These Days It Makes More Sense for Batman to Be a Villain

[TheFeniX]

The thing about Batman is that he changes with the times. 1950's Batman and cast would look ridicolous or bizarre today. Batman's character is subtly altered, sometimes forcefully, all the time to fit new conceptions and taste. When criminals became organized and less thugish, he became a competent detective. When criminals can buy fancy gadgets, he gets gadgets of his own.

True, but his basic archetype is still Zorro. If you want to "re-imagine" Batman, that's one thing. But even campy West Batman could still do lots of crime fighting. My issue is with the idea of treating Batman as some kind of archaic idea when he's anything but.

Maybe... I don't know, humanity will reach a point where 99% of people have so much natural empathy the idea of harming another person or ignoring the plight of suffering people will become an alien idea. But I can't really see a realistic depiction of humanity where a fictional concept of someone like Batman, Zorro, Robin Hood, Speedy Gonzales, whatever won't be a popular idea and considered a hero.

Unless you're writing click-bait articles I guess. And let's be honest here: even Bale Batman is fucking ridiculous. His costume and toys look badass by modern standards. But the idea of a billionaire in a failed city using his money to find fancy ways to punch bad guys in the face is ridiculous. Zorro made a lot more sense considering the time, location, and technology.

Watchmen is a deconstruction of the entire classic superhero genre which rather directly addresses the concepts underlying Batman in not one but three different characters with their own aspects.

Once again, true. And that's because Watchmen deals with what would "realistically" happen when you had supers running around the world, which is usually where you find deconstructions even if they have their own crazy shenanigans. Batman can't really fit in here for multiple reasons.

Or better, a place where he isn't needed, an utopia. A place where the tragedy that defines him simply don't happen, where no child's parents are gunned down by a ruthless mugger for their wallets and jewelry. Where the criminals (such as they are) don't need face-punching from a borderline-superhuman ninja-detective preying on superstition. Where all his near-superhuman skills are simply not needed, where the police are well equipped and trained to handle the crime that is and supervillains are either never made or are actually cured before they could start their rampage. That would actually be rather hellish place for him.

I don't agree here. Batman would love that provided it was an actual Utopia. He either grows up a kid with two loving parents, thus the idea of becoming Batman never enters his mind or he finds a world where no one needs his help and he hangs up his cape. At the end of the day, he's only a rich kid. It's not like Superman or any other actual "supers" finding a Utopia then having to fit in as a total outsider where all their gifts are not only "useless," but have the potential to cause loads of damage.

EDIT: Actually, in this case I could see the supers being the catalyst for the downfall of the utopia just by nature of existing and being known. They would breed fear in a fearless populace by being so far and above them all.

[GuppyShark]

Throttle back, man... I was just using it as an example.

My apologies, I overreacted.

[biostem]

Throttle back, man... I was just using it as an example.

My apologies, I overreacted.

NP. Cheers!

[Q99]

Weirdly, Adam West and Silver Age Batman is arguably the more realistic on the legal side- He's deputized. He's basically the government agent in charge of handling Very Weird Supervillains in Gotham.

Also I'll add, even in a city where face-punching didn't help, I bet you could still tell a pretty sweet Batman- because odds are anonymous tips from the World's Greatest Detective would be useful! Batman's partially Zorro, but he's also part Sherlock Holmes.

[Joun_Lord]

Also I'll add, even in a city where face-punching didn't help, I bet you could still tell a pretty sweet Batman- because odds are anonymous tips from the World's Greatest Detective would be useful! Batman's partially Zorro, but he's also part Sherlock Holmes.

I think thats what you'd probably have with a Batman in a real-ish world. He probably wouldn't be out slapping dudes around too much but mostly using his intelligence and know how to aid actual law enforcement. He probably wouldn't even be Batman, he'd be Bruce Wayne pretty much acting like the rich dude from the fairly recent show APB where its some dude giving high tech tools to the cops to help them do their jobs safer and better. Heck I could see Bruce become a cop himself.

Batman exists because the cops don't work. In the real world there are certainly problems with law enforcement but nowhere near the level of corruption or incompetence on display in Gotham.

It seems like the author wants a Batman like the Wonder Woman from the thankfully dead on arrival "pants to be darkened" tv pilot. It was a show that existed in a world more or less like our own, there was a little corruption and some crime. Nothing super bad though. Certainly nothing to warrant the full Goddamn Batman treatment. But in the pilot WW was full on crazy Steve, horribly maiming people, breaking laws, breaking bones, full on killing people, using her friends in the government to cover up her misdeeds, using her money and influence to do so too, pretty much being the super villain.

