|
Post by stargazer1682 on Oct 30, 2019 23:36:50 GMT
Come on now, I'm not even a trained martial artist/assassin or whatever you want to call Oliver or Thea; and even I could tell who was who in this fight. I'd give almost anything to find out that the "league business" Nyssa had to deal with was a bowling league. Fuck you writers, if you honestly think I'm going to accept that Mia would say "frak" instead of fuck. We've had no indication that she's nearly as nerdy as her mom; and even then, nerds only say that to be cute. I am fine with them using William as bait. Anyone here actually have a problem with that? They only downside is, he makes it out of the trap. As Diggle and Lyla recount their relationship history of getting married, then divorced, then re-married and having JJ, I half expected them to mention how JJ was once Sara, before Barry fucked with the timeline. Which in relative perspective means that at least some percentage of the horrible future we're seeing is Barry's fault. Fucking Barry. Anyone else still bitter about this whole "Ra's al-Ghul" being a title passed down to different individuals? Did they have to remind us of that bullshit? (Sigh) and they still can't pronounce his name right. "So the looters just happened to leave behind the one thing we're looking for?" Hey, that's my line. Thea knows there's a difference between being able to read Arabic; and speak Russian, right? Still, it's impressive; and I sort of wish we'd have gotten to follow her journey the last year or two, but then I remember who the writers are and realize it would have sucked donkey balls.... Come on Ollie, Bruce would have memorize the constellations. Fuck, Oliver, Bruce probably wouldn't have let Talia get the drop on him either..... ....I mean...maybe... he does tend to have a blind spot for certain women; and Talia is one of them, sometimes.... Oh, hey, I've seen this movie; there's a treasure hidden under Mount Rushmoore. Or is it that episode of Deep Space Nine where Worf searches for the lost sword of Kahless? It just occurred to me, what are these lighting sources hanging from the ceiling in these catacombs? They can't be flame based, the way they're enclosed. Is there electricity down there? "Hey, they (Connor and his mom) are going to be okay" Judging by the flashbacks, no, they won't; or at least Connor's parents won't, if Diggle and presumably Lyla end up raising him as their son. I mean, what did you expect would happen when you push someone over during a sword fight, then just stand there? I can't say I'm terribly sad about Zoe dying like that. I barely remembered who she was when she popped up in the first or second episode; and I couldn't even remember her name. Her death might have been a little more poignant if Renee had been there instead of Mia. I was just about to mention the fact that we hadn't seen Dinah or Renee the entire episode or the last. I guess that's what I get for acknowledging their existence.... Can't say I'm surprised the....I don't even know what to call the team from the future....The F Troop?... I'm not surprised they ended up in the past; it had petty much been spoiled through various promotional photos and stuff posted on social media, not to mention the whole proposed Canaries and Green Arrow spin-off I had kind of started to wonder when and how that would happen; and it's interesting to see them pull the trigger on that sooner rather than later, but this seemed super random and tacked on, especially considering where they were in their future story. It's almost like a producer came into the writers' room and said, "Oh, hey, so we need to William, Connor and Mia in the present day so they can interact with the main cast." "Okay, when did you want to do that; during one of the Crisis episodes?" "How about episode 3?" "I'm writing episode 3 right now; Oliver's on the other side of the planet; the characters in the future are in the middle of this whole thing.... I can't just abruptly stop the story and have everyone inexplicably show up int he same place." "Why not?" "Good point. Let's grab some lunch." cwdcshows.tumblr.com/post/188709557111/arrow-s8-e3-leap-of-faith
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2019 6:13:38 GMT
I am fine with them using William as bait. Anyone here actually have a problem with that? They only downside is, he makes it out of the trap.
I have a problem with him being in the bunker. Is he going to be the tech guy now? He's a trained archer too. I could see him have a portable small computing device while fighting.
T'is true lol. I forgot about Barry changing Diggle's child from female to male due to the timeline change
Re Ra's al ghul eh you just run with it, go with the flow. It was already ruined when we got such a lame Ra's al ghul in the first place
"So the looters just happened to leave behind the one thing we're looking for?" Hey, that's my line.
Nice self-deprecating humour there haha
Bruce, indeed, would have memorised it and also not have been ambushed by Talia. However Ollie isnt Bruce and for the time being is a tad more emotional, all things considered. Batman is a genius too.
Zoe's death was a genuine surprise to me. Didnt think they would go there so soon which makes me think is her death going to stick?
That was surprising too, the fact that they were brought back to the present. Isnt that spin-off meant to be in the future though
What'd you make of the revelation re the monitor and the league texts?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Nov 2, 2019 21:32:58 GMT
I am fine with them using William as bait. Anyone here actually have a problem with that? They only downside is, he makes it out of the trap.
I have a problem with him being in the bunker. Is he going to be the tech guy now? He's a trained archer too. I could see him have a portable small computing device while fighting.
T'is true lol. I forgot about Barry changing Diggle's child from female to male due to the timeline change
Re Ra's al ghul eh you just run with it, go with the flow. It was already ruined when we got such a lame Ra's al ghul in the first place
"So the looters just happened to leave behind the one thing we're looking for?" Hey, that's my line.
Nice self-deprecating humour there haha
Bruce, indeed, would have memorised it and also not have been ambushed by Talia. However Ollie isnt Bruce and for the time being is a tad more emotional, all things considered. Batman is a genius too.
Zoe's death was a genuine surprise to me. Didnt think they would go there so soon which makes me think is her death going to stick?
That was surprising too, the fact that they were brought back to the present. Isnt that spin-off meant to be in the future though
What'd you make of the revelation re the monitor and the league texts?
Did they make William a trained archer at some point? Because between last year and this year he's been pretty useless without his tech. As for Zoe, I think it'll be relative to say that her death "sticks" so much as making changes to the present so that none of that stuff ever happens. I had previously seen speculation that the Canaries & Green Arrow series would be set in the present; especially based on photos depicting Mia with present-day Dina and Laurel. And that it made sense that they wouldn't want to have to age Dina and Laurel for every episode if it does go to series.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 3, 2019 11:57:01 GMT
I am fine with them using William as bait. Anyone here actually have a problem with that? They only downside is, he makes it out of the trap.
I have a problem with him being in the bunker. Is he going to be the tech guy now? He's a trained archer too. I could see him have a portable small computing device while fighting.
T'is true lol. I forgot about Barry changing Diggle's child from female to male due to the timeline change
Re Ra's al ghul eh you just run with it, go with the flow. It was already ruined when we got such a lame Ra's al ghul in the first place
"So the looters just happened to leave behind the one thing we're looking for?" Hey, that's my line.
Nice self-deprecating humour there haha
Bruce, indeed, would have memorised it and also not have been ambushed by Talia. However Ollie isnt Bruce and for the time being is a tad more emotional, all things considered. Batman is a genius too.
Zoe's death was a genuine surprise to me. Didnt think they would go there so soon which makes me think is her death going to stick?
That was surprising too, the fact that they were brought back to the present. Isnt that spin-off meant to be in the future though
What'd you make of the revelation re the monitor and the league texts?
And tbf even the Oliver of the Arrowverse is better adjusted emotionally than pretty much every Batman ever, Oliver has a wife, kids, friends and a sister all of whom he does love and genuinely cares for which he displays, Batman on the other hand if he does care barely shows it, even then he'll promptly skull fuck the love & emotion out of any situation if doing so means he can stop a bad guy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 9:56:10 GMT
I am fine with them using William as bait. Anyone here actually have a problem with that? They only downside is, he makes it out of the trap.
I have a problem with him being in the bunker. Is he going to be the tech guy now? He's a trained archer too. I could see him have a portable small computing device while fighting.
T'is true lol. I forgot about Barry changing Diggle's child from female to male due to the timeline change
Re Ra's al ghul eh you just run with it, go with the flow. It was already ruined when we got such a lame Ra's al ghul in the first place
"So the looters just happened to leave behind the one thing we're looking for?" Hey, that's my line.
Nice self-deprecating humour there haha
Bruce, indeed, would have memorised it and also not have been ambushed by Talia. However Ollie isnt Bruce and for the time being is a tad more emotional, all things considered. Batman is a genius too.
Zoe's death was a genuine surprise to me. Didnt think they would go there so soon which makes me think is her death going to stick?
That was surprising too, the fact that they were brought back to the present. Isnt that spin-off meant to be in the future though
What'd you make of the revelation re the monitor and the league texts?
