![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Case for a Bruce Wayne Movie
Apr. 11th, 2016 06:18 pmRepeated Disclaimer: I don't read the comics. I just don't have the money to spend. My main idea of "Batman" is based in Batman: The Animated Series on through Justice League/JLU and even acknowledging Batman Beyond. There's a characteristic of Batman, in these particular fictions, that I find needs more focus in other media.
In the comments of my post on the Silver Age, Smurasaki pointed out Linkara's answer to why Batman doesn't kill the Joker. It's similar to SF Debris's* take on the matter when discussing the Justice League two parter "A Better World". In both cases, it's not our right, as a society, to put that responsibility onto Batman, no more than it's his right to take it on.
That's a good answer for why we shouldn't want Batman to kill the Joker. It's a good answer for why it isn't an injustice for Batman to refuse to kill the Joker.
Red Hood vs Batman** gives an alternate answer. Batman can kill the Joker, but can't stop killing. That's also a good answer. He wouldn't have to become a serial killer over night. But, once you've killed the Joker for the things he'd done or the things he was definitely going to do, how do you justify not killing Marcone? Marcone's ruined lives, taken lives, and it's a given that he will put out more hits on people who's gravest crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time and potentially having witnessed something that they might, potentially, report to the police. And, what about Two Face? The only thing that holds him back is the flip of a coin that will, with statistical inevitability, land on the wrong side.
It's a good answer for a mature Batman that knows himself and has had time to see the consequences of his actions. It's a good answer for a Batman that already knows how brutalizing people in order to get answers has come to seem normal.
Yet, at some point, early on in Bruce Wayne's life, when he was making his plans to wage a one-man-war, it's worth exploring the question of why he didn't start. Why, when he didn't have that maturity and self-awareness that can only come with time and self-examination, didn't he start?
( Read more... )
In the comments of my post on the Silver Age, Smurasaki pointed out Linkara's answer to why Batman doesn't kill the Joker. It's similar to SF Debris's* take on the matter when discussing the Justice League two parter "A Better World". In both cases, it's not our right, as a society, to put that responsibility onto Batman, no more than it's his right to take it on.
That's a good answer for why we shouldn't want Batman to kill the Joker. It's a good answer for why it isn't an injustice for Batman to refuse to kill the Joker.
Red Hood vs Batman** gives an alternate answer. Batman can kill the Joker, but can't stop killing. That's also a good answer. He wouldn't have to become a serial killer over night. But, once you've killed the Joker for the things he'd done or the things he was definitely going to do, how do you justify not killing Marcone? Marcone's ruined lives, taken lives, and it's a given that he will put out more hits on people who's gravest crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time and potentially having witnessed something that they might, potentially, report to the police. And, what about Two Face? The only thing that holds him back is the flip of a coin that will, with statistical inevitability, land on the wrong side.
It's a good answer for a mature Batman that knows himself and has had time to see the consequences of his actions. It's a good answer for a Batman that already knows how brutalizing people in order to get answers has come to seem normal.
Yet, at some point, early on in Bruce Wayne's life, when he was making his plans to wage a one-man-war, it's worth exploring the question of why he didn't start. Why, when he didn't have that maturity and self-awareness that can only come with time and self-examination, didn't he start?
( Read more... )
