The Batman General News & Discussion Thread

[Invader Joker]

I still think there's no difference from the Batman shown in TAS as the Batman shown in Ego, Year One and Long Halloween and Dark Victory. Same personality, same morals, backstory, limits, habilities. There are some circumstantial differences but it's pretty much the same person, just having grown up and developed in different worlds and circumstances.

Batman in TAS had his moments of warmth in the Batcave with Alfred and Dick but he was mostly standoffish and tortured, he wasn't happy at all.

 

[Maze]

And that's fine, that's how you view things, i dont agree.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I never said anyone was squeaky clean. But the fact is, Man's laws were made for just that: Man. They didn't take into account beings who could destroy the world on a bad day. Who could accidentally kill people with a sneeze. Who could single-handedly put out a fire like the rest of us blow out candles. Who can hear people's cries from miles away and who can tell when someone's lying by their heartbeats. Those beings MUST create their own codes to live by, because Man's laws and societal structures don't take them into consideration. They didn't take into account The Impossible when they were created. And frankly, we are at these beings' mercy. The fact that Superman could rule over us if he wants, but CHOOSES to live within the confines of man's world and even, more so compared to Batman, actually cooperates for the most part with our authorities and societal expectations of him is a miracle, and entirely thanks to the Kents. Batman is a human who places himself apart from other humans. That's a choice he has made. He is not The Impossible. The other Leaguers are inherently apart from humans, whether they like it or not. They are The Other of this world. There IS a difference there, and it's a vital one, imo.

Think of it this way: If your daughter is killed in an accident, and you learn there was an all-powerful alien who could easily have saved her but didn't act, you would be livid. Angry. Inconsolable that they didn't save her. You would have a very different reaction than if there was just another human there with the same human limitations as everyone else, in the same instance. Because, "they're only human." Different expectations, different scenarios, different standards.

Fair enough, but it seemed to me that you were mainly speaking to Batman's moral compass, not so much his human limitations as contrasted with that of a metahuman. And it stands to reason that virtually anyone on the planet--enhanced or not--is capable of making decisions that conform to man's laws as you describe them. For one thing, you can refrain from using your special abilities altogether. Unpleasant as that sounds, it's a valid option. There are government-sanctioned superheroes in the DC universe as well, right? That's another route available to metahumans if they're so desperate to become crime fighters, and yet how many of them start out that way? And yes, we'd essentially be at the mercy of such beings, I don't disagree with that. But you've heard the great power/great responsibility saying... we all have. Point being, in any instance where the strong use their physical advantages to suppress/subjugate the weak, that in itself is what I consider a true moral failing. If you're suggesting that having special abilities somehow gives you free rein to do whatever the hell you want simply because A) you can and B) as an "other" with quantification issues, rules don't apply, I don't accept that. It's not that cut and dry to me.

I was mainly referring to metahumans who use their abilities to fight criminals, not save lives. Although, even in the process of attempting to save a life, a metahuman could end up applying too much force or what have you and end up killing more people than he/she intended to save. What then?

 

[flickchick85]

Fair enough, but it seemed to me that you were mainly speaking to Batman's moral compass, not so much his human limitations as contrasted with that of a metahuman. And it stands to reason that virtually anyone on the planet--enhanced or not--is capable of making decisions that conform to man's laws as you describe them. For one thing, you can refrain from using your special abilities altogether. Unpleasant as that sounds, it's a valid option. There are government-sanctioned superheroes in the DC universe as well, right? That's another route available to metahumans if they're so desperate to become crime fighters, and yet how many of them start out that way? And yes, we'd essentially be at the mercy of such beings, I don't disagree with that. But you've heard the great power/great responsibility saying... we all have. Point being, in any instance where the strong use their physical advantages to suppress/subjugate the weak, that in itself is what I consider a true moral failing. If you're suggesting that having special abilities somehow gives you free rein to do whatever the hell you want simply because A) you can and B) as an "other" with quantification issues, rules don't apply, I don't accept that. It's not that cut and dry to me.

I was mainly referring to metahumans who use their abilities to fight criminals, not save lives. Although, even in the process of attempting to save a life, a metahuman could end up applying too much force or what have you and end up killing more people than he/she intended to save. What then?

