The Snyder Cut

[Dire_Flumph]

As I recall, although movie #1 generally had rave reviews, a lot of the complaints about it were how much it deviated from the no guns/no killing rules.

I have different recollections, I remember at the time it was given raves for taking Batman out of the sillier Adam West/Superfriends mold into something more "mature". I don't remember people getting hung up on the "no killing, no guns" thing until after Batman:TAS became more popular.

But then, this was the 80's, where the action movie revolved around mowing down bad guys with a bad pun afterwards.

Edit: Personally, I wasn't a fan of any of the Batman incarnations in TV/film until TAS sold me on the character.

[Friv]

Consider how many underprivileged young men who only turned to a life of crime for survival, may have only been guilty of a handful of misdemeanors in the employ of the only bosses that would hire them to simply defend against the violence that Batman brings, and now may never walk again or must eat all of their meals through a straw the rest of their lives.

Zero, across nearly every incarnation.

Batman is an action hero, and even in movies like the Burtonverse he plays by action hero rules. When he punches someone, they're fine a couple days later. You can say that's because he's such a great martial artist that he knows how to subdue people without long-term damage, or you can shrug and say it's for the same reason that John McClane can swing through a glass window without immediately bleeding out and walk across glass barefoot and only suffer about as much as I would walking across sharp gravel, but that's how the rules work.

[Clertar]

Zero, across nearly every incarnation.

Batman is an action hero, and even in movies like the Burtonverse he plays by action hero rules. When he punches someone, they're fine a couple days later. You can say that's because he's such a great martial artist that he knows how to subdue people without long-term damage, or you can shrug and say it's for the same reason that John McClane can swing through a glass window without immediately bleeding out and walk across glass barefoot and only suffer about as much as I would walking across sharp gravel, but that's how the rules work.

So the complaint about plot contrivance is voided because of plot contrivance. It's an argumental pincer!

[warty goblin]

So the complaint about plot contrivance is voided because of plot contrivance. It's an argumental pincer!

At some point it seems to me that the solution to the complaint "fictional thing contains unreal elements" is to read nonfiction. There's plenty of fascinating stuff in history that's as true to reality as the human brain can achieve, its just less fun. Or the fun is a lot more work than stories about dudes with nocturnal mammal fetishes punching other dudes.

[Fyraltari]

At some point it seems to me that the solution to the complaint "fictional thing contains unreal elements" is to read nonfiction. There's plenty of fascinating stuff in history that's as true to reality as the human brain can achieve, its just less fun. Or the fun is a lot more work than stories about dudes with nocturnal mammal fetishes punching other dudes.

Nonfiction has way more plot contrivances than fiction, though.

[Lord Vukodlak]

Consider how many underprivileged young men who only turned to a life of crime for survival, may have only been guilty of a handful of misdemeanors in the employ of the only bosses that would hire them to simply defend against the violence that Batman brings, and now may never walk again or must eat all of their meals through a straw the rest of their lives.

Those kind of people don’t fight when Batman shows up they run or fall down after the slightest tap. The guys who crumble in one much might not be knocked out they just don’t want to fight Batman. I recall one hilarious instance where a thug actually spotted Batman sneaking in, lied about seeing him then quickly left.

And if the Henchmen really had to worry about being beaten so badly they’d be permanently crippled. Joker, Scarecrow and numerous other villains would be in the same boat.

[Mordar]

"Any anyone who knows me knows i would never read a comic book!" - Tim Burton - Kevin Smith

I never got why that movie had rave reviews. It wasn't bad, but it wasnt great. At this point I figure it was one of the first superhero movies that wasn't a complete stinker.

But then I'm not a big fan of Burton in general.

As mentioned a bit further downstream, it was a non-camp, blockbuster with a fantastic new visual style in an era where there were still tons of low-budget action movies. It stood heads and shoulders above what had been previously done in the sub-genre in terms of production values, "serious" approach to the subject matter (and making it not a kiddie movie), with a lot of Rule of Cool.

Don't forget, it also had a great transitional Joker.

I didn't love the hype when it came out, but came to really appreciate the movie.

- M

[Imbalance]

Zero, across nearly every incarnation.

