What's your favorite headcanon?

[Celestia]

One wonders how much of that social change would actually go into effect with people like the Joker running around

If Bruce Wayne had never become Batman, there never would have been a Joker.

[DomaDoma]

If Bruce Wayne had never become Batman, there never would have been a Joker.

Let me just add here that Frank Miller took that one way too far. And that's during his consensus-good period. No, the Joker is going to find mischief to make with or without Batman, and that is final.

[Deepbluediver]

If Bruce Wayne had never become Batman, there never would have been a Joker.

From what I've heard, there are several different origin stories for the Joker, right? I mean, maybe it's dramatic to have one villain be tangeltially related to a heroes past, but when you have several prominent members of a hero's rogues gallery all being directly-created by that hero, the coincidence just breaks my personal suspension of disbelief.
Plus it feels like lazy writing IMO.

No, the Joker is going to find mischief to make with or without Batman, and that is final.

Yeah, I'm in agreement with that. Unless a hero really acts recklessly (and I'm sure some of them have from time to time) blaming other people's stupidity on a hero acting heroic just feel dumb to me.

[Dienekes]

Let me just add here that Frank Miller took that one way too far. And that's during his consensus-good period. No, the Joker is going to find mischief to make with or without Batman, and that is final.

That one kind of depends on which origin story of Mr. J you want to follow. But most of which pin the actual creation on the Joker being that he fell into the vat of chemicals because the Batman happened to crash his heist, and messed up.

But, that really only works for the Joker. Hell, Poison Ivy, Ra's al-Ghul, Swamp Thing, and Scarecrow have all tried to destroy Gotham and none of them can claim Bruce as their reason for turning evil.

And that's not counting the times with the Justice League where he saves the entire world.

[Traab]

That one kind of depends on which origin story of Mr. J you want to follow. But most of which pin the actual creation on the Joker being that he fell into the vat of chemicals because the Batman happened to crash his heist, and messed up.

But, that really only works for the Joker. Hell, Poison Ivy, Ra's al-Ghul, Swamp Thing, and Scarecrow have all tried to destroy Gotham and none of them can claim Bruce as their reason for turning evil.

And that's not counting the times with the Justice League where he saves the entire world.

Actually, several can. In some instances, isnt poison ivy created by lab accident with wayne enterprises? Swamp thing isnt a villain, not sure why you mentioned him. But in general yeah, most are unconnected to batman. Mr freeze, scarecrow, mad hatter, the royal flush gang, catwoman, penguin, bane, the list goes on. Without batman the city becomes a criminal owned warzone. Ras PROBABLY wouldnt get involved with gotham, or at least it wouldnt be high on his list, without the great detective to draw his notice. Im sure eventually he would get around to cleansing that cesspool himself though.

[Dienekes]

Actually, several can. In some instances, isnt poison ivy created by lab accident with wayne enterprises? Swamp thing isnt a villain, not sure why you mentioned him. But in general yeah, most are unconnected to batman. Mr freeze, scarecrow, mad hatter, the royal flush gang, catwoman, penguin, bane, the list goes on. Without batman the city becomes a criminal owned warzone. Ras PROBABLY wouldnt get involved with gotham, or at least it wouldnt be high on his list, without the great detective to draw his notice. Im sure eventually he would get around to cleansing that cesspool himself though.

Ivy being vaguely funded by Wayne Enterprises was only in the crappy Batman and Robin movie as far as I remember. In every comic origin I've read it was Professor Woodrue working alone. Ivy is added to the list because she has tried to destroy Gotham with man eating plants.

Swamp Thing is added to the list because he tried to sink Gotham into a swamp. Batman talked him down.

Ra's is weird. Depending on the origin you're picking he either only has his eyes on Gotham becaus Bruce is there and he really wants Bruce to bang his daughter. Or he was planning to destroy Gotham anyway and just so happens to also want Bruce to bang his daughter.

Scarecrow is on the list because he's tried to drive all of Gotham insane with his fear toxins, not just in the Batman Begins movie of course, but in the actual comics.

As far as I know Mr. Freeze has never tried to destroy all of Gotham (again outside of the crappy Batman and Robin movie) though I'll admit I'm not up to date on current era Batman and never consistently followed Freeze's exploits before so I could be wrong there.