I see these guys as Greek Gods. Zeus comes down from Mount Olympus, do the mortals then demand he start paying his taxes and obeying traffic laws? Hell no. He's Zeus. They're just grateful and relieved if he's willing to use his immense power to help instead of to punish or destroy us, because his power is beyond their comprehension. People expect Superman to intervene when he can. They want that. Because they know how easy it is for him compared to us. The cops aren't gonna complain because he took over in a situation that could've otherwise resulted in their deaths. Because he's not a mere mortal, regardless of how he sees himself. Could he screw up and be liable for a tragedy? Of course. But again, we have an innate understanding that he could do MUCH worse if he ever chose to and we wouldn't be able to stop him. And thankfully, he's careful...because of those rules he gives himself. He keeps himself accountable by giving those he trusts the means to stop/kill him if it ever becomes necessary. Unlike Batman, he doesn't beat up human criminals for information or use violence as a first resort. He can't afford to let loose like that. So again, he has his own code as a necessity. But we can't be suing Superman or applying our basic legal procedures to him, or having him be "government sponsored." That opens up a whole can o' worms you can't shut. It's like Lois says in Lois & Clark, he HAS to exist "above us" on some level, because when we try to bring him down to our level, we just expose the worst sides of ourselves. It's a different set of rules for him (and those like him) any way you slice it, imo.

Batman is not those things. He's one of us who has decided he's not. And he's punishing his fellow humans for breaking laws he is also breaking. There's an added hypocrisy there that's not inherent to the other superheroes' self-imposed codes of conduct, because he's not a god among men, and human laws WERE designed exactly for people like him, just as much as for those he's assaulting every night. He's simply electing to ignore them. But at least his hypocrisy is for noble purposes, lol.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I see these guys as Greek Gods. Zeus comes down from Mount Olympus, do the mortals then demand he start paying his taxes and obeying traffic laws? Hell no. He's Zeus. They're just grateful and relieved if he's willing to use his immense power to help instead of to punish or destroy us, because his power is beyond their comprehension. People expect Superman to intervene when he can. They want that. Because they know how easy it is for him compared to us. The cops aren't gonna complain because he took over in a situation that could've otherwise resulted in their deaths. Because he's not a mere mortal, regardless of how he sees himself. Could he screw up and be liable for a tragedy? Of course. But again, we have an innate understanding that he could do MUCH worse if he ever chose to and we wouldn't be able to stop him. And thankfully, he's careful...because of those rules he gives himself. He keeps himself accountable by giving those he trusts the means to stop/kill him if it ever becomes necessary. Unlike Batman, he doesn't beat up human criminals for information or use violence as a first resort. He can't afford to let loose like that. So again, he has his own code as a necessity. But we can't be suing Superman or applying our basic legal procedures to him, or having him be "government sponsored." That opens up a whole can o' worms you can't shut. It's like Lois says in Lois & Clark, he HAS to exist "above us" on some level, because when we try to bring him down to our level, we just expose the worst sides of ourselves. It's a different set of rules for him (and those like him) any way you slice it, imo.

Batman is not those things. He's one of us who has decided he's not. And he's punishing his fellow humans for breaking laws he is also breaking. There's an added hypocrisy there that's not inherent to the other superheroes' self-imposed codes of conduct, because he's not a god among men, and human laws WERE designed exactly for people like him, just as much as for those he's assaulting every night. He's simply electing to ignore them. But at least his hypocrisy is for noble purposes, lol.

"They want that." Depends on which they you're talking about. What I mean to say is that even if metas are embraced by a certain segment of the population in the manner of which you describe, people aren't homogeneous in their ways of thinking. You know that. For every superhuman that's met with acceptance, a dozen others would be rejected on the basis of fear, ignorance, religious zealotry, etc. I imagine there would likely be an attempt on the part of the worlds leaders to reason with/control/manipulate them as well, futile as that would be. The "bending of the knee" so to speak would only come after.

But again, all I'm really trying to say here is that Batman's not terribly different from these metas who similarly take the law into their own hands regardless of what they can do or how they're perceived. Even if held to a different standard like you suggest, they can still choose to abide by man's laws. And sometimes, they don't. Whatever the case, it's the way Batman goes about dispensing justice, often in brutal fashion, that I personally consider the most questionable aspect of his crusade, not so much the act itself. Also, given that he's a polymath with a genius-level intellect and state-of-the-art tech at his fingertips, I sometimes think of him as bordering on being a meta himself.

I get that you see things quite differently, though.

 

[BatLobster]

There's no version of Batman that's entirely morally sound. He's a guy who breaks the law every night and has simply decided that the rules that apply to his peers don't apply to him.