Batman is an action hero, and even in movies like the Burtonverse he plays by action hero rules. When he punches someone, they're fine a couple days later. You can say that's because he's such a great martial artist that he knows how to subdue people without long-term damage, or you can shrug and say it's for the same reason that John McClane can swing through a glass window without immediately bleeding out and walk across glass barefoot and only suffer about as much as I would walking across sharp gravel, but that's how the rules work.

Those kind of people don’t fight when Batman shows up they run or fall down after the slightest tap. The guys who crumble in one much might not be knocked out they just don’t want to fight Batman. I recall one hilarious instance where a thug actually spotted Batman sneaking in, lied about seeing him then quickly left.

So, we see two vigilantes doing basically the same thing with drastically different results. Could we suppose that somebody's mythos may be omissive or less than truthful about the after-action report? It might be easy to say the rules vary by author, because it's true enough, but it's also obvious that one character is a reflection of the other (or, at least, the superhero template) in what might as well be the same world but viewed through a different lense. We're giving one a pass due to not being directly shown the downstream effects of his actions, while the other's actions are downplayed to highlight those grim outcomes and it shines the light of implication back into the mirror and onto the source.

And if the Henchmen really had to worry about being beaten so badly they’d be permanently crippled. Joker, Scarecrow and numerous other villains would be in the same boat.

So should Batman. Writers have occasionally touched on it. Kingdom Come is a favorite example of mine where Bruce needs a full body brace just to ambulate.

[Psyren]

Those kind of people don’t fight when Batman shows up they run or fall down after the slightest tap.

"slightest tap"

So should Batman. Writers have occasionally touched on it. Kingdom Come is a favorite example of mine where Bruce needs a full body brace just to ambulate.

Oh no, how will the billionaire cope?

At some point it seems to me that the solution to the complaint "fictional thing contains unreal elements" is to read nonfiction. There's plenty of fascinating stuff in history that's as true to reality as the human brain can achieve, its just less fun. Or the fun is a lot more work than stories about dudes with nocturnal mammal fetishes punching other dudes.

I mean, not all fiction centers around plutocrats patrolling the streets at night handing out fractures instead of.... doing literally anything else, but okay

Put another way - I can (and do) just read better fiction, that doesn't try to gloss over these jarring discrepancies as though they're nothing.

[Dienekes]

I mean, not all fiction centers around plutocrats patrolling the streets at night handing out fractures instead of.... doing literally anything else, but okay

Put another way - I can (and do) just read better fiction, that doesn't try to gloss over these jarring discrepancies as though they're nothing.

Respectfully Psyren,* you're a fan of both Mass Effect and Dragon Age. One is about an elite group of essentially spies and assassins that kill for the government without any real oversight. And DA2 is literally about a plutocrat patrolling the street handing out well not fractures admittedly, because you just kill everyone you come in contact with.

*And I mean this literally, as in I respect you but think you’re overreaching a bit here, not as a sarcastic way to politely tell someone to **** off.

[Psyren]

Respectfully Psyren,* you're a fan of both Mass Effect and Dragon Age. One is about an elite group of essentially spies and assassins that kill for the government without any real oversight. And DA2 is literally about a plutocrat patrolling the street handing out well not fractures admittedly, because you just kill everyone you come in contact with.

I bolded the oxymoron in your statement. By contrast, and as the meme goes, Batman has no jurisdiction.

As for DA2, where did I claim Hawke is any better? (Though I'll point out that most of the quests that send you out onto the street are for specific purposes where you get attacked, not general unending quests for vengeance/violence.)

[Lord Raziere]

I bolded the oxymoron in your statement. By contrast, and as the meme goes, Batman has no jurisdiction.

Thats....not an oxymoron at all. Just because one receives orders from the government to do something doesn't you have oversight to make sure your actions are the correct actions. just because say.....a knight answers to and is empowered by the king to wander throughout the land killing anyone who they think is against the king doesn't necessarily mean they have the oversight of the king, as the king is busy doing other stuff and can't be with them when doing their thing.

[Peelee]

Don't forget, it also had a great transitional Joker.

Eh, while I love Jack Nicholson, the older I get the more I don't really think he did a good Joker.

[Psyren]

Thats....not an oxymoron at all. Just because one receives orders from the government to do something doesn't you have oversight to make sure your actions are the correct actions. just because say.....a knight answers to and is empowered by the king to wander throughout the land killing anyone who they think is against the king doesn't necessarily mean they have the oversight of the king, as the king is busy doing other stuff and can't be with them when doing their thing.