Same goes with Mad Hatter, Royal Flush, Penguin, and Catwoman. They aren't on the list because they were never Gotham destroying level events. Just criminals with a gimmic.

Bane on the other hand is totally only in Gotham because Batman is there. But his reasoning is such insane troll logic that I would barely count it as a point against Bruce. Basically while he was imprisoned he had a recurring dream of a monstrous bat that tormented him. As an adult he heard about Batman, figure he was the bat and decided to break him.

[Bohandas]

If Bruce Wayne had never become Batman, there never would have been a Joker.

Perhaps, but that was part a series of freak coincidences. That's like blaming a random small animal for the fact that you got struck by lightning playing golf; Yeah if it had been doing somethig different a few months ago the weather might be different now, but not in any sort of meaningful or predictable way. IIRC in the killing joke origin story (which I assume is what you're referring to) on that same day he lost his day job, his gang set him up as a fall guy, and his wife either died or left him (i forget which) and all of this helped push him over the edge. Then while fleeing he had to coincidentally fall into a vat of the exact right chemicals to deform him into a clownlike appearance. Plus, he was already a regular criminal, this just pushed him to embrace criminality and realize he had a knack for it.

[Mystic Muse]

In Killing Joke (the comic anyway), the Joker says he doesn't even know how he ended up the way he did. Sometines he remembers it one way, sometimes another.

[Traab]

Ivy being vaguely funded by Wayne Enterprises was only in the crappy Batman and Robin movie as far as I remember. In every comic origin I've read it was Professor Woodrue working alone. Ivy is added to the list because she has tried to destroy Gotham with man eating plants.

Swamp Thing is added to the list because he tried to sink Gotham into a swamp. Batman talked him down.

Ra's is weird. Depending on the origin you're picking he either only has his eyes on Gotham becaus Bruce is there and he really wants Bruce to bang his daughter. Or he was planning to destroy Gotham anyway and just so happens to also want Bruce to bang his daughter.

Scarecrow is on the list because he's tried to drive all of Gotham insane with his fear toxins, not just in the Batman Begins movie of course, but in the actual comics.

As far as I know Mr. Freeze has never tried to destroy all of Gotham (again outside of the crappy Batman and Robin movie) though I'll admit I'm not up to date on current era Batman and never consistently followed Freeze's exploits before so I could be wrong there.

Same goes with Mad Hatter, Royal Flush, Penguin, and Catwoman. They aren't on the list because they were never Gotham destroying level events. Just criminals with a gimmic.

Bane on the other hand is totally only in Gotham because Batman is there. But his reasoning is such insane troll logic that I would barely count it as a point against Bruce. Basically while he was imprisoned he had a recurring dream of a monstrous bat that tormented him. As an adult he heard about Batman, figure he was the bat and decided to break him.

I never claimed most of them wanted to destroy gotham, just that most of them would be there even if batman never showed up. And if batman DIDNT show up, gotham would be a warzone between competing factions of bad guys, because gotham pd sucks, terribly. When they arent deeply corrupt, they are ineffectual to the extreme. If another hero doesnt move in to clean up the place the city is wrecked, even unintentionally.

[Seppl]

I never claimed most of them wanted to destroy gotham, just that most of them would be there even if batman never showed up. And if batman DIDNT show up, gotham would be a warzone between competing factions of bad guys, because gotham pd sucks, terribly. When they arent deeply corrupt, they are ineffectual to the extreme. If another hero doesnt move in to clean up the place the city is wrecked, even unintentionally.

But what if Bruce Wayne had invested as much time, money, effort and passion as he spent on being Batman on making Gotham's police force and judiciary system better and less corrupt?

[Murk]

Also: we have serial killers and organised crime in real life, but we don't often see them running around in silly costumes.
Without Batman, sure, the villains would (mostly) still be villains - but would they have dressed up and given themselves a catchy name? Could it be that the existence of costumed heroes invites the villains to put on costumes too?

Without Batman, the Joker would still have been a mean person - but would he have been The Joker or just a regular criminal?

[Traab]

Murk, none of our criminals have super powers or advanced tech that let them fly or shoot lasers or engulf an entire city in ice/plants/rabid penguins. (Ok, the last one doesnt exist, hush)

[Dienekes]

But what if Bruce Wayne had invested as much time, money, effort and passion as he spent on being Batman on making Gotham's police force and judiciary system better and less corrupt?

