# The Batman - Official 4K Trailer (2022) Robert Pattinson, Zoe Kravitz | DC FanDome 2021



## trappedslider (Oct 16, 2021)

well, no pearls hitting the ground or even a reference that I could see to his parents, so that's refreshing.


----------



## Retreater (Oct 16, 2021)

Waiting for HBOMax release.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 17, 2021)

Feels like it wants to be The Dark Knight Returns, what with the Joker-themed gangs, some of the set-pieces, and the air of cynical brutality.

Making the Riddler the primary antagonist is a bold choice, but looks like it may work for them.


----------



## payn (Oct 17, 2021)

Nirvana cover? Pretty 2021 blasé. I do like Jefferey Wright so maybe. Tho, most likely wait for HBO Max release.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 17, 2021)

"I've been trying to reach you...

... about your car's extended warranty."


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 17, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Feels like it wants to be The Dark Knight Returns, what with the Joker-themed gangs, some of the set-pieces, and the air of cynical brutality.
> 
> Making the Riddler the primary antagonist is a bold choice, but looks like it may work for them.



Thats what I got out of the trailer too.  I thought it was supposed to be more of a detective noir than an action flick which I didnt get that vibe from this preview.  


payn said:


> Tho, most likely wait for HBO Max release.



Yeah same here.  Im almost to the point that I feel the standalone Batman movies should be put on ice for a few years.  I know this has been in development for quite a while and if the pandemic hadnt happened it have been out sooner, seems the franchise may start suffering from over saturation.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Yeah same here.  Im almost to the point that I feel the standalone Batman movies should be put on ice for a few years.  I know this has been in development for quite a while and if the pandemic hadnt happened it have been out sooner, seems the franchise may start suffering from over saturation.



How many years? They've been on ice for nearly 10 years. The last standalone_ Batman_ movie was _The Dark Knight Rises _in 2012.


----------



## ReshiIRE (Oct 17, 2021)

I'm going to adopt a more wait and see approach. People had been saying this would be a more detective-aligned, less action based film, and that doesn't seem to be clear from the trailer; I think moving away from what the Dark Knight trilogy did would be a good move - and I'm not sure if there's enough of a difference in this one. Plus, I'm hesitant of both Warner Brothers for a variety of reasons, and have become concious that the Batman character has undertones that perhaps need to be addressed.

It's definitely striking visually however; it feels in a way inspired by films like Blade Runner 2049, which was an utterly fabulous film.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 17, 2021)

Morrus said:


> How many years? They've been on ice for nearly 10 years. The last standalone_ Batman_ movie was _The Dark Knight Rises _in 2012.



Batmans been in 2 movies since tDKR. Theres at least 2 in the upcoming Flash movie which with the return of Affleck and Keaton seems to have eclipsed this movie in anticipation.  Because the movies been talked about for quite some time makes it seem its been around longer than it has.  My personal preference would be after this movie or movies, put it on ice for at least 5 years before beginning to develop another.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Batmans been in 2 movies since tDKR. Theres at least 2 in the upcoming Flash movie which with the return of Affleck and Keaton seems to have eclipsed this movie in anticipation.  Because the movies been talked about for quite some time makes it seem its been around longer than it has.  My personal preference would be after this movie or movies, put it on ice for at least 5 years before beginning to develop another.



You said standalone movies, which is what I was relying to. If you didn’t mean standalone movies, ignore my reply.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 17, 2021)

ReshiIRE said:


> I think moving away from what the Dark Knight trilogy did would be a good move



Totally agree.  I think those are the new ruler to measure future Batman films.  As good as Nolans trilogy was I dont want all future screen adaptations mimicking them.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 17, 2021)

Morrus said:


> You said standalone movies, which is what I was relying to. If you didn’t mean standalone movies, ignore my reply.



I was referring to standalones but your reply made me realize subconsciously I meant the character itself to me seems to be coming close to oversaturation...again just my opinion.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 17, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> well, no pearls hitting the ground or even a reference that I could see to his parents, so that's refreshing.



Well, he does say "I am vengeance", so presumably the movie will be presenting us with something for him to be revenging against.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> well, no pearls hitting the ground or even a reference that I could see to his parents, so that's refreshing.



BUT HOW WE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO BATMANS PARENTS


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 17, 2021)

Morrus said:


> BUT HOW WE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO BATMANS PARENTS


----------



## ReshiIRE (Oct 17, 2021)

Morrus said:


> BUT HOW WE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO BATMANS PARENTS



Somewhat off-topic, but this problem of repeating origins could be painfully seen in the Amazing Spiderman. Now, in many aspects I think that movie is actually surprisingly good - I had heard it was bad but it seemed nearly on par with Rami's first Spiderman movie (it seems there's a lot more problems with the second film - the visual design for the Green Goblin in particular is... poor).

However, it has a big structural problem in that too much run time is taken up by the origin. While it might have meant missing out on some good scenes with Gwen, I felt the intro and origin could have been rushed (as the audience understands it) and to get onto the new stuff - the background with Peter's father, Connors and Obscorpe, more around Gwen, more resolution for tracking down Ben's killer etc. - that would have made less of the last hour of the film feel like a rush, and to give space and time to breath.

Having the origin of Spiderman done in film for Rami's first film was an excellent idea; it really didn't need to be done again even with the differences in character, as the MCU's Civil War and Spider Man Homecoming proved.

Which is why the fact this film seems like it's going to skip all that origin stuff - or go through it very slightly - is so god damn blessed. It's been done twice; it really doesn't need to be done again.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2021)

ReshiIRE said:


> Somewhat off-topic, but this problem of repeating origins could be painfully seen in the Amazing Spiderman. Now, in many aspects I think that movie is actually surprisingly good - I had heard it was bad but it seemed nearly on par with Rami's first Spiderman movie (it seems there's a lot more problems with the second film - the visual design for the Green Goblin in particular is... poor).
> 
> However, it has a big structural problem in that too much run time is taken up by the origin. While it might have meant missing out on some good scenes with Gwen, I felt the intro and origin could have been rushed (as the audience understands it) and to get onto the new stuff - the background with Peter's father, Connors and Obscorpe, more around Gwen, more resolution for tracking down Ben's killer etc. - that would have made less of the last hour of the film feel like a rush, and to give space and time to breath.
> 
> ...



Yes, the joke works for Spidey flicks too.


----------



## R_J_K75 (Oct 17, 2021)

ReshiIRE said:


> Somewhat off-topic, but this problem of repeating origins could be painfully seen in the Amazing Spiderman. Now, in many aspects I think that movie is actually surprisingly good - I had heard it was bad but it seemed nearly on par with Rami's first Spiderman movie (it seems there's a lot more problems with the second film - the visual design for the Green Goblin in particular is... poor).
> 
> However, it has a big structural problem in that too much run time is taken up by the origin. While it might have meant missing out on some good scenes with Gwen, I felt the intro and origin could have been rushed (as the audience understands it) and to get onto the new stuff - the background with Peter's father, Connors and Obscorpe, more around Gwen, more resolution for tracking down Ben's killer etc. - that would have made less of the last hour of the film feel like a rush, and to give space and time to breath.
> 
> ...



Seeing as in these movies are somewhat aimed at a target audience I agree the origins dont need to be repeated.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 17, 2021)

ReshiIRE said:


> Somewhat off-topic, but this problem of repeating origins could be painfully seen in the Amazing Spiderman. Now, in many aspects I think that movie is actually surprisingly good - I had heard it was bad but it seemed nearly on par with Rami's first Spiderman movie (it seems there's a lot more problems with the second film - the visual design for the Green Goblin in particular is... poor).
> 
> However, it has a big structural problem in that too much run time is taken up by the origin. While it might have meant missing out on some good scenes with Gwen, I felt the intro and origin could have been rushed (as the audience understands it) and to get onto the new stuff - the background with Peter's father, Connors and Obscorpe, more around Gwen, more resolution for tracking down Ben's killer etc. - that would have made less of the last hour of the film feel like a rush, and to give space and time to breath.
> 
> ...



