The Batman Villain-Gods Theory

[Zom B]

I've started developing a theory that the batman villains were - intentionally or not - modeled after gods of various pantheons. For instance, the Joker is a shoo-in for Loki, Two-Face is Janus, Catwoman is Bast, and the Riddler would be, hmm...I dunno, Hermes?

Maybe you can elaborate on the various villains and their 'vine verisimilitude.

[Starscream]

Fun fact; in Germany and France Riddler is apparently actually called "Sphinx".

Lessee... Poison Ivy would be some sort of nature goddess. Perhaps Demeter.

Maxie Zeus is obvious, as even he thinks he's Zeus.

[doliest]

Hera's favored weapon IS the whip. :smalltongue:
One bad pun later-
Anyway, you can do it for most of them with little effort, though I'm going to need help on a God of Fear. Heck, you can do this with just the Greek Pantheon; though Joker could also be Eris. Actually, Loki's not have the shoo-in he seems. Joker plans, no doubt, but Loki was a planner, closer to a strategist than a shifting piece of clay that most of the Jokers plans seem to be.

Though that might just be me.

[Starfols]

Scarecrow is Phobos. :smallbiggrin:

To be honest, I think a parallel could be drawn between gods and batman villains, but I think be mostly coincidental. They all have epic (as in, personalities belonging in an epic) personalities, so there'd be some marketed similarities. Comics are the myths of the modern age, after all. :smallamused:

[Cespenar]

If Joker would be Loki, would that make Batman Odin?

[Southern Cross]

And Richard Grayson Thor.

[chiasaur11]

If Joker would be Loki, would that make Batman Odin?

Not enough killing for Odin.

[doliest]

And Richard Grayson Thor.

Or Damien Wayne.

[Cespenar]

Not enough killing for Odin.

Wasn't aiming at %100 accuracy.

[chiasaur11]

Wasn't aiming at %100 accuracy.

But killing and sending people to their deaths in tricky ways (and losing in the end) are core Odiny traits totally absent in Wayne. Seems a poor match then.

[Dr.Epic]

Couldn't any character be compared to a mythological/religious god/saint/hero/figure? I just saying this seems pretty vague. The Joker is mischievous, so he has to be Loki. How many thousands of characters in fiction are mischievous. The gods of any mythology all have traits that humans do.

[chiasaur11]

Couldn't any character be compared to a mythological/religious god/saint/hero/figure? I just saying this seems pretty vague. The Joker is mischievous, so he has to be Loki. How many thousands of characters in fiction are mischievous. The gods of any mythology all have traits that humans do.

Yeah, the trickster is a pretty common archetype. Although Loki is a bigger jerk than average.

[Bouregard]

Fun fact; in Germany and France Riddler is apparently actually called "Sphinx".

Nope, Riddler is always the Riddler here in Germany.

Maxie Zeus is quite obvious.

[Cespenar]

But killing and sending people to their deaths in tricky ways (and losing in the end) are core Odiny traits totally absent in Wayne. Seems a poor match then.

Your points are fair, of course, but I was thinking less of his role of 'death' and more of his plots and the fact that he has a hand in every effing thing going around.

[chiasaur11]

Nope, Riddler is always the Riddler here in Germany.

Maxie Zeus is quite obvious.

Although Batman better covers Zeus's traditional primary duties of skirt chasing.

[Dr.Epic]

Although Batman better covers Zeus's traditional primary duties of skirt chasing.

Not according to Joel Schumacher and George Clooney.

[KnightDisciple]

Not according to Joel Schumacher and George Clooney.I'm sorry, who? I'm not sure what those names have to do with Batman. Really, I don't.

[doliest]

Hey, don't knock Clooney. He was pretty decent as Batman; better than Val. I blame the script of that...abomination.

[KnightDisciple]

Hey, don't knock Clooney. He was pretty decent as Batman; better than Val. I blame the script of that...abomination.Eh. I dunno. Kilmer was "meh", but he was "meh" across the board. Clooney did pretty well as "Bruce Wayne", but as "Batman", he left a lot to be desired. Keaton was the reverse.

...Bale, of course, gets high marks all over. And yes, the voice could use some work, but as Kevin Conroy himself has noted, that's almost entirely the director's fault. Because I'm sure Bale would have changed the "Bat-Voice" if he'd been, well, directed to.