He may have been assassinated.

[TurboGhast]

I dunnoh, to me that kinda feels like an argument that everyone who spends any portion of their disposable income on themselves (a new TV, a nice dinner out, a vacation, etc) is somehow evil for not donating it to something related to social services. Since we all know that Gotham has no therapists, at least ones that aren't psychotic wackjob super-villians, being Batman is sort of like therapy for Bruce Wayne. If he couldn't be Batman, there's no telling how it would have turned out. I mean, look at Harvey Dent. If not for Batman, maybe Bruce Wayne would have been Lex Luthor 2.0.


Edit: I guess this theory counts as headcannon, too.

I agree that the argument I made comes too close to "Spend all your income helping others or you're evil". Trying to help inefficiently is still a form of help. Personally going out and stopping criminals alone wouldn't be very efficient in saner location, but since Gotham is a city built by comic book writers to facilitate stories where superheroes running around and beating up supervillains legitimately helps the community, there's a crime to stop around every corner.

Also, Batman being Bruce's recreation adds to connotations about him being a sociopath of some sort.

Also: we have serial killers and organised crime in real life, but we don't often see them running around in silly costumes.
Without Batman, sure, the villains would (mostly) still be villains - but would they have dressed up and given themselves a catchy name? Could it be that the existence of costumed heroes invites the villains to put on costumes too?

Without Batman, the Joker would still have been a mean person - but would he have been The Joker or just a regular criminal?

Don't you remember the evil clown sightings?

Own Headcanon: Pelipper and Politoed got access to Drizzle due to secret bioexperiments by Team Aqua as part of their plan to expand the seas. Likewise, Torkoal and Ninetales' access to Drought came about due to Team Magma performing similar ability splicing experiments.

[Bohandas]

Gotham has no therapists, at least ones that aren't psychotic wackjob super-villians

I'm surprised you went with him rather than Harley Quinn

[Deepbluediver]

I'm surprised you went with him rather than Harley Quinn

I've seen The Batman more recently than any other series, and in that one Dr. Strange works at Arkham while Harleen Quinzel is more a TV-show personality. I just didn't think of it honestly, but that's a good point, too.

[Murk]

Murk, none of our criminals have super powers or advanced tech that let them fly or shoot lasers or engulf an entire city in ice/plants/rabid penguins. (Ok, the last one doesnt exist, hush)

Fair enough, though I don't think that would stop anyone. If a cop dresses up as batman, I'm preeeetty sure there would be a burglar dressing up too the next day.

[Keltest]

Fair enough, though I don't think that would stop anyone. If a cop dresses up as batman, I'm preeeetty sure there would be a burglar dressing up too the next day.

In the real world, notoriety like that is bad for crime. If you walk down the street with a costume like that, you may as well be wearing a sign that says "i am a wanted felon, please call every cop available on me". The only reason that doesn't happen in gotham is because it is so completely crime ridden, and the police are so ineffectual, that they cant do anything about it anyway.

[Sapphire Guard]

Most of the costumes are either not optional or serve some practical purpose. Joker and Two Face are stuck with how they look, Bane and Freeze need to carry their gear, Deadshots scope mask presumably helps with targeting. Penguin and Ra's don't wear costumes.

Wayne enterprises is huge, Bruce doesn't approve every single project.

[QUOTEBut what if Bruce Wayne had invested as much time, money, effort and passion as he spent on being Batman on making Gotham's police force and judiciary system better and less corrupt?][/QUOTE]

He does, that's the thing. We hear about him doing stuff like giving jobs to genuinely reformed ex cons, funding orphanages and Arkham security, sending his lawyers out to help for free when needed. But he gets a lot of specific criticism along this line, when you could say the same about basically any superhero.

There's a great line someone used on these forums before, can't remember who. 'That argument seems simultaneously too meta and not meta enough.' Ultimately, the problems can't be solved, because then more comics couldn't be sold. You can't blame the characters for that.

[Traab]

In the real world, notoriety like that is bad for crime. If you walk down the street with a costume like that, you may as well be wearing a sign that says "i am a wanted felon, please call every cop available on me". The only reason that doesn't happen in gotham is because it is so completely crime ridden, and the police are so ineffectual, that they cant do anything about it anyway.