Did they make William a trained archer at some point? Because between last year and this year he's been pretty useless without his tech. As for Zoe, I think it'll be relative to say that her death "sticks" so much as making changes to the present so that none of that stuff ever happens. I had previously seen speculation that the Canaries & Green Arrow series would be set in the present; especially based on photos depicting Mia with present-day Dina and Laurel. And that it made sense that they wouldn't want to have to age Dina and Laurel for every episode if it does go to series. Well, when we first saw him, it seemed like it didnt it?
Fair enough to the other 2 points. Havent really seen anything else about the spin-off apart from the fact it is going to exist soon
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 9:58:34 GMT
I am fine with them using William as bait. Anyone here actually have a problem with that? They only downside is, he makes it out of the trap.
I have a problem with him being in the bunker. Is he going to be the tech guy now? He's a trained archer too. I could see him have a portable small computing device while fighting.
T'is true lol. I forgot about Barry changing Diggle's child from female to male due to the timeline change
Re Ra's al ghul eh you just run with it, go with the flow. It was already ruined when we got such a lame Ra's al ghul in the first place
"So the looters just happened to leave behind the one thing we're looking for?" Hey, that's my line.
Nice self-deprecating humour there haha
Bruce, indeed, would have memorised it and also not have been ambushed by Talia. However Ollie isnt Bruce and for the time being is a tad more emotional, all things considered. Batman is a genius too.
Zoe's death was a genuine surprise to me. Didnt think they would go there so soon which makes me think is her death going to stick?
That was surprising too, the fact that they were brought back to the present. Isnt that spin-off meant to be in the future though
What'd you make of the revelation re the monitor and the league texts?
And tbf even the Oliver of the Arrowverse is better adjusted emotionally than pretty much every Batman ever, Oliver has a wife, kids, friends and a sister all of whom he does love and genuinely cares for which he displays, Batman on the other hand if he does care barely shows it, even then he'll promptly skull fuck the love & emotion out of any situation if doing so means he can stop a bad guy. I can see your reasoning there. Although in general Ollie has been more emotional than Bats (pretty sure also in the comics), in that sense the dark knight can think more clearly
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 4, 2019 11:50:52 GMT
And tbf even the Oliver of the Arrowverse is better adjusted emotionally than pretty much every Batman ever, Oliver has a wife, kids, friends and a sister all of whom he does love and genuinely cares for which he displays, Batman on the other hand if he does care barely shows it, even then he'll promptly skull fuck the love & emotion out of any situation if doing so means he can stop a bad guy. I can see your reasoning there. Although in general Ollie has been more emotional than Bats (pretty sure also in the comics), in that sense the dark knight can think more clearly Oh yeah Batman is far less emotional and mission oriented, plus he is smarter than Oliver, but Oliver also seems far less a dick in pretty much every regard, even this one, so far this Oliver hasn't fucked the barely legal daughter of one of his oldest friends, or you know threatened to make one of his friends relive the worst emotional pain of the life just because they questioned him.
Ever wonder if Batman is the leader not because he's the best at it but because if he isn't the tantrums he will throw border on supervillainry? Think he does this with other stuff? like did he set Jason up to be caught by Joker because he took the last slice of pizza? But Joker just happened to be sneakier than usual to Bruce's surprise?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Nov 4, 2019 16:14:03 GMT
I can see your reasoning there. Although in general Ollie has been more emotional than Bats (pretty sure also in the comics), in that sense the dark knight can think more clearly Oh yeah Batman is far less emotional and mission oriented, plus he is smarter than Oliver, but Oliver also seems far less a dick in pretty much every regard, even this one, so far this Oliver hasn't fucked the barely legal daughter of one of his oldest friends, or you know threatened to make one of his friends relive the worst emotional pain of the life just because they questioned him.
Are you talking about Bruce and Barbra sleeping together? Because I'm pretty sure that's never actually happened in the comics. The only instance I'm aware of is in The Killing Joke animated movie; and a relationship between them hinted at in Batman Beyond, which sort if and sort of isn't part of the same continuity as The Killing Joke, since most of the same people were involved with both, but what is or isn't cannon between them isn't clear. But yeah, I couldn't find any indication that this ever happened in the comics; and that's actually a point of contention among fans of the comics that they included it in the movie. Frankly, I'm terribly bothered by the idea of Bruce and Barbra hooking up under certain circumstances; though her being "barely legal" wouldn't be one of them. I think a scenario where Barbara was distinctly an adult and the two had been working alongside each other closely for years would make it plausible. I've even considered this as a possible catalyst for Dick and Bruce's estrangement if it happened while Dick was still relatively young (17-19), clearly had an infatuation with Barbara that had not yet been returned; Bruce was oblivious to Dick having a crush on Barbara, Babs may or may not have perceived it herself, or at least had not openly acknowledged it. So when it happens and Dick finds out, maybe sees something without the other two knowing, it hurts Dick. Meanwhile, in the case of Bruce and Barbara, I'd see it as something that might happen between them in the heat of the moment, following a tense engagement with someone, but you know, not on the roof somewhere; after they've returned to the cave and take things upstairs. But then the next morning, in the harsh light of day, they evaluate how this should change their relationship, or if it should change their relationship; and it could be Barbara that decides she doesn't see her and Bruce dating, she doesn't want to date him. She might even bring up not wanting to hurt Dick, acknowledging his crush for the first time and cluing Bruce in on it; which of course makes him feel like a dick. They don't try to bury it and pretend like it never happened though; they accept that it did, that there was a moment where they gave into.....something.... call it the moment, call it passion or a need to share something intimate with another person. And maybe if they ever feel that need again, it could happen again, but neither are seeking a deeper emotional investment for the other. Unlike Bruce and Dick's relationship, Bruce isn't a surrogate father for Barbara, and she's not his ward or daughter. She may happen to be the actual daughter of a close friend of his, but that doesn't change the sort of relationship she and Bruce cultivate as masked crime fighters. Her father may be his friend - as close of friend as one can be, without revealing who you really are - but Bruce is her friend too; and I think it would make sense for Bruce to eventually see her in that light, as an adult and as a peer. And tbf even the Oliver of the Arrowverse is better adjusted emotionally than pretty much every Batman ever, Oliver has a wife, kids, friends and a sister all of whom he does love and genuinely cares for which he displays, Batman on the other hand if he does care barely shows it, even then he'll promptly skull fuck the love & emotion out of any situation if doing so means he can stop a bad guy. I mean, to start with, in a comparison of Bruce vs. Ollie, Olive Queen on Arrow has definitely killed people; whereas I'm not aware of that being true at all for Batman in the Arrowverse. That was definitely a point of contention for people with the DCEU; the ambiguity of Batman's position of lethal force with the Nolan trilogy was one of the things I never cared about that. The cavalier way some of the characters on Titans killed people was one of the things I definitely didn't like about that show, having just finished the first season. This is a concept about Batman that I've never cared for, and always ends up being the defining trait when depicting him in movies or any other form of adaptation; and has even seeped into the comics in recent year (okay, the last decade or two) and arguably that just shouldn't be the case. A Batman who is not, to some degree, well adjusted, who just beats up on people and uses those closest to him as nothing more than cannon-fodder, is not a hero; he's the sort of person who deserves to be in Arkham alongside all of the other dangerous psychopaths. It drove me crazy watching Titans every time Dick groused about Bruce just using him or Jason (or Jason's comment about Bruce making the Robin costume bright and colorful to intentionally draw the bad guy's fire, so Batman can get the upper hand.) This is not who Batman should be. And it didn't used to be. There needs to be nuance to this character. He's supposed to be the greatest detective in the world; he is supposed to be, arguably, a genius who has not only mastered an untold number of fighting styles and honed his body to the height of human aspiration, but has also developed his mental prowess to equal levels. He's studied meditation, forensic science, chemistry, presumably he's learned some hardcore computer program and engineering, that he's able to create his wonderful toys without the need of involving too many people from outside. One of the best takes I've read on Batman wasn't even a comic, it was novel called "The Forensic Files of Batman"; and it was written in the style of being Bruce's case file and sometimes his personal journals, dating back to childhood, and at least one entry from Alfred, pertaining to a case he was more involved in. And it explored those nuances that usually get glossed over in the conventional Batman stories; like the idea that Bruce is actually very methodical about how he investigates an active crime scene, making sure not disturb it in such a way that could influence the police department's own investigation. He takes samples of evidence, making sure the police have their own evidence to still collect; his gloves are designed to allow for