That is a form of oversight, because Spectres do answer and report in to the council (who can remove their authority, as they did to Saren.) It's LIMITED oversight, but it's still oversight.

[Dienekes]

I bolded the oxymoron in your statement. By contrast, and as the meme goes, Batman has no jurisdiction.

Having a theoretical boss is not the same thing as oversight. Especially not on a socio-political level. Spectres go where they please, even to territory that is not under Council jurisdiction, doing whatever they want. And so long as they send reports back to the Council they're fine. There appears to be no means of overseeing the actions of these Spectres. No verification method of if what they're saying is even true. We see a trial of a Spectre the very first game and it comes down to just taking them at their word.

That's not oversight, that's plausible deniability on the part of the Council.

As for DA2, where did I claim Hawke is any better? (Though I'll point out that most of the quests that send you out onto the street are for specific purposes where you get attacked, not general unending quests for vengeance/violence.)

But you do play and enjoy story driven games that gloss over the same problematic issues as Batman has. Hell, DA is even worse in how little it gets into the absolute ****-fest that comes from having any wealth at all in a pseudo-medieval world.

And I could also point out most of Batman's adventures are to save people/the city/the world. Solve a specific crime. Or disrupt criminal organizations that were in control of the cities justice systems.

But I think I'm a bit confused. Is the problematic part of Batman that he is not 100% altruistic in his motivation? Because I would disagree that's really an issue there. It just means he's not a perfect paragon of goodness. Or is it that a rich boy is beating up members of the lower class? Which I agree is a problematic read of the character. Though one that in my opinion is pretty reductive to the point of meaninglessness.

[Cazero]

Eh, while I love Jack Nicholson, the older I get the more I don't really think he did a good Joker.

I thing that's the writing. It oscillates between Joker (the loooooooong handgun) and goth serial killer (fascinating war pictures of corpses), and the Joker is kinda the opposite of goth.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: Bioware Tangent

Show

We see a trial of a Spectre the very first game and it comes down to just taking them at their word.

Saren was innocent until proven guilty (like most defendants in a trial), and there was no evidence to convict him at first. You'll recall that very same trial DID end in his conviction a few quests later, once said evidence was obtained and presented - thanks to Tali - and most of the rest of the game was spent tracking him down to serve the Council's verdict. If you're going to bring up games I've played to try and make a point, don't you think you should remember what happens in them?

But you do play and enjoy story driven games that gloss over the same problematic issues as Batman has. Hell, DA is even worse in how little it gets into the absolute ****-fest that comes from having any wealth at all in a pseudo-medieval world.

And? Thedas makes no pretense that any of its protagonists are paragons of heroism the way the Justice League do. There is no analogue for Superman, and if there were, Kirkwall et al. would never get to the state they are. And Hawke is a very, very poor parallel for Batman, having nowhere near his resources or connections. "I found a windfall in the Deep Roads and used it to move into my family's dilapidated estate in the good part of town" is hardly "global megacorporation" money, nor is it "commandeer every cell phone in the city" money, and certainly not "private space station" money, etc.

But I think I'm a bit confused. Is the problematic part of Batman that he is not 100% altruistic in his motivation? Because I would disagree that's really an issue there. It just means he's not a perfect paragon of goodness. Or is it that a rich boy is beating up members of the lower class? Which I agree is a problematic read of the character. Though one that in my opinion is pretty reductive to the point of meaninglessness.

There is a lot of daylight between "100% altruistic" and "the best way I, the (second?) richest man on the entire planet, can think of to address crime in my city is to prowl its alleys at night personally beating up people far less advantaged than myself." I don't care that Batman isn't perfect, I care that the DCEU has yet to find a reasonable way to address the incongruity between his means and his actions that doesn't leave him coming off as a sociopath that we're supposed to somehow still be rooting for.

[Sapphire Guard]

I feel like there's a misconception that Batman's every day is like the Arkham games. He is not going around beating people randomly, the people being fought are overwhelmingly either mass murderers or people comfortable running security for mass murderers, quite often having taken hostages.

There are also many references to the work the Wayne foundation is doing, but when there's an active hostage situation, throwing money at the problem isn't going to do much.

Meanwhile, Shepard can be responsible for the extinction of entire species.

[Peelee]

I thing that's the writing.

