Just what is the appeal of Batman these days?

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm guessing Anteros wasn't aiming that at you, since you didn't make the "prediction".

Anyways, the idea that he can't fight crime and live a regular life at the same time because he doesn't get enough sleep, and the proof of this is his lack of stable relationships is unsupported. He has more characters behind him than anyone else.

The Bat Family speaks for itself. The various Batman titles that feature his allies speaks for itself. The cartoon where he teams up with a different hero each episode speaks for itself.

If Batman doesn't have a stable group of friends, family, support, and allies, I don't know who does...

And if the remark was about romantic relationships only, it makes less sense. There are many reasons that Bruce doesn't have a romantic relationship. Lack of sleep is not one of them.

[Psyren]

I guess when Deuterio said Bruce can't properly focus on tomorrow's meeting, he didn't mean a professional meeting, he meant... a date? And I guess the argument you guys are making is that Bruce can't hold a stable *romantic* relationship because he doesn't sleep enough???

The idea is that he's NOT capable of putting "all his effort" into being Bruce Wayne. Either that, or "all his effort" is pretty ineffectual given the results.

The underlying point being - hey, if he's unhappy, maybe he should try doing something different? Just a thought. (The main thought, to be precise.)

The Bat Family speaks for itself. The various Batman titles that feature his allies speaks for itself. The cartoon where he teams up with a different hero each episode speaks for itself.

If they want to convey that he's happy, then why do they keep showing him wanting more than that? He wasn't trying to get married for the lulz, he actually felt something was missing in his life. Clearly putting on themed pajamas and hitting people every night is not filling that hole.

[Dr.Samurai]

The idea is that he's NOT capable of putting "all his effort" into being Bruce Wayne. Either that, or "all his effort" is pretty ineffectual given the results.

The underlying point being - hey, if he's unhappy, maybe he should try doing something different? Just a thought. (The main thought, to be precise.)

I don't know what conversation you're talking about then. Deuterio was responding to Anteros, who was making the point that arguments suggesting Bruce should just focus all of his time and resources to economic/social programs to help Gotham's crime problem don't work because Gotham is still the target of high-powered/alien threats that require Batman to neutralize.

Deuterio replied with (partially) this:

There is a middle ground where Bats fights Darkseid personally and Bruce takes care of the local crime and corruption.

Because let's be honest, no way Bruce can properly focus on tomorrow's meeting about how to improve the city if Bats spent all the previous nights up cracking skulls and getting his own skull cracked.

He's not talking about happiness, or love interests. He's talking about Bruce being able to fight crime all night and then manage life as Bruce Wayne in the morning, in the context of solving Gotham's problems.

He goes on to suggest that Batman doesn't need to prowl every night, only when high powered threats arise, so that leaves Bruce Wayne more time to be a philanthropist.

All of which is moot because the comics don't make a big deal about his recovery time. He literally does fight crime all night (seemingly) and then works as a millionaire businessman during the day.

If they want to convey that he's happy, then why do they keep showing him wanting more than that? He wasn't trying to get married for the lulz, he actually felt something was missing in his life. Clearly putting on themed pajamas and hitting people every night is not filling that hole.

From what I read in the spoilers, he was deceived by Selina. This is the first I've seen the word "happy" brought up so maybe I need to follow the conversation further back?

[HolyDraconus]

Backlash for canning of the marriage is going to be huge.

[Devonix]

Backlash for canning of the marriage is going to be huge.

I agree. They have no idea how happy the idea of Bruce getting married made fans.

[Lacuna Caster]

The Bat Family speaks for itself. The various Batman titles that feature his allies speaks for itself. The cartoon where he teams up with a different hero each episode speaks for itself.

If Batman doesn't have a stable group of friends, family, support, and allies, I don't know who does...

The irony here is that Batman's 'brooding loner' MO is actually, on a meta level, the root cause of his extensive in-universe social network. The writers must supply him with fresh relationships and romantic entanglements specifically so that the story can show him straining those bonds and alienating or endangering allies, and/or relenting to learn a lesson about teamwork and show the heart of gold beneath his grim exterior.

Superman, by contrast, has a relatively small in-universe social circle because his relationships are both functional and stable. It's kinda like... ionic compounds vs. organic chemistry, I guess?