the sensitivity and tactile grip to be able to pick things up as though he weren't wearing gloves, but thick enough not to leave prints. And he has all this forensic analysis equipment in the Batcave. I'm fairly certain this book also featured a story from Bruce's youth that had Alfred giving him a children's chemistry set or forensic set, as something to try and raise his spirits in the months after his parents death; which then piqued his interest in science. While I realize this isn't strictly in-line with what's been depicted of the character, even in the comics, and is far more in the camp of "fan theory," I've always thought they put the horse ahead of the cart in Bruce's reason for his training or for becoming Batman. He spends all this time away from Gotham to train - years, ostensibly decades in the comics - in effect in order to become Batman, without knowing he's going to be specifically Batman, all solely out of emotional damage of his parent's brutal murders. But I would argue that for all of the time and training Bruce would have to put in, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Bruce not to come to terms with his parents death and become more well adjusted; and that he would need a better motivation to become Batman. As I see it, his parents death makes sense as the catalyst for the start of his journey, but not the be all, end all of it. If I were writing his story (which I fully admit, I'm not, but I'm going to share the idea with you anyway) to help Bruce cope with his parent's death and being afraid that their killer will come back for him, Alfred enrolls him self-defense training, which takes well to; and keeps wanting to learn more and continues to advance. To ensure he doesn't just focus on the physical elements, on fighting or protecting himself, Alfred gets him interested in science and in computers, robotics. Bruce's thirst for knowledge becomes insatiable and he begins to look outside of Gotham for the next skill to master or fact to learn - but he doesn't want the world to know. He's tired of being in the spotlight for the rich boy who lost his parents, so he often finds ways of taking these trips beyond Gotham under false identities and eventually begins to leave false trails in order to lead the paparazzi on a wild goose chase; something he comes to take a certain level of perverse pleasure in. He's never fully out of public view; he doesn't go missing or anything, but he does come back to Gotham less and less and for shorter and shorter intervals. While he's gone he learns mental disciplines and meets people who help him come to peace with the original reason he's started this journey, which allows him to master certain disciplines he ostensibly couldn't if he held onto that emotional baggage, but his innate curiosity continues to drive him. When all is said and done, Bruce manages to come through the death of his parents healthy, happy and well adjusted; and it's only when he eventually returns to Gotham and discovers how much has changed under his nose and during his prolonged absences, that he decides to put his cultivated talents to use to make a difference. He doesn't realize at first the quagmire he's entering into though; he identifies one underlying problem, then another and another - and therein lies the true nature of the story of Bruce Wayne/Batman; it's a tragedy. Not because his parents die, but because Bruce managed to survive their death and would have lived a happier life had he never returned to Gotham. And by doing so, he just keeps getting sucked in to the next disaster, the next crisis, the next villain; it keeps demanding more from Bruce and he keeps trying to shoulder the burden, until finally, eventually the job will kill him.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 4, 2019 17:16:54 GMT
Oh yeah Batman is far less emotional and mission oriented, plus he is smarter than Oliver, but Oliver also seems far less a dick in pretty much every regard, even this one, so far this Oliver hasn't fucked the barely legal daughter of one of his oldest friends, or you know threatened to make one of his friends relive the worst emotional pain of the life just because they questioned him.
Are you talking about Bruce and Barbra sleeping together? Because I'm pretty sure that's never actually happened in the comics. The only instance I'm aware of is in The Killing Joke animated movie; and a relationship between them hinted at in Batman Beyond, which sort if and sort of isn't part of the same continuity as The Killing Joke, since most of the same people were involved with both, but what is or isn't cannon between them isn't clear. But yeah, I couldn't find any indication that this ever happened in the comics; and that's actually a point of contention among fans of the comics that they included it in the movie. Frankly, I'm terribly bothered by the idea of Bruce and Barbra hooking up under certain circumstances; though her being "barely legal" wouldn't be one of them. I think a scenario where Barbara was distinctly an adult and the two had been working alongside each other closely for years would make it plausible. I've even considered this as a possible catalyst for Dick and Bruce's estrangement if it happened while Dick was still relatively young (17-19), clearly had an infatuation with Barbara that had not yet been returned; Bruce was oblivious to Dick having a crush on Barbara, Babs may or may not have perceived it herself, or at least had not openly acknowledged it. So when it happens and Dick finds out, maybe sees something without the other two knowing, it hurts Dick. Meanwhile, in the case of Bruce and Barbara, I'd see it as something that might happen between them in the heat of the moment, following a tense engagement with someone, but you know, not on the roof somewhere; after they've returned to the cave and take things upstairs. But then the next morning, in the harsh light of day, they evaluate how this should change their relationship, or if it should change their relationship; and it could be Barbara that decides she doesn't see her and Bruce dating, she doesn't want to date him. She might even bring up not wanting to hurt Dick, acknowledging his crush for the first time and cluing Bruce in on it; which of course makes him feel like a dick. They don't try to bury it and pretend like it never happened though; they accept that it did, that there was a moment where they gave into.....something.... call it the moment, call it passion or a need to share something intimate with another person. And maybe if they ever feel that need again, it could happen again, but neither are seeking a deeper emotional investment for the other. Unlike Bruce and Dick's relationship, Bruce isn't a surrogate father for Barbara, and she's not his ward or daughter. She may happen to be the actual daughter of a close friend of his, but that doesn't change the sort of relationship she and Bruce cultivate as masked crime fighters. Her father may be his friend - as close of friend as one can be, without revealing who you really are - but Bruce is her friend too; and I think it would make sense for Bruce to eventually see her in that light, as an adult and as a peer. And tbf even the Oliver of the Arrowverse is better adjusted emotionally than pretty much every Batman ever, Oliver has a wife, kids, friends and a sister all of whom he does love and genuinely cares for which he displays, Batman on the other hand if he does care barely shows it, even then he'll promptly skull fuck the love & emotion out of any situation if doing so means he can stop a bad guy. I mean, to start with, in a comparison of Bruce vs. Ollie, Olive Queen on Arrow has definitely killed people; whereas I'm not aware of that being true at all for Batman in the Arrowverse. That was definitely a point of contention for people with the DCEU; the ambiguity of Batman's position of lethal force with the Nolan trilogy was one of the things I never cared about that. The cavalier way some of the characters on Titans killed people was one of the things I definitely didn't like about that show, having just finished the first season. This is a concept about Batman that I've never cared for, and always ends up being the defining trait when depicting him in movies or any other form of adaptation; and has even seeped into the comics in recent year (okay, the last decade or two) and arguably that just shouldn't be the case. A Batman who is not, to some degree, well adjusted, who just beats up on people and uses those closest to him as nothing more than cannon-fodder, is not a hero; he's the sort of person who deserves to be in Arkham alongside all of the other dangerous psychopaths. It drove me crazy watching Titans every time Dick groused about Bruce just using him or Jason (or Jason's comment about Bruce making the Robin costume bright and colorful to intentionally draw the bad guy's fire, so Batman can get the upper hand.) In the Batman Beyond tie in comics, which I think aren't full on cannon but are somewhat, like Damien was introduced into them at one point and/or Terry has been written into the main continuity in some way iirc, but in that apparently yeah they hook up, whilst she is with Dick, she gets pregnant by Bruce, he promises not to tell Dick then goes right ahead and tells him, they fight and at the same time Barbra gets hurt stopping a mugger and miscarries, this whole event is what split Dick off from Bruce in that continuity.
As for Ollie yeah he's killed but I don't think that's a bad thing, cops kill people, so do soldiers, it's rarely Oliver's go to move, him doing so actually is a major issue for him also, unlike Bruce who near gleefully cripples criminals of any status with no remorse, and Batman used to kill people quite horribly also, didn't he basically lynch Joker in one of the originals comics?
As for this "modern" version of Batman it's going on 35 years now, it is who he is, but whilst the idea he could be so well trained and still so damaged seems odd it's no odder than him being so well trained, it takes an estimated 10,000 hours to master any 1 skill, that's over 1 year and 4 months of non stop mastery, if you account for 4 hours a day rest and assuming you never take a day off due to being hurt or sick or whatever, so even if he didn't need to waste time traveling even if Bruce began training at 18 and didn't return to Gotham until 35 he could "master" only like 12 skills let alone the dozens of forms of martial arts, breathing techniques, languages, sciences, historical and cultural knowledge from little known regions, I mean how quickly does tech advance these days? even if Bruce was a world class techy when he left school after a decade he'd be so outdated it's beyond ridiculous.
