These stories are not meant to be realistic, they’re not meant to be so in depth… there’s always going to be issues…
To me all that sounds like we shouldn’t have heroes. Because they could all be doing other, more “efficient” jobs. Except maybe for captain planet…altho I’m sure we can find improvements for that one as well.
And yes, successful villains all end up either people that want to destroy everything or people that want to make things better but doing it wrong. Anything less than that and they’re not important enough.
All these issues are usually features, not bugs, I think.
I’m not at all clear where you got that from what I was saying, which was not that we shouldn’t have heroes, but we can have better heroes, ones whose flaws are acknowledged by the narrative.
My bad, I must’ve tunnel visioned on some things. But in my defense, the original argument was that he wasn’t doing enough good, not that he wasn’t flawed enough. And with that we’re changing the subject and getting too much into subjectivity. He’s not perfect, far from it… he’s paranoid, his relationships with other characters are far from good or normal because of his issues… his handling of the joker… etc. Could there have been more focus on his flaws and issues? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the original discussion of “why isn’t he using his money to make Gotham a better place”. Which he is, despite what you might say or think. Just because they’re not giving us all the details that doesn’t mean that he isn’t. That’s an artistic choice. You might disagree with that choice, but that doesn’t change the canon.
If there’s one line in the first issue that says “when he’s not busy fighting bad guys, he spends his time investing in social programs and hires ex-convicts in his company in order to reform them and bla bla” and then never mentions it again for the next 300 issues? Then we have to assume that he’s still doing that, because that’s what the writer said. It’s the Batman comics, not the Bruce Wayne comics.
These stories are not meant to be realistic, they’re not meant to be so in depth… there’s always going to be issues…
To me all that sounds like we shouldn’t have heroes. Because they could all be doing other, more “efficient” jobs. Except maybe for captain planet…altho I’m sure we can find improvements for that one as well.
And yes, successful villains all end up either people that want to destroy everything or people that want to make things better but doing it wrong. Anything less than that and they’re not important enough.
All these issues are usually features, not bugs, I think.
I’m not at all clear where you got that from what I was saying, which was not that we shouldn’t have heroes, but we can have better heroes, ones whose flaws are acknowledged by the narrative.
Consider me thwarted.
My bad, I must’ve tunnel visioned on some things. But in my defense, the original argument was that he wasn’t doing enough good, not that he wasn’t flawed enough. And with that we’re changing the subject and getting too much into subjectivity. He’s not perfect, far from it… he’s paranoid, his relationships with other characters are far from good or normal because of his issues… his handling of the joker… etc. Could there have been more focus on his flaws and issues? Sure, but that has nothing to do with the original discussion of “why isn’t he using his money to make Gotham a better place”. Which he is, despite what you might say or think. Just because they’re not giving us all the details that doesn’t mean that he isn’t. That’s an artistic choice. You might disagree with that choice, but that doesn’t change the canon.
If there’s one line in the first issue that says “when he’s not busy fighting bad guys, he spends his time investing in social programs and hires ex-convicts in his company in order to reform them and bla bla” and then never mentions it again for the next 300 issues? Then we have to assume that he’s still doing that, because that’s what the writer said. It’s the Batman comics, not the Bruce Wayne comics.