The Batman - 2022

[Talakeal]

It's a good clap-back whenever I hear someone saying 'wahhh why didn't minorities just make their own characters'. Because they were literally not allowed to. And if the creators of the greatest comic superhero couldn't even do it how they wanted then how was anyone else supposed to.

I really think that is a more modern complaint about rebooting established characters as minorities than about the lack of minorities in old time comics.

Even in the Silver Age there are plenty of new minority characters, and that tend has only picked up steam afaict.

The original Superman didn't stop and say, oh gosh, that would be illegal. No! He was flying straight into billionaires offices, kidnapping them, and forcing them to fight on the front-line of a war they were profiting from all the while laughing at their attempts to not be shot by a gun they sold. Superman forced corrupt bosses to experience the horrible conditions they put their workers through. He was straight up picking up cop cars and rescuing the arrested people inside if he didn't agree with them being arrested. And these aren't even corrupt cops, just regular cops, but Superman doesn't recognize their authority because he is all-powerful and more moral than them, what can they do? Superman is punk as hell.

Ok. Now take that same character and pretend he disagrees with you about key political issues, but still acts in the exact same way. Does he still seem awesome to you?

[Phobia]

It's fair play because minorities weren't allowed to make characters then or were forced to make them white.

So am I to understand that you consider billionaires profiting off of wars or forcing their employees to work in unsafe conditions as your main political viewpoints

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulu: Let's steer this conversation in a safer direction, away from the Inappropriate Topics iceberg looming ahead?

[Talakeal]

So am I to understand that you consider billionaires profiting off of wars or forcing their employees to work in unsafe conditions as your main political viewpoints

No. I am saying that if you try and keep superman interesting by having him use violence to solve social issues, you risk alienating a large portion of your audience. One man’s hero is another man’s villain and all that.

Its far safer to have him punch bank robbers who everyone agrees are bad guys regardless of their position on the political spectrum, even if it is less interesting.

[Psyren]

The thing about Superman is that he has a substantial and well-known rogue's gallery that you can solve through force (or brainpower followed by force) without any kind of ethical concerns. Darkseid, Braniac, Metallo, Zod, Doomsday, Mongul, Bizarro, even Lex when he throws on that Warsuit thing - all of them typically need a super-powered punch in the face to resolve, and those are just the household names. Moreover, even when those villains do employ minions, they tend to be more on the "nonsapient drone" or "weaker but still powerful clone of me" end of the spectrum, than disenfranchised patsy who might be trying to make ends meet.

Batman meanwhile gets a bit stickier. Even among the pure metahumans in his gallery like Clayface, Killer Croc, Man-Bat or Mr. Freeze, you tend to find tragic backstories / societal implications of some kind that make beating them into submission more questionable. And the majority of his gallery aren't metahumans at all, putting them at a heavy disadvantage without legions of goons in their employ, which can't help but look like punching down. There's a few unsympathetic faces in there like Ras al-Ghul, Deathstroke or Bane where Bats can be shown to be punching up instead, but it's fairly thin on the ground overall, and even most of those tend to have the same mook agency problem. (I think the only one who basically never uses sapient/human minions is Deathstroke, and he is just as often in the antihero bucket.)

[Traab]

Even Bane has a sorta sympathetic back story. Basically born and raised in prison, forced to kill his first person at I think 8 years old, etc etc etc. Also the whole "Hopelessly addicted to drugs" thing. Heck you could probably portray ras and deathstroke as sympathetic to one degree or another as well. Or at least portions of their backstory. But yeah, his gallery is kinda wild, there is a reason so many of them have had story arcs where they honestly go legit, or at least try to. And it works for a time, until everything falls apart and they go back to crime for whatever reason. Honestly, Freeze could be handled just by hiring the man and providing him with the best equipment to do research to cure his wife and see what else he comes up with in the process. Probably a lot cheaper than incarcerating him and repairing the damages caused by his crime sprees. Dude isnt evil, he is desperate to save his wife. Turns out its hard to get research grants as an unemployed felon so he has to get his funding elsewhere.

[Anteros]

Great Modthulu: Let's steer this conversation in a safer direction, away from the Inappropriate Topics iceberg looming ahead?

Pretty sure we already rammed straight through that iceberg and are in the bucketing stage.