That pilot failed to get off the ground because it was freaking ridiculous. Because some hero sticking pipes through rent-a-cops necks was goddamn stupid. The supposed hero acting almost as bad if not worse was just dumb.

Which is another stupid thing about the article, yeah in the real world Batman would be the bad guy. Doesn't in any way suddenly make the Joker the good guy no matter if he was cured. Joker is at best a reformed criminal but most of his incarnations he isn't just some relatively harmless criminal clown, he a murderer, a mass murderer. I really never agreed with the view of the Joker being some dark mirror of Batman, some genius or some agent of chaos. He's usually just a terrorist with clown make-up and quite often like the Nolan films seems to only pull off his stunts because Scarecrow was still putting chemicals into the water to make everyone dumb.

This whole thing is just stupid. Its pretty much what if some guy was a vigilante thug and some other guy stood against him. Its not Batman and the Joker, its two jackasses somebody is calling Batman and the Joker but have nothing in common with the characters other then the name. Mind you I like alternate interpretations of characters. Evil Batman is kinda fun, good Joker sounds interesting. But these what if characters shouldn't be thought of as some valid interpretation, some deep bullshit or something.

I dunno, this just gives me bad vibes like that whole moronic "Captain Amerikkka was secretly a Nazi the whole time!!!!!" shit Marvel recently pulled.

[TheFeniX]

I never got this Joker being necessary to The Batman part. Yes, his crime are amazingly random and he exists solely to cause chaos (in some incarnations), but it's not like that stops Batman from catching him. He keeps showing up not because "you can't control everything" but because no one makes a solid attempt to actually control The Joker (ignoring just killing him). This idea might play more for me if The Joker was so random, so just batshit crazy in his plans/crimes, yet smart enough to not put himself out there, that Batsy could never put him behind bars or could never get enough of a solid bead to lay hands on him. That would actually make more sense if you were going for this "two sides to the same coin" deal.

Basically: The Joker, like The Batman, is doing more damage/good because he's like a friggin' ghost. The idea of him, more than the reality, is terrifying to the citizens much like Batman is terrifying to criminals. However, I have very few complaints with, at least the Hamill version, the Joker as a character. I just think fans jerk it to him too much, and now some of those fans are DC comic writers.

Weirdly, Adam West and Silver Age Batman is arguably the more realistic on the legal side- He's deputized. He's basically the government agent in charge of handling Very Weird Supervillains in Gotham.

Someone had to sanction those sweet dance moves.

Also I'll add, even in a city where face-punching didn't help, I bet you could still tell a pretty sweet Batman- because odds are anonymous tips from the World's Greatest Detective would be useful! Batman's partially Zorro, but he's also part Sherlock Holmes.

To be fair to Zorro, he's also part Sherlock Holmes. A large part of his character is constantly making fools of "law enforcement." Obviously, this is a break from Batman as the police in Gotham were mostly salvageable, but Zorro needed his brains just as much as his brawn/physical prowess to stay one step ahead of his enemies and hide his true identity.

[Zixinus]

True, but his basic archetype is still Zorro.

Quite. A champion of justice, just as a face-punching ninja rather than fancy sword-work.

If you want to "re-imagine" Batman, that's one thing.

Batman gets "re-imagined" with every new author and artist. They all approach and play with the same ideas.

My issue is with the idea of treating Batman as some kind of archaic idea when he's anything but.

What I was trying to argue, and what I failed because I didn't expand on my point, is that he isn't archaic because he constantly gets updated. 1950's Batman might look odd and stupid (and I'm not saying it necessarily does because I haven't read 1950's Batman) but frankly so will any superhero.

I don't agree here. Batman would love that provided it was an actual Utopia. He either grows up a kid with two loving parents, thus the idea of becoming Batman never enters his mind or he finds a world where no one needs his help and he hangs up his cape. At the end of the day, he's only a rich kid.

The first scenario would not be Batman and Bruce Wayne as we know them.

The second one would be a painful one, if Batman has no choice but to live in the utopia. It would be a confrontation worse than anything else because for all his competence and skills, he would be unneeded as Batman. In such a place, Batman has no place. Yeah, he might try to hang his cowl and all but think about it, Bruce Wayne spent every moment of his life since his parents were murdered to become Batman. Giving that up and being faced that isn't necessary after decades of absolute commitment is going to be bad. It COULD, not necessarily but possibly, have him turn into a villain there without doing something like removing his empathy or his sense of reality.