[Dr.Epic]

Eh. I dunno. Kilmer was "meh", but he was "meh" across the board. Clooney did pretty well as "Bruce Wayne", but as "Batman", he left a lot to be desired. Keaton was the reverse.

...Bale, of course, gets high marks all over. And yes, the voice could use some work, but as Kevin Conroy himself has noted, that's almost entirely the director's fault. Because I'm sure Bale would have changed the "Bat-Voice" if he'd been, well, directed to.

I was disappointed by their lack of "WHERE ARE THEY?!?!?"

[Steward]

Because I'm sure Bale would have changed the "Bat-Voice" if he'd been, well, directed to.

He could have insisted. Mr. Bale is... somewhat forceful.

If they were divine super-beings, that could explain why they can't be kept in jail.

[doliest]

Actually, I think Bale is a pretty bad Wayne. I'm in the same camp as the Nostalgia Critic that he's not very good about hiding it; he comes off as someone obviously trying to hide something.

Edit:In my book, the best Wayne will always be West. Because a billionaire philanthropist honestly IS the last person I would think of as Batman.

[Dr.Epic]

Actually, I think Bale is a pretty bad Wayne. I'm in the same camp as the Nostalgia Critic that he's not very good about hiding it; he comes off as someone obviously trying to hide something.

A billionaire hiding something? My word, why? It's not like we live in a society where tabloids and news stations would obsess over the smallest celebrity gossip for ratings and profit...oh wait...

[Steward]

That's true. I figured out that Wayne was Batman halfway through the second movie. It was soooo obvious! :smallwink:

[doliest]

A billionaire hiding something? My word, why? It's not like we live in a society where tabloids and news stations would obsess over the smallest celebrity gossip for ratings and profit...oh wait...

Hah. Hah. Again though, as the NC put it on Keaton, 'That's why he's so friggin' perfect you wouldn't suspect him,' but Bale? Bale doesn't have that, nor does he have what West did in the role-Charisma. Bale's Wayne is a gigantic tool who buys his way through everything. Sounds like the kind of person who would be Batman, if you had a low opinion of him. West's Wayne, on the other hand, is a mixture of Suave, Debonair playboy meets Philanthropist. In the modern setting? That's the last person anyone would think is Batman. The very last.

[Bavarian itP]

That's true. I figured out that Wayne was Batman halfway through the second movie. It was soooo obvious! :smallwink:

I lol'ed.

The James Bond movies must be a pretty interesting series of Whodunits for you :smallbiggrin:

I identified Goldfinger as the villain three minutes before he explained his plan!

[Abies]

I'd have to agree that despite liking the Nolan movies overall, their portrayal of Wayne has been a misstep. While the Wayne persona is being (appropriately) used as a cover for Batman's activites, they have gone the direction of "Irresponsible, incompetent, and juvenile micreant" instead of the politicaly active, socially aware, highly responsible and competent businessman Bruce Wayne should be.

At least with Keaton we saw a fundraiser once in a while. I do not have any discrete memories of West's portrayal, those memories are almost entirely dedicated to the costumed portions of the show.

As for the OP, one can find similarites between any two characters if you paint with broad enough strokes. Many comic book characters have been based on "iconic" character archetypes which easily lends them to comparison to Mythological Gods. The comparisons are there to be found, but there is not much meaningful in making such associations.

[doliest]

West's was basically a socially active business man and philanthropist and rather suave based on well...he's Adam West. That's all I need to say.

[KnightDisciple]

Uh...how is Bruce's fundraiser for Harvey not evidence of him being politically active? Beyond that, we really can't say one way or another; both movies really only give snippets of his public Wayne persona, focusing instead on his time as Batman (appropriate considering that's who the movies are about), or as his "true self" as I tend to interpret it. That is, the man who is somewhere in between "Public Bruce" and "Batman".

[Dr.Epic]

West's was basically a socially active business man and philanthropist and rather suave based on well...he's Adam West. That's all I need to say.

Adam West was the perfect Batman? Let's see...he frequently broke out into 60's dancing while crime fighting and he had a magical bat utility belt with the exact item needed for his specific trouble no matter how obscure, including bat shark repellent.

[Abies]

Adam West was the perfect Batman? Let's see...he frequently broke out into 60's dancing while crime fighting and he had a magical bat utility belt with the exact item needed for his specific trouble no matter how obscure, including bat shark repellent.

Batman and Bruce Wayne are not the same character.