I mean all the non-powered superheroes are ridiculous though, Ollie got stranded on an island and learned to use a bow so he decides to dress like robin hood? Batman is well Batman but he also thinks it's fine to throw pre-teen kids into a life of violence over and over even after it gets one of them killed? Hawkeye & Black Widow are trained spies, archer and assassin and they team up with a god, a green rage monster, a super soldier and a billionaire with a suit of armour more deadly and durable than a dozen fighter jets...this shit is insane, but god don't yah just love it?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Nov 4, 2019 20:43:51 GMT
In the Batman Beyond tie in comics, which I think aren't full on cannon but are somewhat, like Damien was introduced into them at one point and/or Terry has been written into the main continuity in some way iirc, but in that apparently yeah they hook up, whilst she is with Dick, she gets pregnant by Bruce, he promises not to tell Dick then goes right ahead and tells him, they fight and at the same time Barbra gets hurt stopping a mugger and miscarries, this whole event is what split Dick off from Bruce in that continuity. Anytime DC depicts the future in the comics, it's typically been a free-for-all of "possible" futures that generally never truly end up coming to pass; and is usually best taken with a grain of salt. The Batman Beyond stuff is even harder to follow, because some of it are continuations of the series and some of it they actually brought into the DC proper (sort of) with Futures End; and even that only brushed with main continuity. From what I could find, the pregnancy storyline was only part of the comics that continued the storylines of the DCAU. There's a very important difference between justified lethal force and unjustified lethal force. As it applies in the real world is a giant can of worms I'm not keen on getting into, but in terms of its application to "superheroes" I feel like it's a very important distinction that usually gets glossed over through one of two extremes. They either have characters adhere to an absolute "no kill policy," that lacks any nuance of possible circumstances; and undermines the very notion that there may in fact be circumstances where lethal forces is necessary. Or they're totally nonchalant superheroes running around racking up a death toll without batting an eye, so to speak. That's one of the biggest criticisms I had about season 1 of Titans - the degree of the brutality of the like of either Robin goes beyond the pale of what any of these types of characters should be permitted without authorities being absolutely justified in wanting to bring these characters in themselves to face criminal repercussions. I mean, Christ, that scene of Hank and Dawn with Hanks old coach, and Dawn closing the door was sort of horrifying in the context that these characters to be people we root for these characters as being justified in their actions, especially where their side-stepping the law is concerned. That's not suggest that the coach was innocent or anything, but the so-called heroes can't be judge, jury and possibly literal executioner; that's not justice, that's vengeance and about a half-step off from a mob mentality/lynching. Then we have Starfire straight up murdering people; to say nothing Raven "taking back" her saving the guy who slit his throat to prove she could heal him. There should be some distinction and subtlety between these two extremes. Yes, lethal force should be permissible, but given what the average superhero can do, even those without special powers, just highly trained, lethal force should be something like option 5271 on their list of ways they could possibly defuse any average situation. It shouldn't be that they don't kill because of a code, it should be that they don't kill because they don't have; and if they do, it's because it's absolutely necessary.
In terms of how that applies to Oliver, surely, he killed some bad people, though it's questionable that it was "absolutely necessary;" even arguable that some of them, like the people on the list, could have just easily and productive been handled in some other non-lethal way; which undermines any argument that those deaths were necessary. Then there were those who he killed simply because "no one can know my secret." - Good thing Felicity and Diggle are pretty, I guess.... 35 years seems a little bit of a stretch, unless you're looking at things like the Burton adaptation; or lumping in the darker tone of Batman's narrative started in the late 70s and into the 80s, with the more brutal and paranoid depiction Batman, which I don't think was as common until more so in the last 90s/early aughts. A lot of people peg the latter development to the JLA/Tower of Babel story; which I had to look up the date for to see that, that was 2000 (which was relatively more recent than I thought, even if realizing that a story from 2000 is nearly 20 years old...). I know this being the mold for Batman for 20/25 years does seem like much of a difference from 35 years, but it's still a drop in the bucket for his overall history. For that matter, I haven't liked that turn for the character for about that long, since I've apparently been reading this stuff and watching the various adaptations throughout at least the last 20-30+ years. And it's not just Batman, of course; they feel the need to make all of the characters darker and edgier, which is how we get a crap story like Identity Crisis. Oddly enough I commented to a friend just a day or two ago, after watching the first season of Star Trek Discovery, that I'm so fucking tired of shit trying to masquerade as drama by being dark and dreary - that's not drama.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 4, 2019 22:47:40 GMT
In the Batman Beyond tie in comics, which I think aren't full on cannon but are somewhat, like Damien was introduced into them at one point and/or Terry has been written into the main continuity in some way iirc, but in that apparently yeah they hook up, whilst she is with Dick, she gets pregnant by Bruce, he promises not to tell Dick then goes right ahead and tells him, they fight and at the same time Barbra gets hurt stopping a mugger and miscarries, this whole event is what split Dick off from Bruce in that continuity. Anytime DC depicts the future in the comics, it's typically been a free-for-all of "possible" futures that generally never truly end up coming to pass; and is usually best taken with a grain of salt. The Batman Beyond stuff is even harder to follow, because some of it are continuations of the series and some of it they actually brought into the DC proper (sort of) with Futures End; and even that only brushed with main continuity. From what I could find, the pregnancy storyline was only part of the comics that continued the storylines of the DCAU. There's a very important difference between justified lethal force and unjustified lethal force. As it applies in the real world is a giant can of worms I'm not keen on getting into, but in terms of its application to "superheroes" I feel like it's a very important distinction that usually gets glossed over through one of two extremes. They either have characters adhere to an absolute "no kill policy," that lacks any nuance of possible circumstances; and undermines the very notion that there may in fact be circumstances where lethal forces is necessary. Or they're totally nonchalant superheroes running around racking up a death toll without batting an eye, so to speak. That's one of the biggest criticisms I had about season 1 of Titans - the degree of the brutality of the like of either Robin goes beyond the pale of what any of these types of characters should be permitted without authorities being absolutely justified in wanting to bring these characters in themselves to face criminal repercussions. I mean, Christ, that scene of Hank and Dawn with Hanks old coach, and Dawn closing the door was sort of horrifying in the context that these characters to be people we root for these characters as being justified in their actions, especially where their side-stepping the law is concerned. That's not suggest that the coach was innocent or anything, but the so-called heroes can't be judge, jury and possibly literal executioner; that's not justice, that's vengeance and about a half-step off from a mob mentality/lynching. Then we have Starfire straight up murdering people; to say nothing Raven "taking back" her saving the guy who slit his throat to prove she could heal him. There should be some distinction and subtlety between these two extremes. Yes, lethal force should be permissible, but given what the average superhero can do, even those without special powers, just highly trained, lethal force should be something like option 5271 on their list of ways they could possibly defuse any average situation. It shouldn't be that they don't kill because of a code, it should be that they don't kill because they don't have; and if they do, it's because it's absolutely necessary.
In terms of how that applies to Oliver, surely, he killed some bad people, though it's questionable that it was "absolutely necessary;" even arguable that some of them, like the people on the list, could have just easily and productive been handled in some other non-lethal way; which undermines any argument that those deaths were necessary. Then there were those who he killed simply because "no one can know my secret." - Good thing Felicity and Diggle are pretty, I guess.... 35 years seems a little bit of a stretch, unless you're looking at things like the Burton adaptation; or lumping in the darker tone of Batman's narrative started in the late 70s and into the 80s, with the more brutal and paranoid depiction Batman, which I don't think was as common until more so in the last 90s/early aughts. A lot of people peg the latter development to the JLA/Tower of Babel story; which I had to look up the date for to see that, that was 2000 (which was relatively more recent than I thought, even if realizing that a story from 2000 is nearly 20 years old...). I know this being the mold for Batman for 20/25 years does seem like much of a difference from 35 years, but it's still a drop in the bucket for his overall history. For that matter, I haven't liked that turn for the character for about that long, since I've apparently been reading this stuff and watching the various adaptations throughout at least the last 20-30+ years. And it's not just Batman, of course; they feel the need to make all of the characters darker and edgier, which is how we get a crap story like Identity Crisis. Oddly enough I commented to a friend just a day or two ago, after watching the first season of Star Trek Discovery, that I'm so fucking tired of shit trying to masquerade as drama by being dark and dreary - that's not drama. I was thinking more back to since Millers Dark Knight Returns, since then the characters gotten darker and his personality more and more extreme and psychotic, even if you just want to go 20 years, that's 1/4 of the characters existence, that's not a drop in the bucket but a large and possibly/probably the most significant stretch of the characters existence as it's the one that feature the most Batman stories and adaptations, which tend to reach far more than the comic books do.