Back to Batman. I've always wanted a "horror movie" style film where it's Batman stalking the criminals and picking them off one by one. Either that, or one that actually plays up his intelligence and skill. Batman walking through a hail of gunfire because he's rock enough to afford magic armor is the absolute least interesting take possible on the character.

[Dragonus45]

Pretty sure we already rammed straight through that iceberg and are in the bucketing stage.

Back to Batman. I've always wanted a "horror movie" style film where it's Batman stalking the criminals and picking them off one by one. Either that, or one that actually plays up his intelligence and skill. Batman walking through a hail of gunfire because he's rock enough to afford magic armor is the absolute least interesting take possible on the character.

I'm withholding judgement till I actually see where the whole take goes, but Batman as the frustrated unsubtle ball of anger issues and angst who is far more brutal and less elegant then normal portrayals could go somewhere interesting if they have the fortitude to actually explore how screwed up Wayne must be and not just have it all be fanservice and fluff.

[Phobia]

No. I am saying that if you try and keep superman interesting by having him use violence to solve social issues, you risk alienating a large portion of your audience. One man’s hero is another man’s villain and all that.

Its far safer to have him punch bank robbers who everyone agrees are bad guys regardless of their position on the political spectrum, even if it is less interesting.

You understand that I'm talking about literal issues of Superman when he was first made that you can go and read now, right? I was specifically trying to prove that Superman wasn't boring. Not sure why you'd come at me with all toxic political energy when all I was talking about bad guys doing bad guys in my post.

[Wintermoot]

No. I am saying that if you try and keep superman interesting by having him use violence to solve social issues, you risk alienating a large portion of your audience. One man’s hero is another man’s villain and all that.

Its far safer to have him punch bank robbers who everyone agrees are bad guys regardless of their position on the political spectrum, even if it is less interesting.

I definitely disagree with your take on the matter. For 80+ years, comic books have been on the FOREFRONT of using their reach and influence to speak to social issues and have political messages. Given how this particular forum is moderated, I won't be listing examples. But I would hate to see the artform lose its status in that arena by being scared of alienating a potential audience B by watering down their message. Trying to convince audience B of political message A is part of the point.

And it works both ways. I'm pretty hardcore audience A on most political issues. There are creators, like Garth Ennis, who are hardcore message B. While I fundamentally disagree with most of what he has to say, there are times he's made me think and alter my stance through his writing.

[Talakeal]

I definitely disagree with your take on the matter. For 80+ years, comic books have been on the FOREFRONT of using their reach and influence to speak to social issues and have political messages. Given how this particular forum is moderated, I won't be listing examples. But I would hate to see the artform lose its status in that arena by being scared of alienating a potential audience B by watering down their message. Trying to convince audience B of political message A is part of the point.

And it works both ways. I'm pretty hardcore audience A on most political issues. There are creators, like Garth Ennis, who are hardcore message B. While I fundamentally disagree with most of what he has to say, there are times he's made me think and alter my stance through his writing.

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

The Superman isn't as political now as he was in the golden age? That taking a strong political stance in a comic can turn off readers who disagree with you? That DC regards the image of Superman as an iconic representation of their company?


Note that I am absolutely not saying people shouldn't get political in their writing or that creatives shouldn't be allowed to write whatever they want. If Frank Miller wants to write a Superman story in the same vain as Holy Terror, he 100% has my support, but that doesn't mean that I am going to enjoy reading it.


Now, Golden Age Superman, to me, comes across as a juvenile revenge fantasy about being strong enough to bully the bullies. That can come across as good (most Bugs Bunny cartoons), bad (the 2004 Punisher) or deliberately monstrous (Saw). I personally don't think it works for Superman as I tend to take it a little more seriously as I find black and white ideas of "good and bad" to be a little more nebulous and realize that if Superman actually existed he would likely disagree with me on a number of issues.

[Psyren]

Even Bane has a sorta sympathetic back story. Basically born and raised in prison, forced to kill his first person at I think 8 years old, etc etc etc. Also the whole "Hopelessly addicted to drugs" thing. Heck you could probably portray ras and deathstroke as sympathetic to one degree or another as well. Or at least portions of their backstory. But yeah, his gallery is kinda wild, there is a reason so many of them have had story arcs where they honestly go legit, or at least try to. And it works for a time, until everything falls apart and they go back to crime for whatever reason. Honestly, Freeze could be handled just by hiring the man and providing him with the best equipment to do research to cure his wife and see what else he comes up with in the process. Probably a lot cheaper than incarcerating him and repairing the damages caused by his crime sprees. Dude isnt evil, he is desperate to save his wife. Turns out its hard to get research grants as an unemployed felon so he has to get his funding elsewhere.