[Peelee]

OK, I have a question. How does the Batman storyline play out? Like, the basics are parents are killed, boy trains to become vigilante, vigilante fights crime. Those I get.

But how long as he been doing it? He's been a character for nearly a century now. How many times has Joker actually escaped from Arkham in any given iteration? If the Batman universe has a Batman who has been batmanning around for fifty years, and every year or so the Joker breaks out, and they're both still in their prime, the Batman universe is clearly operating on a fundamentally different set of properties.

Forgive my lack of comic knowledge here, but let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say that almost twenty years ago, Batman #n comes out, where Batman has to stop Two-Face from a bank robbery using Y2K shenanigans. Then, let's say that in modern day, Batman #x comes out where Batman has to stop the Riddler, and one of the clues references Two-Faces millennium heist. 20 years have passed, but the characters haven't aged. Gordon hasn't become an octogenarian, for instance, he's still the same. Is the actual storyline that they live in a ageless void, and this is normal for them? Is the time between the two events significantly shorter in-universe? Do most Batman stories create their own continuity that largely ignore the other continuities so that they can be free to tell their own stories, and just share mostly overarching themes like the Joker escaping from Arkham?

Because if it's the separate continuity thing, then many problems presented seem like they are less problems with the concept than too little time to see effective change. Bruce using Wayne Industries and his own fortune to try to correct the society as a whole could absolutely be working, but at a subtle, slow rate that would be difficult to tell comic-to-comic. Batman TAS and BB are a great example of this; future Gotham, while still not great, is better than it was in Wayne's heyday, IIRC, and is more analogous to Los Angeles with its gang problems.

Does this make sense, or are there things I'm not considering? Or am I completely overthinking it because it's mostly a comic and has to continue in some way regardless?

[War_lord]

OK, I have a question. How does the Batman storyline play out? Like, the basics are parents are killed, boy trains to become vigilante, vigilante fights crime. Those I get.

But how long as he been doing it? He's been a character for nearly a century now. How many times has Joker actually escaped from Arkham in any given iteration? If the Batman universe has a Batman who has been batmanning around for fifty years, and every year or so the Joker breaks out, and they're both still in their prime, the Batman universe is clearly operating on a fundamentally different set of properties.

It depends, an author will usually set their story in the period that works best for the story. Certain stories (i.e. Year One, Long Halloween, A Death in the Family) are so well regarded that they're at least partially incorporated into the mythos and give certain stories a rough timeline, for example brooding loner Batman stories are often set after A Death in the Family because mourning Jason Todd makes broody mistrustful Batman make sense.

Stories set in Batman's prime will often make reference to Arkham being very escapeable, Gotham's just that corrupt.

Forgive my lack of comic knowledge here, but let me give a hypothetical example. Let's say that almost twenty years ago, Batman #n comes out, where Batman has to stop Two-Face from a bank robbery using Y2K shenanigans. Then, let's say that in modern day, Batman #x comes out where Batman has to stop the Riddler, and one of the clues references Two-Faces millennium heist. 20 years have passed, but the characters haven't aged. Gordon hasn't become an octogenarian, for instance, he's still the same. Is the actual storyline that they live in a ageless void, and this is normal for them? Is the time between the two events significantly shorter in-universe? Do most Batman stories create their own continuity that largely ignore the other continuities so that they can be free to tell their own stories, and just share mostly overarching themes like the Joker escaping from Arkham?

Batman is always exactly as old and run down as the story needs him to be, continuity is very loose outside of stories that are following an internal chronology and stories that were so good most authors reference them.

Because if it's the separate continuity thing, then many problems presented seem like they are less problems with the concept than too little time to see effective change. Bruce using Wayne Industries and his own fortune to try to correct the society as a whole could absolutely be working, but at a subtle, slow rate that would be difficult to tell comic-to-comic. Batman TAS and BB are a great example of this; future Gotham, while still not great, is better than it was in Wayne's heyday, IIRC, and is more analogous to Los Angeles with its gang problems.

Gotham is always exactly as crime ridden and hopeless as the story needs it to be. Although over time there has been a shift in most media. Traditionally Batman's Bruce Wayne identity used acting the vacant playboy as a cover, but in modern stories there's a definite shift towards having his civilian identity be active in fixing Gotham's problems the more traditional way.