And when you think outside of the run that coincided with the Adam West TV show Batman was no where near as popular as he has been since they made him this dark psychological mess, so without the fucked up nature of Batman he wouldn't be the crown jewel of DC.
As for the killing I agree about Titans how they just offed people was a bit much, that and the lack of remorse or even acknowledgment over their actions was pretty messed up, as for Ollie, I let more slide with him given he is a dude with a bow and arrow, who mostly fought alone in S1, being shot at by dozens if not more armed thugs all of whom have no qualms about unloading clip after clip in the hopes of killing him, and atleast he didn't kill everyone, the stated number in the show, which added some of Malcolm's body count to Oliver's total worked out less than 1 an episode, hardly restrained but not as bad as it seemed.
As for the Hawk & Dove thing, I dunno I take that the same way I would if the dude was a Nazi, anything goes you know, I mean in TV and movie standards these people aren't even human so fuck em, but also apparently there's a Batman story where he does the same thing to the guy who killed his parents, basically he breaks into the guys house every night for like a month and kicks the shit out of him, reveals he is Bruce Wayne, and tells him if anyone finds out he will be blamed because he created The Batman, now that's a special kind of mind fuck imo.
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Nov 4, 2019 23:20:57 GMT
I don't know what to tell you. I don't care how long it's been going on, it's an element of his story that just doesn't work for me. I find it detracts from the core concept for his character, especially when adaptations boil his character down to that being essentially his sole defining traits. I would point to the Bruce Timm/Kevin Conroy iteration of Batman (or at least, the original DCAU, since at both of them have revisited some version of the character since then) as an example of a better version of Batman; one that used his brains at least as often as he used his fists. It's not perfect by any means. I really didn't care for how the Bat-family ended up, but things the Death of Ace:
Bruce's friendship with Harvey Dent, and his feeling guilty for not being able to help him.
"His Silicon Soul" "I am the Night" "Penchant to Dream" (a great depiction of Bruce's deductive abilities - did you know it's impossible for most people to actually read in a dream?)
I absolutely love how they develop his relationship with Diana in Justice League/Justice League Unlimited.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Nov 5, 2019 7:09:21 GMT
I don't know what to tell you. I don't care how long it's been going on, it's an element of his story that just doesn't work for me. I find it detracts from the core concept for his character, especially when adaptations boil his character down to that being essentially his sole defining traits. "Penchant to Dream" (a great depiction of Bruce's deductive abilities - did you know it's impossible for most people to actually read in a dream?) Never said you had to like it, just said you cannot try to brush it off as a "drop in the bucket" of the characters existence, it's been a quarter of his run if you go by your Tower Of Babble date, or 33 years if you go by when Miller did TDKR and turned the character darker which then caught on and launched Batman into the #1 spot f the DC pantheon where he has stayed since your almost talking half his run.
There are lots of things I dislike about Batman's interpretations over the years, him having a flaw isn't one of them however, without that he's one of the most blatant Gary Sue's in pop culture, the degree they push this flaw however is ridiculous, I prefer it being like how Arrow portrays Oliver at times, where his obsession with the mission and such causes him to push people away but not intentionally, and then when he becomes aware of it he recognises his faults, with Batman it often seems more likely he'll be proven right and whoever he pissed off will recognise this and side with him, or just still be pissed and walk away.
As for the dream thing yeah I knew about that, I think it's everyone though, well I guess people with photographic memories could potentially reread stuff in a dream, as they already have the full detailed memory of the book, but you couldn't read anything new in a dream because well in short the dream isn't real, like a lot of things once you get told this it becomes obvious, sort of like a lot of sayings, they are so dumb if you think about it, like it's it weird how when you're looking for something it's always in the last place you look, because as Lee Evans once said "Well yes, I wouldn't look, find them, then keep FUCKING LOOKING!?!", or someone calling your house phone and asking "hey where are you?" or "Are you at home right now?" like what sort of bloody questions are these? you phoned my fucking house where else am I going to be? Moldova?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2019 1:47:14 GMT
I can see your reasoning there. Although in general Ollie has been more emotional than Bats (pretty sure also in the comics), in that sense the dark knight can think more clearly Oh yeah Batman is far less emotional and mission oriented, plus he is smarter than Oliver, but Oliver also seems far less a dick in pretty much every regard, even this one, so far this Oliver hasn't fucked the barely legal daughter of one of his oldest friends, or you know threatened to make one of his friends relive the worst emotional pain of the life just because they questioned him.
Ever wonder if Batman is the leader not because he's the best at it but because if he isn't the tantrums he will throw border on supervillainry? Think he does this with other stuff? like did he set Jason up to be caught by Joker because he took the last slice of pizza? But Joker just happened to be sneakier than usual to Bruce's surprise?
rofl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2019 9:19:26 GMT
Ok Ive finally read this essay on Batman lol, you both have good points. When I first saw the exchanges Im like, time-out, fuck this, wont be a while till I have the motivation to read all of this. Would rather read a comic and I did haha. Anyway, even though the reasons you mentioned are legitimate. It is still kinda weird that you would be romantically involved with a good friend's daughter. Especially for someone like Bruce Wayne (he could have literally anyone) or Batman (Talia and Selina). Batgirl would also see Batman as an older, senior role model, a second father figure (maybe an uncle in a way) and thirdly as her boss when it comes down to it. It is just out of character for Batman to engage with Babs in that way, not only out of respect for Gordon but his strictness with himself in general and the fact he too in exchange would see her as kind of a daughter and seen her grow up and mature. It would also be kind of taking advantage of her and a little incestuous which is why the writers almost never went there. Well as for Batman being dark, it kinda makes sense. Some of his villains are seriously messed up. Szaz, Professor Pyg, Scarecrow and Joker. Who knows? Even though he is a genius and heavily disciplined, it still would take a toll, probably has some level of PTSD and his body and mind shot so often from the fight and flight response pumping that Adrenalin. This may be why he hasnt come to terms with his parents' deaths and never be a fully-functioning 'normal' person. Another thing is, that Batman is his identity, he just loves being Batman. Guy is a workaholic and when you're like that, other areas of your psychological and social health will suffer. You guys forget that he's also a genius, maybe even on Lex's level if not better. So it doesnt take him long to master things and also because comic book. Just look in real-life what Elon Musk has achieved, it is truly incredible. Or look at the polymath Leonardo DaVinci. Both Lex and Bruce, thats what they are, swift-learning polymaths. It's just that Bats chose to pursue anything related to crime-fighting, detection, investigation and security etc There's a reason he is called the detective by Ra's al ghul and the greatest detective in the world in general. In saying that, Bats doesnt have to be really grizzly but imo he's cooler that way and it makes sense with the villains he goes up against. Apparently Affleck's Batman would have explored his psyche and that it is almost crazy to go to such extremes. Yeah as for Batman leaving Gotham for a better life was also touched on in Nolan's trilogy. Alfred wished he'd never returned to Gotham and hoped that he had moved on as he knew how much pain is around in Gotham for Bruce. In regards to the "kill only if it's the last resort", yes I agree with that but sometimes you have to weigh the future into account. What if it's one of those villains that is just too dangerous to be kept alive because theyll just escape time and time again and keep coming after you or your loved ones or try and destroy the world over and over or mass casualties? Would that make a difference? Or should they all be sent to the farm to be lobotomised? Can you trust anyone of authority in Gotham or these very corrupt worlds? Yeah the Titans do sometimes go over-the-top but you can understand the reasons behind them but does it make it right? No, no it doesnt. Ollie was basically a straight-up serial killer in Arrow for a long time
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Nov 10, 2019 18:59:48 GMT