And somehow I totally forgot about the fundraiser for Harvey. But now upon reflection It seems to be out of place for the person that had previously been cultivated for the character. To an outside observer, one would be less likely to think "politically responsible philanthropist" than "guy doing a favor for his old friend's boyfriend", or "guy trying to show up his ex's new boyfriend by showing how impotent the new guy is financially". Heck, what's her face would be inclined think that if she didn't know the secret.

[Tirian]

Adam West was the perfect Batman? Let's see...he frequently broke out into 60's dancing while crime fighting and he had a magical bat utility belt with the exact item needed for his specific trouble no matter how obscure, including bat shark repellent.

Uh, why do people always get that wrong?!

A) It's Shark Repellent Bat-Spray
B) It wasn't on his belt, it was mounted on the helicopter.

[Dr.Epic]

Uh, why do people always get that wrong?!

A) It's Shark Repellent Bat-Spray
B) It wasn't on his belt, it was mounted on the helicopter.

As if that somehow makes that better.

[Tirian]

NOTHING makes Adam West Batman better, which is either good or bad depending on how you feel about the portrayal. It's just one of the most two most referenced scenes of the movie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_B_n-Rbros) and people act as if they haven't ever seen it.

[Abies]

No one has said Adam West's Batman was better. The argument was that his Bruce Wayne is better. If one can not distinguish the difference between those two statements, they need a refresher on the Batman mythos.

[kpenguin]

Adam West was the perfect Batman? Let's see...he frequently broke out into 60's dancing while crime fighting and he had a magical bat utility belt with the exact item needed for his specific trouble no matter how obscure, including bat shark repellent.

I will hold that the Batman series of the 60's was perhaps the most comics accurate portrayal of Batman ever. Read a silver age book and you'll see what I mean.

[Tirian]

No one has said Adam West's Batman was better. The argument was that his Bruce Wayne is better. If one can not distinguish the difference between those two statements, they need a refresher on the Batman mythos.

Well, it isn't hard for Adam West to play a magnanimous and gentle Bruce Wayne, given that it is painfully clear that his parents weren't murdered by a mugger in front of him when he was eight years old. He might be the best billionaire playboy out of the lot of them (and I'm not sure I would vote out George Clooney on that score), but that is an enormously shallow one-dimensional portrayal of Bruce Wayne.

[Dr.Epic]

I will hold that the Batman series of the 60's was perhaps the most comics accurate portrayal of Batman ever. Read a silver age book and you'll see what I mean.

Sometimes accuracy to the source materials isn't as important as an entertaining story.

[chiasaur11]

Sometimes accuracy to the source materials isn't as important as an entertaining story.

Which would give West an "A" as, dumb as it is, 60s Batman is danged entertaining.

[kpenguin]

Sometimes accuracy to the source materials isn't as important as an entertaining story.

But it was entertaining. Highly entertaining. The camp, the suave, and the general ridiculousness made it all rip-roaringly funny and downright fun.

[KnightDisciple]

I will hold that the Batman series of the 60's was perhaps the most comics accurate portrayal of Batman ever. Read a silver age book and you'll see what I mean.Accurate to that decade or so of comics. Frankly, the Silver Age campiness was widespread, but also contained to, generally, that time period. Before and after it, the characters (especially Batman) have been much more serious.

I would say that, in looking at the overall tone, design, spirit, etc. of the Batman character, the 2 interpretations that have come closest are the DC Animated Universe (which includes Batman: The Animated Series as well as the Justice League show) and the Nolanverse. Neither is 100% comprehensive, and even together there are still aspects that are missed. Nonetheless, they seem truest to the roots and spirit of the character. True, they don't match the campy late 50's and most of the 60's (perhaps even into the 70's, but I think it was fading then), but looking at the total history (now spanning something like 70 years), that age encompasses, at most, about 10% of the character's history. And frankly, it's better left in the past.

If you really want "campy Batman", Batman:Brave and the Bold does it better.

Edit:
But it was entertaining. Highly entertaining. The camp, the suave, and the general ridiculousness made it all rip-roaringly funny and downright fun.Not for me. I might chuckle once or twice, but it's mostly stupid. That's before I stop and realize that Batman isn't supposed to be a funny character. He just doesn't work out as one. And there was nothing really "suave" about that show. Especially not the costumes. Ugh. Only thing worse is the never-sufficiently-damned "Bat-Nipples" from the Movie-That-Must-Not-Be-Named.

[thubby]

the issue isnt that the villains match the greek gods. its that the greek god's are in to many wildly varying stories, that any character fits one of them.

