The Batman General News & Discussion Thread - Part 2

[Detective Conan]

 

[Predator jp]

personally i don't give a crap about Thomas Wayne so i hope Reeves don't waste any screen time on the Waynes.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Haven't you guys learnt anything from the Sopranos or Breaking Bad? You can do evil selfish things in this life and still have a heart. I guess we live in a world now where if somebody says something horrible or out of line, they're immediately burnt at the stake at least publically. You see it all the time now, where ppl proudly boast about cutting family members and friends out of their lives because they said something extremely offensive. So now it's like it seeps into the forums for the folks who don't wanna hear that Thomas could have been corrupt or even done unforgivable acts. "That undercuts Bruce.." no it really doesn't man. Thomas could have still told the truth when he said he loved his wife and child. He still could have tried to set a life up for Bruce so he can excel in a positive manner. Batman would go through the **** my parents phase but soon he'd realize that he still loves them and grey exists in the world. Just like some ppl on social media need to be taught a lesson in that their family member or friend with the weird world views could still be your friend, could still have a heart. But a lot of people don't want to hear that.

Thomas Wayne could have been a Walter White or even a Gus Fring. Doesn't mean Gus doesn't do good for his employees and help them advance without ulterior motives. Doesn't mean Gus didn't and doesn't love his friend/boyfriend that was killed. Understand what I'm getting at? Tony Soprano can kill his nephew and should be held accountable for his f'd up actions, but he does he love his two kids? Yes he genuinely does and would die for them. You see the complexity.

I'm over the one dimensional Thomas was a surgeon and saint. It doesn't work in today's world or any world because in that particular city and with that kind of money on the line, you can't be squeaky clean. You also don't have to be Hitler.

You're right bro. What I learned form the Sopranos, where they constantly murdered people, is that as long as you show affection for those close to you, you still have a heart. So if you are a bigot in public, it's okay. We need to empathize with you, like we empathize with murderers on television.

I absolutely adore cancel culture takes.

 

[Revolverr]

The anti-woke crowd has arrived!!

I'm 90% sure Thomas won't be a good man, and good thing none of you are the writer.
I don't know why my post was deleted, but it's still funny the thought that if you're a saint to your kids you can't have another evil facade. One of the things that many pedos, criminals and corrupt people in the real world have in common lol

OT: According to the Anon guy there is no Harvey Dent in the movie. One of the stupid rumors some people believed (Matthew McConaughey).

 

[AndrewGilkison]

"Thomas Wayne can't be a billionaire and still be a saint"

Doesn't this logic also apply to Bruce Wayne? He's a billionaire. He really can't be Batman without being a billionaire. So logically, if Thomas Wayne is a bad guy, isn't Bruce using a bad guy's money to fund his vigilante activities?

You can't really tell a story about how Bruce Wayne's dad was actually corrupt without having to deal with that elephant in the room. And logically... what sense does it make for him to continue to be Batman if he is a good decent person, if his money comes from a corrupt (at best) father?

 

[Doctor Jones]

I think it just bugs me because I think two of the origin nuances I've always liked about the character is Thomas being a surgeon and his Hippocratic Oath informing Bruce's refusal to take a life and the Waynes being Old Money Philantropists who believe in giving back basically being the foundation of Bruce's crusade to clean up "his City" and take the crime and corruption in hand as Batman. I especially like the latter point because I think it is an effective critique of late stage capitalism that has particular relevance to a lot of our current socio-economic issues. The periods of the greatest bursts of American progressivism and material improvements in the lives of everyday Americans (the Progressive and New Deal Era), you see a lot of activity on the part of the scions of Old Money families giving back and doing their part to spread prosperity among the other classes (eg. the Roosevelts, Rockefellers, Carnegie, etc.) (granted, there is more nuance to it).

But you don't see that as much now, the current superrich like Trump, Bezos, and Musk are all in it for personal self-grandisement. I like the idea that Bruce and the Waynes in general offer a heroic counterpoint to that, a reflection to a time when at least notionally the upper classes believed they had obligations of charity and betterment to those less fortunate.

I get that it makes sense to mix it up a little as Nolan nailed these points with his portrayal of Thomas Wayne, but I think you can add grey and nuance to it without fundamentally changing the character. For instance, Nolan portrays Thomas's non-involvement in the family business to instead be a surgeon as noble. What if Reeves portrays that decision as while not actively corrupt, but instead irresponsible. That by leaving Wayne Enterprises in the hands of corrupt executives, the company's more wages, lack of employee benefits, shoddy products, etc. caused more harm to the working classes than any personal live-saving that Thomas could do as a doctor. That to me is more interesting...