Random, but this is one of the reasons I really love the climax of The Dark Knight Rises. Everything he does there can no longer be seen as acting above the law, as he is literally fighting alongside the police to restore the rule of law and save a city that has literally been rendered lawless. And he's doing so knowing it's going to be his last actions as Batman, one way or another. This setup allows him to be a true, genuine hero, if for a moment in time. I think this could apply to a lot of larger scale Batman or Justice League stories too. While Batman as a concept most naturally lends itself to down and dirty crime/noir stories, the interesting thing is the bigger you make the stakes, the more it becomes arguable that it would be wrong for him NOT to take action when he has the means to make a difference. The fact that it's even debatable whether he's a true superhero or not is fascinating.

The thing about Batman is, while he's fairly easy to point out his flaws and hypocrisies and deconstruct him, at the end of the day I think the best interpretations of him show that he's a damaged individual who's got one hell of a heart underneath it all, and is trying to do good. Which is what truly makes him a great character in my eyes.

 

[flickchick85]

"They want that." Depends on which they you're talking about. What I mean to say is that even if metas are embraced by a certain segment of the population in the manner of which you describe, people aren't homogeneous in their ways of thinking. You know that. For every superhuman that's met with acceptance, a dozen others would be rejected on the basis of fear, ignorance, religious zealotry, etc. I imagine there would likely be an attempt on the part of the worlds leaders to reason with/control/manipulate them as well, futile as that would be. The "bending of the knee" so to speak would only come after.

But again, all I'm really trying to say here is that Batman's not terribly different from these metas who similarly take the law into their own hands regardless of what they can do or how they're perceived. Even if held to a different standard like you suggest, they can still choose to abide by man's laws. And sometimes, they don't. Whatever the case, it's the way Batman goes about dispensing justice, often in brutal fashion, that I personally consider the most questionable aspect of his crusade, not so much the act itself. Also, given that he's a polymath with a genius-level intellect and state-of-the-art tech at his fingertips, I sometimes think of him as bordering on being a meta himself.

I get that you see things quite differently, though.

Yeah, I think we'll just have to agree to see things quite differently on this one, because I don’t put Batman in the same playing field as gods at all. Morally or otherwise. Never have, never will. No matter what kind of ridiculously impossible stuff the comics have him doing. At a conceptual level, he’s still just one of us who decided to place himself apart, and that makes him different on a fundamental level than those who inherently are and can’t help it, imo.

Extreme example, but if I go stand in a big ant hill with impervious skin, expecting me to abide by ant laws while I’m there is an entirely different ask than it would be for a fellow ant. Are they gonna try to send me to ant jail if I just happen to take matters into my own hands and save their ant hill from a potential flood or from another person who would destroy it? Hell no, because I can do things they can’t even begin to imagine, and they would’ve been relatively powerless to save themselves. I can see threats they can't, and I can do things none of their kind ever could do to stop them. I know that’s an exaggeration of the difference between Gods and humans, but the concept’s the same - Humans and their laws are, at the end of the day, small potatoes in the greater DC universe. They are a young and primitive planet who don’t have a clue of what all’s really out there, and these beings operate at a higher level, have other experiences beyond Earth’s little world, and are better equipped to handle threats against us. While they’re here, expecting to be able to tell them what to do is futile. We know it. Controlling Superman would have to be a united global initiative, costing a ton of money and international cooperation from a lot of people who don’t like to cooperate, and why do that and risk turning him against us in the process, when he’s just here to help? You’d have a hell of a hard time getting the people of the entire planet behind that considering he’s saving their lives daily. If anything, these beings should be more beholden to the laws of the Guardians than to Earth, as they have experience, rules and defenses more equipped for dealing with beings like them.

Also, the “they” I was referring to in my previous post would be the individuals involved in these scenarios. So if you’re a cop involved in a potentially deadly shootout that’s not looking good, regardless of your feelings on Supes beforehand, if he’s there now, you want him to end it in an instant and make sure you and your fellow officers aren’t killed, because you know he can. If you’re the most ignorant, alien-hating dude on the planet who doesn’t believe in Super-intervention at all, that goes right out the window when Superman is the only thing standing between you and watching your daughter falling to her death off a cliff. Those are the “theys” who want him to intervene. The people it matters most to in the moment.