In regards to the "kill only if it's the last resort", yes I agree with that but sometimes you have to weigh the future into account. What if it's one of those villains that is just too dangerous to be kept alive because theyll just escape time and time again and keep coming after you or your loved ones or try and destroy the world over and over or mass casualties? Would that make a difference? Or should they all be sent to the farm to be lobotomised? Can you trust anyone of authority in Gotham or these very corrupt worlds? The ultimate problem I have with that is, it's not for any lone person to take it upon themselves to decide that. That's generally what it means to live in a society of rules; especially anywhere that has specifically lain out inherent rights to things like trial by jury and all of these other things that are there as some measure of measuring justice. What gives Batman or Superman or any other lone individual the right to take it upon themselves, without any kind of sanction or authority other than their own person might and proactive will, to make those sort of extreme decisions? It's one thing to disarm or apprehend someone doing harm or breaking the law, or protecting innocent lives in a time of crisis. It's something else entirely to be judge, jury and executioner. Admittedly, the conceit of someone like Bruce Wayne is that his city has become so corrupted, that his taking on the mantle of Batman is meant to be justified by him doing that in order to restore or instill into the city the virtues of justice that it lost, if it ever had them to begin with. For him to act in any capacity that extends beyond that, and especially where he's executing people or taking such extreme measures as to lobotomize someone; he's no longer the advocate for justice in a corrupt system, he's become part of that corruption. Also, being confronted with the "simple solution" to a systemic problem and not give in to baser instincts is arguably part of what should define someone as a true hero - doing what's right instead of what's easy, when the two aren't mutually exclusive. Bruce Wayne is not responsible for the hypothetical future actions of anyone but himself. Of course that doesn't mean that Bruce wouldn't feel a sense of personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean it's truly his to shoulder alone. There is virtually an infinite number of possible futures that could happen and no one can be expected to account for all of them. If Arkham or Blackgate or wherever these dangerous people go can't contain them the way they need to be contained, then the correct solution isn't to simply put a bullet it in their head, it's correcting whatever the issue of containment is; whether it's them having powers that need to be taken into account/neutralized or them being clever and finding a way to escape, you make changes to the prison or the asylum to improve it and make it more secure. And that burden isn't just on Bruce, it's on pretty much everyone to ensure the public safety. A last thought on this particular remark; the Justice League animated series explored this exact idea - and I mean exact, down to where they had a version of Superman who used his heat vision to lobotomize villains, including Doomsday. It turned out to take place on a parallel earth where everything had matched up to the conventional story and characters, until Lex became president and killed The Flash and Superman retaliated by killing him. After that the League became the Justice Lords and totalitarian rulers of Earth. I haven't forgotten. I think it's one of the most important qualities about Bruce Wayne, which often gets overlooked in the live action adaptations, much to my eternal frustrations. One skill I remember reading about, I think in a novelization of something with Batman, that I love, was his "speed reading" - which if memory serves was almost more like a meditative trance. He'd have someone open a book and he'd stare intently at the pages; and rather than actually read the words, he'd sort of let the image of the pages and everything on them be imprinted and processed by his subconscious. It's perhaps borders on a super-power, but I think given some of the broader things that are possible in the comics, this arguably falls towards perhaps the least implausible thing to be able to do. And it's sort of a cool ability, I think. Just in general, I'd love an adaptation that explores Bruce Wayne's genius more. Because they'll drop subtle things in the comics, like how Bruce has employed magical friends/colleagues to enact layers of spells and enchantments to help conceal the Batcave to prevent people from being able to either detect it or access it through magic or other means, like teleportation. And in another comic it was revealed that Bruce has established his own utility network for power and communication, but that it goes beyond his own personal use; where he's tied it into and in a way grafted it onto the city's own deteriorating system, bypassing certain failing parts of the city's utilities, which if they had they failed (as they would have without the support of his system) it would have seriously crippled the city. There's a fine line between appearing intimidating and being a full fledged psycho; and too often that distinction is blurred with Batman; especially when adapted in movies. An example of the former though was in, I think a Young Justice comic. Tim Drake explains how he and Batman want criminals to think they have some secret location they dump their bodies in; and that they are willing to take extreme measures, so that Batman and ostensibly Robin too, have such a reputation as to frighten all but the worst of the worst of the criminal elements. That, combined with Batman in particular being an urban legend, are the two primary conceits about the character that I think allows any degree of plausibility in Bruce Wayne being able to do what he does, without people finding out who he is and allowing Batman to be effective. I've never been a fan of the idea that he sees himself more as Batman. He certainly puts on a public facade as Bruce, but I think there's still a "real" Bruce, which he doesn't often get to share, except for those closest to him. I think he could conceivably be drawn into his work to the point of exhaustion and eventually to where it will be the death of him. And it also makes me think of something else I had seen or read, where Alfred points out how, after years of being Batman, his Bruce Wayne voice has started shifting towards the lower register he uses for Batman. But he still needs to have a grip on who he is, his values and most importantly his humanity; he can't lose sight of the line he can never afford to cross. That's something I didn't appreciate the first time I watched Batman Beyond; I didn't understand the motivation for Bruce wanting to retire after a particular incident in the field, where he's having a heart attack or something and the person he's up against gets the upper hand and starts knocking him around; until Bruce grabs a gun and holds it on him. Afterwards he's disgusted by how that all played out and it was a long time after I saw that, that I understood the implications of what it would mean for Bruce to feel the need to rely on something like a gun to subdue a criminal; and that it made perfect sense for that to motivate him to retire. I don't know that I agree with a lot of that. Most adaptation, and typically in the comics too, Barbara is kind of the outlier in the Bat-family. She has strong ties with Batman, Alfred and all of the Robins, but is also the most independent, usually working entirely on her own. She's not like Dick, Jason, Tim or Stephanie; she takes on the mantle of Batgirl without any real ties to Bruce Wayne/Batman, other than being aware of the existence of either. In a lot of iterations, Bruce doesn't even know who Batgirl is for the longest time when she starts out. I think in some adaptation, possibly starting with Adam West series, Alfred may have even learned who Batgirl was before Bruce does. And she's typically older than say, any of the various Robins, when she starts out as Batgirl compared to when they became Robin. Where they're usually early to mid teens, I think conventionally she's usually college age; maybe 16 or 17 at the very youngest, but I'm fairly confident in saying she's usually already an (albeit young) adult when she first starts out. I honestly don't think Babs sees Batman as her boss, let alone a father figure. She has all she needs in a father and male role model in Jim Gordon; and if anything she wants to be like Jim, which in turn would motivate her to want to have the same level of association he has with Batman. Bruce might offer some more advanced training, but typically she does her own thing; and this really gets exemplified when she becomes Oracle and is the leader of the Birds of Prey and takes on a strong leadership role with the Bat-family, with Batman seeking her help quite regularly and her helping coordinate certain large scale, group efforts. Robin may be Batman's protege, but Batgirl could arguably be called his lieutenant. And I think it's a good thing for her not to be cast in the same mold as the Robins; because what's the point of having her be the same as everyone else on Batman's team? I think there's value in the idea of her having the capacity to look at Bruce, once she gets to know him, as just a man, warts and all. She could and presumably has called him on his BS; she would objectively know if he's going too far or losing sight of what's important. Her only aspiration with Bruce should be for him to see her as a peer, an equal. And from that perspective, anything is possible. I'm not strictly suggesting they should date and fall in love and start talking about having bat-babies, though that shouldn't be necessarily off the table either. She could conceivably have a crush on Bruce in the early days, because he's supposed to be a very hansom man. As for Bruce "could have literally anyone," Babs is certainly anyone, she's not no one; and not for nothing, typically she's conventionally beautiful in her own right. Not to mention she offers Bruce something that most other woman can't, which is a mutual understanding about what it is they do, the life they lead. She is one of the few people he doesn't have to be either "Public Bruce" or "Batman" with, he just can truly be himself; and the number of women he's been able to do that with are few and far between. So I do think it's plausible for the two of them to finds themselves in the right circumstances and state of mind where they just need another person, they need physical contact and intimacy and the two have each other during a moment of vulnerability for both of them; and then afterwards they don't see a future between the two of them beyond friendship, and it ends up just being a one time thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2019 10:02:28 GMT