Yeah, one thing I appreciated about Spider-man Homecoming (and the PS5 Spider-man game) is that they start us with Spider-man already established, and let us get to know him through his present-day interactions.

Though I tried to re-watch Homecoming recently, and the amount of teen drama is tough to sit through on a second viewing. I stalled out around the Washington trip.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 17, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> I was referring to standalones but your reply made me realize subconsciously I meant the character itself to me seems to be coming close to oversaturation...again just my opinion.



Well, I'd prefer they keep making them, so how about they make them, and I watch them and you don't? Then we both get what we want!


----------



## Herschel (Oct 17, 2021)

I'm in. Pattinson is growing on me and Kravitz is intriguing. It looks visually stunning, as well. I'm actually kind of burned out on the Marvel quippy schlock and am all for some gritty darkness.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 17, 2021)

Yeah I won't lie, this movie looks really, really good. The sound design alone is incredible.


----------



## rozgarth (Oct 17, 2021)

Yeah, I’m a little surprised by a lot of the initial reactions in this thread. I thought this trailer (and the first trailer for the movie last year) looks amazing. I’m very excited for a new Batman disconnected from the DCEU and will probably go opening weekend.


----------



## Retreater (Oct 17, 2021)

rozgarth said:


> Yeah, I’m a little surprised by a lot of the initial reactions in this thread.



As for me, I'm just not going back to a movie theater. Not a dig on if a movie is appealing or not. The filthy environment, potential COVID exposure, cost, inconvenience, subpar presentation, etc, just can't compete with my "only average" home setup.


----------



## BookTenTiger (Oct 18, 2021)

Morrus said:


> BUT HOW WE WILL EVER KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO BATMANS PARENTS



It would be so funny if in this movie Batman had supportive parents he lives with, and they just never explain his origins.

"Mom, Dad, I'm back from Batmanning!"

"Oh honey did you catch any bad guys?"

"I'm making pancakes, how many do you want?"


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 18, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> View attachment 145384


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 18, 2021)

I just hope they don't plan on making several super grimdark Batmans and never introducing any of the Bat-family. 

Batman is much less interesting on his own.


----------



## payn (Oct 18, 2021)

I actually prefer the just batman era of these batflicks.


----------



## Campbell (Oct 18, 2021)

Batman movies are about the only thing DC is consistently good at*. Don't mind if they keep making them.

*Man of Steel is also good.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 18, 2021)

I'm still not sold on this Batman, nor the batmobile.

I do like the choice of having the Riddler be the villain, and the idea of doing a Batman movie like a detective (though the trailer does not give this impression).


----------



## embee (Oct 18, 2021)

R_J_K75 said:


> Seeing as in these movies are somewhat aimed at a target audience I agree the origins dont need to be repeated.



BATMAN:
Clark, we need to stop your arch-nemesis Lex Luthor befo-

SUPERMAN:
Why did you call me Clark?

BATMAN:
Because your secret identity is Clark Kent, a mild-mannered reporter for a major metropolitan newspaper. I know that because I am Batman, the World's Greatest Detective.

SUPERMAN:
Indeed. You are very smart. But you also seem deeply troubled. And not just because you are wearing a bat costume. Ha ha. That is a joke. It is levity to make sure we do not get too self-serious.

BATMAN:
That's a good idea, Clark. And very perceptive. Indeed. I am deeply troubled. I witnessed my parents getting murdered in an alleyway known coincidentally as Crime Alley. My father, the great philanthropist Thomas Wayne, and my mother, Martha, had taken me to see "The Mark of Zorro," a movie about a masked vigilante who fights injustice. A robber named Joe Chill tried to steal my mom's necklace. Allow me to reminisce about the event. Pearls fell into a puddle.

SUPERMAN:
You seem to be traumatized by it. But why do you dress like a bat and not like Zorro?

BATMAN:
I am afraid of bats because I fell into a cave when I was a child and a bunch of bats flew at me. Now bats scare me. And I like to scare criminals because criminals are a superstitious lot. So I use what scares me to scare them.

SUPERMAN:
You are very symbolic. I am also symbolic. I am the last son of a dying planet called Krypton. My father Jor-El sent me to Earth. I was raised in aptly-named Smallville, a small town in Kansas, America's heartland. I was adopted by Jonathan and Martha Kent. Martha is a good mother's name because it is very all-American like Martha Washington. My father Jonathan died but I could not save him.

BATMAN:
In spite of your superpowers far beyond those of mortal men?

SUPERMAN:
In spite of my superpowers far beyond those of mortal men*.*

BATMAN:
You are an allegory for American immigration.

SUPERMAN:
Yes. I also can also improbably be used as a Christ allegory, in spite of being created by two Jewish immigrants. Symbolism is what makes us complex heroes. Like how each of your Rogue's Gallery represents a different aspect of your troubled psyche.

BATMAN:
Now that we have recapped our origins and meanings, let us thwart Lex Luthor's plans.

SUPERMAN:
Good idea, Bruce! See... I, too, know your real name and will call you by it to signify our friendship and status as equals and friendly rivals.

BOTH:
HUZZAH!!


----------



## BrokenTwin (Oct 18, 2021)

I'd love to see a live-action Batman movie with the full Bat-family present. Do a cinematic Bat-universe. Have each movie introduce or focus on a different family member. I want to see bratty Damian as Robin, edgy Jason as Red Hood, Dick's butt in his Nightwing costume, Tim as Red Robin with his boyfriend Connor Kent (it's what the fans want to see, dammit!). That last one would be a harder sell, because then you'd have to introduce the Superman mythos, which might expand a scope a little too much. And we can't forget Barbara as Oracle, mute Cassandra as Black Bat, Katherine as Batwoman with her detective wife Maggie, Luke as Batwing (don't actually know much about him, but I think he'd be a great addition)... and there's a dozen more I could add without ever going outside Batman's adopted family.

So can we PLEASE stop having movies with "Batman is dark brooding loner" as their core bit?

Having said that... Pattinson looks like a decent enough Batman so far. Kravitz's Catwoman looks great. Always happy to see Serkis in anything. Liking the rogue's gallery they seem to be going with for this one. Risky move, but if they skip the origin story there might actually be enough time to fit in a full story with interesting characters.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 18, 2021)

BrokenTwin said:


> I'd love to see a live-action Batman movie with the full Bat-family present. Do a cinematic Bat-universe. Have each movie introduce or focus on a different family member. I want to see bratty Damian as Robin, edgy Jason as Red Hood, Dick's butt in his Nightwing costume, Tim as Red Robin with his boyfriend Connor Kent (it's what the fans want to see, dammit!). That last one would be a harder sell, because then you'd have to introduce the Superman mythos, which might expand a scope a little too much. And we can't forget Barbara as Oracle, mute Cassandra as Black Bat, Katherine as Batwoman with her detective wife Maggie, Luke as Batwing (don't actually know much about him, but I think he'd be a great addition)... and there's a dozen more I could add without ever going outside Batman's adopted family.
> 
> So can we PLEASE stop having movies with "Batman is dark brooding loner" as their core bit?
> 
> Having said that... Pattinson looks like a decent enough Batman so far. Kravitz's Catwoman looks great. Always happy to see Serkis in anything. Liking the rogue's gallery they seem to be going with for this one. Risky move, but if they skip the origin story there might actually be enough time to fit in a full story with interesting characters.



You don't even need to drip-feed it through several movies. Spider-man: Into the Spiderverse did a great job of assembling an ensemble cast without losing focus on the main character, even managed to work in some tragic backstory along the way.


----------



## BrokenTwin (Oct 18, 2021)

MarkB said:


> You don't even need to drip-feed it through several movies. Spider-man: Into the Spiderverse did a great job of assembling an ensemble cast without losing focus on the main character, even managed to work in some tragic backstory along the way.



There's plenty of tragic backstory to go around, that's for sure.
But I do trust that audiences would be able to follow an ensemble cast without each character getting their backstory meticulously explained beforehand.