That and the fact that most criminals have a heavily armed goon squad with them. Even the joker tends to have harley, his two hyenas, and often a couple of random huge thugs. Some of the non supers have entire gangs of backup which would turn any police confrontation into a full scale battle with god knows how much death and bloodshed. Thats ignoring the supervillains who could wade through gotham swat like they arent even there. Clayface for example would require super specialized gear to stop, ivy would turn the entire city block into a jungle biome and slaughter the entire force, Mr Freeze has his armored suit and ability to engulf the battlefield and every cop on it in ice, the list goes on.

All that said, if batman didnt exist, and no other super came to gotham instead, I can see a great deal of shoot to kill orders going out. Take Ivy for example. You arent going to be able to arrest her as a normal cop. But she cant stop a sniper round from a block away. Bane would go down hard, he is another one regular cops aint going to take down nonlethal, joker likely would be kill on sight after a few of his mass murder plots go off. And yes, comic book logic means they all come back from the dead somehow, but still, boom, headshot. Will be the order of the day for a significant portion of the rogues gallery.

[Doorhandle]

Most of the costumes are either not optional or serve some practical purpose. Joker and Two Face are stuck with how they look, Bane and Freeze need to carry their gear, Deadshots scope mask presumably helps with targeting. Penguin and Ra's don't wear costumes.

Wayne enterprises is huge, Bruce doesn't approve every single project.

But what if Bruce Wayne had invested as much time, money, effort and passion as he spent on being Batman on making Gotham's police force and judiciary system better and less corrupt?]

He does, that's the thing. We hear about him doing stuff like giving jobs to genuinely reformed ex cons, funding orphanages and Arkham security, sending his lawyers out to help for free when needed. But he gets a lot of specific criticism along this line, when you could say the same about basically any superhero.

There's a great line someone used on these forums before, can't remember who. 'That argument seems simultaneously too meta and not meta enough.' Ultimately, the problems can't be solved, because then more comics couldn't be sold. You can't blame the characters for that.

Pretty much. Honestly, I wished more superhero comics went in that direction for deconstruction/reconstruction: Superheros and Villains can fight endlessly, but they can never "win" the war.
Instead, they tend to mock the very idea of superheros, or the seedier underbelly of it: sometimes even deservedly.

Back on topic: I have a Prototype headcanon that's spoiler-ific, and is there specifically to deal with how badly Alex Mercer's character was derailed.

Spoiler: The reason for the characterization switch between Prototype 1 and 2

Show

The reason Alex Mercer became evil(er) in-between prototype 1 and 2 is because he was recovering from his own death.
We already know that human!Mercer was 5cm from a clinical sociopath to start with, perhaps with minor megalomaniac tendencies.
We also know that he was shot and killed and then was infected by blacklight: Late enough that brain damage/death could have set in, resulting in the amnesiac personalities of virus!Mercer.
However, the regenerative abilities of blacklight are so powerful that they could not only recover from a nuke, but also recover the brain damage dealt to the body of Mercer. Unfortunately, human!mercer is a very bad guy(tm) and so his personality returning is a very bad thing (tm).

Mercer becoming evil in the second game wasn't due to some tripe about losing faith in humanity: it was because the original personality finally restored itself over the mind of virus!Mercer.
It was only natural for human!Mercer, who in his words "wasn't paid to feel" to take up world conquest as his next goal.

I also have another for Bloodborne, that I will repost for clemency... and really needs to be polished a bit, in hindsight.

Spoiler: The One Reborn is the reanimated corpse of Mergo, who's premature stillbirth was accidentally caused by the College of Mensis

Show

Despite seemingly coming out of nowhere, there is a fair amount of symbolism in the One Reborn's arrival. For one, when it emerges form the eclipse, it seems to be surround in a sickly yellow fluid... which could well be afterbirth. Furthermore, there is the eclipse itself, and the phrase "behold a paleblood sky!". Paleblood can be taken as a description of a placenta, also associated with birth: therefore, the paleblood moon is the moon of birth. There is already a lot of cosmic associations in the great ones: The Moon Presence, Rom the Vacuous' own association with the moon, and Ebrietas begin described as "Daughter of the Cosmos:" hence the eclipse leading to this creature's birth/rebirth. However, this has addition symbolism: the eclipse is a par of the cosmos being blocked, or perhaps turning against itself; as well as being an all-purpose symbol of calamity. Hence the creature is not just born from the eclipse but still-born; the miracle of life gone horribly wrong. This is perhaps emphasized by it's limp exit from it's comic womb and it's clumsy collapse upon he ground.