In regards to the "kill only if it's the last resort", yes I agree with that but sometimes you have to weigh the future into account. What if it's one of those villains that is just too dangerous to be kept alive because theyll just escape time and time again and keep coming after you or your loved ones or try and destroy the world over and over or mass casualties? Would that make a difference? Or should they all be sent to the farm to be lobotomised? Can you trust anyone of authority in Gotham or these very corrupt worlds? The ultimate problem I have with that is, it's not for any lone person to take it upon themselves to decide that. That's generally what it means to live in a society of rules; especially anywhere that has specifically lain out inherent rights to things like trial by jury and all of these other things that are there as some measure of measuring justice. What gives Batman or Superman or any other lone individual the right to take it upon themselves, without any kind of sanction or authority other than their own person might and proactive will, to make those sort of extreme decisions? It's one thing to disarm or apprehend someone doing harm or breaking the law, or protecting innocent lives in a time of crisis. It's something else entirely to be judge, jury and executioner. Admittedly, the conceit of someone like Bruce Wayne is that his city has become so corrupted, that his taking on the mantle of Batman is meant to be justified by him doing that in order to restore or instill into the city the virtues of justice that it lost, if it ever had them to begin with. For him to act in any capacity that extends beyond that, and especially where he's executing people or taking such extreme measures as to lobotomize someone; he's no longer the advocate for justice in a corrupt system, he's become part of that corruption. Also, being confronted with the "simple solution" to a systemic problem and not give in to baser instincts is arguably part of what should define someone as a true hero - doing what's right instead of what's easy, when the two aren't mutually exclusive. Bruce Wayne is not responsible for the hypothetical future actions of anyone but himself. Of course that doesn't mean that Bruce wouldn't feel a sense of personal responsibility, but that doesn't mean it's truly his to shoulder alone. There is virtually an infinite number of possible futures that could happen and no one can be expected to account for all of them. If Arkham or Blackgate or wherever these dangerous people go can't contain them the way they need to be contained, then the correct solution isn't to simply put a bullet it in their head, it's correcting whatever the issue of containment is; whether it's them having powers that need to be taken into account/neutralized or them being clever and finding a way to escape, you make changes to the prison or the asylum to improve it and make it more secure. And that burden isn't just on Bruce, it's on pretty much everyone to ensure the public safety. A last thought on this particular remark; the Justice League animated series explored this exact idea - and I mean exact, down to where they had a version of Superman who used his heat vision to lobotomize villains, including Doomsday. It turned out to take place on a parallel earth where everything had matched up to the conventional story and characters, until Lex became president and killed The Flash and Superman retaliated by killing him. After that the League became the Justice Lords and totalitarian rulers of Earth. I haven't forgotten. I think it's one of the most important qualities about Bruce Wayne, which often gets overlooked in the live action adaptations, much to my eternal frustrations. One skill I remember reading about, I think in a novelization of something with Batman, that I love, was his "speed reading" - which if memory serves was almost more like a meditative trance. He'd have someone open a book and he'd stare intently at the pages; and rather than actually read the words, he'd sort of let the image of the pages and everything on them be imprinted and processed by his subconscious. It's perhaps borders on a super-power, but I think given some of the broader things that are possible in the comics, this arguably falls towards perhaps the least implausible thing to be able to do. And it's sort of a cool ability, I think. Just in general, I'd love an adaptation that explores Bruce Wayne's genius more. Because they'll drop subtle things in the comics, like how Bruce has employed magical friends/colleagues to enact layers of spells and enchantments to help conceal the Batcave to prevent people from being able to either detect it or access it through magic or other means, like teleportation. And in another comic it was revealed that Bruce has established his own utility network for power and communication, but that it goes beyond his own personal use; where he's tied it into and in a way grafted it onto the city's own deteriorating system, bypassing certain failing parts of the city's utilities, which if they had they failed (as they would have without the support of his system) it would have seriously crippled the city. There's a fine line between appearing intimidating and being a full fledged psycho; and too often that distinction is blurred with Batman; especially when adapted in movies. An example of the former though was in, I think a Young Justice comic. Tim Drake explains how he and Batman want criminals to think they have some secret location they dump their bodies in; and that they are willing to take extreme measures, so that Batman and ostensibly Robin too, have such a reputation as to frighten all but the worst of the worst of the criminal elements. That, combined with Batman in particular being an urban legend, are the two primary conceits about the character that I think allows any degree of plausibility in Bruce Wayne being able to do what he does, without people finding out who he is and allowing Batman to be effective. I've never been a fan of the idea that he sees himself more as Batman. He certainly puts on a public facade as Bruce, but I think there's still a "real" Bruce, which he doesn't often get to share, except for those closest to him. I think he could conceivably be drawn into his work to the point of exhaustion and eventually to where it will be the death of him. And it also makes me think of something else I had seen or read, where Alfred points out how, after years of being Batman, his Bruce Wayne voice has started shifting towards the lower register he uses for Batman. But he still needs to have a grip on who he is, his values and most importantly his humanity; he can't lose sight of the line he can never afford to cross. That's something I didn't appreciate the first time I watched Batman Beyond; I didn't understand the motivation for Bruce wanting to retire after a particular incident in the field, where he's having a heart attack or something and the person he's up against gets the upper hand and starts knocking him around; until Bruce grabs a gun and holds it on him. Afterwards he's disgusted by how that all played out and it was a long time after I saw that, that I understood the implications of what it would mean for Bruce to feel the need to rely on something like a gun to subdue a criminal; and that it made perfect sense for that to motivate him to retire. I don't know that I agree with a lot of that. Most adaptation, and typically in the comics too, Barbara is kind of the outlier in the Bat-family. She has strong ties with Batman, Alfred and all of the Robins, but is also the most independent, usually working entirely on her own. She's not like Dick, Jason, Tim or Stephanie; she takes on the mantle of Batgirl without any real ties to Bruce Wayne/Batman, other than being aware of the existence of either. In a lot of iterations, Bruce doesn't even know who Batgirl is for the longest time when she starts out. I think in some adaptation, possibly starting with Adam West series, Alfred may have even learned who Batgirl was before Bruce does. And she's typically older than say, any of the various Robins, when she starts out as Batgirl compared to when they became Robin. Where they're usually early to mid teens, I think conventionally she's usually college age; maybe 16 or 17 at the very youngest, but I'm fairly confident in saying she's usually already an (albeit young) adult when she first starts out. I honestly don't think Babs sees Batman as her boss, let alone a father figure. She has all she needs in a father and male role model in Jim Gordon; and if anything she wants to be like Jim, which in turn would motivate her to want to have the same level of association he has with Batman. Bruce might offer some more advanced training, but typically she does her own thing; and this really gets exemplified when she becomes Oracle and is the leader of the Birds of Prey and takes on a strong leadership role with the Bat-family, with Batman seeking her help quite regularly and her helping coordinate certain large scale, group efforts. Robin may be Batman's protege, but Batgirl could arguably be called his lieutenant. And I think it's a good thing for her not to be cast in the same mold as the Robins; because what's the point of having her be the same as everyone else on Batman's team? I think there's value in the idea of her having the capacity to look at Bruce, once she gets to know him, as just a man, warts and all. She could and presumably has called him on his BS; she would objectively know if he's going too far or losing sight of what's important. Her only aspiration with Bruce should be for him to see her as a peer, an equal. And from that perspective, anything is possible. I'm not strictly suggesting they should date and fall in love and start talking about having bat-babies, though that shouldn't be necessarily off the table either. She could conceivably have a crush on Bruce in the early days, because he's supposed to be a very hansom man. As for Bruce "could have literally anyone," Babs is certainly anyone, she's not no one; and not for nothing, typically she's conventionally beautiful in her own right. Not to mention she offers Bruce something that most other woman can't, which is a mutual understanding about what it is they do, the life they lead. She is one of the few people he doesn't have to be either "Public Bruce" or "Batman" with, he just can truly be himself; and the number of women he's been able to do that with are few and far between. So I do think it's plausible for the two of them to finds themselves in the right circumstances and state of mind where they just need another person, they need physical contact and intimacy and the two have each other during a moment of vulnerability for both of them; and then afterwards they don't see a future between the two of them beyond friendship, and it ends up just being a one time thing. That justice lords situation is a worst case scenario. Ok take someone like the Joker, shouldnt he be killed because we all know he'll escape again and will commit mass murder? Why is Joker more important than hundreds of people? Also you dont think they already tried that? Re upgrading the security of Arkham or Blackgate. What about the real case of Osama Bin Laden? Yes it wasnt one person who killed him, it was ordered by the US government. Yes Osama was a heinous individual but no trial for him? Just executed and deservedly so.
