bw38
06-11-2008, 06:16 PM
I was watching the episode called Trial on BTAS. For those who haven't seen it, Batman's worst enemies kidnap him and put him on trial for crimes committed against them. The new DA in Gotham City has it out for Batman. She is kidnapped and forced to defend Batman. She successfully proves that Batman is a byproduct of the villains and not the other way around (the psychotic villains of Gotham being byproducts of Batman). The jury, filled by some of the most prominent members Batman's rogues gallery, finds him NOT guilty. It basically says that the villains would have ended up being who they were whether or not Batman existed or not. Even so they attempt to kill him being that they are villains and all.
At the same time I've been reading, Batman Blind Justice in which Henri Ducard says that the villians Batman faces all have one thing in common. To quote:
Batman. His deductive talents seem highly overrated. It doesn't take great intellect to tackle street crime. Luck and timing are the operative skills. No, what interests me is the fact that he functions as a lightning rod for a certain breed of psychotic. The specialize in absurdly grandiose schemes, and whatever the ostensible rationale - greed, revenge, the seizure of power their true agenda is always the same: to cast Batman in the role of nemesis. Hence the puns, the riddles, the flagrant clues, they scatter in their collective wake - daring their foe to penetrate the obvious. He always triumphs. If he failed, they'd be bereft. The pas de deux would have no point. Like naughty children, who tempt the wrath of a stern, demanding father they seek only to shock him by the enormity of their transgressions. It's the moment of acknowledgment they crave. Thus "good" conquers "evil." True evil seldom announces itself so loudly. The dangerous ones set their subversive goals, and achieve them, bit by bit...invisibly, inevitably. They have no taste for theater.
I think both materials bring up great points. I wanted to know what you guys think on this matter. Would Gotham be free of the psychotic villains that seem to run in this city if there were no Batman? What would Gotham be like if there were no Batman?
There was another episode called the I Am The Night in which Batman vocally doubts about whether he is doing anybody any good with his nocturnal vigilantism. The same theme is tackled kind of tackled in the movie Mask of the Phantasm. Bruce Wayne has 2 flashbacks to when he met Andrea, a former romance from his college days. In one of the flashbacks he vows to avenge his parent's death by fighting crime. In another flashback Bruce asks his parents for a sign that they'll forgive him for forsaking his vow. So you have here a person who keeps doubting whether or not what he's doing is worth it, who sometimes wants to lead a normal life, but yet keeps getting pulled back in.
I'd ask why does he keep getting pulled back into this life of crime fighting, but the obvious answer would be the writers and the money Batman makes for DC :P I think a better question would be, who is responsible for Bruce Wayne turning to his life as a crime fighter? himself? his parents? the villains that run afoul in Gotham? Gotham city itself? And lastly, does it even make a difference what Bruce Wayne does as Batman? Sometimes it seems like he only makes minor differences in Gotham. I mean in a fight against evil whether it's in real life or in fiction, evil will always prevail, because even though those who commit evil acts may have been stopped or may have their plans thwarted at the moment, there are always going to be people out there committing evil acts. The old adage "bad things happen when good people don't do anything" should be changed to "bad things happen regardless of what good people do".
Thoughts?
At the same time I've been reading, Batman Blind Justice in which Henri Ducard says that the villians Batman faces all have one thing in common. To quote:
Batman. His deductive talents seem highly overrated. It doesn't take great intellect to tackle street crime. Luck and timing are the operative skills. No, what interests me is the fact that he functions as a lightning rod for a certain breed of psychotic. The specialize in absurdly grandiose schemes, and whatever the ostensible rationale - greed, revenge, the seizure of power their true agenda is always the same: to cast Batman in the role of nemesis. Hence the puns, the riddles, the flagrant clues, they scatter in their collective wake - daring their foe to penetrate the obvious. He always triumphs. If he failed, they'd be bereft. The pas de deux would have no point. Like naughty children, who tempt the wrath of a stern, demanding father they seek only to shock him by the enormity of their transgressions. It's the moment of acknowledgment they crave. Thus "good" conquers "evil." True evil seldom announces itself so loudly. The dangerous ones set their subversive goals, and achieve them, bit by bit...invisibly, inevitably. They have no taste for theater.
I think both materials bring up great points. I wanted to know what you guys think on this matter. Would Gotham be free of the psychotic villains that seem to run in this city if there were no Batman? What would Gotham be like if there were no Batman?
There was another episode called the I Am The Night in which Batman vocally doubts about whether he is doing anybody any good with his nocturnal vigilantism. The same theme is tackled kind of tackled in the movie Mask of the Phantasm. Bruce Wayne has 2 flashbacks to when he met Andrea, a former romance from his college days. In one of the flashbacks he vows to avenge his parent's death by fighting crime. In another flashback Bruce asks his parents for a sign that they'll forgive him for forsaking his vow. So you have here a person who keeps doubting whether or not what he's doing is worth it, who sometimes wants to lead a normal life, but yet keeps getting pulled back in.
I'd ask why does he keep getting pulled back into this life of crime fighting, but the obvious answer would be the writers and the money Batman makes for DC :P I think a better question would be, who is responsible for Bruce Wayne turning to his life as a crime fighter? himself? his parents? the villains that run afoul in Gotham? Gotham city itself? And lastly, does it even make a difference what Bruce Wayne does as Batman? Sometimes it seems like he only makes minor differences in Gotham. I mean in a fight against evil whether it's in real life or in fiction, evil will always prevail, because even though those who commit evil acts may have been stopped or may have their plans thwarted at the moment, there are always going to be people out there committing evil acts. The old adage "bad things happen when good people don't do anything" should be changed to "bad things happen regardless of what good people do".
Thoughts?