Hopefully that's what they do with the rogues gallery here. Presumably one of them is going to be the focal villain (looks like the Riddler, judging by the trailer) that the others work with/for/against. I do miss the camp of the earlier movies though. That's one thing I loved about Aquaman, the movie mixed the "grounded/realistic" asthetic with the campy costumes really well.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 18, 2021)

I think the winner for me in that trailer for Zoe Kravitz. That trailer made me a believer in her catwoman, so we will see how she does.

Pattinson looks pretty solid in the bat suit, but I'm not sold on his Bruce Wayne (from the very little we see of it in this trailer).

But that tends to be how it goes for me, most actors either get Bruce Wayne or Batman a bit better. (Keaton I think was a better Bruce Wayne, Bale the better Batman. Kilmer/Clooney.....best jokers


----------



## wicked cool (Oct 19, 2021)

ReshiIRE said:


> I'm going to adopt a more wait and see approach. People had been saying this would be a more detective-aligned, less action based film, and that doesn't seem to be clear from the trailer; I think moving away from what the Dark Knight trilogy did would be a good move - and I'm not sure if there's enough of a difference in this one. Plus, I'm hesitant of both Warner Brothers for a variety of reasons, and have become concious that the Batman character has undertones that perhaps need to be addressed.
> 
> It's definitely striking visually however; it feels in a way inspired by films like Blade Runner 2049, which was an utterly fabulous film.



what undertones are those?


This movie looks like a great movie and hopefully by March theaters will be in full swing. Not seeing the oversaturation with Batman?


----------



## ReshiIRE (Oct 19, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> what undertones are those?
> 
> 
> This movie looks like a great movie and hopefully by March theaters will be in full swing. Not seeing the oversaturation with Batman?




Lots of people have commented on the fact that Batman is a rich man who dresses up and decides to beat on mostly poor people, many of which have circumstances and lives that lead them towards criminal acts; and that he doesn't _necessarily_ use his fortune to help these people, or reform the city. In addition, despite claiming not to kill, a significant amount of Batman media gloss over this or don't explain exactly how is deadly punches or weapondry don't kill a lot of regular people.

I'm not unsympathetic to those thoughts, but I do think it depends on the version of the character (I don't think its unfair to say the version of Batman presented in the Animated Series and its follow ons is much more sympathetic and good compared to Zynder Batman).


----------



## Morrus (Oct 19, 2021)

ReshiIRE said:


> Lots of people have commented on the fact that Batman is a rich man who dresses up and decides to beat on mostly poor people, many of which have circumstances and lives that lead them towards criminal acts; and that he doesn't _necessarily_ use his fortune to help these people, or reform the city.



I think he does use his fortune to help people. He funds orphanages, charities, lots of things. 

He _also_ fights crime dressed as a bat. And that's the bit that's fun to watch. Bruce Wayne's charity boardroom meetings happen, but we don't need to watch them.


----------



## ReshiIRE (Oct 19, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I think he does use his fortune to help people. He funds orphanages, charities, lots of things.
> 
> He _also_ fights crime dressed as a bat. And that's the bit that's fun to watch. Bruce Wayne's charity boardroom meetings happen, but we don't need to watch them.



Oh he does in most versions; I should have communicated that in a more straight forward manner then _necessarily_. But it does appear the funding part (and in some versions, the political aspect) came later on.

I'm not saying it's not fun to watch (and I'm going to leave the thread as I don't want to appear to be spoiling people's funds). I'm saying there are potentially distasteful aspects to the character, as there is to be any very long running comic book character.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 20, 2021)

ReshiIRE said:


> Lots of people have commented on the fact that Batman is a rich man who dresses up and decides to beat on mostly poor people, many of which have circumstances and lives that lead them towards criminal acts; and that he doesn't _necessarily_ use his fortune to help these people, or reform the city. In addition, despite claiming not to kill, a significant amount of Batman media gloss over this or don't explain exactly how is deadly punches or weapondry don't kill a lot of regular people.
> 
> I'm not unsympathetic to those thoughts, but I do think it depends on the version of the character (I don't think its unfair to say the version of Batman presented in the Animated Series and its follow ons is much more sympathetic and good compared to Zynder Batman).




I love Batman, but part of the reason I love him is that he's a really tragic figure.... no one should want to _be _Batman. He's the man who has everything (literally a billionaire) and is (mostly) unhappy. He's the little kid who's parents were murdered, and he just can't get over it.

Anyone thinking rationally should know that going at at night and beating up criminals isn't going to stop crime (and in many Batman stories, it just invites more challenge). But Batman isn't really thinking rationally; the man needs therapy.

But I still _like _him. I feel bad for him, I _want _him to succeed. But I also know that in the long-term, this Batman-fighting-crime-by-night is never going to work.

I'm not really commenting on Snyder batman (because that guy's a straight-up murderer), mostly Batman as shown in comics like Year One, the Long Halloween, Nolan films, etc.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 20, 2021)

Meh. Watching this trailer gave me a distinct feeling of, "Been here, done that. Do I need to do it again?"

I agree that it feels too soon since the Nolan trilogy for this to have any impact, but I'm speaking as a Gen Xer. Maybe younger Millenials and Zennials will be drawn in, but I won't rush to see it.

I mean, it is a similar feeling I have for MCU Phase 4. I was never gung-ho, but I probably won't get excited until they announce the Silver Surfer and X-Men, though I'm intrigued about Moon Knight (Oscar Isaac!).

But with MCU, where my feeling is "how many more CGI-spectacular scenes and kinda funny one-liners do I want to endure?" with Batman it is, "Can they really bring new elements of edgy noir gloom?" In both cases it seems tapped out, and I'd like to see a new approach.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 20, 2021)

I think every new actor tackling the role, and every new director, is a chance for it to be very different.

Remember that when Nolan made Batman Begins, people were kinda bored with Batman too. Batman and Robin had pretty much killed everyone's excitement about any new Batman film. And yet Nolan's films ended up being the golden standard of Batman that a lot of people now look up to.

Every new actor may surprise us, just as every new director may surprise us.


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 20, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> I think every new actor tackling the role, and every new director, is a chance for it to be very different.
> 
> Remember that when Nolan made Batman Begins, people were kinda bored with Batman too. Batman and Robin had pretty much killed everyone's excitement about any new Batman film. And yet Nolan's films ended up being the golden standard of Batman that a lot of people now look up to.
> 
> Every new actor may surprise us, just as every new director may surprise us.



I'm open to being surprised, but the trailer looks a bit like a Nolan fan-pic, with an emo edge due to Pattison. Maybe I'm just getting old and groggy.


----------



## AtomicPope (Oct 20, 2021)

I love the aesthetics of Gotham in this trailer.  It looks like Gotham from the comics, which is more art deco in film noir than just a metropolis with bad street lights.  That was my one gripe with Nolan's production in the Dark Knight Trilogy.  Gotham is not simply NYC at night.  It has its own style and history.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 20, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> Not seeing the oversaturation with Batman?




I get it.

When I was a kid, the only Batman outside the comics was Adam West.  He had a TV show that ran in reruns and a movie.  Then, we got Keaton in Burton's Batman.  Two movies, both were great.  Then, we had Kilmer and Clooney (they were less great).  Then, we got Batman: The Animated Series.  Awesome!  TAS got it's own movie: Mask of the Phantasm.  Cool.  And a great epilogue series, Batman Beyond.  Loved it.  Then everything got rebooted in Nolan's Batman trilogy.  Cool, a gritty new take.  Somewhere along the line we also got "The Batman" animated series and Batman: The Brave and the Bold.  Then Afleck's Batman in the DCEU.  And a new Gotham live action TV show.  Oh, and there was a Lego Batman movie, too.  And now, Pattinson's Batman.