As for Babs, when you put it that way I guess I can see it. However I still think it would be out of character for both of them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Nov 14, 2019 16:49:40 GMT
That justice lords situation is a worst case scenario. Ok take someone like the Joker, shouldnt he be killed because we all know he'll escape again and will commit mass murder? Why is Joker more important than hundreds of people? Also you dont think they already tried that? Re upgrading the security of Arkham or Blackgate. What about the real case of Osama Bin Laden? Yes it wasnt one person who killed him, it was ordered by the US government. Yes Osama was a heinous individual but no trial for him? Just executed and deservedly so. As for Babs, when you put it that way I guess I can see it. However I still think it would be out of character for both of them. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this
I mean, they're called "worst case scenarios," because they're worst outcome out of all the outcomes that are still distinct possibility if you're not cautious, or even if you are. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; it may not seem like a big deal to bargain with yourself and justify this one compromise, because it's one person, just one small step over the line. Then the next person comes along who's just as bad and just as dangerous and it seems like even less of a departure, because the decision had already been once before; and the risk lies in the potential risk of objectivity, so that before you know it, you don't end up so far from where you started you hardly recognize what you've become. As for the Joker specifically, I have two thoughts on this. The first was a point I was trying to make, but even at the time I was writing it, I wasn't sure if I was bringing it across properly, but it's arguably the most important. Why is the Joker Batman's responsibility? Why is it on Batman's shoulders to decide that he's too great of threat to the world, that he has to be put down? If someone like the Joker is such a danger, where no walls can hold him and the lives of virtual anyone who crosses his path are up for grabs, it should be the decision of the courts or law officials or government leaders to determine that lethal action is warranted; not an individual who's taken the law into his own hands. Again, it's one thing to use lethal force during a physical confrontation and when it's a very last resort in trying to subdue that person; and it's something else entirely, especially for someone who has no official authority and is acting solely as a rogue vigilante, to proactively find someone that they personally have deemed too great of threat and decide to kill them. Whether the ends justify the means, the latter is premeditated murder. Your example of Osama Bin Laden is a good point of comparison; it was not some private militia group or lone wolf who took it upon themselves to say, "I'm going to hunt this guy down and take him out." He was deemed by the authorities of the US to be of such a threat as to warrant his death and it was sanctioned by the top most authority of our country. If the President of the United States personally went up to Batman and said, "The Joker is too great of threat to the personal security and safety of the citizens of our country and I'm authorizing you to use all necessary force to end that threat once and for all," that would be something else entirely; that would be Batman being made an agent of the legitimate powers of government to act in an official capacity as one of it's agents in this one specific mission. And arguably it wouldn't necessarily need to be the President, it could maybe the governor or a judge or perhaps the police commissioner can hypothetically give that kind of order. But point is that the authority is coming from the right place, from individuals who have been charged with the responsibility of making those decisions by the people of our society. The people, in granting that power, are saying, we trust you to wield it judiciously and not abuse it; and presumably such an authorization would fall within that assessment. And even then the question of personal morality and how that might weigh on Bruce Wayne would be another component of that; just as it invariably weighs on real world police and officers and soldiers who have had to take a life. And interestingly, the whole idea of a government agent authorizing and tasking Batman with the execution of someone who poses a real threat to public safety was at the heart of one of the clips I shared from Justice League Unlimited, involving Batman and Ace, with Amanda Waller ordering Batman to kill Ace for the greater good; and the way they deal with that is just sooooo good. Which is why I feel the need to share it again: The other perspective though is purely from a creative, logistical standpoint; which is that Batman can't kill the Joker. No one can kill the Joke so long as the story continues; and then he can't come back to antagonize the protagonist. It's arguably only when you have an ongoing story, that has gone on for as long as the comics have, that the repetition of certain characters constant and perpetual threats starts to take on a Sysophisian quality, where continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a more permanent resolution begins to strain credulity. But as with a lot of these sort of issues, my opinion is that if something is meant to be a conceit that wouldn't otherwise make sense in a more conventional setting - like why should the Joker get to live - it falls to the writer's responsibility of finding an in-story reason that makes that conceit plausible. An example that comes to mind, that happens to do with the Joke and why Batman hasn't killed him, is when the Joker originally killed Jason Todd; writers then had the Joker, somehow, be made a diplomat of some foreign country and given diplomatic immunity. It was a bit ham handed, but it addressed the very clear issue that if Joker was going to do something so extreme as to kill Batman's own partner, then obviously Batman's expected retaliation should be in kind and they needed a reason to avoid that. And since it was the 80s and the writers were probably too busy doing coke, they're like, "yeah, let's just make him a diplomat." I do think, however, that there are better ways of offering some reason why Batman takes the necessary more pragmatic approach to Joker, let alone the rest of his rogues. One approached I've always liked is how Two-Face was dealt with, again, in Batman the Animated Series; where they made Harvey Dent a close personal friend of Bruce Wayne's. And so the dynamic between them changes from Batman simply beating up on a villain, he's trying to stop a friend who has been victimized, who's sick; and while it doesn't excuse his actions, it's understandable that Bruce wants to help him as much as he wants to stop him. One of the more brilliant episodes that brings Two-Face back was "Judgment Day," where Two-Face becomes the target of "The Judge" - a vigilante passing judgement on criminals, with lethal consequences and Batman is put into a position of having to protect him and stop the Judge. And then the great reveal that the Judge was actually none of other than Harvey himself, having developed yet another personality, one drawn from his past as a DA and his sense of justice, trying to make up for all the wrong he's done. As I see it, a good way of doing this with the Joke is to make Batman feel personally responsible for the Joker's existence; and the writers have sort of done that in the various re-tellings of the Joker's backstory, where the man who would become the Joker falls into a vat of chemicals after an altercation with Batman. They don't always play it up to the degree I think they could. The man in question who becomes Joker may or may not be an unassuming individual at the start; in some versions he's a patsy and shouldn't have even been there. But I think playing on Batman's guilt and the sense that he has sense of responsibility for anything the Joker does, that it would make it that much harder for Batman to end it by killing the Joke; not because he doesn't want to see the threat ended, but rather out of the concern that doing so wouldn't assuage his own sense of guilt, but compound it. And so long as he can catch the Joker and put him away where he can't hurt anyone else, while still being alive, and take the necessary measure to improve things to improve the chance it'll stay that way, Bruce's conscience may not be put at ease, but the weight of his own sense of responsibility doesn't increase. My own thoughts on how this could be achieved would be to expound on an idea more recently introduced in the comics, which is that there is more than one Joker. In my scenario, not only is there more than one Joker, the inherent reason that's so is as a result of a virus - one that shares properties with Joker's iconic poison - but rather than kill a person, leaving a person stuck with a Joker like grin; it contorts the facial muscles into that sort of expression, makes the skin paler and might sometime changes the hair color, while also affecting the mind, suppressing the ID/or the centers of the brain that control the sense of right and wrong or judgement. And that virus, which Bruce may have play some tangential role in accidentally developing or failing to stop its release, has spread through Gotham, to every citizen; and Bruce manages to develop a treatment, but he couldn't find actually find a cure, he could only find a way of suppressing it and keep it from spreading. But it's still there in everyone who was in the city and was exposed to it; it's lying dormant for an in-determinant amount of time. So in a city of a million+ people, everyone them of them has a become this ticking time bomb, where at any moment they could become a grinning, psychotic maniac; and Batman has to stop them, but at the same time, they're still an innocent underneath it all. And some of them he's able to save, as much as he's able to stop their harm of others. But then there could be one or two or more for whom the virus progressed so far that remission remains out of reach and they a re "The Joker" or one of the classic iterations; and they're a constant threat, yet still in a certain sense a victim and Bruce holds out hope of one day finding a way to treat them.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Nov 14, 2019 21:44:06 GMT
I know that they were always going to stop the crisis and save the multiverse but don't the flash forward scenes sort of spoil it?
|
|
|
Post by stargazer1682 on Nov 14, 2019 22:17:08 GMT
I know that they were always going to stop the crisis and save the multiverse but don't the flash forward scenes sort of spoil it? Arguably the crisis itself is something of an anomaly that sweeps not only through space, but time as well; allowing for a future where the Crisis never happened. And while Oliver's absence is apart of Oliver in Mia's life or in Star City is conditional on the coming Crisis, it could be argued that, that event itself - Oliver's deal with the Monitor and leaving - was an alternate time-line created as part of preemptive action taken by the Monitor ahead of the coming crisis. The future that might have been before that may or may not have been the one seen in Legends, where Oliver was still alive (ostensibly the future where he lived into his 80s, like the Reverse Flash claimed, assuming he wasn't lying about that). But assuming that future, where Oliver had lost his arm and Connor Hawke was just an alias used by JJ when he became the Green Arrow; there may have been a completely different future that we were never shown, that was wiped out by the Monitor's interference and the deal he made with Oliver. The presence of the F-Troop from the future in the past and them causing events that hadn't happened before, would indicate that the crisis itself, guided by both the Monitor and the Anti-Monitor, are influencing in events to occur different than they had original, from an outside perspective of the larger scope of time for the characters; which would basically be the audience's. In other words, wibbly wobbly, timey wimey....
|
|