Oh it's definitely the writing. Maybe also the directing. Like I said, I'm not a big Burton fan outside of a couple of movies. Don't really like his style.

[Dienekes]

Spoiler: Bioware Tangent

Show

Saren was innocent until proven guilty (like most defendants in a trial), and there was no evidence to convict him at first. You'll recall that very same trial DID end in his conviction a few quests later, once said evidence was obtained and presented - thanks to Tali - and most of the rest of the game was spent tracking him down to serve the Council's verdict. If you're going to bring up games I've played to try and make a point, don't you think you should remember what happens in them?

I do. Here's what happens. Your government agency brings up a charge against Saren. The Council starts a trial. An eye-witness dock worker's testimony is read about. They don't even bring the guy in for the trial. And then the Council discards it. Shepard -another eye-witness- comes in with support of those charges and is again ignored. There appears to be no organized verification process on the discrepancy between the various reports. And importantly no outside agencies overlooking the process. The Spectres are an arm of the Council. The Council then determines the guilt of the Spectres. They are in essence the same organization. And we know not to let the same organization overlook themselves. For the exact reason of Saren's trial.

When the group of police administrators are the only ones who get to determine if one of their officers is innocent or guilty they will find the officer innocent. Which is why a system with actual oversight doesn't do that. There is an outside judiciary to determine overreach and numerous civilian oversight bodies. The Spectres don't have any of that. Which is what I mean by not having oversight.

There is a lot of daylight between "100% altruistic" and "the best way I, the (second?) richest man on the entire planet, can think of to address crime in my city is to prowl its alleys at night personally beating up people far less advantaged than myself." I don't care that Batman isn't perfect, I care that the DCEU has yet to find a reasonable way to address the incongruity between his means and his actions that doesn't leave him coming off as a sociopath that we're supposed to somehow still be rooting for.

But again... as has been said a few times up thread. It's not, though. And hasn't been the only thing he's been doing since the late 80s-early 90s. He's funded clean politicians with progressive stances on welfare. He's corporation completely runs numerous charity groups to get people off the streets. He's investigated and taken down both big businesses that have used their wealth illegal to suppress people and force them into a life of crime and political elites that used back alley deals to keep Gotham running as it has. Broke up the corruption within Gotham PD. Investigated the abuses within both Blackgate and Arkham. And of course, Wayne Industries and his various charities hire ex-cons to give them a chance at a normal life after serving their sentence.

The writers on the character have been doing quite a lot over the last few decades to point out what structural changes Bruce is making to minimize crime.

[Psyren]

Spoiler: Bioware

Show

Your "eyewitness testimony", wasn't. Shepard didn't see Saren kill anyone (the cutscene of what happens before Shepard arrives on the scene is for our benefit as the player, not in-character) - he/she saw Nihlus' body and a whole lot of geth. That's not enough to convict anyone of murder beyond a reasonable doubt. The intact recording taken directly from the Heretic unit however, was - and the Council exercised their oversight by stripping Saren of his role.

"You claim to not like Batman, yet you like Bioware protagonists, how curious!" is not the hot take you think it is.

I'm not going anywhere near the police stuff, not on this forum.

But again... as has been said a few times up thread. It's not, though. And hasn't been the only thing he's been doing since the late 80s-early 90s. He's funded clean politicians with progressive stances on welfare. He's corporation completely runs numerous charity groups to get people off the streets. He's investigated and taken down both big businesses that have used their wealth illegal to suppress people and force them into a life of crime and political elites that used back alley deals to keep Gotham running as it has. Broke up the corruption within Gotham PD. Investigated the abuses within both Blackgate and Arkham. And of course, Wayne Industries and his various charities hire ex-cons to give them a chance at a normal life after serving their sentence.

The writers on the character have been doing quite a lot over the last few decades to point out what structural changes Bruce is making to minimize crime.

Carefully tuned so that none of it is enough to keep him from donning tights and beating up people far less advantaged than himself. It's weak and offscreen/off-panel lip service, nothing more.

And to get this whole tangent back on topic, film portrayals of Batman by the likes of Snyder and Nolan don't even care about doing those bare minimum things you claim other writers are doing. How can I then feel confident in their ability to handle even more idealistic heroes? The answer is simply, I don't.

[Mordar]

Eh, while I love Jack Nicholson, the older I get the more I don't really think he did a good Joker.