That's a lot of Batmen in my life.  8 live action actors, many more voice actors, at least 10 different continuities.  And it's not even counting ensemble pieces like Justice League or Super Friends.  A lot of them are really good.  There's just a darn lot of Batmen out there, and most of them in the past 30 years.  If a new Wolverine or Iron Man were announced it would be big news.  A new actor and continuity for Batman, even if it's great, is just another on the list at this point.


----------



## Older Beholder (Oct 20, 2021)

The trailer looks good to me.
I’m keen to see Paul Dano as The Riddler


----------



## Morrus (Oct 20, 2021)

Mercurius said:


> But with MCU, where my feeling is "how many more CGI-spectacular scenes and kinda funny one-liners do I want to endure?" with Batman it is, "Can they really bring new elements of edgy noir gloom?" In both cases it seems tapped out, and I'd like to see a new approach.



I get it, but I think the scale between MCU and Batman is pretty off -- there have been, what, 28(?) MCU movies in the last decade or so, while there have been 3 or 4 with Batman in? I might have my years and numbers a bit off, but I don't feel they're particularly comparable as far as saturation goes.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 20, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I get it, but I think the scale between MCU and Batman is pretty off -- there have been, what, 28(?) MCU movies in the last decade or so, while there have been 3 or 4 with Batman in? I might have my years and numbers a bit off, but I don't feel they're particularly comparable as far as saturation goes.



I think what makes the difference is the resets. The MCU movies tell an ongoing story, but we keep getting new versions of Batman.


----------



## wicked cool (Oct 20, 2021)

batman lore question. will the riddler have followers?


----------



## Mercurius (Oct 20, 2021)

Morrus said:


> I get it, but I think the scale between MCU and Batman is pretty off -- there have been, what, 28(?) MCU movies in the last decade or so, while there have been 3 or 4 with Batman in? I might have my years and numbers a bit off, but I don't feel they're particularly comparable as far as saturation goes.



Well, it is just my feeling towards it, so the comparison is subjective, and the feeling similar. And as I said, my feeling is from the perspective of someone who remembers Keaton quite well (if only because I re-watched his first movie several years ago), so it doesn't feel like ancient history to me.


MarkB said:


> I think what makes the difference is the resets. The MCU movies tell an ongoing story, but we keep getting new versions of Batman.



Yes, I think this has something to do with it.

It is also versions of Batman...this will be the 3rd in less than 10 years. Or 6th actor in 30 years. And that doesn't count animated versions. 

The Marvel folks faced a similar problem with Spider-Man, with three actors and story arcs in about 15 years. Part of the problem with the Andrew Garfield films is that they had just had an excellent version of Spider-Man a few years before, so there was a sense of, "Why are they doing this again?"


----------



## LoganRan (Oct 20, 2021)

Deset Gled said:


> "I've been trying to reach you...
> 
> ... about your car's extended warranty."



I can't even begin to count how many times I have gotten "this is your final courtesy call before we close out your account..." calls re: my extended warranty.

Are they unfamiliar with the concept of "final"?


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 20, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> batman lore question. will the riddler have followers?




If you mean henchmen, I'd say for this film he probably doesn't. It looks like he's more of a serial killer here, who is manipulating folks into his plans. Batman seems to be fighting Penguin henchmen and clown gang members in the trailer.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 20, 2021)

ReshiIRE said:


> Oh he does in most versions; I should have communicated that in a more straight forward manner then _necessarily_. But it does appear the funding part (and in some versions, the political aspect) came later on.
> 
> I'm not saying it's not fun to watch (and I'm going to leave the thread as I don't want to appear to be spoiling people's funds). I'm saying there are potentially distasteful aspects to the character, as there is to be any very long running comic book character.



For sure. I really wish they’d start showing Batman as more pragmatic in his crusade, taking down the most predatory criminals that make it harder to lift communities up, and then doing the work as Bruce to lift those communities up.  



Urriak Uruk said:


> I love Batman, but part of the reason I love him is that he's a really tragic figure.... no one should want to _be _Batman. He's the man who has everything (literally a billionaire) and is (mostly) unhappy. He's the little kid who's parents were murdered, and he just can't get over it.
> 
> Anyone thinking rationally should know that going at at night and beating up criminals isn't going to stop crime (and in many Batman stories, it just invites more challenge). But Batman isn't really thinking rationally; the man needs therapy.
> 
> ...



This always bugged me, because it wouldn’t be hard to make Batman’s crusade not be doomed to failure. Nolan Batman gets part of it right by taking down the organized crime families and rooting out the especially crooked cops rather than patrolling every night to beat up individual muggers, but IIRC it never shows Bruce using the changing leadership and his vast wealth to help the marginalized have actual opportunities.  

Most Batman stories don’t even get that much of it right.  

Not to the mention the absurdity of the whole “superheroes leads to supervillains” thing.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 20, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> This always bugged me, because it wouldn’t be hard to make Batman’s crusade not be doomed to failure. Nolan Batman gets part of it right by taking down the organized crime families and rooting out the especially crooked cops rather than patrolling every night to beat up individual muggers, but IIRC it never shows Bruce using the changing leadership and his vast wealth to help the marginalized have actual opportunities.
> 
> Most Batman stories don’t even get that much of it right.
> 
> Not to the mention the absurdity of the whole “superheroes leads to supervillains” thing.




Well to be fair, if Batman actually had a strong plan to end crime in Gotham, there wouldn't be much room for sequels or to keep making comics right? The publisher/studio can't actually let him win permanently!

This kind of bothers me for heroes like Flash/Superman (who are more optimistic characters), but for Batman it always made sense to me that he can't win. Even if he did take down the crime families and crack down on corruption, no one nowhere can stop all crime from happening. And the sad thing about Bruce Wayne is his parents were killed in a random mugging gone wrong (most depictions show the mugger got skittish and did not initially intend to kill). Batman can't actually stop that type of violence from happening forever.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 20, 2021)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Well to be fair, if Batman actually had a strong plan to end crime in Gotham, there wouldn't be much room for sequels or to keep making comics right? The publisher/studio can't actually let him win permanently!



I mean, that is a pretty big problem with big 2 comics, they have to keep going, no one retires permanently, etc. 

Which is why I stopped reading anything but limited runs and what ifs. They're the only stories where anything matters or has real stakes.


Urriak Uruk said:


> This kind of bothers me for heroes like Flash/Superman (who are more optimistic characters), but for Batman it always made sense to me that he can't win. Even if he did take down the crime families and crack down on corruption, no one nowhere can stop all crime from happening. And the sad thing about Bruce Wayne is his parents were killed in a random mugging gone wrong (most depictions show the mugger got skittish and did not initially intend to kill). Batman can't actually stop that type of violence from happening forever.



I mean, he could make it as rare as it is in the safest places in the world, which is close enough.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 20, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I mean, he could make it as rare as it is in the safest places in the world, which is close enough.




Could he though? Crime is one of those perpetual problems that doesn't really go away, ever. Like, if Gotham is NYC in the "dark days," then the goal would be... NYC today? Like, out of the biggest 100 cities in the US, NYC is 80th in murder rater, which is pretty good. But is NYC "universally safe" at night? Obviously not.

And we shouldn't be comparing US cities to like Helsinki, because that's going to be WAY too much politics for this forum. I'll just say, to get to something like that is going to require a lot of federal changes that I don't think even Batman could overcome!


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 20, 2021)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Could he though? Crime is one of those perpetual problems that doesn't really go away, ever. Like, if Gotham is NYC in the "dark days," then the goal would be... NYC today? Like, out of the biggest 100 cities in the US, NYC is 80th in murder rater, which is pretty good. But is NYC "universally safe" at night? Obviously not.
> 
> And we shouldn't be comparing US cities to like Helsinki, because that's going to be WAY too much politics for this forum. I'll just say, to get to something like that is going to require a lot of federal changes that I don't think even Batman could overcome!



Bruce Wayne has Bezos level money. More, actually, IIRC. He literally could just end homelessness in Gotham. Permanently. And still be one of the wealthiest people in the world. 

Crime, especially violent crime like muggings, is directly and inescapably related to poverty, marginalization, and lack of opportunities. 

