• UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    Bruce has been routinely demonstrated as using his wealth in the most socially conscious, progressive, and generous ways. He is always shown in stark contrast with the likes of Lex Luthor.

    Depends heavily on the author.

    In “Kingdom Come”, for instance, Wayne and Luthor are partners and Wayne’s main contribution to Gotham is a fully automated dragnet of police-robots across a city he effectively owns lock-stock-and-barrel.

    In “Batman 2099”, he’s a recluse whose personal tragedies have rendered him incapable of engaging in more than self-pity, while his board of directors does all sorts of evil shit completely off the leash.

    In Joaquin Phoenix’s “Joker”, his family is just another one of the members of the criminal cartel that has corrupted the city, with Bruce’s doctor-father spending more time hob-nobbing with the elite socialites than attending to the city collapsing under his feet.

    There are definitely more utopian takes on Bruce and his family. But Gotham is inherently dystopian, and you can’t escape how the city’s wealthiest family is - at least somewhat - responsible.

    • OscarRobin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      I think it’s awesome that different Batman stories can examine different versions of Bruce and his position as a billionaire - it allows different aspects of the world to be interrogated: criminals sometimes doing crime because they know of no other way to survive in a capitalist hellscape, the apathies of billionaires to the evils of their financiers, Batman’s obsession with order leasing him to militarise the streets of the city he loves, etc.