Agreed - and, well, that last sentence gets us right back to "unfortunate societal implications of his rogues that not many of the comics (and none of the movies) seem willing to adequately explore."

I'm withholding judgement till I actually see where the whole take goes, but Batman as the frustrated unsubtle ball of anger issues and angst who is far more brutal and less elegant then normal portrayals could go somewhere interesting if they have the fortitude to actually explore how screwed up Wayne must be and not just have it all be fanservice and fluff.

I could be wrong, but didn't Frank Miller's All-Star B&R try for the "super edgelord/brutal messed-up-in-the-head" Batman? And people hated it so much it got cut short and left in editorial limbo?

[Rodin]

Back to Batman. I've always wanted a "horror movie" style film where it's Batman stalking the criminals and picking them off one by one. Either that, or one that actually plays up his intelligence and skill. Batman walking through a hail of gunfire because he's rock enough to afford magic armor is the absolute least interesting take possible on the character.

I would love to see a full horror movie Batman - or even "Batman" if doing something that experimental with a beloved comic figure doesn't appeal. Start out with a Reservoir Dogs style band of criminals - a band with good chemistry that doesn't completely know or like one another. Get them robbing a big building like an old bank or a museum. Show the crime, show them being scummy. They're on their way out with the loot.

And then somebody activates the security system and locks the door. We don't follow "the hero" at all. We watch the villains getting picked off one by one. Divisions set in, the criminals start fighting each other as much as the mysterious force grabbing them. In some ways I think it would be even better if it wasn't Batman, but a more lethal opponent. Think Die Hard, but entirely from the villain's perspective.

Sounds like a good time to me.

[Dragonus45]

I could be wrong, but didn't Frank Miller's All-Star B&R try for the "super edgelord/brutal messed-up-in-the-head" Batman? And people hated it so much it got cut short and left in editorial limbo?

Well, his take on uberbat Batman is really not what I had in mind. But even if it was, the caveat of wanting to see it explored well with quality writing and acting would apply.

[Traab]

I would love to see a full horror movie Batman - or even "Batman" if doing something that experimental with a beloved comic figure doesn't appeal. Start out with a Reservoir Dogs style band of criminals - a band with good chemistry that doesn't completely know or like one another. Get them robbing a big building like an old bank or a museum. Show the crime, show them being scummy. They're on their way out with the loot.

And then somebody activates the security system and locks the door. We don't follow "the hero" at all. We watch the villains getting picked off one by one. Divisions set in, the criminals start fighting each other as much as the mysterious force grabbing them. In some ways I think it would be even better if it wasn't Batman, but a more lethal opponent. Think Die Hard, but entirely from the villain's perspective.

Sounds like a good time to me.

Ive been suggesting a villain focused batman movie for some time now. One that focuses on the story from their side of things and a horror movie style batman would be PEFECT. The bad guy is basically setting up his home alone style plan to deal with the big bad bat, and he is watching in horror as his traps are bypassed, his hired muscle vanishes one by one in the shadows, etc etc etc. Its like watching a horror movie where the main character finally is acting against jason or mike myers or whoever and fighting for their life against the relentless force pursuing them. I mean, you dont even have to change batman any for it to work. Dude is king of the jump scares when dealing with bad guys. Only difference is he is nonlethal with his attacks so rather than a rebar impaling you from behind its a quick knockout blow as you get dragged up to the rafters tied up. So instead of a gory end we get a muffled yell and bug eyed look of shock then we cut away to his partner who just turned around only to see nobody there. I think that would be so freaking awesome. I mean, we have already done a series of bad guy focused films, primarily meant to make them more sympathetic but still, so going a new step in that general direction could probably be a financial success.

[BloodSquirrel]

I could be wrong, but didn't Frank Miller's All-Star B&R try for the "super edgelord/brutal messed-up-in-the-head" Batman? And people hated it so much it got cut short and left in editorial limbo?

I expect that they mean they want a take on Batman that treats those qualities as tragic rather than aspirational.