And again, it isn't about crime "going away", it's about reducing crime to the point where all that remains is extremely rare street crime, and white collar crime. I don't have the research in front of me, but IIRC basically 0% of muggings and similar crimes (armed robbery of a store, car jacking, etc) are committed to people who aren't living in poverty. 

Batman isn't the punisher, even when he does kill people. His goal is to end the state of people not being safe in Gotham, to end violent street crime and other rampant forms of victimization. Targeted action against organized crime combined with economic justice action as Bruce, a guy who could purchase half of Gotham and still be a in the top 100 wealthiest individuals in the world, could accomplish that. 

It would take years, perhaps even decades if enough powerful people are opposing him, but hey, that's good for a comic, right? Plenty of time for him to train up a whole Bat family, set them up to be independently wealthy so they can spread out eventually and do the same elsewhere while also using their wealth to gain political influence in the nation's greatest cities, and use that influence to make the change they are spearheading more sustainable with local, state, and eventually federal, changes. 

Hell, fact is, at some point, Bruce has an obligation to get into politics, even if just indirectly. Social and economic action has limits (though far fewer for someone like him than for nearly anyone else), and are more effective when combined with political action.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 20, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Bruce Wayne has Bezos level money. More, actually, IIRC. He literally could just end homelessness in Gotham. Permanently. And still be one of the wealthiest people in the world.
> 
> Crime, especially violent crime like muggings, is directly and inescapably related to poverty, marginalization, and lack of opportunities.
> 
> ...




As interesting a talk as this is, this is too much politics for me to want to talk about here. I do largely agree with your points here, but I'd add that the whole "going out and beating criminals up at night" would probably be counter-productive with everything else.

One of the best depictions of Batman I've seen recently is in _White Knight_, which I won't spoil. But let's say that it shows a Batman who is becoming more and more pessimistic about his hopes to change Gotham, and is behaving more irrationally as his frustration grows. A very human reaction, and one that would hamper any long-term plan to fight crime, as the positive results would take a long time to ripen.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 20, 2021)

Urriak Uruk said:


> As interesting a talk as this is, this is too much politics for me to want to talk about here. I do largely agree with your points here, but I'd add that the whole "going out and beating criminals up at night" would probably be counter-productive with everything else.



I disagree. He would just need to _target_ his action as Batman. Beating up Marcone and his lieutenants and disrupting their negotiations with and international drug cartel would be useful. Taking out a warehouse full of goons who are trying to bring drugs into the city, and disposing of the drugs, would be useful. There's a lot of punching he could be doing that is useful.

I'm personally fine with the fact that comics ignore concussive brain damage and the fact you can absolutely accidentally kill someone with a blow to the head, it's basically fantasy. Believability in human behavior is vastly more important than physical realism.




Urriak Uruk said:


> One of the best depictions of Batman I've seen recently is in _White Knight_, which I won't spoil. But let's say that it shows a Batman who is becoming more and more pessimistic about his hopes to change Gotham, and is behaving more irrationally as his frustration grows. A very human reaction, and one that would hamper any long-term plan to fight crime, as the positive results would take a long time to ripen.



That sounds pretty grim. Probably not what I want from a story about a hero. IMO the best Batman avoids that sort of pessimism. YMMV of course, based on what you like in a story.


----------



## wicked cool (Oct 20, 2021)

the joker has a lot of good graphic novels such as killing joke etc. Does the riddler have 1?


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 20, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I disagree. He would just need to _target_ his action as Batman. Beating up Marcone and his lieutenants and disrupting their negotiations with and international drug cartel would be useful. Taking out a warehouse full of goons who are trying to bring drugs into the city, and disposing of the drugs, would be useful. There's a lot of punching he could be doing that is useful.
> 
> I'm personally fine with the fact that comics ignore concussive brain damage and the fact you can absolutely accidentally kill someone with a blow to the head, it's basically fantasy. Believability in human behavior is vastly more important than physical realism.




Real-life law enforcement agencies (the police, FBI, CIA) do a lot of targeting as well, and it hasn't put much of a dent into international drug cartels. I'm extremely doubtful one man (even one with near-unlimited resources) can make much of a meaningful difference in the long-term. As long as there is demand for elicit goods, there's going to be crime that capitalizes on it.

I do find it ironic you mention the fantasy of Batman, as there is no way that Batman can possible exist in the real-world. So bringing in real-world arguments about fighting crime and applying them to a character who can't possibly exist seems fairly counter-productive.

The easiest example I can think of for why Batman can't exist, is it would be so incredibly easy to deduce his identity. There's only so many people that can afford his level of tech, be the right build and age, and not to mention the guy actually shows the bottom half of his face. It would be _obvious _that it is Bruce Wayne. I find it so funny that Kravitz looks at Batman in this trailer and says "Who are you under there?" when anyone could clearly guess "Oh yeah, this is definitely the most famous rich guy in this city."


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 20, 2021)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Real-life law enforcement agencies (the police, FBI, CIA) do a lot of targeting as well, and it hasn't put much of a dent into international drug cartels. I'm extremely doubtful one man (even one with near-unlimited resources) can make much of a meaningful difference in the long-term.



The ability of one person to change the world is literally a necessary premise of superhero comics.


Urriak Uruk said:


> As long as there is demand for elicit goods, there's going to be crime that capitalizes on it.



That's debatable, and also logically equivalent to replying to "this measure will reduce crime" with "you can't get rid of crime." So what? Less crime is better than more crime.


Urriak Uruk said:


> I do find it ironic you mention the fantasy of Batman, as there is no way that Batman can possible exist in the real-world. So bringing in real-world arguments about fighting crime and applying them to a character who can't possibly exist seems fairly counter-productive.



Not really. He's still a person, and we are supposed to empathize with his struggles and victories, in order to care about the character. His behavior should thus be within the realm of reality. It needn't be the most likely behavior available, by any means, but the protagonist doesn't murder their best friend for no reason without any setup that would explain such an action.


Urriak Uruk said:


> The easiest example I can think of for why Batman can't exist, is it would be so incredibly easy to deduce his identity. There's only so many people that can afford his level of tech, be the right build and age, and not to mention the guy actually shows the bottom half of his face. It would be _obvious _that it is Bruce Wayne. I find it so funny that Kravitz looks at Batman in this trailer and says "Who are you under there?" when anyone could clearly guess "Oh yeah, this is definitely the most famous rich guy in this city."



That seems like a wild assumption to make, and fairly easy for Bruce to cast doubt upon. His face isn't super unique. I guarantee they could put a famous actor in the suit who doesn't have an especially recognizable jawline, and vanishingly few people would guess correctly who it was. Bruce is less famous than any actor who has played batman in a movie during my lifetime. Most people in a city do not know the names of the "famous" socialites of their city. 

And none of that is even an argument that he can't exist, but simply an argument that he would eventually be found out. Which he has been, and has had to cover it up. 

But again, this sort of thing doesn't matter. you can't recognize someone when they're in a mask in comic books. It's one of the core premises. And like I said before, it will never matter nearly as much as whether or not Bruce acts like a person with the traits he is written to have, such as incredible intelligence and logical acuity, an in depth understanding of _crime_ and human motivation, etc.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 20, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The ability of one person to change the world is literally a necessary premise of superhero comics.
> 
> That's debatable, and also logically equivalent to replying to "this measure will reduce crime" with "you can't get rid of crime." So what? Less crime is better than more crime.
> 
> ...




I'm fairly certain we have diametrically opposed viewpoints on this topic, doesn't seem like we agree on anything when it comes to Batman.


----------



## grimslade (Oct 20, 2021)

I am excited for this film. I like the standalone nature and its exclusion from the DCEU. It seems to take a lot from The Long Halloween. The cast looks amazing and the gritty feel of Gotham looks fantastic.
Batman is a sociopath. A high-functioning sociopath with incredible wealth and a need to punish criminals. Make no mistake, Batman does not want to eliminate crime; he wants to hurt criminals. That is why he patrols and does not kill. He breaks criminals. Bane breaking the Bat is the counterpoint to Batman's crusade. Being the World's Greatest Detective is a way to mentally break criminals by unraveling their plots. This is not just Miller-era Batman. Bruce Wayne may play philanthropist, but Bruce is a false person, an alternate identity, the true personality is the Bat.