I was focused on the "transitional" part. Moving away from Cesar Romero who really was a "Clown Prince of Crime", the campiest of the camp villains in the campiest of camp superhero shows. He brought forth the sociopathically alien nature of the Joker while still having to wear the gaudy costume. He managed to oscillate between comedically insane and frighteningly insane. The only thing he didn't show, I thought, was the genius nature of the character.

I thing that's the writing. It oscillates between Joker (the loooooooong handgun) and goth serial killer (fascinating war pictures of corpses), and the Joker is kinda the opposite of goth.

I really disagree. No elements of the performance felt goth poser to me. It was fascination with other people's pain and suffering that was driving him, not a sense of ennui and a desire to be perceived as edgy. And certainly not any affection for Euro-rock, Robert Smith (whenever I say his name I think of South Park and that makes me sad) or disaffected youth.

- M

[Willie the Duck]

"Any anyone who knows me knows i would never read a comic book!" - Tim Burton - Kevin Smith

I never got why that movie had rave reviews. It wasn't bad, but it wasnt great. At this point I figure it was one of the first superhero movies that wasn't a complete stinker.

But then I'm not a big fan of Burton in general.

I have different recollections, I remember at the time it was given raves for taking Batman out of the sillier Adam West/Superfriends mold into something more "mature". I don't remember people getting hung up on the "no killing, no guns" thing until after Batman:TAS became more popular.

But then, this was the 80's, where the action movie revolved around mowing down bad guys with a bad pun afterwards.

Edit: Personally, I wasn't a fan of any of the Batman incarnations in TV/film until TAS sold me on the character.

It may be that you are right, DF, and the condemnatory analysis came long after the fact. I agree, the 80s was a time when action heroes demolishing 'bad guys' was rather accepted (perhaps one of the reasons why many people missed/disagreed with Moore's point in Watchmen). I tend to think that Burton made a very passable superhero movie, and a very bad Batman movie. There are some incarnations of Batman where he effectively is Rorschach. There are some where he is the idealized guy whose punches never permanently harm. There are some versions which are Adam West/whomever voiced the Superfriends version mugging and posing and basically winking at the audience.

I think that is part of the point (although honestly I've lost what point most people are trying to make). I seem to recall one of the questions that spawned this was whether Batman 'gets away' with his behavior because he's pretty. To that, I think it's relevant that Batman gets away with his behavior when his behavior isn't similar to Rorschach's, and when he does act like Rorschach, it is usually noticed and commented on as a deviation/subversion/etc.

So the complaint about plot contrivance is voided because of plot contrivance. It's an argumental pincer!

I'm honestly not sure that the plot contrivance issue was the point to which this was addressed.

So, we see two vigilantes doing basically the same thing with drastically different results. Could we suppose that somebody's mythos may be omissive or less than truthful about the after-action report? It might be easy to say the rules vary by author, because it's true enough, but it's also obvious that one character is a reflection of the other (or, at least, the superhero template) in what might as well be the same world but viewed through a different lense. We're giving one a pass due to not being directly shown the downstream effects of his actions, while the other's actions are downplayed to highlight those grim outcomes and it shines the light of implication back into the mirror and onto the source.

I mean, if we want to. I've always interpreted that when one comic has different results of vigilantism or something similar (say, realistic or cinematic explosion physics), it is because the world is working differently, not because someone is lying about what happened. In idealized DC comics, Superman and Batman really do get to save the day with the bad guys never winning or the hostages getting killed in the crossfire or the not-that-evil mook suffers lifelong injuries from the beating, and in gritty DC or in Watchmen, that doesn't happen.

[Dienekes]

Spoiler: Bioware

Show

"You claim to not like Batman, yet you like Bioware protagonists, how curious!" is not the hot take you think it is.

Spoiler: Bioware

Show

It's not really meant to be a hot take so much as indicating that problematic elements in action protagonists are more universal than your initial comment seemed to indicate. As long as you have the world being saved by a single character who's main interaction with opposition is violence in some way there's going to be problems. And hey I enjoy them too, but there are a lot of pretty crazy problems in those games that are not really addressed at all. Preferring to handle easier to express issues like the Genophage or Geth because focusing on those issues still leave wiggle room for Shepard being a cowboy and flying off to distant planets to kill things with no real repercussions outside some character drama.

