• Reef@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    The line is quippy, but it’s silly when you look at the batman stories. Anything can be funny if you get reductionist with it

    When the writers have her saving plants, they do it in a way that you root for her. Same with Mr. Freeze, those episodes and the movie is really touching, solely because of his motivation.

    You don’t root for batman to beat them up or flex his wealth on them, you want Batman to help them. You want them both to get happy endings.

    The stories usually end with batman stopping the carnage, while also arresting whatever CEO was cutting down trees or doing experiments on Nora. In other stories, he funds social programs and advocates for reforms as Bruce Wayne.

    Maybe there are other stories where he acts like a frat boy. I skip content that has shitty writing

    • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yeah people that make this joke don’t pay attention the actual content. Bruce is routinely demonstrated to be a positive force with his wealth. He’s socially conscious, generous, invests in progressive causes, runs numerous charities, restricts his company from participating in unethical practices, creates jobs for convicts, and treats his employees very well.

      Now, I’m not suggesting this is realistic. No one of Bruce’s wealth, in the real world, would be anywhere near as good as Wayne is depicted.

      But within the context we of this world, the actual text of the stories tells us quite plainly he is a positive, progressive influence.

      • MotoAsh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        … and yet, he’d STILL be infinitely more effective if he either properly funded Gotham, or started actually killing evil people. Instead, he does neither… Batman still sucks balls even in the good interpretations. . … mind, I still enjoy most of his comics and stories, but dude is just as healthy of a role model as The Punisher: Not at all. For the opposite reasons, ironically.

        • OpenStars@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Simply handing drug dealers and corrupt politicians a boatload of money isn’t likely to do much of anything - he’d be bankrupt in a year and the city worse off than when he started. That’s why the Harvey Dent arc was so crucial: Batman can only do so much in the shadows, but what the city really NEEDED was a hero who could operate in the light of day (though he still needed support from the shadows).

          Ofc the real answer is that the premise of the franchise is based on Batman punching people, as in physically, so his goal isn’t even saving the city so much as making satisfying wham bam pow sounds.

          More “political” franchises are fewer and further between, which is why Star Wars and to a lesser degree Trek (in this regard) were so popular. Both involved a radical, violent and bloody overthrow of the corrupt forces (Trek having been in the past but in Wars it happening “live” and being the central feature).

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          IIRC, one of the films noted that his parents had tried to fund serious reform in Gotham (I think the newest film, with Robert Pattinson?), and that corruption and crime siphoned off and diverted all the money away from the causes they were trying to support. I’m not sure if that’s cannon or not.

          Looking at a number of cities in the US that have historically had a serious problem with public corruption, it’s not really an either/or approach; you need to adequately fund public works, but you also need to fight the crime and corruption that tries to take all the public money away from the public.

        • frickineh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, the refusal to kill is the worst part about Batman. Like, it’s cool that you have a moral code or whatever, but when you keep putting mass murderers like the Joker in a prison you know he’s gonna escape from, you should probably think about your life choices. You kind of get why Jason Todd went a little nuts when Batman didn’t kill the Joker after he brutally murdered a child that Batman dressed up and put in his way. Holy shit, just shoot the guy in the fuckin face, you know?

          • qarbone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            As Feathercrown said, most modern stories have Bruce aware that he’s nuts. If he starts killing, then he doesn’t stop killing and things go bad. He’s essentially like on Murderers Anonymous and making sure to stay away from anything that could trigger him down an even darker road.