In Batman's earliest incarnation there was never an issue made about the police (in fact the comic made the point that Batman indeed walked a fine line between vigilante a criminal -- may have been no better than those he fought). Why didn't he become a judge? That's a great question that has literally no place in a superhero movie. It's kind of like asking "why don't people act sane and rational in comics"? Why doesn't Superman just take what he wants, f*** a whole lot of women, and become excessively wealthy like all superhero analogues do in The Boys? That's all part of the suspension of disbelief. Certain actions these heroes take simply don't line up with what we know is typical for the real world, otherwise they wouldn't be superheroes.
Comic book people doesn't act rational because real world people don't either. Comics exaggerate but are based on real world.
And the issue of why Batman didn't become a cop or judge has been addressed. In one origin re-telling from the 70's he was studying to become a lawyer. In one class a teacher is giving an example and Bruce gives his opinion. His teacher tells him he's wrong according to the laws. Bruce then finds out that justice and law are different things.
In B89 is clear that authorities are not enough to stop crime.
Reasons have been given as to why Bruce becomes Batman and not just another regular type of crime fighter.
Also issues like the one you mentioned about why Superman doesn't profit of his super-powers. In his case, his upbringing. In Spiderman's case, he tried and then as a conseuqence his uncle was killed.
So those great question have
literally a place in comic books.
Projection: Batman projects his anger over his parents onto all criminals, as if everyone he fights is just an avatar of Joe Chill/unnamed assailant who killed his parents.
But we've seen - BB, Batm,an Year Two - how revenge was taken from him. And then he understand Batman can/must be more than that.
In Batman Year One you get the first mentions of Gotham having a corrupt police force. That's not something that is found in every telling of his origin, and has little, if anything to do with him becoming Batman. In The Man Who Falls the police, namely the FBI is not corrupt at all, and Bruce tries to join them, but ultimately becomes bored and unsatisfied with how they deliver justice. Most incarnations of Batman have him espousing a very myopic view of justice. In fact, the whole premise of Batman Year One pretty much perverts the purpose of having police. Comics do this regularly because the form crime takes in comic books is no more true to life than the heroes who fight it.
Yes, some Batman comics are about authorities corruption and some others are not.
Well it's not really a logical decision now is it. Bruce hardly wears the costume to fight super-criminals, considering the first time he wore it no such animal existed.
It has been having some inner logic for a long time now and it's been well explained. The bat-through-the-window device is well documented to ignore.
It's not a logical decision, it's a storytelling decision. Why doesn't Gordon just shoot the Joker in the back of the head in The Dark Knight? Even by the internal logic of the film that doesn't make sense?
In many comics Gordon and Batman have stated that killing the man is not the option they want. TKJ for example; Gordon forces Batman to show Joker they can aprehend him by the book. There's nothing illogical about that.
Moreover by internal logic, Scarecrow wasn't impervious to a taser, didn't have any impressive combat skills either. Rachel Dawes on the other hand was shown capable of defending herself, and considering what Scarecrow had done to her earlier it was karmic for her character to be the one to defeat him. By internal logic the scene makes perfect sense. You keep arguing that because Scarecrow IYO is a good comic character he deserved more.
John Doe in Se7en or Kayser Soze in The Usual Suspects weren't a physical threat but they were good characters that kept the authorities having an awful time.
Yeah, nobody thought of having a girl tasing getting their faces tased. That would have been a disservice. Hell, even Ledger's Joker could have been face-tasered but that sounds an awful idea.
Now in comics Scarecrow HAS BEEN a physical threat to Batman.
You're really just using straw man, his performance was much better than you're giving it credit for. I'm sure he just offers sexual favors in exchange for his roles in
Inception and Batman, yup that's it
No. I was just offering an alternative theory. Nolan can call him all he wants but as Crane, Murphy was merely ok.
Not every character in
The Godfather is a "good" character, some just exist to move the plot along. You'd
hope that the characters more intergral to the plot were more interesting than him, that in part was a problem with
The Dark Knight: that the supporting cast was more important than the supposed main character. Scarecrow was good for the purpose he served, but he wasn't the main villain. What's so hard to understand
Nope. Even the irrelevant characters of The Godfather were good. Well acted and they were well fleshed out. Device or not.
But no gangster, as irrelevant as it could be, died or was defeated in a comedic way like Scarecrow was.
Again, you keep insisting Scarecrow is this "good character" that was "harmed" by his use in these films. I simply don't agree. He's a C-Lister at best, and he's not a novel character in the slightest. He's usually not anything more than filler in the comics either. He probably benefitted from that movie, as people wouldn't have given two sh**s about him before he appeared onscreen. I suppose you could make Scarecrow an epic villain, make him a main villain, like he was intended to be in previous unproduced Bat-movies, but at the same time he works well as a ancillary character. Much like Victor Zsasz. Were you disappointed with his use in the Nolanverse? Or do you accept since he was not the lead and simply a cameo he didn't need some epic sendoff?
Scarecrow has been able to fight Batman successfully, so he might not have Joker's popularity but he's worthy enough of more than a comedic beating from a girl. He's not the unnamed gangster #4 that's sending off the movie by one single bat-punching.
Again, completely disagree. I like to see obscure characters used, and used appropriately. Batman Begins benefited from having tertiary villains for Batman to fight, otherwise it would've just been a dragged out build up to the third act. Scarecrow helps give Batman a colorful villain to deal with before Ra's Al Ghul arrives. Knightfall did the same thing. Made Bruce run through a guantlet of villains, even lame characters like Crazy Quilt, before he reached the title villain; Bane.
Scarecrow could have done the same thing and keep his dignity as a character all the same. I mean, even Batman himself gassing him back or tasering him would have been acceptable.
You could say this about the Penguin too, but at the end of the day he's typically not Batman's great threat, and the incarnations of Scarecrow you're referring too would simply not work in Nolan's films.
That's why Burton made Penguin a worthy villiain that meant a true danger for the city. But then it's when you say 'No. That's a lame character and that's the way he should always be.'
No, I just like the way Nolan used him. Why does Nolan have to treat everyone the same way?
Because having only good characters in your movie not wasting their potentials for a misplaced comedy moment is never a bad idea.
It would be pretty stupid to have Scarecrow upstage the main act villain now wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn't. Why? I mean, it's better to have Ra's since he's more deeply attached to Batman, but Scarecrow directing the whole city fear gassing wouldn't have been stupid. I think of that BTAS episode where he did it from a zeppelin. It was far from stupid.
Now, not having him taking over the climax of the movie and having him face-tasered by an average girl are not the only two possible alternatives, I'm sure you know. Otherwise, Two-Face should have slipped on a banana peel so Joker could have been the main villiain.
Scarecrow certainly fit in well with the movie's theme of "fear", meshed well with the Arkham setting, and was an important aspect in setting up the third act.
He did. That's doesn't force him to be a lame character.