It's very fun, but it is problematic.

I'm not going anywhere near the police stuff, not on this forum.

Fair enough.

Carefully tuned so that none of it is enough to keep him from donning tights and beating up people far less advantaged than himself. It's weak and offscreen/off-panel lip service, nothing more.

And to get this whole tangent back on topic, film portrayals of Batman by the likes of Snyder and Nolan don't even care about doing those bare minimum things you claim other writers are doing. How can I then feel confident in their ability to handle even more idealistic heroes? The answer is simply, I don't.

It is an action-adventure story. There's always going to be something that brings the plot back to action and adventure. Same way the amazing Black Panther movie was able to discuss a quite interesting take on isolationism, imperialism, and some other things that we will need to dance around on the board. But in the end the format calls for a big punch 'em up between two guys in cat suits.

Batman has had multiple year storylines focusing on him trying to clean up Gotham through targeting those in power. There is still of course action-adventure thrown in as well to keep the readers coming. That those stories don't make it into the movies in favor of getting Bruce taking sadistic pleasure in beating people up is admittedly disappointing. And I agree with you that Snyder and probably Nolan as well are not going to be the ones to bring that development into the movies.

[Psyren]

It's very fun, but it is problematic.
...
It is an action-adventure story. There's always going to be something that brings the plot back to action and adventure. Same way the amazing Black Panther movie was able to discuss a quite interesting take on isolationism, imperialism, and some other things that we will need to dance around on the board. But in the end the format calls for a big punch 'em up between two guys in cat suits.
...
Batman has had multiple year storylines focusing on him trying to clean up Gotham through targeting those in power. There is still of course action-adventure thrown in as well to keep the readers coming. That those stories don't make it into the movies in favor of getting Bruce taking sadistic pleasure in beating people up is admittedly disappointing. And I agree with you that Snyder and probably Nolan as well are not going to be the ones to bring that development into the movies.

I'm glad we agree on his movies - and for the record, I'm not against action, I'm against punching down. You brought up Black Panther, and I think that's a great illustration of how Marvel does this better than DC (in the movies anyway):

Spoiler

Show

T'Challa doesn't patrol the alleys of Wakanda looking for arms to break, nor are his opponents societally disadvantaged, mentally ill, or both. The movies themselves hang a lampshade on how ineffectual Batman's crusade ultimately is, wih lines like Perry White's snark from BvS. "'Crime Wave in Gotham'! Other breaking news: 'Water, wet'!"

T'Challa isn't perfect either, but Wakanda's problems tend to be much larger in scale than things like mobsters - and thus far more often, his fights take him outside it, facing villains and obstacles that are more credibly on his level.

As for Batman in other media, I don't see how those more nuanced stories you claim exist could ever make it to the big screen. A Batman who ceases to patrol the streets and beat up gangsters isn't really Batman anymore. And that's, for me, the fundamental flaw in the character's premise; DC insists on trying to cram all these dissonant aspects into one person for brand recognition/marketing purposes, that make the premise weaker overall. Bruce Wayne needs Tony Stark's wealth and connections, Matt Murdock's vigilantism and rigid morals, T'Challa's use of symbolism and technology to cause fear etc., yet with all of those he doesn't make a dent in the status quo. At least for the MCU, Marvel showed that it's a lot easier to make this work if you just keep those as separate characters. I don't have a solution for DC, but I don't think what they're currently doing is working - hence the constant reboots.

[Lord Raziere]

As for Batman in other media, I don't see how those more nuanced stories you claim exist could ever make it to the big screen. A Batman who ceases to patrol the streets and beat up gangsters isn't really Batman anymore. And that's, for me, the fundamental flaw in the character's premise; DC insists on trying to cram all these dissonant aspects into one person for brand recognition/marketing purposes, that make the premise weaker overall. Bruce Wayne needs Tony Stark's wealth and connections, Matt Murdock's vigilantism and rigid morals, T'Challa's use of symbolism and technology to cause fear etc., yet with all of those he doesn't make a dent in the status quo. At least for the MCU, Marvel showed that it's a lot easier to make this work if you just keep those as separate characters. I don't have a solution for DC, but I don't think what they're currently doing is working - hence the constant reboots.