[TheFeniX]

Quite. A champion of justice, just as a face-punching ninja rather than fancy sword-work.

And that's the important part, at least for me. Zorro picked up and placed into near any place with even a functioning law enforcement system and society that doesn't dump on the normals would be less than effective. The time-frame/technology angle is less important than that. But his ideals could still hold relatively firm.

Batman gets "re-imagined" with every new author and artist. They all approach and play with the same ideas.

This is a blurry line to me: If you updated Zorro for a "modern" audience/viewpoint (which is basically what Batman is), but kept the basic principals, I don't consider that a re-imagining. More like just updating with the times. Like, Nazi (or whatever) Captain America. THAT'S a re-imagining. But Cap waking up in 2015 rather than 1980 (once again, or whatever) and him having to learn other/more pop culture to fit in. That's just an update.

Is it "reimagining" Batman to have him drop the archaic notion of "never hit a woman" that early 20th century fiction seemed to have and we deal with even today? Burton Batman played with this when said Batman cracked Catwoman one. She then feigns injury and decks him one back. If anything, his/societys archaic view of "not violence" is put on display here as Catwoman is incredibly dangerous, woman or not.

This is why it's just not that easy for me. And I can't lump "will punch a woman" (for just one example) into the same category as "OH yea, he's a villain now." Batman isn't a villain. So, a "re-imagining" of him being one seems moronic. Much like Nazi Captain America.

And that's not even what gets me, it's the basic premise from the OP that "Batman as we know him is a villain by modern standards." That's a moronic statement to make.

What I was trying to argue, and what I failed because I didn't expand on my point, is that he isn't archaic because he constantly gets updated. 1950's Batman might look odd and stupid (and I'm not saying it necessarily does because I haven't read 1950's Batman) but frankly so will any superhero.

We're both guilty here of not laying it out 100% then. My only real issue is the idea that vigilantism (or at least the fictional version guys like Batman and Zorro represent) is archaic as put forth in the OP article.

Even modern day Houston could benefit, ignoring legal issues with citizens arrest, from an effective crime fighter like Batman with access to resources to rival a small country. Yes, his money would be spent in better area, but a masked vigilante rounding up serial killers and rapists, somehow providing enough evidence and delivering it in a way that can get legal convictions would be hard to label as "bad."

U.S. "Society" itself doesn't seem to need a Batman, as real crime generally doesn't work like it does in the comics, but as Batman is presented as supremely competent and near uncorruptable, it would be hard to argue he's hurting things.

The first scenario would not be Batman and Bruce Wayne as we know them.

The second one would be a painful one, if Batman has no choice but to live in the utopia. It would be a confrontation worse than anything else because for all his competence and skills, he would be unneeded as Batman. In such a place, Batman has no place. Yeah, he might try to hang his cowl and all but think about it, Bruce Wayne spent every moment of his life since his parents were murdered to become Batman. Giving that up and being faced that isn't necessary after decades of absolute commitment is going to be bad. It COULD, not necessarily but possibly, have him turn into a villain there without doing something like removing his empathy or his sense of reality.

I don't read many comics and I've seen no interpretation of Batman in cartoons or movies that wasn't looking for an excuse to hang up his cape. There isn't a movie out there I can think of where he's not dealing with a potential love interest and how it sucks they can't be together. Blame Hollywood for that if you have to, but it's pretty core to the movie versions of Batman. I mean, maybe excepting the Clooney Batman, but I swear he had some hot girlfriend on the side even in those he couldn't handle because "I'm the goddamn Batman, woman!"

Based on this, my interpretation is that in the former scenario Batman never exists and in the later Batman is shelved (though likely with numerous contingencies, knowing Batman) and the Bruce Wayne persona is allowed to live an actual life. Either way, he nails numerous hot blondes as he parades around as a stupidly attractive billionaire playboy.

Now, what WOULD suck for Batman/Wayne, and I wonder if this is what you're going for, is the lack of challenge. Batman seems to need one even if it isn't punching doods in the face. So, he'd probably be a daredevil and end up dead basejumping off the Sears Tower or something.

[The Romulan Republic]

Regarding the Batman vs. Joker conflict discussion:

I do think that the Joker makes a fantastic foil to Batman, a chaotic counterpart to Batman's order who nonetheless has some parallels to him (as a costumed criminal with a flair for showmanship, for example, or as someone who's impetus was a traumatic/tragic experience, but who channels his response to that experience in a very different direction). I like the Nolan/Ledger interpretation- in fact, a few plot implausibilities notwithstanding, I consider it a masterpiece, and probably the best characterization in any superhero film I've ever seen. Although the Joker as a good guy is about as idiotic a concept as you can get, short of changing the character so much that he's no longer really recognizable as the Joker.