----------



## wicked cool (Oct 21, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I disagree. He would just need to _target_ his action as Batman. Beating up Marcone and his lieutenants and disrupting their negotiations with and international drug cartel would be useful. Taking out a warehouse full of goons who are trying to bring drugs into the city, and disposing of the drugs, would be useful. There's a lot of punching he could be doing that is useful.
> 
> I'm personally fine with the fact that comics ignore concussive brain damage and the fact you can absolutely accidentally kill someone with a blow to the head, it's basically fantasy. Believability in human behavior is vastly more important than physical realism.
> 
> ...



we have had real life people who have taken down criminals by themselves or with just a handful of others and are considered heroes. Not sure where your argument is going with Batman. Dont like this type of hero then dont see it

 Eliot Ness, Wyatt Earp in many peoples minds  are considered heroes and where much more violent than Batman 

I almost feel like your arguing towards 2 much violence in movies/kids heroes?

Also others seem to be arguing that if we took all of Bezo's money it would wipe out poverty and most crime. I would strongly disagree with that. Ive been down the politics route in these forums and i dont plan on going there again but assault/murder etc are not just related to money.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 21, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Bruce Wayne has Bezos level money. More, actually, IIRC. He literally could just end homelessness in Gotham. Permanently. And still be one of the wealthiest people in the world.



So just to crunch a few fantasy numbers here, lets test this premise.

So if we assume Bruce Wayne has the wealth of Jeff Bezos (about 190 billion dollars), and Gotham is like NYC with a population of 8.8 million. If we assume a standard household of 4 people (2 parents + 2 children), that is 2.2 million households. The current poverty line for a 4 person household is: $26,500. That line is probably too low for Gotham (aka NYC) but hey its a baseline.

If Bruce Wayne wanted to provide Gothamites enough money to maintain the poverty line, that is: 58.3 billion dollars per year (yep with a B) as our baseline.

Now current NYC growth rate is roughly ~50k per year (12,500 houserules), so each year we would add on another

$331,250,000​
in expenses every year (the growth rate would probably increase if we guaranteed people money but lets just keep it simple).

Now lets look at inflation, to properly maintain things we would need to at least adjust our base income for inflation. Inflation has been quite low for the US these last 20 years or so, but lets look at a ballpark of about 1.5% inflation to get the ball rolling.

So over 20 years, if we wanted to account for growth and inflation, how much money would Bruce need to put in the fund?

​
$1,424,663,390,091​

Aka ~1.4 Trillion dollars (with a T). Overall we go from 58.3 billion per year in expenses to 85.7 billion on Year 20.

So Bruce could not just dump his fortune into a master account and fund the whole operation for even a handful of years, let alone 20. But he is a wise business man afterall, and of course could put his money into a wealth generating account, using the interest to pay for the fund. In order to do this, what kind of return would Bruce need to generate the $1.4 trillion if he put his entire $190 billion on the line?

37.5%, which no investment on earth generates that kind of return in any consistent way (sure you could take a chance at bitcoin but you are taking a monstrous gamble with the futures of many people if you do that). Reasonable longterm investments are in the 10% range, and even 20% is considered a very good year.....37.5% is incredible. Frankly if you made that return year after year the SEC would come breathing down your neck, as the assumption would be illegality. Also we should note that return would only fund us for the 20 years, as time went on that would not be enough unless you reinvested money back into the fund....and if you do that you will need an even higher rate of return in the beginning in order to pay for the fund.

Taking another example, lets say Bruce just prepared a fund to one day tackle the problem. He puts his entire 190 billion into a solid earning fund (10% is a decent performer long term for a low risk fund). Unlike last time, he reinvests all of the money back into the fund, letting it grow and grow. Over 20 years the fund would grow to about 1.1 trillion..... a lot of money, but still not enough to cover 20 years of expenses, and wouldn't begin the touch the 20 years after that.


So while I do believe taxing the wealthy has its place (I think wealth can create a lot of negative ills in society when it grows too high), it is NOT a cure-all to solve poverty. Bruce Wayne with all of his riches, couldn't even cover the poverty line for Gotham's citizens (and lets be honest 26k per year in NYC is not exactly "making it by"). He could certainly do some real good.... but he would not stop poverty. One of the richest men in the world.... just simply isn't rich enough.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 21, 2021)

wicked cool said:


> we have had real life people who have taken down criminals by themselves or with just a handful of others and are considered heroes. Not sure where your argument is going with Batman. Dont like this type of hero then dont see it
> 
> Eliot Ness, Wyatt Earp in many peoples minds  are considered heroes and where much more violent than Batman



lol

Okay. 

You know Wyatt Earp was not at all a hero, right? Like, read about the guy's life, rather than watching movies about him. 

Putting that aside, what on earth is your point? I literally said upthread that changing the world as just one person is a necessary assumption of superhero comics. Nothing about anything I've ever said relies on the idea that Batman couldn't make a difference on his own. 

I've said that he is ignoring some of his most practical and powerful tools for not only reducing poverty and crime, but for _keeping_ Gotham safe once he has done so, in those stories where he isn't really doing anything significant to address poverty, drug treatment, and other systemic issues that contribute to crime rates, in the city of Gotham. 

Because he is so wealthy that he could do so and still be one of the wealthiest people alive in the DC world. 

I think maybe you aren't conceptualising just how many resources Bruce Wayne has, canonically. TBH, just making him dramatically less wealthy would help make his stories make more sense. Maybe make his kit a little less slick now and then, show him repairing rather than replacing things sometimes, and keep him outside of the "1 percept of the 1 percent" level of wealth, and it becomes much more a story about a guy who is doing what he can.


wicked cool said:


> I almost feel like your arguing towards 2 much violence in movies/kids heroes?
> 
> Also others seem to be arguing that if we took all of Bezo's money it would wipe out poverty and most crime.



No one has ever argued that. That's such a wild hyperbolisation of what people have argued that it seems like it could only possibly be made in bad faith. 



wicked cool said:


> I would strongly disagree with that. Ive been down the politics route in these forums and i dont plan on going there again but assault/murder etc are not just related to money.



"Just related", no. But it is a proven fact that more economically egalitarian societies have dramatically less violent crime. The vast majority of violent crime exists because of poverty.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 21, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Putting that aside, what on earth is your point? I literally said upthread that changing the world as just one person is a necessary assumption of superhero comics. Nothing about anything I've ever said relies on the idea that Batman couldn't make a difference on his own.
> 
> I've said that he is ignoring some of his most practical and powerful tools for not only reducing poverty and crime, but for _keeping_ Gotham safe once he has done so, in those stories where he isn't really doing anything significant to address poverty, drug treatment, and other systemic issues that contribute to crime rates, in the city of Gotham.
> 
> ...




So @Stalker0 already makes this point with his well-research comment above, but there's no way that Bruce Wayne alone can stop all crime (or homelessness) on his own.

For one thing, that comment assumes Bruce Wayne is as wealthy as Jeff Bezos (the wealthiest man on Earth with $198 billion), when the last comic to name Bruce Wayne's net worth puts it only at about $10 billion. That puts him as the 245th richest person on Earth, still among the top 0.1% richest people.

It's still a ton of money, but that's not nearly enough to do anything permanently... the annual budget of NYC is $88 billion. ANNUAL.

It's also important to recognize that Bruce Wayne _already _does a ton of non-profit work through Wayne Enterprises to address poverty and other causes of crime. It's just that they aren't enough to solve the cesspool that is Gotham City in a permanent way.