You have it backwards: they constantly reboot it, because its working.

for whatever reason, Batman despite people on the internet constantly claiming he is a problematic rich person punching down, he still sells and is seen as a near-superman level paragon of justice by his fans. The stories that they're used to are the ones in Gotham, defeating the same rogues gallery. So thats what they write. a change in status quo means you have to come up with new stories, and established corporations consider new stories risky and unreliable, because you don't know if they are going to be a hit or not. they're not the people that make stories that work, they're the people that find stories that are already working and keep them consistent.

[Mordar]

Carefully tuned so that none of it is enough to keep him from donning tights and beating up people far less advantaged than himself. It's weak and offscreen/off-panel lip service, nothing more.

And to get this whole tangent back on topic, film portrayals of Batman by the likes of Snyder and Nolan don't even care about doing those bare minimum things you claim other writers are doing. How can I then feel confident in their ability to handle even more idealistic heroes? The answer is simply, I don't.

I know that is reduction for effect, but I seem to miss the segments of the movies where Batman kicks the crap out of random people experiencing homelessness (and construction workers, doctors, research physicists, deli clerks, perfume spritzers and magazine publishers), people of the non-locally-dominant race/ethnicity/religion/origin, and...well...just about anyone that isn't a Saudi prince, founder of a private multinational conglomerate, or someone with actual super-powers. After all, who short of Lex Luthor, Superman or King T'Challa could be considered less advantaged than Bruce Wayne?

I'm glad we agree on his movies - and for the record, I'm not against action, I'm against punching down. You brought up Black Panther, and I think that's a great illustration of how Marvel does this better than DC (in the movies anyway):

Spoiler

Show

T'Challa isn't perfect either, but Wakanda's problems tend to be much larger in scale than things like mobsters - and thus far more often, his fights take him outside it, facing villains and obstacles that are more credibly on his level.

As for Batman in other media, I don't see how those more nuanced stories you claim exist could ever make it to the big screen. A Batman who ceases to patrol the streets and beat up gangsters isn't really Batman anymore. And that's, for me, the fundamental flaw in the character's premise; DC insists on trying to cram all these dissonant aspects into one person for brand recognition/marketing purposes, that make the premise weaker overall. Bruce Wayne needs Tony Stark's wealth and connections, Matt Murdock's vigilantism and rigid morals, T'Challa's use of symbolism and technology to cause fear etc., yet with all of those he doesn't make a dent in the status quo. At least for the MCU, Marvel showed that it's a lot easier to make this work if you just keep those as separate characters. I don't have a solution for DC, but I don't think what they're currently doing is working - hence the constant reboots.

Along the same lines, I didn't see those kidnappers as having royal bloodlines, limitless wealth, ultra-advanced technology, or a sciency-magic herb that gave them super-human speed, strength and endurance. He clearly shouldn't have beat the crap out of them just because he wanted his sorta-girlfriend to come to his high (Wakandan) society party. Even the fight with M'Baku was punching down. I know you said T'Challa isn't perfect...but for every Batman beatdown handed out to an unfortunate who made some volume of really bad decisions you can find a Black Panther (or Daredevil, or Iron Man) fight that shows the same, at least within shared relative time periods.

I don't think DC isn't trying to cram the traits you mention in to one character...they were there all along, Tony Stark, Matt Murdock, T'Challa are all children of Bruce Wayne's legacy. Sure, many audiences need more nuance now than they did 70 years ago, and the deconstructors have had a confounding impact, but the "base" character doesn't seem to have strayed too far from some of those defining traits. Of course, if you just mean the DC movies (which I think is probably the case)...well, cramming is kind of what those have been all about.

My opinion on what DC should do with the films is primarily stop trying to be Marvel. Stop chasing big names to be the key roles (they seem to have gotten better there), and tell the DC stories. Save the dark-and-gritty and do the uplifting, non-flawed superhero thing. Superman is a paragon boyscout. Batman never stops trying to make Gotham better. Aquaman isn't a disaffected party boy. Wonder Woman doesn't give up her powers to misuse some poor schmuck's body. Green Lantern doesn't have a crisis of will. You get the idea...screw the modern fanboy and go for the heart of the characters that appeals to the young and the old.

- M

[Psyren]

You have it backwards: they constantly reboot it, because its working.

