Arrow - S8 E3 - Leap of Faith

Arrow - S8 E3 - Leap of Faith Nov 4, 2019 20:43:51 GMT

Quote

Post by stargazer1682 on Nov 4, 2019 20:43:51 GMT

Nov 4, 2019 17:16:54 GMT dazz said:

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.

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?

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

SPOILER: Click to show

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.

SPOILER: Click to show

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....

As for this "modern" version of Batman it's going on 35 years now, it is who he is,

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.