 

[flickchick85]

Random, but this is one of the reasons I really love the climax of The Dark Knight Rises. Everything he does there can no longer be seen as acting above the law, as he is literally fighting alongside the police to restore the rule of law and save a city that has literally been rendered lawless. And he's doing so knowing it's going to be his last actions as Batman, one way or another. This setup allows him to be a true, genuine hero, if for a moment in time. I think this could apply to a lot of larger scale Batman or Justice League stories too. While Batman as a concept most naturally lends itself to down and dirty crime/noir stories, the interesting thing is the bigger you make the stakes, the more it becomes arguable that it would be wrong for him NOT to take action when he has the means to make a difference. The fact that it's even debatable whether he's a true superhero or not is fascinating.

The thing about Batman is, while he's fairly easy to point out his flaws and hypocrisies and deconstruct him, at the end of the day I think the best interpretations of him show that he's a damaged individual who's got one hell of a heart underneath it all, and is trying to do good. Which is what truly makes him a great character in my eyes.

Agreed, I think that’s why Gotham came to see him as a full-blown hero at the end - not just for flying off with a nuke (which ok, that would do it too), but also because they were all basically forced to become outlaws like him in order to take back their city, so there’s a newfound understanding and appreciation for what he was trying to do in the first place. It’s like they finally “got” Batman. I really dug that aspect of the film.

 

[The Batman]

But, to reiterate, anyone who puts on a funny costume and takes it upon himself/herself to go around dispensing justice without a badge or some legal equivalent should be held to the same standard. That Bruce is more psychologically damaged than some of his contemporaries--which is, of course, a valid area of concern--doesn't necessarily make them squeaky clean by comparison.

Yeah, I've never liked this double standard people have towards Batman and his vigilantism. Lots of fans seem to judge Batman for his vigilantism in a way they wouldn't with a number of non powered costumed crimefighters, like Oliver Queen or Ted Kord.

At the end of the day, I wouldn't call Superman morally sound either, regardless of whether he has superpowers or not. In DKR, Bruce wasn't just referring to himself when he said "We've always been criminals". That goes for the superhero community at large, metahuman or not.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

I never said anyone was squeaky clean. But the fact is, Man's laws were made for just that: Man. They didn't take into account beings who could destroy the world on a bad day. Who could accidentally kill people with a sneeze. Who could single-handedly put out a fire like the rest of us blow out candles. Who can hear people's cries from miles away and who can tell when someone's lying by their heartbeats. Those beings MUST create their own codes to live by, because Man's laws and societal structures don't take them into consideration. They didn't take into account The Impossible when they were created. And frankly, we are at these beings' mercy. The fact that Superman could rule over us if he wants, but CHOOSES to live within the confines of man's world and even, more so compared to Batman, actually cooperates for the most part with our authorities and societal expectations of him is a miracle, and entirely thanks to the Kents. Batman is a human who places himself apart from other humans. That's a choice he has made. He is not The Impossible. The other Leaguers are inherently apart from humans, whether they like it or not. They are The Other of this world. There IS a difference there, and it's a vital one, imo.

Think of it this way: If your daughter is killed in an accident, and you learn there was an all-powerful alien who could easily have saved her but didn't act, you would be livid. Angry. Inconsolable that they didn't save her. You would have a very different reaction than if there was just another human there with the same human limitations as everyone else, in the same instance. Because, "they're only human." Different expectations, different scenarios, different standards.

Under normal circumstances (i.e., if beings like Flash and Superman actually existed), I probably wouldn't. But as we're talking about fictional characters here, I'm somewhat more open to it in the same way that I can accept super powered humans performing ridiculous feats, many of which defy the laws of physics. It's also worth noting that in using the term metahuman, I'm not just referring to aliens like Superman and MM but to characters like Green Lantern and Flash, both of whom started out as regular humans. Likewise, the notion than a man can end up with godlike powers as a result of getting struck by lightning is inherently preposterous; it being a fantasy, however, we just go with it... or we don't. See, if you don't see Batman as a peak human or an extraordinary human (and no, I'm not implying "Bat-God" lol), how do you get through a Justice League comic without wincing at the mere sight of him breathing the same air as all these "godlike" beings? lol He either belongs or he doesn't, and do we really want a DC universe without Batman? That's almost akin to saying Cap doesn't fit in among the likes of Thor and the Hulk. Granted, Cap got most of his special abilities from a serum, but, like Batman, he's generally thought of as a peak human rather than a super human like the relatively powerful Banner or Wonder Man.