Likewise, the malformed nature of the creature implies it's origins. It is a massive Body of Bodies; and so it is simultaneously a great one,(due to it's massive size, unusual shape and strange abilities), and human (due to being made of, well, hundreds of human body parts). This indicates it is part-human and part great-one, much like the other children Formless Odeon attempts to sire. However, it is broken, misshapen and malformed, rather than the smooth combination of human and abhuman like the Orphan of Kos. This implies that it it's development was never completed...much like a miscarriaged fetus or premature stillborn child. There is one other being in the lore of the game that fits this qualifier: Mergo, the stillborn great one. We never see the physical presence of Mergo: only it's cradle, and it's phantasmal cry. What he wet-nurse is guarding is Mergo's soul: and what we see in The One reborn is Mergo's would-be body, that died within the womb. Furthermore, it is mentioned that the nightmare of Mensis was created to nurture Mergo, and you face the wet-nurse within this dream: you're inside a great-one's "womb" so to speak. As mentioned, the one reborn was "born" through this eclipse into Yahar'Gul, Unseen Village. It may well have been summoned from the nightmare of Mensis, which you visit direly afterwards. It is also mentioned that Mensis summoned Mergo: and this may have been what killed it. Summoning could be considered a Great one being born into our universe: and the manner of The One Reborn's summoning fits this idea. Menis's misguided summoning attempt could have cause Mergo to be born prematurely or only partially, killing it and leaving the soul inside the womb. The body was recollected by the cosmos and hidden away within the nightmare. The One Reborn is this corpse.

We've already confirmed that the creature is a failed birth, but what about it's name? "The One" implies a well-known being that people do not want to refer to directly, so it could well refer to the infant horror Mergo. However, the one reborn implies it was born once and it being born again. It's first birth was it's death due to the failed summoning, but what of the second? Well, the bell-ringing women around the top of the boss arena seem to bring forth the body of the one reborn via their bells, much like they bring forth other creatures through the level. As mentioned the symbolism of the summoning evokes a birth...or in this case, the rebirth of Mergo. It's battered corpse still writhing and chanting due to the remaing power of the undead and unborn god: much like you can still hear Mergo's crying in the Nightmare of Mensis despite it's death.

In summary, The One Reborn is the reanimated, stillborn corpse of Mergo who was born prematurely due to the actions of the university of Mensis, and then reborn as the undead thing you fight in the game.

edit:

In Killing Joke (the comic anyway), the Joker says he doesn't even know how he ended up the way he did. Sometines he remembers it one way, sometimes another...

Ironically, possibly the one work most in favor of the whole "Superheroes exist because of Villains" schtick: one of my personal bugbears. The whole create-your-own villain thing is pretty played out; and it makes heros look incompetent in a medium where they're already made somewhat ineffectual by the nature of the medium.

I think Batman: the Animated Series put it best it the episode " Trial". To sum up, Joker, Poison Ivy, Mad Hatter and the rest would have become villainous with or without the presence of Batman: his existence just gave them someone to fixate upon and a penchant for costuming. Of course they then try to kill him anyway, even after they concede defeat in "court". Again, proving the point

[acheter]

Glad to hear, I am not the only one with that idea.

[Frozen_Feet]

My own headcanon regarding great many mainstream superheroes is built on cherry-picking the stories and like and then concluding either that:

1) The villains got shot/executed/imprisoned for life at the end and the world was a better place for it. (AKA "The Joker got the Chair")

OR

2) The hero fails, the villain gets away with the crime and the world moves on. (AKA "Batman really was shot by small-time crook and bled to death on that alley".)

Some other, more self-contained stories (notably, Dragon Ball) tend to support a third possibility, as outlined above: the so-called heroes are fundamentally fighting a self-caused problem and the stronger they get, the worse opponents will find their way to them. Spider-man, in particular, seems to be cursed with this - he has much more people in his rogues' gallery than Batman who can directly trace their origins to him.

