman is most likely the most heroic anti-hero in comics. While he has done heroic things, and genuinely wants to help, there will always be different interpetations to his actions. To me, the character is a complete study on contradictions.

Some have said that the death of his parents was less of a call of a hero but more of a lost little boy who can't grow up. But, when you think about it, people normally don't do something for one exact reason--people are much more complex than that. I think his nightly patrols are both selfish and selfless--he genuinely wants to keep people safe, but deep down, every punch he throws is just a futile attempt to wipe his pain away.

As for his tatics--I do think that his practices should be a bit extreme, I think he should be the guy who's willing to break a guy's arm to find out who killed someone or where the latest escaped supervillian is hiding.

And as for the villians...he'll try to save them so that they can either rot in jail or Arkham, but he probably wouldn't shed a tear if circumstances were beyond his control or arrived too late. Hell, at this point, the man's probably dangerously close to just snapping The Joker's neck like a f**kin' pixie stick. Not to mention that he's been killing Ra's since their first battle--it's just Batman knows he's coming back.

So yeah, I see him as more of an anti-hero.

 

[BatB]

This is a really interesting thing to think about. And I'm glad that some one has finally brought it up. The fact is that in comic book terms alone, Batman was the first true anti-hero. When he was first created in 1939 Batman carried a gun, he broke criminals necks, and you didn't know his identity until a few issues after his premiere. I prefer for him to be portryed as he is now in the comics, but I'd like him to be a lil darker and let some of the true anti-hero show through. Zero tolerance for those in power, open to standing up directly to the government; which he has done recently in JLU and in some of the more recent comics. Maybe go even darker with the character making him much more solo than he is now.

 

[7Hells]

I think his nightly patrols are both selfish and selfless--he genuinely wants to keep people safe, but deep down, every punch he throws is just a futile attempt to wipe his pain away.

Well said, I agree. Its the biggest reason so many readers empathize with his plight. He is human, complex, he isnt a saint like Superman.

As for his tatics--I do think that his practices should be a bit extreme, I think he should be the guy who's willing to break a guy's arm to find out who killed someone or where the latest escaped supervillian is hiding.

Totally, he is passionate. He takes everything personal which is why his responses are so personal.

Like you said he is a contradiction. His actions display his personality as both virtous and menacing.
Which is what makes him so sexy. He is, by far, the sexiest "bad guy" in fiction today. :heart:

 

[Keyser Sushi]

Thats a bit different because we arent emotionally invested in "a group of bad guys". We are invested in the main villian. He was doing what he had to do, being outnumbered by faceless men, for a specific purpose. So his intent is different. His intent is to save those hostages including one we are emotionally invested in.

Main villain? The main villain is Hans Gruber, played by Alan Rickman. The Bruce is the hero. He kills the bad guys.

Let me clarify that. Punisher shoots people, he's an anti-hero. John McClane does it, he's a hero. Why? Context. Punisher actively hunts the guys down and whacks them because they're scum. John McClane is stuck in a building that the bad guys have captured. He's one man. He can't arrest them. He can't just tie them up or anything like that because the others would just find that one and set him free. McClane's options are to kill them one by one, or do nothing. And what chance would the hostages have if Bruce did nothing? So he takes action. Heroes are people who rise to the occasion. John McClane was the only one who had a chance to save the hostages. So he put himself at risk to do it. That's heroic. If his particular heroic act involved blowing a bad guy's molars out through his medulla oblongata, well, the bad guy dealt the play.

Im not saying there arent instances with Batman that have him saving innocents and/or a character that we are emotionally invested in but his true violence peaks when he is serving "his own" form of "justice". Batmans "justice" is usually much more violent compared to the normal superhero definition (superman).

I see. So the thing you're concerned with is the manner in which justice is carried out... the thing is, the Batman I know doesn't usually beat guys to a bloody pulp. He'll KO them, hog tie them and leave them for the cops. He'll drag someone like the Joker back to Arkham in one piece, perhaps a bit bloodied but all in one piece.

The beating that Batman administers is not part of the justice. It's called subduing the fugitive. If Batman beat them and left them for dead, that would be one thing. But what he does is subdue them and drag them off to the authorities for indictment and incarceration.

I could easily argue Batmans creation was intended to be the exact opposite of Superman. Superman is all about protecting and saving. Batman is more about delinating his own justice and, in that, saving and protecting those who would be subject to or have been subject to the criminals wrath. Though they both have the same outcome (hero) the use of their violence is in contrast mainly due to their intent.

The Batman I know is working for a day when the world will no longer need a Batman. Superman is working for a day when the world will no longer need a Superman. But of course the world will always need heroes, so their quests are equally futile, but also equally necessary. Batman protects and saves the innocent. He also values the lives of his enemies. He takes them to an asylum hoping that they can be rehabilitated and cured. If he wanted to kill the Joker he would have done it a long time ago. But he doesn't kill him because the core of his being, the core of Batman, is in believing that anyone can be saved. Probably because salvation is an issue that is very personal to him as well... Batman is the way he holds on to his humanity... by turning his pain into something constructive and useful to society.

I dunno about that I see many more differences between Superman and Batman aside from Bruces detective work.

Well I do too. Take my words more literally, dear. As different as Dick Tracy is from Superman... that's the point I'm trying to make about Batman. Batman is the clean-cut fussy guy by day, the granite-jawed thug bulling his way through the underworld in the name of justice by night. Literally, as if Clark Kent took off the glasses and the suit, and underneath it was a ratty old suit and a trenchoat, and instead of flying he went out the door onto the streets and prowled the back alleys with a sap and a pistol, interrogating goons in search of information to help him take down the wierdo of the week.

So yes, Batman and Superman are very opposite in many key ways... and yet, Batman was created to be the new Superman. It's a fact. The intentionally went in the opposite direction but the dual identity, the flashy costume... these were intentionally retained. What it does is sets Batman apart from both Superman and Dick Tracy, but, honestly... in his original incarnation, he was quite a bit like both of them -- much in the way that broccoli is like both asparagus and cauliflower, being the bastard spawn of those vegetables... and yet is different from both of them.

Great, now I'm comparing heroes to vegetables...

 

[Keyser Sushi]

I could definitely see the logic to saying the Frank Miller-style Batman is an anti-hero (hell, DKR Batman definitely is). And in continuity, Batman did definitely degrade into that. But now, DC's starting to try and shift away from that more extreme and unlikable characterization so, hell, he may be switching back to hero again.

Still, the whole definition of anti-hero is very much up to interpretation. My dictionary defines it as "A main character in a dramatic or narrative work who is characterized by a lack of traditional heroic qualities, such as idealism or courage." Traditional heroic qualities could mean anything. Batman's definitely courageous, and belives in the sanctity of life, and law and order, and all of that stuff, so by that standard, I'd say any version outside of DKR would be a hero.

I'd have to say I agree with all of that.

 

[Keyser Sushi]

His actions display his personality as both virtous and menacing.
Which is what makes him so sexy. He is, by far, the sexiest "bad guy" in fiction today. :heart:

Other than the "bad guy" part, I agree... I mean, "sexy" isn't exactly the word I would choose, but the idea is roughly the same. What you just decribed is exactly what every man wants to be.