But... in a realistic setting, the Joker is a villain with a short shelf-life. Because once caught, he either gets life in a mental hospital or maximum security penitentiary, or he gets the death penalty. Presuming he doesn't go down in a hail of police bullets before they can arrest him, which is doubtful, especially given that he's a known terrorist and cop killer.

Now, granted, you sometimes have criminals who escape justice for years. But for someone that high profile, they most likely do it by hiding out in some other part of the world where the Justice System that pursues them has difficulty reaching them (see Osama Bin Laden), or being in a position of privilege and power where they are insulated from consequences behind a wall of lawyers and PR people (see Donald Trump).

The Joker, pulling his usual shit, in a major American city for years on end and not being caught? Or ever getting another chance once he is caught? Not likely, to put it mildly.

Edit: Although, the Joker in prison/an asylum, taunting and toying with Batman Hannibal Lecter-style, and/or inspiring copycat fans like Harley Quinn writ large (though that's kind of creepy, because their have been actual Joker copycat criminals in the real world, perhaps most notoriously the Aurora Colorado theatre mass shooter)... those could work as plausible plots. I'm sure its been done in the comics, after all these years, but not much, to my knowledge, in film or television (I'm not a huge comics reader).

[Lord Revan]

One reason I can't see the Joker lasting for that long is at least in most incarnations I know of, he has sort of a compulsive need to "show off", something that makes him unable and unwilling to cover his tracts. So there would be so much evidence of his crimes that in any realistic court the defense (if handled by a professional lawyer and not the Joker himself) would seek either a "guilty" or "insane" defense (in fact the Joker is one the few cases where an insane conviction might actually work).

And honest I'd say Al Capone would be a way better example of criminal who could stay unconvicted for a long time due to connections and smart use of power, for the very good reason that he was eventually convicted so there's no "I don't like the person or his policies so he must be criminal" issue there, Al Capone was a convicted criminal, where as Donald Trump is as far as I know not, even if he's repulsive human being who probably did do something he should be in jail for, but before he's convicted of a crime, being a asshole and republican president aren't crimes last checked so lets not bring polical arguments here.

[The Romulan Republic]

Eh, their are lot of people I don't like who I don't regard as criminals- I use Donald Trump as an example partly out of pettiness and vindictiveness, I admit, but also because, while legally innocent until proven guilty, I think he's about as likely to be innocent as OJ was, or less.

But yeah, Capone works too.

And yes, it helps if you lie low and are discreet, obviously. A fucking clown running around gassing or carving smiley faces onto people... no.

Edit: Although in that sense, Trump is actually a good comparison, because he is anything but subtle about his contempt for the rules ordinary people abide by. I mean, this is a man who literally boasted that he could publicly shoot someone and wouldn't lose a single vote. Even if he never actually broke a law, that's Joker-level public contempt for the law.

And now I'm reminded of Hamill reading a Trump tweet as the Joker.

[Lord Revan]

Eh, their are lot of people I don't like who I don't regard as criminals- I use Donald Trump as an example partly out of pettiness and vindictiveness, I admit, but also because, while legally innocent until proven guilty, I think he's about as likely to be innocent as OJ was, or less.

But yeah, Capone works too.

And yes, it helps if you lie low and are discreet, obviously. A fucking clown running around gassing or carving smiley faces onto people... no.

Edit: Although in that sense, Trump is actually a good comparison, because he is anything but subtle about his contempt for the rules ordinary people abide by. I mean, this is a man who literally boasted that he could publicly shoot someone and wouldn't lose a single vote. Even if he never actually broke a law, that's Joker-level public contempt for the law.

And now I'm reminded of Hamill reading a Trump tweet as the Joker.

I want to keep the discussion about the current president of USA out of this thread as well this thread isn't about him but rather about the fictional character called Batman and having pissing contest between the US right and "left" on this thread serves no-one. That's why I used Capone as an example, it's not a matter "sure he's probably guilty but hasn't been convicted", Capone was convicted so him being a criminal isn't an opinion but a fact.

oh and difference between the Joker and you-know-who is that the Joker wouldn't just boast that he could, he would do that and would consider it really regardless of what happened.

EDIT:I'm not saying that Trump is innocent but rather until proven guilty, any guilt we assign to him is just our opinion, even if that opinion is justified we shouldn't forget what it is in the end.