Ah, the infamous "ant and boot" analogy. Honestly, that's too extreme of an example for me. For one thing among so many others, you can't actually have a conversation with an ant. You can't reason with an ant the way a super human can reason with a regular Joe. I'll do my best to go with it, though. lol Okay, I see what you're getting at here, but again I wasn't speaking to what's expected of a metahuman but rather his/her willingness to abide by man's laws. And as mentioned above, I'm not just referring to alien metas. That's critical. Assuming that Superman operates on a higher level of consciousnesses, what about human metas? A guy comes across a power battery, and suddenly man's laws don't apply to him anymore? Sure, the power he acquires from said battery gives him an unfair advantage over regular humans, but as a man in every way that truly matters, he can still make the decision not to exploit that advantage. Adults are physically stronger and more capable than small children, right? Men are often physically stronger than women. You know where I'm going with this. You don't have to take advantage simply because you can. Often when this happens, it's due to a moral failure on the part of the dominant figure.

 

[flickchick85]

Under normal circumstances (i.e., if beings like Flash and Superman actually existed), I probably wouldn't. But as we're talking about fictional characters here, I'm somewhat more open to it in the same way that I can accept super powered humans performing ridiculous feats, many of which defy the laws of physics. It's also worth noting that in using the term metahuman, I'm not just referring to aliens like Superman and MM but to characters like Green Lantern and Flash, both of whom started out as regular humans. Likewise, the notion than a man can end up with godlike powers as a result of getting struck by lightning is inherently preposterous; it being a fantasy, however, we just go with it... or we don't. See, if you don't see Batman as a peak human or an extraordinary human (and no, I'm not implying "Bat-God" lol), how do you get through a Justice League comic without wincing at the mere sight of him breathing the same air as all these "godlike" beings? lol He either belongs or he doesn't, and do we really want a DC universe without Batman?

Short answer: I don’t (never been a fan of group books), and would be perfectly cool with a DC Universe without Batman because I’m more into the cosmic characters anyway, but obviously I’m in the minority there. I've enjoyed some Batman stories, but I'm not nearly as attached to any of them as I am to other corners of DC.

And my point is as simple as it gets: mankind has laws specifically addressing people who want to dole out justice to their peers. They specifically address people like Batman. And those laws are built around the liabilities of human fallibility. They don’t have laws for invulnerable people who are constantly hearing when crimes are committed whether they want to or not, can see danger from miles away, and can save lives in an instant before humans even know something’s amiss. Superman can’t simply turn off a police scanner and stop looking for criminals. He sees and hears everything regardless; it’s his constant state of being. Asking a god to ignore constant cries for help he could easily answer is beyond cruel and unusual. Humans have no idea what that’s like. They couldn’t. So they shouldn't even try to govern it. It's beyond them. And YOU might not be talking about what should be expected of them, but I am, because that’s what the discussion on morality is all about, imo. What someone SHOULD do. If some want to abide by Man’s laws and not intervene when they could have done so in a much more effective and life-saving manner than ANY humans could, well, that’s their prerogative. But I would find THAT to be a moral failing, personally. They’re naturally able to do more than any human could with relative ease and far less personal risk, so we should WANT them to do more. Expect it, even. I would hold Flash to these standards too because he is godlike as well and can literally travel back in time and change the fabric of reality, for crying out loud. Green Lantern is beholden to laws - just the Guardians’ laws, not humanity’s. Humanity, and their laws, and their wars, are at the bottom of the intergalactic food chain, and we should just be damn grateful that there are those higher up on the chain who would rather protect us than do us harm. We are the ants (who can talk and reason with the best of 'em!) of the universe.

And I don't care that men are stronger than women, adults stronger than kids. They're all HUMANS, and their fellow humans created laws with them in mind long ago. Comparing the power imbalance there to that between man and god is a wild comparison, especially if you thought the ant one was too far, lol. But yeah, no one with greater power should take advantage of those with less. I'm not sure how that topic came up as I said nothing about that, but sure. We're talking about the morality of gods doling out justice to humans are we not? That's not "taking advantage." That's helping. If they get out of control, then yes, it's scary. There are plenty of stories about that. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about hypocrisy inherent in Batman doing his thing vs. Superman doing his. Unless the topic changed and I missed it (which is entirely possible, lol). Superman and the other League-rs create their own code to live by (and hold each other to) because they have to. Because their existence and everyday experience is fundamentally different from anything humans of any race, creed or age can comprehend, whether they like or not. Batman creates his own code because he chooses to. That's a cut-and-dry difference to me.