Which gets back to why I love Batman so much; he's got almost no chance of actually succeeding, but he's giving it his all anyway.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 21, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> So just to crunch a few fantasy numbers here, lets test this premise.
> 
> So if we assume Bruce Wayne has the wealth of Jeff Bezos (about 190 billion dollars), and Gotham is like NYC with a population of 8.8 million. If we assume a standard household of 4 people (2 parents + 2 children), that is 2.2 million households. The current poverty line for a 4 person household is: $26,500. That line is probably too low for Gotham (aka NYC) but hey its a baseline.
> 
> ...



What you're missing here is that I never said that he could just send all of Gotham a check every month and end poverty. Literally the premise of your entire post is based on something I never even implied, much less said. 

He could, however, buy most of the housing in Gotham, and the empty lots that could be housing, and use his wealth and property investments to bully the city government into changing zoning laws to facilitate installing more affordable housing in the parts of town where jobs are/where he is going to put more jobs, and use those resources to then house all the homeless and improve the quality of life of places currently run by slumlords. He could provide low interest loans for small businesses to marginalized Gothomites. He could improve the state of Gotham's schools. 

I lot of this, perhaps even most of it, he could do while mostly providing seed money for projects, using his companies resources and credit, establish funding funds and trusts, etc, so no, he wouldn't need to spend nearly that much liquid funds to do any of it. 

By funding political candidates, he could change city laws, and as Batman he could keep those candidates safe (especially with the help of his various allies), not to mention breaking the power of the people who would endanger them with his nighttime raids and cooperation of the non-corrupt elements of the GCPD. 

Even if we go by the very low ball estimates I've seen in some places that would only put in the top several hundred wealthiest people in the world, he is still plenty wealthy enough, and his company integrated into the infrastructure of Gotham enough, that he could make a much greater difference with his economic and political resources than he does by beating up random criminals at night. 

But then again, he also would make more of a difference just by focusing his efforts on the people who are profiting the most on the crime and poverty and victimization in Gotham. The whole spending his nights patrolling for individual burglars thing just doesn't make any sense, even in the context of the DC universe.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 21, 2021)

Urriak Uruk said:


> Which gets back to why I love Batman so much; he's got almost no chance of actually succeeding, but he's giving it his all anyway.



This makes the Batman story, for me and for quite a lot of other readers, completely meaningless, pointless to bother reading.


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 21, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> He could, however, buy most of the housing in Gotham, and the empty lots that could be housing, and use his wealth and property investments to bully the city government into changing zoning laws to facilitate installing more affordable housing in the parts of town where jobs are/where he is going to put more jobs, and use those resources to then house all the homeless and improve the quality of life of places currently run by slumlords. He could provide low interest loans for small businesses to marginalized Gothomites. He could improve the state of Gotham's schools.




What? If Gotham is NYC, it would cost $192 billion to buy all of Queen's borough. With $10 billion, you could buy at most 1% of Gotham, and that's after spending all your money, meaning selling all of Wayne Enterprises. There is no way this is feasible.









						How Much Would It Cost to Buy Manhattan? (AMZN, FB)
					

Though Manhattan is one of the priciest areas in the world, the wealthiest people on earth could team up to buy it easily.




					www.investopedia.com
				






doctorbadwolf said:


> This makes the Batman story, for me and for quite a lot of other readers, completely meaningless, pointless to bother reading.




Cool, I'm allowed to enjoy what I like, you enjoy what you like.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 21, 2021)

this is why nerds make the worse fans


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 21, 2021)

Urriak Uruk said:


> What? If Gotham is NYC, it would cost $192 billion to buy all of Queen's borough. With $10 billion, you could buy at most 1% of Gotham, and that's after spending all your money, meaning selling all of Wayne Enterprises. There is no way this is feasible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First, NYC is a thriving city with high property values. Gotham is not. 

Second, you ignored everything by the smallest part of the post so you could react with incredulity. Why? Companies don't just drop cash to buy properties. Also who said anything about buy whole sections of town? I explicitly called out vacant lots (which any economically depressed city has a ton of) and "slumlord owned" properties. Why sprint headlong toward the reading of what I've said that you find most untenable, rather than trying to actually engage with what I'm saying?


Urriak Uruk said:


> Cool, I'm allowed to enjoy what I like, you enjoy what you like.



I mean, sure? Who said otherwise?


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 21, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> First, NYC is a thriving city with high property values. Gotham is not.
> 
> Second, you ignored everything by the smallest part of the post so you could react with incredulity. Why? Companies don't just drop cash to buy properties. Also who said anything about buy whole sections of town? I explicitly called out vacant lots (which any economically depressed city has a ton of) and "slumlord owned" properties. Why sprint headlong toward the reading of what I've said that you find most untenable, rather than trying to actually engage with what I'm saying?




I just responded to the first part here because much of that entire comment is based upon Wayne buying a lot of property and leveraging that ownership.

And you literally wrote "Buy most of the housing in Gotham." I don't know how to interpret "most" beyond "most." Most of any city, no matter how poor, isn't "slumlords and vacant lots." 

Gotham is clearly inspired by an amalgamation of NYC and Chicago in the 1980s, and it's even placed in Ney Jersey. So even if Gotham isn't NYC _today_, it's still a pretty huge urban center with a diverse amount of property ownership. Just google image Gotham City, it looks like those two far more than anything else. No one could conceivably buy up a sizeable fraction of either city in the 1980s even if property was priced as it was.

Even if someone had that insane amount of wealth, the moment you start buying up property in huge amounts, that property skyrockets in price. For example, when Disney was buying up Florida property to build Disney World, they did so through various shell corporations to not arouse suspicion. Despite that, the property value skyrocketed from a value of $200 per acre to $80,000 per acre. And this is a plot of empty land, not an urban city! Buying up most or even a fraction of a huge metropolis is simply unfeasible for anyone.









						Disney Created Fake Companies To Buy Up Land In Florida
					

How did Walt Disney grab so much land in central Florida? Disney World may be the most popular tourist destination in the world today, but in the early '60s it was a secret project, involving sneaky real estate purchases by companies that couldn't be traced to the Mickey Mouse operation.




					groovyhistory.com
				




I'll even link to a real-life person who is trying to do a lot of what your recommending Bruce Wayne do; here's Dal Gilbert, who's worth three times that of Bruce Wayne ($30 billion). He's poured $5 billion already into trying to rebuild Detroit since 2010.









						Billionaire Dan Gilbert has already bet $5.6 billion on Detroit's future, but money can't solve his biggest challenge
					

Al Goldis/AP Photo; Bedrock; Samantha Lee/Business InsiderDan Gilbert, best known as the owner of the Cleveland Cavaliers NBA team, is building a Detroit empire.Dan




					www.businessinsider.in
				




Can we really say that this has improved Detroit in a lasting way, when the city still sits with the 3rd highest murder rate in the country?


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 21, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> this is why nerds make the worse fans




I wish I could let this go, but my nerd-brain _just wont BUDGE!_


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 22, 2021)

The origins of Gotham City are some shrouded in mystery. Many millenniums ago, an evil warlock was buried alive beneath what would one day become the central island of Gotham. It is alleged that while the warlock laid in a state of torpor, his evil essence seeped into the soil, poisoning the ground with his dark, corrupt touch. By the warlock's own reasoning, he claims that he fathered the modern spirit of Gotham City and has even taken to calling himself Doctor Gotham.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 22, 2021)

It's the same reason Bill Gates doesn't just dump $100B into a community -- that doesn't solve anything, and might be enough to feed a small country for a year, but then everybody is hungry again and Gates can't help any more on account of having given all away. Much better to set up a foundation and invest in research and infrastructure slowly and wisely.

And we're assuming Bruce Wayne is only a tenth as rich as Gates.

(Then again, he did fund the JLA headquarters _on the moon_, so he has more than $10B).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 22, 2021)

Urriak Uruk said:


> I just responded to the first part here because much of that entire comment is based upon Wayne buying a lot of property and leveraging that ownership.
> 
> And you literally wrote "Buy most of the housing in Gotham." I don't know how to interpret "most" beyond "most." Most of any city, no matter how poor, isn't "slumlords and vacant lots."
> 
> ...