[TheFeniX]

I do think that the Joker makes a fantastic foil to Batman, a chaotic counterpart to Batman's order who nonetheless has some parallels to him (as a costumed criminal with a flair for showmanship, for example, or as someone who's impetus was a traumatic/tragic experience, but who channels his response to that experience in a very different direction). I like the Nolan/Ledger interpretation- in fact, a few plot implausibilities notwithstanding, I consider it a masterpiece, and probably the best characterization in any superhero film I've ever seen. Although the Joker as a good guy is about as idiotic a concept as you can get, short of changing the character so much that he's no longer really recognizable as the Joker.

I got a bone to pick here and I'm going a bit off-topic to get it picked. You won't ever see me say a bad word about Ledger's performance as the Joker, but "a few plot implausibilities" is a massive understatement. Dark Knight is guilty of an extremely cumbersome plan put in motion by the Joker, someone who on-screen with his mannerisms is portrayed as an agent of chaos and "a guy without a plan," that relies on multiple (I lost count) specific situations to play out exactly as he planned and people to react in ways specifically beneficial to him and his current situation in order to not completely fall apart.

For just ONE example, being left alone with ONE cop to taunt who decides to "tune him up" and get overpowered. Because, with someone as incredibly dangerous as the Joker, packing a bazillion assorted weapons, and who has caused so much death and destruction.... he's allowed alone with one beat cop. It's possible he had contingencies in motion for these steps of the plan, which would mean his plan was even MORE complicated which would put this unstable person at almost godlike levels of mental reasoning and planning.

It was this same line of characters constantly rolling the hard 6 with the writing that put me to sleep in Civil War.

Meanwhile, Simon Phoenix from Demolition Man. Another "Agent of Chaos" with little rhyme or reason to his crimes. His plan? Get gun. Make funny quips. Commit Crimes. A lot of newer action movies, while not bad, are just incredibly clumsy and obtuse with their plot development. Gets old to consistently be told how smart the writers think they are.

Edit: Although, the Joker in prison/an asylum, taunting and toying with Batman Hannibal Lecter-style, and/or inspiring copycat fans like Harley Quinn writ large (though that's kind of creepy, because their have been actual Joker copycat criminals in the real world, perhaps most notoriously the Aurora Colorado theatre mass shooter)... those could work as plausible plots. I'm sure its been done in the comics, after all these years, but not much, to my knowledge, in film or television (I'm not a huge comics reader).

This I could get behind. A character helping out Batman out of boredom or whatever reason who is incredibly brilliant but also completely bonkers, fighting between flashes of brilliance and insanity, and in fact causing issues for Batman by giving him just enough information to cause maximum problems for Batman while also giving him enough info to actually figure the whole thing out.

[The Romulan Republic]

I do think that the Joker makes a fantastic foil to Batman, a chaotic counterpart to Batman's order who nonetheless has some parallels to him (as a costumed criminal with a flair for showmanship, for example, or as someone who's impetus was a traumatic/tragic experience, but who channels his response to that experience in a very different direction). I like the Nolan/Ledger interpretation- in fact, a few plot implausibilities notwithstanding, I consider it a masterpiece, and probably the best characterization in any superhero film I've ever seen. Although the Joker as a good guy is about as idiotic a concept as you can get, short of changing the character so much that he's no longer really recognizable as the Joker.

I got a bone to pick here and I'm going a bit off-topic to get it picked. You won't ever see me say a bad word about Ledger's performance as the Joker, but "a few plot implausibilities" is a massive understatement. Dark Knight is guilty of an extremely cumbersome plan put in motion by the Joker, someone who on-screen with his mannerisms is portrayed as an agent of chaos and "a guy without a plan," that relies on multiple (I lost count) specific situations to play out exactly as he planned and people to react in ways specifically beneficial to him and his current situation in order to not completely fall apart.

For just ONE example, being left alone with ONE cop to taunt who decides to "tune him up" and get overpowered. Because, with someone as incredibly dangerous as the Joker, packing a bazillion assorted weapons, and who has caused so much death and destruction.... he's allowed alone with one beat cop. It's possible he had contingencies in motion for these steps of the plan, which would mean his plan was even MORE complicated which would put this unstable person at almost godlike levels of mental reasoning and planning.

It was this same line of characters constantly rolling the hard 6 with the writing that put me to sleep in Civil War.

Well, I just sort of take it as him having alternative plans that we never see, yeah. Or that Vetinari (from Discworld) quote about how only fools plan, but a wise man steers.

And betting on the worthlessness of the GCPD (other than Gordon and maybe a few others) isn't exactly a huge gamble anyway.