Fantastic Four finds this logic interesting

I don't deny that the property as a whole has enduring qualities (I absolutely love Harley Quinn's show for instance, and I did enjoy Dark Knight - though more for the Joker than Bats himself), but at the same time, I only see the concerns with the character's premise continuing to grow. And whatever success it had, "make it more like Batman" has almost certainly been one of the DCEU's larger stumbling blocks, one that Snyder looks set to double down on with this darker cut of JL.

I know that is reduction for effect, but I seem to miss the segments of the movies where Batman kicks the crap out of random people experiencing homelessness (and construction workers, doctors, research physicists, deli clerks, perfume spritzers and magazine publishers), people of the non-locally-dominant race/ethnicity/religion/origin, and...well...just about anyone that isn't a Saudi prince, founder of a private multinational conglomerate, or someone with actual super-powers. After all, who short of Lex Luthor, Superman or King T'Challa could be considered less advantaged than Bruce Wayne?

You missed all the henchmen? They don't sprout from the ether you know...

Along the same lines, I didn't see those kidnappers as having royal bloodlines, limitless wealth, ultra-advanced technology, or a sciency-magic herb that gave them super-human speed, strength and endurance. He clearly shouldn't have beat the crap out of them just because he wanted his sorta-girlfriend to come to his high (Wakandan) society party.

Uh... "kidnappers?" Do you mean the multinational human trafficking ring that Nakia was infiltrating?

I don't think DC isn't trying to cram the traits you mention in to one character...they were there all along, Tony Stark, Matt Murdock, T'Challa are all children of Bruce Wayne's legacy. Sure, many audiences need more nuance now than they did 70 years ago, and the deconstructors have had a confounding impact, but the "base" character doesn't seem to have strayed too far from some of those defining traits. Of course, if you just mean the DC movies (which I think is probably the case)...well, cramming is kind of what those have been all about.

My opinion on what DC should do with the films is primarily stop trying to be Marvel. Stop chasing big names to be the key roles (they seem to have gotten better there), and tell the DC stories. Save the dark-and-gritty and do the uplifting, non-flawed superhero thing. Superman is a paragon boyscout. Batman never stops trying to make Gotham better. Aquaman isn't a disaffected party boy. Wonder Woman doesn't give up her powers to misuse some poor schmuck's body. Green Lantern doesn't have a crisis of will. You get the idea...screw the modern fanboy and go for the heart of the characters that appeals to the young and the old.

Some of it was there all along but there has definitely been, let's call it drift.

Spoiler

Show

Bruce was always wealthy, but when they needed him to regularly hang out/do battle with alien gods and magic-users, they inflated his wealth to "I-fund-the-entire-League-and-provide-them-a-private-space-station" wealthy - i.e. the kind of money that should make a much bigger difference in a single city than it is ever shown to, if he cares as much as he says he does. Bruce was always very smart, but they needed to justify him hanging out with the groups mentioned above, so it became "I-have-detailed-files-that-will-let-me-1v1-any-of-those-aforementioned-alien-gods-with-some-prep-time." Put those together, and I'd expect a more permanent solution for gangsters in assorted makeup than punching them.

As for the movies, I agree with most of what you say - but trying to be the Avengers isn't their only problem, just the one most tied to Snyder's task of executing here. (Certainly Wonder Woman's stumble wasn't tied to trying to be Marvel, I can't recall any Marvel movies that made that particular misstep.)

[Peelee]

Fantastic Four finds this logic interesting

I didn't know that Spider-Man was such a big cinematic thematic failure.

[Sapphire Guard]

Do you have specific henchmen in mind, Psyren?

As an example, let's look at BVS.

Spoiler

Show

There are three henchmen fights.

First one? Against some kind of human trafficking gang that is keeping women in cages.

Second? Anatoly's crew, which has massacred an African village among other things.

Third? The same crew, who have kidnapped an innocent woman and have orders to incinerate her alive after a certain time.

So who are these innocent henchmen?

T'Challa has no excuse to do anything personally at all. He spends time fighting people with guns to which his suit is completely invulnerable unless he deliberately chooses to handicap himself, and he could easily improve the fortunes of Africa by doing more to help Wakanda's neighbours, but he doesn't. The outreach centre he makes is in Oakland, California instead of anywhere closer to home. It's all of Batman's problems but worse.

Marvel New York is also much worse than Gotham, despite people like Stark, Reed Richards, Danny Rand etc all being locals. Punisher's been killing people since the seventies, but somehow never runs out of criminals.