 

[DeadlyWest]

There's one major thing though, that differentiates most humans and Bruce Wayne.

Bruce Wayne is ****ing crazy.

At the end of the day, Bruce Wayne isn't the only person who's watched his parents die in front of him. And last I checked, the people who respond to that by dressing in a Bat costume to exact vigilante justice are in the vast minority. There's no way that Bruce Wayne isn't at least a little...wrong in the head. But that's what makes him an interesting character. He's flawed. The whole idea of him being Batman is a flawed idea but one that can be understood. One that's oddly human. It's as our Mod God said. He literally chooses to not abide by the laws he enforces because *he* chooses to believe that it's necessary for him to enforce them. Even though there was multiple avenues Bruce could've gone down to try to clean up Gotham, which were likely much more sane than "dress up as a Bat and scare the crap out of criminals". But exploring why Bruce chose that, over everything else, is what makes Bruce so fascinating as a character to me. Flaws like this and his absolute nature in his no killing rule are what makes him my favourite fictional character of all time.

 

[ArmsHeldOut]

Short answer: I don’t (never been a fan of group books), and would be perfectly cool with a DC Universe without Batman because I’m more into the cosmic characters anyway, but obviously I’m in the minority there. I've enjoyed some Batman stories, but I'm not nearly as attached to any of them as I am to other corners of DC.

Fair enough.

And my point is as simple as it gets: mankind has laws specifically addressing people who want to dole out justice to their peers. They specifically address people like Batman. And those laws are built around the liabilities of human fallibility. They don’t have laws for invulnerable people who are constantly hearing when crimes are committed whether they want to or not, can see danger from miles away, and can save lives in an instant before humans even know something’s amiss. Superman can’t simply turn off a police scanner and stop looking for criminals. He sees and hears everything regardless; it’s his constant state of being. Asking a god to ignore constant cries for help he could easily answer is beyond cruel and unusual. Humans have no idea what that’s like. They couldn’t. So they shouldn't even try to govern it. It's beyond them.

You see it that way because you're framing it as an absolute. If a law is inapplicable to supers for whatever reason, they can always work within its parameters to the best of their abilities. I mean, people have been adapting to laws that weren't made for them for centuries!

Enhanced vision and hearing? Great! How dire is the situation? If the answer to that question is very, then by all means, get involved. However, if things have yet to escalate, I'd suggest refraining and calling the cops instead. Want to do more? Great! Make like an alleged psychic and offer your services to the authorities! lol

And YOU might not be talking about what should be expected of them, but I am, because that’s what the discussion on morality is all about, imo. What someone SHOULD do. If some want to abide by Man’s laws and not intervene when they could have done so in a much more effective and life-saving manner than ANY humans could, well, that’s their prerogative. But I would find THAT to be a moral failing, personally. They’re naturally able to do more than any human could with relative ease and far less personal risk, so we should WANT them to do more. Expect it, even. I would hold Flash to these standards too because he is godlike as well and can literally travel back in time and change the fabric of reality, for crying out loud. Green Lantern is beholden to laws - just the Guardians’ laws, not humanity’s. Humanity, and their laws, and their wars, are at the bottom of the intergalactic food chain, and we should just be damn grateful that there are those higher up on the chain who would rather protect us than do us harm. We are the ants (who can talk and reason with the best of 'em!) of the universe.

Respecting or abiding by man's laws and moral obligation shouldn't be mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that supers shouldn't help people, mind you. But if they care enough to do that, so too should they be willing to respect the wishes of those who expect a little more accountability from them. And if existing laws present an obstacle like you suggest, I see no reason why the two opposing sides can't sit down together and make new ones for mutual benefit.

And I don't care that men are stronger than women, adults stronger than kids. They're all HUMANS, and their fellow humans created laws with them in mind long ago. Comparing the power imbalance there to that between man and god is a wild comparison, especially if you thought the ant one was too far, lol. But yeah, no one with greater power should take advantage of those with less. I'm not sure how that topic came up as I said nothing about that, but sure. We're talking about the morality of gods doling out justice to humans are we not? That's not "taking advantage." That's helping. If they get out of control, then yes, it's scary. There are plenty of stories about that. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about hypocrisy inherent in Batman doing his thing vs. Superman doing his. Unless the topic changed and I missed it (which is entirely possible, lol). Superman and the other League-rs create their own code to live by (and hold each other to) because they have to. Because their existence and everyday experience is fundamentally different from anything humans of any race, creed or age can comprehend, whether they like or not. Batman creates his own code because he chooses to. That's a cut-and-dry difference to me.