As to the Joker's claim that he doesn't have a plan- does anyone take that at face value? He's fucking with Harvey Dent's brain. Although it works if you think of it more as him having no fixed plan on the grand scale, no end point in mind other than chaos and mocking everybody else. That doesn't preclude him having short-term plans.

Or in other words, he plans only on the tactical scale, not the strategic scale.

Also, his plans do appear to face plant a few times. Batman not trying to kill him, the people on the ferries refusing to blow each other up (which is one of the things that shows that the Nolan films aren't nearly as "dark" as they seem to be at first glance), his attempts to expose Batman's identity (twice), hell, Maroni selling him out near the end...

He just either finds a way to adjust his plans, or has set up a situation where multiple outcomes benefit his goals (see the hostage scenario with Rachel and Harvey), at least until the end.

He absolutely got lucky on occasion (like Harvey rolling in his favor in the hospital), but its not as bad as you make it out to be.

Meanwhile, Simon Phoenix from Demolition Man. Another "Agent of Chaos" with little rhyme or reason to his crimes. His plan? Get gun. Make funny quips. Commit Crimes. A lot of newer action movies, while not bad, are just incredibly clumsy and obtuse with their plot development. Gets old to consistently be told how smart the writers think they are.

Yeah, Demolition Man is an underrated film, in my opinion. Heck, I'd kind of like to see a remake, since that's the thing these days, apparently.

But I digress.

This I could get behind. A character helping out Batman out of boredom or whatever reason who is incredibly brilliant but also completely bonkers, fighting between flashes of brilliance and insanity, and in fact causing issues for Batman by giving him just enough information to cause maximum problems for Batman while also giving him enough info to actually figure the whole thing out.

Actually, reading this, it occurs to me that you could combine my two ideas. Joker copy cats, and Batman goes to Arkham to get information from the Joker to help find them, with the Joker messing with him but occasionally helping him out, switching sides and sabotaging both sides just for kicks...

[Q99]

Hah, I was just reading Gwenpool, and she had a conversation a lot like this.

"In my world, we needed police, but here, if the police were worth anything we wouldn't have superheroes, the city can survive without police for an hour while I kill some aliens!" -Justifying why using hacking to draw off all the police during one of her schemes was ok

[Adam Reynolds]

The whole point of Batman, or the largely similar cases of Iron Man or Oliver Queen, are about the power fantasy. It is a way for the audience to live vicariously through the persona. Making the character a billionaire and having them punch their way through problems is the entire point.

[Tribble]

IIRCone little comparison in DK was the way Batman and Joker drank; Batman took a sip then poured the rest of the glass out, while the Joker tosses most of the glass out first then sipped what was left. I thought that was kinda neat.

[Q99]

Hah, I was just reading Gwenpool, and she had a conversation a lot like this.

"In my world, we needed police, but here, if the police were worth anything we wouldn't have superheroes, the city can survive without police for an hour while I kill some aliens!" -Justifying why using hacking to draw off all the police during one of her schemes was ok

Oh yea, and part of the point of Gwenpool is that a lot of her 'world is just characters to set up superheroes,' viewpoint is sociopathic from the view of those inside it, and a lot of the people find the outlook disturbing.

[TheFeniX]

And betting on the worthlessness of the GCPD (other than Gordon and maybe a few others) isn't exactly a huge gamble anyway.

The Joker could have just as likely, maybe even more as Gordon would be most likely to keep only the most trustworthy or level headed cops around a person like the Joker, to run into a cop who wouldn't try and tune him up, or maybe would just shoot him, or maybe get 4 other buddies to help with the beating. On that note: why wasn't there an Airplane! style line waiting to ruin Joker's day?

"Gotham PD acts like thugs" I can get behind. But the specific style of thuggery showed, which is pretty much the most beneficial to the Joker, happened as it had and continued to do throughout the movie.

Because the plot needed a specific set of increasingly implausible antics to happen to move it along. Dark Knight Rises doesn't get any better.

He absolutely got lucky on occasion (like Harvey rolling in his favor in the hospital), but its not as bad as you make it out to be.

Within the first minutes of the movie, I laughed openly about how the bank heist was so meticulously planned (or the Joker has LCK11), they pulled out into the MIDDLE of a group of school buses to blend in with their own bus.

Dark Knight Joker isn't an agent of Chaos, he's basically the God of it and can control it. Certain specific things go wrong with his plan since this is an "Action" movie, not a "thriller with a downer ending." That's it. Taken singularly, these don't amount to much, but they just keep piling it on as the movie continues.