It's been a long time since I read Detective #33, but is it established in it that Thomas Wayne is a moral, good man?

If so, I understand why you would have a problem of that violation.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I doubt they go to hard on Thomas. But I would be all for showing that just because Thomas loved his son, doesn't mean he was a good person. Old money didn't get where it got or stayed there, by being wholesome.

One of the things I appreciated about Tony, is while the movies went easy on his dad, he took the brunt of it. Every mistake led him to basically a hermit's existence. A rich hermit, but at least he bore the scars of what him and his daddy did. Literally.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

"Thomas Wayne can't be a billionaire and still be a saint"

Doesn't this logic also apply to Bruce Wayne? He's a billionaire. He really can't be Batman without being a billionaire. So logically, if Thomas Wayne is a bad guy, isn't Bruce using a bad guy's money to fund his vigilante activities?

You can't really tell a story about how Bruce Wayne's dad was actually corrupt without having to deal with that elephant in the room. And logically... what sense does it make for him to continue to be Batman if he is a good decent person, if his money comes from a corrupt (at best) father?

That's the paying it forward aspect of Batman. Like Bruce and his clean energy project in TDKR. That said, steeping some of Bruce's own guilt in the fact that he does what he does because of the broken people he is trying to save, has a lot going for it.

 

[Eddie Dean]

Batman can be a billionaire and a good guy because he is not real. In real life, I personally would not want a man in a batsuit waging a one man war on crime, but in the case of fictional characters, I'm willing to make an exception.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Batman can be a billionaire and a good guy because he is not real. In real life, I personally would not want a man in a batsuit waging a one man war on crime, but in the case of fictional characters, I'm willing to make an exception.

While true, we are living in the era where the myth of the good billionaire is being torn down. Would be interesting to see Batman speak on it. Not necessary, but interesting. Especially with a black Selina.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

It’s fine to present the Waynes as making poor or morally grey decisions in an effort for the greater good. That provides a fabulous way to examine Batman’s own morally grey vigilantism.

First off, the MCU's Tony Stark being the biggest, most bankable superhero of the last decade says otherwise. (And that is with Howard Stark being portrayed in a positive light as a neocon, warhawk arms manufacturer!)

Second, I agree with you that a good Batman movie that lives up to the character's thematic potential indeed needs to address the Wayne's wealth and privilege. However, making the Waynes overtly corrupt and criminal isn't a very sophisticated or nuanced way of doing that. It makes it into a caricature of rich white people=bad.

To quote myself:

Yeah, I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm thinking the "Sins of the Father" angle might have more to do with monopolistic practices and economic inequality, specifically as relates to the role a major corporate entity like Wayne Industries would have played (and continues to play) in all that. At worst, I can see Thomas and Martha abusing their rights as lobbyists (making large campaign contributions, cornering markets, etc.) to exert influence over political candidates and elected officials—that sort of thing.

But I wouldn't take it too much further than that.

 

[emielaen]

This idea that Reeves will portray everyone as all good or all evil is weird when they've talked about gray areas and inner conflicts with what's right and wrong.

 

[DKDetective]

It's been a long time since I read Detective #33, but is it established in it that Thomas Wayne is a moral, good man?

If so, I understand why you would have a problem of that violation.

No, it is not established in Detective Comics # 33, but Batman wasn't introduced in Detective Comics # 27 with a fully fledged origin either. The bones were added to in #33 and then more meat later on in further stories. I know Thomas' morals weren't well-established by the time of Denny O'Neil's The Man Who Falls. The No Killing rule is another thing that wasn't present in the first few stories, but which was added later and which grew in importance in the mythology, becoming the foundational philosophical point of a lot of great stories. I find the positive influence of Thomas and Martha on Bruce' moral development similar. It adds nice depth to the story and reasoning for Bruce's strong morals.

 

[dhandler01]

This guy seems familiar.

Kind of reminds me of the old poster KevinSmith although without all the bigoted comments.

You can always tell when someone speaks out of their butt by how they use the term "woke".

 

[dhandler01]

Exactly. Some people are living in CNN's lala land. Most of these things are a non issue unless you start screaming about it. People, in general, absolutely don't care.

I live in the real world...it is an issue. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a non-issue.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No, it is not established in Detective Comics # 33, but Batman wasn't introduced in Detective Comics # 27 with a fully fledged origin either. The bones were added to in #33 and then more meat later on in further stories. I know Thomas' morals weren't well-established by the time of Denny O'Neil's The Man Who Falls. The No Killing rule is another thing that wasn't present in the first few stories, but which was added later and which grew in importance in the mythology, becoming the foundational philosophical point of a lot of great stories. I find the positive influence of Thomas and Martha on Bruce' moral development similar. It adds nice depth to the story and reasoning for Bruce's strong morals.