[Lacuna Caster]

He does, that's the thing. We hear about him doing stuff like giving jobs to genuinely reformed ex cons, funding orphanages and Arkham security, sending his lawyers out to help for free when needed. But he gets a lot of specific criticism along this line, when you could say the same about basically any superhero.

There's a great line someone used on these forums before, can't remember who. 'That argument seems simultaneously too meta and not meta enough.' Ultimately, the problems can't be solved, because then more comics couldn't be sold. You can't blame the characters for that.

I agree in principle, but I think there's something of a problem of screen-time allocation if you look at total output. Bruce Wayne might be spending most of his time and intellectual energy on civic philanthropy and canny investment, but it's not like this accounts for more than, what 5% of a typical Batman story's page count? (With honourable exceptions, of course.)

Totally agreed about the meta-narrative problem of supervillain persistence long beyond the point of sustainable logic, and I agree it's unfair to blame Batman himself for creating his rogue's gallery. However, B:TAS did go out of it's way to show how nearly all his nemeses are the biproduct of something wrong with Gotham City- either greedy corporations, or endemic mob violence, or the concentration of wealth and power, or just having emotional ties to another crook. To the extent you can point at the ruling elite of Gotham (to which Bruce does belong) as failing to fix this mess, well... there's plenty of blame to go round.

[digiman619]

My own headcanon regarding great many mainstream superheroes is built on cherry-picking the stories and like and then concluding either that:

1) The villains got shot/executed/imprisoned for life at the end and the world was a better place for it. (AKA "The Joker got the Chair")

OR

2) The hero fails, the villain gets away with the crime and the world moves on. (AKA "Batman really was shot by small-time crook and bled to death on that alley".)

Some other, more self-contained stories (notably, Dragon Ball) tend to support a third possibility, as outlined above: the so-called heroes are fundamentally fighting a self-caused problem and the stronger they get, the worse opponents will find their way to them. Spider-man, in particular, seems to be cursed with this - he has much more people in his rogues' gallery than Batman who can directly trace their origins to him.

It also doesn't help that like 90% of Spider-Man's rouge's gallery are people he knows personally (Green Goblin being his friend/friend's dad, The Lizard was his teacher (and in some continuities, so was Doctor Octopus), Venom was a co-worker, etc, etc,).

Ironically, his daughter in the M2 continuity (a.k.a. Spider-Girl) was the other way around: a lot of her enemies later became her friends.

[Aedilred]

I agree in principle, but I think there's something of a problem of screen-time allocation if you look at total output. Bruce Wayne might be spending most of his time and intellectual energy on civic philanthropy and canny investment, but it's not like this accounts for more than, what 5% of a typical Batman story's page count? (With honourable exceptions, of course.)

And I'm sure when DC publishes its anthology Bruce Wayne: A Good Day's Work in which the time he spends as Wayne/Batman is presented proportionally on the page rather than based on what will make for the more interesting Batman story, featuring such riveting sequences as "Bruce Wayne meets with his accountant", "Bruce Wayne organises a charity fundraiser" and "Bruce Wayne reads applications for scholarship grants" it will sell like absolute hot cakes.

[Lacuna Caster]

And I'm sure when DC publishes its anthology Bruce Wayne: A Good Day's Work in which the time he spends as Wayne/Batman is presented proportionally on the page rather than based on what will make for the more interesting Batman story...

Mmm... that seems rather tautological. A Batman story is definitionally about the guy in a mask circumventing the system to bring about reform through force. The West Wing was 90% concerned with budget allocations, spin doctoring, policy meetings, charity bashes and other forms of 'soft power', but had no particular difficulty keeping viewers hooked.

I can certainly imagine a certain wing of the fanbase being perturbed by such a direction, but it's hardly an independent argument against the concept. I'd certainly find it refreshing compared to the current fondness for palette-swapping.

[Doorhandle]

Mmm... that seems rather tautological. A Batman story is definitionally about the guy in a mask circumventing the system to bring about reform through force. The West Wing was 90% concerned with budget allocations, spin doctoring, policy meetings, charity bashes and other forms of 'soft power', but had no particular difficulty keeping viewers hooked.

I can certainly imagine a certain wing of the fanbase being perturbed by such a direction, but it's hardly an independent argument against the concept. I'd certainly find it refreshing compared to the current fondness for palette-swapping.

It could be good, yes... Though it would alienate the people who come for the face-punching. Which is not as many as you'd think but is too many to ignore.