So many other movies make dangerous villains not so reliant on plot contrivances for them to continue their reign of terror. I find Dark Knight way overrated. The movie constantly reminds me it's a movie.

Yeah, Demolition Man is an underrated film, in my opinion. Heck, I'd kind of like to see a remake, since that's the thing these days, apparently.

Please no, the movie really does stand on it's own and it's not like there's anything you could realistically improve.

[Tribble]

Pretty much everything the Joker did in the Dark Knight was ridiculous and implausible, though to be fair he's hardly alone in that department
(Rachel and Batman surviving the fall from the skyscraper without even being injured, Batman's ridiculous gadgets, Harvey Dent doing things despite literally having half of his face burned off etc.)

None of Nolan's Batman films are realistic at all IMO, though they are still more so than the Burton era films or the new DC universe. Tbh I'm not bothered by it- they are superhero movies first and foremost, so I expect a degree of surrealism, even in the plot.

Now what I would like to see one day is a movie where Batman spends more than 5 seconds being a detective.

[Civil War Man]

This I could get behind. A character helping out Batman out of boredom or whatever reason who is incredibly brilliant but also completely bonkers, fighting between flashes of brilliance and insanity, and in fact causing issues for Batman by giving him just enough information to cause maximum problems for Batman while also giving him enough info to actually figure the whole thing out.

Just as a side note, I think this kind of plot would be better suited for the Riddler instead of the Joker. The last part in particular, where he gives incomplete snippets of information that, when put together, gives Batman enough information to figure out what's going on, is right in the Riddler's wheelhouse.

[TheFeniX]

None of Nolan's Batman films are realistic at all IMO, though they are still more so than the Burton era films or the new DC universe. Tbh I'm not bothered by it- they are superhero movies first and foremost, so I expect a degree of surrealism, even in the plot.

You couldn't read about Begins or Dark Knight for 5 seconds without being constantly bombarded with buzzwords like "grounded in realism" or "going back to the roots" (from Nolan himself) as if Batman and Robin was such a huge stain on the franchise, they had to try (and fail) to double-down in the opposite direction. And I don't agree that Nolans films are anymore realistic than Burtons outside a superficial level. Or at the least, Batman 1989. The only reason the others tend to just get SO FAR out there is due to insane origin stories and some REALLY odd design choices, mimicking the campyness of the West version as the movies dragged on. Whereas Batman Begins story is at the least possible, though hilariously unlikely, the Penguin being raised by penguins is completely absurd.

But, for all his faults, Burton at least knew how absurd Batman was as an idea.

You can compare something like the Suits or the Cars across the movie series all day long, but nothing is going to change the fact that walking around in an easily identifiable Batsuit while driving the most ridiculous vehicles not all that suited for city driving is somehow "realistic." Or that it could ever be.

You have to remember, it's all subjective as Batman 1989 was made under the same guise as Begins: "Grounded in reality." Because compared to Campy West, the Burton Batman had to be like Lethal Weapon vs uncut police bodycam footage. But I don't recall anyone masturbating to Burtons firm grip on realism, not even him. He wanted to make a fun but semi-serious at times action movie. Then again, this was way before the WWW as we know it today.

Nolan's Batman is guilty of taking itself way too seriously and covering up absurdity with a coat of paint. But it wore thin, at least for me, after Begins. Dark Knight had moments where it was awesome and far outstriped Begins, but Begins is much better as a movie. Because, when I really think about some of the shit that happens in Batman Begins, my only explanation is "it's fucking MAGIC!" And Dark Knight and Rises doubled-down on this even more.

Now what I would like to see one day is a movie where Batman spends more than 5 seconds being a detective.

Sadly, friggin' Val Kilmer Batman felt like more a detective than anyone. He actually had to solve those stupid riddles for some screentime.

[Tribble]

You couldn't read about Begins or Dark Knight for 5 seconds without being constantly bombarded with buzzwords like "grounded in realism" or "going back to the roots" (from Nolan himself)

I actually didn't read into the movies much before watching them so I'll have to take your word for it. I would say that are darker in tone and more in line with Batman 1989, if that's what he meant.

as if Batman and Robin was such a huge stain on the franchise, they had to try (and fail) to double-down in the opposite direction.

Batman and Robin effectively killed the Burton-verse, and I remember it being poorly received when it came out. I also remember there was discussion as to whether or not a Batman movie should even be attempted; one of the reasons why I didn't read all that much into Batman Begins etc was precisely because Batman and Robin had thoroughly turned me off seeing more Batman films. IMO they were right to reboot it and stick to a darker tone.