Well, with exception to aliens like Supes and MM, and demigods like Wonder Woman, I don't really see metahumans as gods in the first place. They lack the eons-old wisdom and experience that I generally associate with godhood. I imagine that sounds a bit like semantics, but it's how I feel regardless. The point of my analogy is that having an unfair advantage over a person or an entirely populace for that matter doesn't give you the right to impose your will on them. "I'm not sure how that topic came up as I said...." Well, you essentially posited that Batman, by virtue of taking the law into his own hands, is in the wrong, whereas metahumans can get away with more or less the same thing because... powers. lol This, coupled with your emphasis on metas, even the ones who are basically human themselves, not having to abide by man's laws gave me that impression. It's a view I clearly don't share. lol I mean Barry Allen's hubris alone could be a crime against nature. lol

 

[flickchick85]

Fair enough.



You see it that way because you're framing it as an absolute. If a law is inapplicable to supers for whatever reason, they can always work within its parameters to the best of their abilities. I mean, people have been adapting to laws that weren't made for them for centuries!

Enhanced vision and hearing? Great! How dire is the situation? If the answer to that question is very, then by all means, get involved. However, if things have yet to escalate, I'd suggest refraining and calling the cops instead. Want to do more? Great! Make like an alleged psychic and offer your services to the authorities! lol



Respecting or abiding by man's laws and moral obligation shouldn't be mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that supers shouldn't help people, mind you. But if they care enough to do that, so too should they be willing to respect the wishes of those who expect a little more accountability from them. And if existing laws present an obstacle like you suggest, I see no reason why the two opposing sides can't sit down together and make new ones for mutual benefit.



Well, with exception to aliens like Supes and MM, and demigods like Wonder Woman, I don't really see metahumans as gods in the first place. They lack the eons-old wisdom and experience that I generally associate with godhood. I imagine that sounds a bit like semantics, but it's how I feel regardless. The point of my analogy is that having an unfair advantage over a person or an entirely populace for that matter doesn't give you the right to impose your will on them. "I'm not sure how that topic came up as I said...." Well, you essentially posited that Batman, by virtue of taking the law into his own hands, is in the wrong, whereas metahumans can get away with more or less the same thing because... powers. lol This, coupled with your emphasis on metas, even the ones who are basically human themselves, not having to abide by man's laws gave me that impression. It's a view I clearly don't share. lol I mean Barry Allen's hubris alone could be a crime against nature. lol

You keep looking at things through the confining restraints of the viewpoints of mortals, of one tiny society in the grand scheme, and frankly, I don’t know how else to say it to make you see beyond that, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m fine with the idea of both sides sitting down and agreeing to new laws on Earth for gods, but they haven’t, and when they have tried, it’s been all about humans trying to exert control and claim power, which never ends well. And to put it bluntly, Zeus shouldn’t have to worry about that **** when deciding to help the mortal world. We are at HIS mercy, not the other way around. He’s the one holding US accountable. I’m talking specifically about the primary members of the Justice League who are all gods (in terms of power AND perspective - they’ve all seen/experienced worlds, concepts and sensations far beyond those of humans on Earth; it’s not just “because powers.” It’s an entirely different and non-human existence SHAPED by those powers) except Batman, and who hold each other accountable because they’re the only ones on this planet qualified to do so. The Greek Gods have their own rules and codes to live by, just like the JL. Again, we bring ‘em down to our level, we open up way too many complications to count (you’ve named a few yourself) and bring out the worst in ourselves in the process. Just let them do their thing while we do ours, and be thankful they’re here to help instead of the opposite.

And no one’s “imposing their will on others.” They’re simply holding us to the standards we’ve imposed on ourselves. But in order to do that effectively, they have to live by their own. Because we look up at at them and expect more from them. Because no humans see any of them as “one of us.”

Batman and what he does is NOT the same. I don’t know how else to say it, and we’re officially going in circles.

 

[Maze]

Its a very interesting exchange, anyhow.