[Brackenlord]

Ive been suggesting a villain focused batman movie for some time now. One that focuses on the story from their side of things and a horror movie style batman would be PEFECT. The bad guy is basically setting up his home alone style plan to deal with the big bad bat, and he is watching in horror as his traps are bypassed, his hired muscle vanishes one by one in the shadows, etc etc etc. Its like watching a horror movie where the main character finally is acting against jason or mike myers or whoever and fighting for their life against the relentless force pursuing them. I mean, you dont even have to change batman any for it to work. Dude is king of the jump scares when dealing with bad guys. Only difference is he is nonlethal with his attacks so rather than a rebar impaling you from behind its a quick knockout blow as you get dragged up to the rafters tied up. So instead of a gory end we get a muffled yell and bug eyed look of shock then we cut away to his partner who just turned around only to see nobody there. I think that would be so freaking awesome. I mean, we have already done a series of bad guy focused films, primarily meant to make them more sympathetic but still, so going a new step in that general direction could probably be a financial success.

The introduction of Suicide Squad (the first and terrible attempt) does a good albeit short job of showing the bat trough the rogue's lenses, being trounced and captured.

[lord_khaine]

If that were true, Superman would have been kept as far from the hands of Zack Snyder as was possible within the confines of this earth.

And thanks to internet rage likes yours, I've never actually seen those movies. I barely remember the internet parodies of them. aside from maybe a couple jokes about things like "Martha" or Wonder Woman's theme being used a lot. But I still remember what Superman stands for and what he should be.

I do think this is a fairly unfair sentiment.
For all the crap Zack Snyders version of Superman gets, and yeah it certainly does have its flaws.
Then i will also point out its the Superman, who when given a fraction of a second, leaps in between the jerk who kidnapped his mom. And his own Super-powered creation.

Had he hesitated for even a second, Luthor would be a fine red paste upon the walls. He was likely the guy Superman hated more than anyone else.
And he risked his life to save him without a moments notice. The movie does have plenty of flaws. But thats the most -Superman- moment we have ever gotten in a movie.
So i will defend it to my dying breath for at least getting the core of who Superman is.

Now, Golden Age Superman, to me, comes across as a juvenile revenge fantasy about being strong enough to bully the bullies. That can come across as good (most Bugs Bunny cartoons), bad (the 2004 Punisher) or deliberately monstrous (Saw). I personally don't think it works for Superman as I tend to take it a little more seriously as I find black and white ideas of "good and bad" to be a little more nebulous and realize that if Superman actually existed he would likely disagree with me on a number of issues.

He was a bit of a jerk there sometimes.
So yeah. I do like how the concept has matured down the line.
Being less about judging people. More about inspiring (and punching other alien space gods or horrors man should not know).

[Dragonus45]

I expect that they mean they want a take on Batman that treats those qualities as tragic rather than aspirational.

That sums it up yea, although Batdick is still too far along the curve of awful to be a useful reference point for what I'm thinking on.

[Anteros]

The introduction of Suicide Squad (the first and terrible attempt) does a good albeit short job of showing the bat trough the rogue's lenses, being trounced and captured.

There's a short scene in the terrible Assault on Arkham movie that does a bit of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzxH9hu0GTw

The look on the Villain's faces when they realize Batman is there is the only good part of the whole movie.

I do think this is a fairly unfair sentiment.
For all the crap Zack Snyders version of Superman gets, and yeah it certainly does have its flaws.
Then i will also point out its the Superman, who when given a fraction of a second, leaps in between the jerk who kidnapped his mom. And his own Super-powered creation.

Had he hesitated for even a second, Luthor would be a fine red paste upon the walls. He was likely the guy Superman hated more than anyone else.
And he risked his life to save him without a moments notice. The movie does have plenty of flaws. But thats the most -Superman- moment we have ever gotten in a movie.
So i will defend it to my dying breath for at least getting the core of who Superman is.

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

[Dragonus45]

There's a short scene in the terrible Assault on Arkham movie that does a bit of this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzxH9hu0GTw

The look on the Villain's faces when they realize Batman is there is the only good part of the whole movie.



Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

Yea, although there is something to be said for the idea that for Clark reaching the point of becoming Superman the paragon of kindness and decency could be something of a journey what he started out as in Man of Steel just feels alien and unpleasant. The Superman Earth One comic actually did a great job at that and honestly could have been a decent starting point for a movie adaptation now that I think about it.