You can do that, while making Thomas a "bad guy".

What I most likely expect, is if they go in Thomas, they will show him as passive. Someone who sees all this going on around him. The gangs, potentially the Court of Owls, and other such things, and because he isn't directly involved, he sees his hands are clean (except for some random late night call where he saves a mob boss). Even as he and his family have benefited from it. Bruce seeing through this and paying the family penance would work for me. Especially if he did it based on the values he learned from his parents, even if they didn't directly follow them, themselves. Parents are natural hypocrites when it comes to their kids after all.

 

[dhandler01]

While true, we are living in the era where the myth of the good billionaire is being torn down. Would be interesting to see Batman speak on it. Not necessary, but interesting. Especially with a black Selina.

To be fair they are the ones helping tear it down. Their actions often warrant criticism whether it is Elon Musk and his fraudulent "Green" BS (and his COVID takes were often ridiculous) or Bezos and his anti-union, crap ass work conditions whilst flying in space Lex Luther actions.

We as people, especially Americans, love to tear down our heroes almost as much as we love to then watch them redeem themselves.

Being a billionaire doesn't make you evil, that is lazy and stupid rhetoric that no one ever actually says except to get on TV. But lets not pretend the current crop of 1%ers are saints. Most of them I wouldn't trust to watch my cat if I went out of town. That is just who they are as people...the money is irrelevant.

 

[Captain Tired]

I'm starting to miss the days when the most pressing Batman issue was whether the suit should have nipples on it or not.

 

[dhandler01]

I'm starting to miss the days when the most pressing Batman issue was whether the suit had nipples on it or not.

Well if Matt and Rob got along better we wouldn't have these problems!!!

(I am done on the previous topic)

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To be fair they are the ones helping tear it down. Their actions often warrant criticism whether it is Elon Musk and his fraudulent "Green" BS (and his COVID takes were often ridiculous) or Bezos and his anti-union, crap ass work conditions whilst flying in space Lex Luther actions.

We as people, especially Americans, love to tear down our heroes almost as much as we love to then watch them redeem themselves.

Being a billionaire doesn't make you evil, that is lazy and stupid rhetoric that no one ever actually says except to get on TV. But lets not pretend the current crop of 1%ers are saints. Most of them I wouldn't trust to watch my cat if I went out of town. That is just who they are as people...the money is irrelevant.

Billionaires don't pop out of the ground. Even inherited wealth comes with a cost.

Saying "billionaires are evil" isn't lazy and stupid rhetoric. It is very real and very obvious commentary on capitalism, and how people gain and retain wealth. We can get into what it means to be "evil" but for me, it isn't having a death ray on the moon. If a billionaire is out here throwing your money behind politicians and lobbyist, you think it can be for anything else? We all know or should know what a tax cuts and breaks do to the everyday lives of the vast majority of Americans. It's not pretty. It's evil.

 

[Invader Joker]

I personally hope they make Thomas completely corrupt. Not a sadist or anything like that, just someone that enjoyed wealth a little bit too much and didn't care about what material well being he was causing to other people.

 

[BatLobster]

I think the topic of wealth inequality is certainly fair game to explore in a Batman story. It's about a billionaire, after all. I mean, Rises openly dealth with a widening chasm between the classes and riffed on A Tale of Two Cities. So it's all there. And there are lot of things you can do with it. The way Bane subverts the growing anger and economic anxiety in Gotham and twists it to his own ends is one of the most sadly prescient things I've seen in a comic book film, just as an example.

I think the whole beauty of this character and world is its an opportunity to provoke thought on some of these bigger issues, but within a context that is still heightened and provides some escapism. IMO, the balance is in giving just to chew on to stir interesting thought and discussion rather than making it overly preachy. Evil can take many forms. And so can good. The whole idea of a hero who takes the form of something scary/menacing is something of an inversion in an of itself. So I think there is a lot of grey area to play with and that is part of why Batman is such an enduring character.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm starting to miss the days when the most pressing Batman issue was whether the suit should have nipples on it or not.

That should be a given, and the utility belt is a money belt.

Well if Matt and Rob got along better we wouldn't have these problems!!!

YIKES. This will be another Island of Doctor Moreau.

EDIT: Man, the post looks like I'm seriously concerned about it going down that dark path. Here's this emoji to show I was tongue in cheek before the edit.



Now it kinda looks like I'm not serious about the edit.

 

[Detective Conan]

 

[Vyper]

I live in the real world...it is an issue. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it a non-issue.

Where is it an issue? Give me examples of how a billionaire in a movie is an issue for regular people.