[Lord Raziere]

Not how it works, Peelee

comic book superheroes just reboot themselves every time it seems they are going to be too successful in universe. they set a superhero down, tell all the stories they can with them individually, then tell the stories they can crossing over with other heroes, and just when it seems they are going to finally move past the same old situations-

RESET.

they're right back to going through their origin story again but this time with a few little changes because they have a different writer who is probably a fan of the hero, and thus probably wants to do his own interpretation of the character since forever and doesn't want to do someone elses interpretation of the character. then they tell all their stories they want, tell all the crossover stories they want until another writer replaces them and starts the whole thing all over again.

thus creating a near grounds hog day loop kind of situation where they go through their origin story again and face all the same villains in the same setting without any real progress. its clear that this is never going to stop, so its not a question of whether Batman or any other superhero can ever progress, its a question of how people can better depict him next reboot around so that he doesn't look like a rich jerk who is faffing about doing vigilantism in costumes when actual change is done through social humanitarian efforts.

the answer to which is probably "no." but that doesn't stop people from speculating.

[War_lord]

Not how it works, Peelee

comic book superheroes just reboot themselves every time it seems they are going to be too successful in universe. they set a superhero down, tell all the stories they can with them individually, then tell the stories they can crossing over with other heroes, and just when it seems they are going to finally move past the same old situations-

RESET.

they're right back to going through their origin story again but this time with a few little changes because they have a different writer who is probably a fan of the hero, and thus probably wants to do his own interpretation of the character since forever and doesn't want to do someone elses interpretation of the character. then they tell all their stories they want, tell all the crossover stories they want until another writer replaces them and starts the whole thing all over again.

thus creating a near grounds hog day loop kind of situation where they go through their origin story again and face all the same villains in the same setting without any real progress. its clear that this is never going to stop, so its not a question of whether Batman or any other superhero can ever progress, its a question of how people can better depict him next reboot around so that he doesn't look like a rich jerk who is faffing about doing vigilantism in costumes when actual change is done through social humanitarian efforts.

the answer to which is probably "no." but that doesn't stop people from speculating.

That's an impressive level of wrong.

[Lord Raziere]

That's an impressive level of wrong.

All the people complaining about reboots must be hallucinating then.

[War_lord]

All the people complaining about reboots must be hallucinating then.

They must be, Comic books haven't had an expectation of liner continuity... ever. I bet those same people thought the death of superman was going to stick.

[Lord Raziere]

They must be, Comic books haven't had an expectation of liner continuity... ever. I bet those same people thought the death of superman was going to stick.

That is not a defense of comic book continuity y'know. Just an admittance that its as horrible as they say without any care for making it better.

[War_lord]

That is not a defense of comic book continuity y'know. Just an admittance that its as horrible as they say without any care for making it better.

Well, I'd argue it is a defense, because comic books aren't like Novels and never have been, Batman is more a setting then a story. If you can't accept that, the medium isn't for you. What you're saying is like saying Novels would be better if they only took two hours to read.

[Peelee]

Batman is always exactly as old and run down as the story needs him to be, continuity is very loose outside of stories that are following an internal chronology and stories that were so good most authors reference them.

Gotham is always exactly as crime ridden and hopeless as the story needs it to be. Although over time there has been a shift in most media. Traditionally Batman's Bruce Wayne identity used acting the vacant playboy as a cover, but in modern stories there's a definite shift towards having his civilian identity be active in fixing Gotham's problems the more traditional way.

They must be, Comic books haven't had an expectation of liner continuity... ever. I bet those same people thought the death of superman was going to stick.

See, the problem there is that "Batman fights people instead of making lasting progress" doesn't work as a complaint, then, because almost no stories will ever go that far into the future to see the effect of his humanitarian policies and attempts to change the economic and social models of Gotham. It reduces the complaint to "he hasn't done any lasting, meaningful progress at this exact moment," which I don't believe any of the people that are advocating that argument intend to convey. If that makes sense.

[AMFV]

See, the problem there is that "Batman fights people instead of making lasting progress" doesn't work as a complaint, then, because almost no stories will ever go that far into the future to see the effect of his humanitarian policies and attempts to change the economic and social models of Gotham. It reduces the complaint to "he hasn't done any lasting, meaningful progress at this exact moment," which I don't believe any of the people that are advocating that argument intend to convey. If that makes sense.