[lord_khaine]

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

That was exceptionally dumb true. At the same time i put that squarely on the shoulders of the dead. Who basically told him not to save him.
At the same time. Clark was a kid back then. And yeah. There is something to be said for the idea that becomming Superman was a journey.

[BloodSquirrel]

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

To me, that was more the moment where Pa Kent decided to commit suicide just to screw with his adoptive son. And it still wasn't as bad as the part where Pa told him he should have let a bus full of children drown.

[lord_khaine]

To me, that was more the moment where Pa Kent decided to commit suicide just to screw with his adoptive son. And it still wasn't as bad as the part where Pa told him he should have let a bus full of children drown.

Pa Kent was in turn really screwed up. Clark became a hero not because of him.
But despite of him. This is one of the mistakes Snyder made.

[Vahnavoi]

Still can't get over the time he sat and watched his dad die when it would have been trivial to save him just because there would be a slight chance someone would figure out his identity. I don't know who that person is, but it isn't Superman.

As one of the few people who liked Man of Steel, I'm of the opinion that people who harp on said scene are being unfair.

1) it's somewhat the point that Clark ISN'T Superman at that point of the movie. He's an angry young dude having an argument with his adoptive dad.

2) It's an important part of Superman mythos that he has a SECRET identity. This scene is the movie's attempt to reconcile the idea of someone who is an ultra-powerful altruist from early age, with that. The entire flashback is told in context of Clark explaining to Lois why her attempts to reveal his secrets is kinda bad. "Hey, did you know, my dad was willing to die so I could come out on my own terms, you're kind of taking a crap on all that?"

3) Pa Kent is never portrayed as being 100% in the right - Clark calls him out every time. He still very much has a point, in his concern over his adoptive son's future. It's not unreasonable to want to give his son a chance to reveal his world-changing secret when he feels ready, rather than when a random externality, such as bus failing or a storm, forces his hand.

4) Clark is obviously conflicted over the whole thing, but comes to a working compromise - his identity as Superman, which he further reinforces when he brings that spydrone down at the end of movie. There's a pretty strong statement about trust and right to privacy in this plotline, which I find worthy of a modern day Superman.

Tl;dr: don't blame Clark for his dad's heroic sacrifice.

[Psyren]

"My adoptive dad was willing to die to keep my secret" is one thing. "My adoptive dad would be okay with a bus full of children drowning to keep my secret" is something else entirely.

[Vahnavoi]

And? Clark never accepts that line of thought and, if you pay attention, neither does Pa Kent. It's a bad argument he makes when he's upset and part of the conflict between him and his son. The difference between Clark in the movie and audience like you is that Clark is willing to let him off the hook and remember him for the positive example he set.

[Psyren]

And? Clark never accepts that line of thought and, if you pay attention, neither does Pa Kent. It's a bad argument he makes when he's upset and part of the conflict between him and his son. The difference between Clark in the movie and audience like you is that Clark is willing to let him off the hook and remember him for the positive example he set.

You misunderstand - it's Snyder I'm not letting off the hook, not Pa Kent. Going there in the first place just shows his poor understanding of the character.

[Anteros]

And? Clark never accepts that line of thought and, if you pay attention, neither does Pa Kent. It's a bad argument he makes when he's upset and part of the conflict between him and his son. The difference between Clark in the movie and audience like you is that Clark is willing to let him off the hook and remember him for the positive example he set.

They still wrote it and chose to include it in the movie. They could have easily not had that scene or replaced it with a more wholesome or uplifting one.

[Vahnavoi]

You misunderstand - it's Snyder I'm not letting off the hook, not Pa Kent. Going there in the first place just shows his poor understanding of the character.

I'd seen a dozen or so versions of Pa Kent before Man of Steel and none of those established the character in my mind in such a way that Snyder's take even seemed off. But even if you convinced me it's the same character in name only, I wouldn't care. For comparison, the MJ in the newest Spiderman is nothing like MJ I knew from prior iterations, I don't care, the actress and the character are fine and do their job in context of the movie they're in. Ditto for Pa Kent.

They still wrote it and chose to include it in the movie. They could have easily not had that scene or replaced it with a more wholesome or uplifting one.

And? The scene works fine and supports the overall theme Snyder's going for. It set ups a moral conflict the movie later resolves. Saying they could've made a different movie isn't much of a criticism.