My opinion : I understand completly the reasonning behing "helping ants", or a god who would help us. BUT, and i think we all agree on that one, i dont think that a god SHOULD help us because he can, in each case, even the really dramatic one. Because, sometimes, humans, or kids must make their mistakes. How can we learn? It's a a path without ends. And it takes wisdom, restrain to do that. And yep, a meta human like Superman (which i love) is not really a god. But he is on a good start, because he is a good person. Because, for example, he try to doesnt intervene in political affairs ( he did it, sometimes was he right? it's debatable... i'm not sure) Now he could make questionnable choices like we all agree (and that not only make him human, it's better for dramatic stories) So, Should he not be checked any how? that's a great question. There should be rules, anyhow. He should stay a free agent, but be free doe not mean do whatever you want, if the free will of others (and their learning path) is in danger. He just cant do whatever he wants, in certain circumstances. So yes, Superman is not Batman, for sure. He has not his brutal and sometimes manipulative methods, but we all agree on that, he could makes questionnable choices. So yes, i dont think that we should juste put him in the same league of Batman, it's a case by case study, but in the end, i dont think he should be put on a higher standart.

 

[flickchick85]

I’ve said a million times these guys have rules they must live by. No one’s saying they should run around unchecked. Those rules just aren’t to be imposed by, nor are they synonymous with, human laws.

 

[Maze]

Yes yes i read you i'm just saying that the rules should be decided by the common will. Like in any democracy should do it. I don't believe even a god should do whatever he wants if he really respect that we are on a learning path. ( and i dont see the metas like gods) i believe in god, but i'm not one of this people who is angry at him, because he doesn't intervene. Now, maybe that IF i had a tangible proof that he his, IF he didnt intervene in a car accident or whatever, i would have a different opinion ( because it would be emotionionnal) but it's not my line of reasonning here, like that Just my opinion.

 

[flickchick85]

So whose common will then? America’s? The UK’s? Russia’s? China’s? They all have different laws, after all. Should they sit down with the UN during a natural disaster and wait for the politicians and diplomats to deliberate and give permission to go into a territorial hotspot while people are dying by the hundreds every minute?

 

[Kane52630]

Giacchino has already written the new Batman theme.

Michael Giacchino to score ‘The Batman’ & Steve NEEDS to be there

I’ve already written what will be theme for the movie, because I was so excited about doing it that I just sat down and did it, already. And so, Matt has that in his back pocket right now and is using it just to inspire him as he finishes writing and doing the things he has to do to prepare for directing.

 

[Travesty]

The score was written before the script, and Matt Reeves is using it for inspiration in finishing up the script.

 

[TheGuy]

 

[OutOfBoose]

I’ve already written what will be theme for the movie, because I was so excited about doing it that I just sat down and did it, already. And so, Matt has that in his back pocket right now and is using it just to inspire him as he finishes writing and doing the things he has to do to prepare for directing.

Let me get this straight. Why is it going backwards? Shouldn't they write music for a finished movie, when it's clear what's the movie is about, how scenes are organized, the kind of emotional response is needed... He wrote music before the script was finished, before filming began, before barely anything is finalized.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Let me get this straight. Why is it going backwards? Shouldn't they write music for a finished movie, when it's clear what's the movie is about, how scenes are organized, the kind of emotional response is needed... He wrote music before the script was finished, before filming began, before barely anything is finalized.

He hasn't written a full score, as far as I know and can tell. He's just written a Batman theme. I.E. he's done the leitmotif and nothing else (which you hardly need the script for, something that's dark, heroic and gothic with a memorable melody, you've got a good Batman theme). Obviously the full score will at least wait until the script has been finished.

 

[Invader Joker]

Very likely not true since he isn't the most reliabe source when it comes to this movie but you never know.

I wouldn't mind if this thing took place in the 70s but I'd rather see it take place in modern times. The character should move forwards in time, not backwards.

 

[DeadlyWest]

Very likely not true since he isn't the most reliabe source when it comes to this movie but you never know.

I wouldn't mind if this thing took place in the 70s but I'd rather see it take place in modern times. The character should move forwards in time, not backwards.

I can't say I'd be a big fan. There needs to be a decent reasoning for a particular time period Batman if it's as recent as the 1970s. It's not like Gaslight where it's literally Batman in a very different point in history, in what is clearly a different version of Gotham with it being more like Victorian London. There's no real point in setting Batman in the 1970s, there's nothing to gain from it. In all honesty, there's not much point in even blatantly stating when The Batman takes place. Maybe before when it was still a Battfleck prequel, but not anymore.