The problem with that thing is that the stories tend to all occur around the same time frame, or a very small sliver therein. Batman has stayed at approximately the same age except for in Elseworld's stories, so you don't really get to see him progress. It would be like if they had the show Friends and just restarted the year with all the characters at the same age every year, or any other show like that. We aren't going to see progress because while the world clock has moved forward, Batman's age moves with it. So in the 80s Batman was born between the 40s and the 60s, depending on author, and had been Batman for anywhere between 5 to 15 years. In 2018, Batman was probably born between 1980 and 1990, and has been Batman for between 5 to 15 years.

So you aren't going to see meaningful progress because the character is not advancing in time in the way that the readers are. Which makes some really bizarre relationships with characters that do get to advance somewhat in the comics multiverse (albeit super slowly). Like Robin for example, moved from being a recently added sidekick, to somebody who has been working with Batman since close to the beginning, or would have to have been. So it's interesting to watch the gymnastics you need to make this work.

[Peelee]

So you aren't going to see meaningful progress because the character is not advancing in time in the way that the readers are. Which makes some really bizarre relationships with characters that do get to advance somewhat in the comics multiverse (albeit super slowly). Like Robin for example, moved from being a recently added sidekick, to somebody who has been working with Batman since close to the beginning, or would have to have been. So it's interesting to watch the gymnastics you need to make this work.

That's pretty much the nail on the head for what I was trying to get at, and to check and see that I wasn't getting it wrong.

[War_lord]

See, the problem there is that "Batman fights people instead of making lasting progress" doesn't work as a complaint, then, because almost no stories will ever go that far into the future to see the effect of his humanitarian policies and attempts to change the economic and social models of Gotham. It reduces the complaint to "he hasn't done any lasting, meaningful progress at this exact moment," which I don't believe any of the people that are advocating that argument intend to convey. If that makes sense.

I think it's just hip to criticize Batman for not making a difference or not doing so in a woke enough way. And that those people are quite happy ignoring the genre conventions in order to make that argument seem more compelling. He did singlehandedly take down the mob, it's just that that just attracted super villains. But the core things is that genre conventions mean that you're never going to see a story where Bruce Wayne fixes all of Gotham's problems with the power of philanthropy because that's A. unrealistic and B. not very visually compelling.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Not that I'm in any way educated about comic book lore, but I find the idea that the character not making "progress" in the world as a complaint a tad weird. It strikes me as a demonstration of not understanding just what purpose the character serves to the creators.

The best example I can think of is like complaining that Mario isn't making "Princess Peach is safe from Bowser" progress. The core premise of the character isn't going to disappear no matter how many times the situation is set up and repeated. Because the given scenario is the sole purpose for the character to exist at all.

A bit of friendly advice. If this sort of thing is a nuisance, maybe it's time to indulge in a different variety of art. Sometimes it's best to drop the things you love and find something new.

[Lacuna Caster]

But the core things is that genre conventions mean that you're never going to see a story where Bruce Wayne fixes all of Gotham's problems with the power of philanthropy because that's A. unrealistic and B. not very visually compelling.

I'll generally sputter with nerdrage at people who say that Batman is just as unrealistic as every other superhero, because that isn't quite true, but in fairness I don't see 'solves Gotham's social problems with philanthropy' any more unlikely than 'regularly beats up twenty trained ninjas without a scratch'. It would be staggeringly difficult, but unless you can rule it out as outright humanly impossible (and even then you have a little leeway) it should be within Batman's wheelhouse.

I'd also remind readers that a similar argument could have been made about integrating teen-and-young-adult family soap opera into superhero stories up until, say, Chris Claremont did it with the X-Men. (To be fair, there were plenty of other teen-and-young-adult family soap-opera comics before that which just didn't involve spandex wrestling and psychic fireworks. But I see no reason why a well-constructed Batman story can't feature a sizeable dose of planning permissions and employment schemes, given political drama has a reasonable slice of network timeslots these days.)

[Peelee]

But I see no reason why a well-constructed Batman story can't feature a sizeable dose of planning permissions and employment schemes, given political drama has a reasonable slice of network timeslots these days.)

But who will bell the cat?