From actual people I know in Detroit, yes. It has, and will continue to if the aid continues. 

I don't know how else to explain "the fact that a thing can't be fixed in it's entirety does not mean it cannot be improved or that it isn't worth improving". 

If you're going to hyperfocus on one word in a post to the point where you completely ignore the larger point, I guess there's no reason to continue to engage.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 24, 2021)

Not to mention the fact that Batman doesn't just bust low level thugs (and deliver them to the police), but also very dangerous criminals that the Gotham police is not equiped to handle.

If Bruce Wayne didn't dress up as Batman, who would take down The Joker or The Riddler?


----------



## MarkB (Oct 24, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Not to mention the fact that Batman doesn't just bust low level thugs (and deliver them to the police), but also very dangerous criminals that the Gotham police is not equiped to handle.
> 
> If Bruce Wayne didn't dress up as Batman, who would take down The Joker or The Riddler?



A police force that had been suitably trained and equipped, thanks to a certain billionaire's generous donations?


----------



## Urriak Uruk (Oct 24, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> If Bruce Wayne didn't dress up as Batman, who would take down The Joker or The Riddler?




To be fair, most comics explore how those two are both reactions to Batman... if he didn't exist, they might not either.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 24, 2021)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I don't know how else to explain "the fact that a thing can't be fixed in it's entirety does not mean it cannot be improved or that it isn't worth improving".
> 
> If you're going to hyperfocus on one word in a post to the point where you completely ignore the larger point, I guess there's no reason to continue to engage.



The difference is I have engaged with some solid facts to endorse my point. Now my bar may be higher than yours but I think I was able to show that poverty reduction is not trivial.

your belief is that Batman could make serious dents in crime by using his wealth rather than his fists. I don’t think anyone would disagree that he could reduce crime, the main question is how much? 1%, half? Without some idea of the degree, there’s isn’t really anything to engage their with


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Oct 25, 2021)

Stalker0 said:


> The difference is I have engaged with some solid facts to endorse my point. Now my bar may be higher than yours but I think I was able to show that poverty reduction is not trivial.
> 
> your belief is that Batman could make serious dents in crime by using his wealth rather than his fists. I don’t think anyone would disagree that he could reduce crime, the main question is how much? 1%, half? Without some idea of the degree, there’s isn’t really anything to engage their with



My position is that Batman’s crimefighting would be more effective if he combined the criminal punching with poverty relief, affordable housing, helping people have opportunities, better drug and mental health infrastructure, and made his criminal punching more precisely targeted.  

But folks keep getting stuck on one sentence in a long post and acting like that one sentence is the entire post.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 25, 2021)

The *Wayne Foundation* is the holding company for the Thomas Wayne Foundation and the Martha Wayne Foundation; it is the largest transparently operated private foundation within the DC Universe. The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, is arts and humanities: to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology, and to fund scientific research and help altruistic people with research by providing facilities and training. The scale of the foundation and the way it seeks to apply business techniques to giving makes it one of the leaders in venture philanthropy, though the foundation itself notes that the *philanthropic role has limitations.*

The foundation has its own building, called the Wayne Foundation Building, which includes a penthouse where Bruce Wayne lived for a period of time. It also has a secret elevator that leads to a matching Batcave in a secret sub-basement under the building.

Through the Wayne Foundation and the affiliated organizations underneath, Bruce Wayne addresses social-economic problems encouraging crime, assists victims of crimes, and maintains connections to the streets through the soup kitchens and social services groups; all of which augments his crime fighting efforts in a way that his Batman persona cannot. This arrangement also provides a large network of connections in the world of charities. He finds out about the newest trends, sciences and the arts.


----------



## Imaculata (Oct 25, 2021)

MarkB said:


> A police force that had been suitably trained and equipped, thanks to a certain billionaire's generous donations?



Even if that were possible, there's plenty of corruption within the Gotham PD.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2021)

Imaculata said:


> Even if that were possible, there's plenty of corruption within the Gotham PD.



That also sounds like a problem better resolved by applying political and monetary pressure than by punching criminals.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 25, 2021)

MarkB said:


> That also sounds like a problem better resolved by applying political and monetary pressure than by punching criminals.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2021)

trappedslider said:


>



Does it come across any better if you substitute "batarangs" for "money"?

Well, okay, it does sound a million times cooler. But still not more realistic.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 25, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Does it come across any better if you substitute "batarangs" for "money"?
> 
> Well, okay, it does sound a million times cooler. But still not more realistic.



well, it doesn't help if the city is basically cursed to be a hell hole no matter what anyone does...as in actually cursed and not in a "forever status quo" type of thing.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> well, it doesn't help if the city is basically cursed to be a hell hole no matter what anyone does...as in actually cursed and not in a "forever status quo" type of thing.



Again, this sounds like a root cause to be resolved. Time to call in Doctor Fate for a de-cursening.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 25, 2021)

MarkB said:


> Again, this sounds like a root cause to be resolved. Time to call in Doctor Fate for a de-cursening.





 Jim Corrigan (The Spectre) has gone under the city and there is a whole lot of evil magical stuff down there that he isn't able to fight, and he is one of the most powerful sorcerers in DC, 


Spoiler



The modern-age Batman stories (POST-COIE onwards) introduced the idea that Gotham is basically cursed to a supernatural degree.

The story "Dark Knight, Dark City" explained that an 18th-century group of demon worshippers (including Thomas Jefferson for some reason) summoned a Bat-demon named Barbatos and locked it in the center of Gotham for a few centuries (which Grant Morrison would later sort of reference in his Batman run).

In Dennis O'Neil's short story "Cityscape", he goes back even further and says Gotham was built around a makeshift asylum co-founded by a serial killer who wanted a 'home' in the New World for himself and equally insane spiritual 'brothers and sisters' (the story also invoked the real-life legend of the "Wise Men of Gotham" for the reason the city in the comics got its name).

And within Gotham, it's been suggested that Arkham Asylum exists within another nexus of crazy. In the miniseries 'Living Hell', it was explained that in the asylums' early days an occultist was sacrificing inmates to open an actual portal to hell which was barely sealed by Jason Blood. While the portal was closed, it actively called on inmates and people in Gotham to open it back up for a couple of hundred years.

Going off sort of tangentially, there was a literal 'there's something in the water' explanation was used in a Legends of the Dark Knight story called "The Wise Men of Gotham", the novel "Wayne of Gotham", and the Arkham series of videogames.

In both of the first stories, it was suggested that Bruce's dad, Thomas, was indirectly responsible for releasing some faint psychoactive drugs into Gotham's water supply many years ago, which could be blamed for creating both Batman and his villains. In the former story Bruce mostly ends up debunking it, but in the "Wayne of Gotham" novel it's presented as the actual fact.

And in the Arkham videogame continuity, it's revealed that that is a cluster of Lazarus Pits deep under Gotham, and it's implicitly suggested that the chemicals from the pit have always been seeping into Gotham's water and soil, and its psychotic properties are responsible for Gotham's specific brand of eccentricity.

The curse was also mentioned in Detective Comics #982, where Deacon Blackfire's ghost tells Batman about it and tries to convince him that he's fighting a losing battle. It ended with Batman not believing there is a curse (nothing really happened to disprove it, it's just a thing Batman chooses to believe).



TL;DR It's like DC Earth's equivalent to Sunnydale.


----------



## MarkB (Oct 25, 2021)

trappedslider said:


> Jim Corrigan (The Spectre) has gone under the city and there is a whole lot of evil magical stuff down there that he isn't able to fight, and he is one of the most powerful sorcerers in DC,
> 
> 
> Spoiler
> ...



Probably ultimately needs the same solution, then. I guess Bruce should really be investing his billions in building New Gotham a few miles down the coast.


----------



## trappedslider (Oct 25, 2021)

Moving on, it looks like this movie is taking inspiration from batman year zero.


----------