And I don't agree that Nolans films are anymore realistic than Burtons outside a superficial level. Or at the least, Batman 1989. The only reason the others tend to just get SO FAR out there is due to insane origin stories and some REALLY odd design choices, mimicking the campyness of the West version as the movies dragged on. Whereas Batman Begins story is at the least possible, though hilariously unlikely, the Penguin being raised by penguins is completely absurd.

I referring to the Burton-verse as a whole, though I agree with Batman 1989.

But, for all his faults, Burton at least knew how absurd Batman was as an idea.

IMO he still kept the character serious though, and one of the reasons why he quit / was fired was due to Warner Bros wanting to make the films lighter and more "family friendly".

You can compare something like the Suits or the Cars across the movie series all day long, but nothing is going to change the fact that walking around in an easily identifiable Batsuit while driving the most ridiculous vehicles not all that suited for city driving is somehow "realistic." Or that it could ever be.

True, but even within that context there are degrees of ridiculousness. Viewers were generally willing to suspend disbelief for Nolan's Batman going around beating up people while driving in a tank, but not so much Clooney's nipple suit Batman literally out-surfboarding an explosion in mid air and skating around in a techno disco while Mr. Freeze and Poison Ivy tries to kill Gotham via bad puns, ice and giant mutated plants. Batman 1989 had set a standard of Batman not needing to be camp, and even though Batman Returns Penguin was absurd at least it kept the tone. In fact, Batman Returns might be considered in some ways the darkest and most serious Batman, as its the one parents complained about (which was largely responsible for the shift to camp in Batman Forever). IMO Batman: The Animated Series is the best on screen depiction of the character (which was heavily based on Batman 1989), particularly since it had the time and room to stretch itself.

You have to remember, it's all subjective as Batman 1989 was made under the same guise as Begins: "Grounded in reality." Because compared to Campy West, the Burton Batman had to be like Lethal Weapon vs uncut police bodycam footage. But I don't recall anyone masturbating to Burtons firm grip on realism, not even him. He wanted to make a fun but semi-serious at times action movie. Then again, this was way before the WWW as we know it today.

YMMV for sure. Perhaps I should have been more specific as most of the silliness in the Burton-verse comes from Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. I would go so far as to say those two films are far enough away from Burton's that they really ought to be considered their own canon, though IIRC they are officially in the same universe.

Nolan's Batman is guilty of taking itself way too seriously and covering up absurdity with a coat of paint. But it wore thin, at least for me, after Begins. Dark Knight had moments where it was awesome and far outstriped Begins, but Begins is much better as a movie. Because, when I really think about some of the shit that happens in Batman Begins, my only explanation is "it's fucking MAGIC!" And Dark Knight and Rises doubled-down on this even more.

YMMV, I was perfectly fine with Nolan's Batman being "serious" and would take the Nolan trilogy over Batman Forever and Batman and Robin anytime, though my favourite live-action movie is probably still Batman 1989, and overall I'd still say Mask of the Phantasm.

Sadly, friggin' Val Kilmer Batman felt like more a detective than anyone. He actually had to solve those stupid riddles for some screentime.

And that's probably the most we're going to get for the foreseeable future

[TheFeniX]

YMMV, I was perfectly fine with Nolan's Batman being "serious" and would take the Nolan trilogy over Batman Forever and Batman and Robin anytime, though my favourite live-action movie is probably still Batman 1989, and overall I'd still say Mask of the Phantasm.

YMMV, indeed. I agree with most of what you said. I don't think we disagree much except that I would take Forever over Dark Knight (sans Ledger's performance) and Rises. And that realism behind aesthetics doesn't move me much. Then again, the aesthetics can be so bad, they ruin a movie either way. Obviously, everything looking like a disco helped kill B&R, but that plot actually made more sense than Rises.

And I'll end this by saying, it could be that I just don't understand the popularity of Rises. The writing is as clown shoes to me as the visual design and bad puns of B&R. It's bad, so terribly bad (even worse than Knight and without the saving grace of Ledger). But it's wrapped up in this "serious" aesthetic, so I assume people give it a pass.

[Q99]

The whole point of Batman, or the largely similar cases of Iron Man or Oliver Queen, are about the power fantasy. It is a way for the audience to live vicariously through the persona. Making the character a billionaire and having them punch their way through problems is the entire point.

It does vary some, a lot of it is also 'outsmarting big problems.'

I tend to like JLA comics Batman more than Batman comics Batman because there he has to be clever and sneaky. Well, most of the time.