More on topic: The reason batman is always hesitant to fortify himself with more super-powers is due to three factors:
1. He's seen what such compounds can do to the unwary (looking at you, Manbat)
2. He feels he needs to inspire other heros by showing the full potential of what a mere mortal can achieve
3. He take a bit of pride in being a founding member of the justice league without any powers.

[Wardog]

Beowulf: Return to the Shieldlands is actually set in the far future, on an alien planet that has been colonised by humans, where society mirrors Migration Era Northern Europe for reasons.

Hence why the population has an ethnic mix similar to modern London, environmental hazards include sandworms, and there are assorted hostile indiginous sentients that are not present in the original legend.



*****

Regarding Star Wars and the Force, my headcanon:

1) The nature of the Force is not fully understood. Both the Jedi and the Sith have at times misinterpreted it. In particular, there were a lot of theories and dogmas held during the Republican era that are inaccurate or outright false. Yoda came closest to understanding it, but only after the collapse of the old systems and his exile on Degobah allowed him to break with the past.

2) The Force is an energy field, created by life, which surrounds and binds us, and provides a connection between both the living and the inanimate world.

Spoiler: As per ESB:

Show

For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.

3) The Force is affected by and affects thoughts and emotions.

4) Just as oxgyen is vital for most life, but can also be toxic or corrosive; just as Love can mend your life but love can break your heart, the Force can be dangerous and damaging. In particular, it can amplify and provoke negative emotions, and cause hallucinations. This aspect of the Force is traditionally refered to as "the dark side of the force". The "dark side" is not a dualistic opposite to the "light side", nor is it an imbalance is an otherwise perfect Force. Any "imbalance" in the Force is essentially a matter of individuals indulging too much in the dark side of the force in such a way as to harm themselves or others.

5) Certain people and places have stronger connections to the Force than others (for reasons not necessarily known); some of those are more succeptable (or productive of) the negative aspects of the Force.

6) Points 3, 4 and 5 mean that people who are strong in the Force, or who enter places "strong in the dark side of the force" can easily be overcome by negative emotions. In particular, their fear, anger, etc will become amplified, and they will tend to see the world in such a way to justify their fear and anger. This naturally becomes self-reinforcing.

7) This explains why Luke, who was preocupied with the thought of facing Vader and went into the cave armed and ready for a fight hallucinated that he was actually fighting Vader. More generally, it explains why impetuousness, anger, obsession, etc are dangerous traits in a Jedi. But it does not justify the Republic-era Jedi policy of supressing all emotion, and forbidding love or other personal relationships. That was just dogma based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the Force and reinforced by tradition. A more englightened understanding of the Force (or humn nature) would have mde them realise that policy was likely to cause teh very problems they wanted to avoid.

8) Likewise, the Sith have misunderstood the true nature of the Force as wll: they recognise that passion can be a good thing, and that the Force responds to and amplifies it, and that some Jedi dogma is foolish. But they make the mistake of thinking that therefore lack of restraint in both emotions and behaviour is "better" and "stronger", when it is actually just as self-defeating as the the Jedi's suppression of emotion.

9) The midichlorian hypothesis was an attempt to scientifically explain the Force, that was briefly in vogue in the last years of the Republic, but which was abandoned when it was found to be unsupported by evidence and to have poor predictive power. Hence it not being mentioned before of since.

[Dienekes]

Mmm... that seems rather tautological. A Batman story is definitionally about the guy in a mask circumventing the system to bring about reform through force. The West Wing was 90% concerned with budget allocations, spin doctoring, policy meetings, charity bashes and other forms of 'soft power', but had no particular difficulty keeping viewers hooked.

I can certainly imagine a certain wing of the fanbase being perturbed by such a direction, but it's hardly an independent argument against the concept. I'd certainly find it refreshing compared to the current fondness for palette-swapping.

While I have thoroughly enjoyed more Bruce focused Batman stories. But let's be clear here, comics and shows set up an expectation and an audience.

West Wing was great, but if it suddenly started focusing on, let's say, the Presidents body guard and there was a full season just of this secret service member doing advanced combat trying to rescue the President Bartlet from a kidnapping. Well, no matter how good the story of that might be, that isn't what a large portion of the audience expects to see when turning on West Wing.