[kpenguin]

Accurate to that decade or so of comics. Frankly, the Silver Age campiness was widespread, but also contained to, generally, that time period. Before and after it, the characters (especially Batman) have been much more serious.

I would say that, in looking at the overall tone, design, spirit, etc. of the Batman character, the 2 interpretations that have come closest are the DC Animated Universe (which includes Batman: The Animated Series as well as the Justice League show) and the Nolanverse. Neither is 100% comprehensive, and even together there are still aspects that are missed. Nonetheless, they seem truest to the roots and spirit of the character. True, they don't match the campy late 50's and most of the 60's (perhaps even into the 70's, but I think it was fading then), but looking at the total history (now spanning something like 70 years), that age encompasses, at most, about 10% of the character's history. And frankly, it's better left in the past.


Perhaps I phrased it wrong. Perhaps I should have said "accurate to the comics of the time". Adam West Batman resembles Silver Age Batman than BTAS Batman resembles the Batman of the 90's.

I believe that BTAS Batman is the truest to the spirit of the character than anything else, including the comics, honestly. Nolanverse Batman's rootings in realism excludes a great deal of the mythos and comics Batman can get... out of hand.


If you really want "campy Batman", Batman:Brave and the Bold does it better.

Agreed. I love TB&TB.


Edit:Not for me. I might chuckle once or twice, but it's mostly stupid. That's before I stop and realize that Batman isn't supposed to be a funny character. He just doesn't work out as one. And there was nothing really "suave" about that show. Especially not the costumes. Ugh. Only thing worse is the never-sufficiently-damned "Bat-Nipples" from the Movie-That-Must-Not-Be-Named.

Perhaps suave was the wrong word? Charming? Anyway, the Batman of Adam West was very self aware of how silly and campy it was. Batman may not be supposed to be a funny character, but he can be and I believe that Adam West Batman can be as much Batman as Roger Moore James Bond or Men in Tights Robin Hood.

[Reverent-One]

Hah. Hah. Again though, as the NC put it on Keaton, 'That's why he's so friggin' perfect you wouldn't suspect him,' but Bale? Bale doesn't have that, nor does he have what West did in the role-Charisma. Bale's Wayne is a gigantic tool who buys his way through everything. Sounds like the kind of person who would be Batman, if you had a low opinion of him.

Really? The selfish tool who lives off a large checkbook is the sort of guy who'll go around risking his life fighting crime? Even with a low opinion of Batman, you'd think the guy who's idea of conflict resolution is throw money at the problem wouldn't be getting his hands dirty.


West's Wayne, on the other hand, is a mixture of Suave, Debonair playboy meets Philanthropist. In the modern setting? That's the last person anyone would think is Batman. The very last.

Except if you do have a good opinion of the Batman, because he's the sort of guy who would go fight crime and has the finances for Batman's gear. The people who work with Batman especially (like say, Harvey Dent) would be more likely to realize this.

[doliest]

Really? The selfish tool who lives off a large checkbook is the sort of guy who'll go around risking his life fighting crime? Even with a low opinion of Batman, you'd think the guy who's idea of conflict resolution is throw money at the problem wouldn't be getting his hands dirty.



Except if you do have a good opinion of the Batman, because he's the sort of guy who would go fight crime and has the finances for Batman's gear. The people who work with Batman especially (like say, Harvey Dent) would be more likely to realize this.

And if you do have a high opinion like, say, Harvey Dent, then they're not trying to lock him up or make him stop. They WANT him on the streets, so they're unlikely to go around talking about it.

Edit:And while the Adam West version is my favorite, I recognize that that's not how most people view Batman,(though I do) but my point is on his Bruce Wayne. Not to mention it clears up my issue with how much he could do for the city as Wayne which almost equals what he could do as Batman.

[Starfols]

I think, in regards to batman, a fine line must be drawn between seriousness and camp. On one hand, he's in an admittedly dark setting, and contains all the introspection and mature themes and all that jazz, but on the other hand, he's still a man in a cape and underpants.

Honestly, if a series focuses too much on one side or the other, it becomes incredulous to the opposite camp. Some people dislike Nolan's version because it tries to make a movie about a guy in a bat-suit seriously. Other people dislike the West version because it makes a mockery of a serious and complex character. Personally, I think both are legitimate batmen, just different interpretations of the same character.

Also, OT: Calender Man is Balder. :smallcool: