Gotham - Season 1

[Christopher]

In this case, "conformity" applies to the everyone who lives in the real world. As little as people in this world can find to agree universally upon, we seem to have all come to the conclusion that running around at night in tights looking to engage armed, hardened criminals in fisticuffs would be such an extremely stupid thing to do, that somebody who did manage to get caught at it before getting himself killed probably would wind up getting some state-sponsored psychiatric care.

For most people, sure. But that ignores the possibility of extraordinary people -- people who find ways to succeed at things that most people would never dare try. Isn't that what most fictional heroes are, in any reality? You could say the same about someone who tries to fight spies with a roll of duct tape and a pocketknife, but MacGyver pulled it off. And most lawyers would be crazy to try to get their clients off by exposing the real killer in the preliminary hearing, but Perry Mason did it every week. Fictional heroes are usually people gifted enough to change the rules.

Besides, by now we've seen plenty of superhero adaptations that devoted a lot of time to explaining why it could be rational for their heroes to use the methods they employ -- Batman Begins being a leading example. Nolan's Bruce didn't become Batman because he was crazy, but because he made a calculated choice to employ theatricality and symbolism as a form of psychological warfare against the underworld, and because he had the training, resources, and technical support to do it with a degree of effectiveness and safety that some random wannabe wouldn't be able to achieve. The TV Flash doesn't wear a costume because he's got a fetish, but because it protects him from the effects of his speed. And so forth. Screen adaptations of superhero stories have found many ways to justify the costumes and methods of the heroes for a "real-world" setting, so the old "You'd have to be crazy" meme is just ignoring all the precedents.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I never said that Bruce on Gotham was crazy. Just that is unconventional means of dealing with his tragedy are part of what will shape him into becoming Batman. If he grew up as a conventional kid who dealt with his tragedy via conventional means, then we could expect him to grow into a conventional adult...not Batman.

You seem to agree with Gotham's approach to Bruce, so I don't know why you're arguing with me instead of the people who find what they're doing with Bruce to be disturbing.

 

[Christopher]

I wasn't arguing with you. I was expressing my dislike for the attitude of those people in general who choose to define Batman as pathological. For whatever reason, you chose to take up their side of the argument in response, and I simply refuted the arguments you offered. So you were the one who chose to rebut me, not the other way around.

And of course Bruce isn't conventional, but that's because he's brilliant and gifted, not because he's maladjusted or "insane" as some would have it.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Yes, yes...up is down, red is green, and it's purely a coincidence that you pulled this topic out of your ass three posts after mine.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Is the Punisher insane?

Same origin story.

Mostly.

Except that he wears white gloves when he's beating people.

Frank has probably used so much bleach on those gloves that human flesh burns on contact with them.

The only difference between Batman and the Punisher is 2 million Italian American corpses.

Seriously?

America must be running out.

Backorder some more from Italy?

...

Although in Born, Castle did seem to supplicate to some sort of God.

(Unless he's insane and made it up?)

I'm just not sure if who he made a deal with was Death or War.

 

[Mr Light]

<<Frank has probably used so much bleach on those gloves that human flesh burns on contact with them.

The only difference between Batman and the Punisher is 2 million Italian American corpses.>>

 

[Christopher]

Yes, yes...up is down, red is green, and it's purely a coincidence that you pulled this topic out of your ass three posts after mine.

Please, there's no need for that. It's not personal. Yes, you mentioned the existence of that attitude, and I expressed my feelings about that attitude in general. I was responding to the attitude itself, not directing it at any one person. I often see a comment on a board and it inspires thoughts that go off on a tangent, and I sometimes fail to make it clear that I've shifted from the specific to the general.

 

[Forbin]

Never mind all that - what's confusing the hell out of my wife and I is: what is that place Fish Mooney is in, and how did she get there!? The last we remember she was on a boat that was under attack.

 

[Christopher]

^The how is easy enough; She was overpowered in the fight and taken there by the people who raided the boat. Who they are is a more puzzling question. Slave traders, perhaps?

 

[Nociod]

Or organ harvesters? That's the first thing I thought of when that woman said they took her eyes.

But why would they let her back in? Why not harvest all the other organs as well.

I guess we'll find out.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Eyes are not that valuable compared to internal organs.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

Never mind all that - what's confusing the hell out of my wife and I is: what is that place Fish Mooney is in, and how did she get there!? The last we remember she was on a boat that was under attack.

I think they grow up to become the guys on the boat in the flashbacks of season 2 Arrow.




As far as Bruce goes, someone can have serious emotional problems without being pathological. It's not wrong, or even uncommon, to devote yourself to a cause, or even a selfish goal. What is troubling is when someone only has that one thing in their life. They have no family, no friends, minimal social contact at all, and pursue their goal in one way or another 24/7. A workaholic CEO of a business who ignores his wife and family, and has no actual friends, just business associates and contacts is not emotionally healthy. Now take "CEO" out of the sentence and replace it with "vigilante" and you have someone who is also unhealthy.

Depending on the era and the media, Bruce has sometimes been portrayed as having a meaningful emotional relationship with people like Jim, Dick, Alfred, and Selena. At other times he has been portrayed as shutting them out emotionally and being completely focused on his mission. Often "Bruce" is the costume and "Batman" is the actual person. It depends on the writer, but there is plenty of material that can make someone question Bruce's emotional health.

In Gotham we are shown a young Bruce with no friends, no peers, a relationship with Alfred that is more like one that an Olympic athlete has with a trainer rather than anything parental, and a brief crush on a street kid who is IMHO pathological - viewing constant B&E and theft as a perfectly normal way to live.

The Olympic athlete is an interesting comparison. It takes close to 24/7 dedication, but would you put your child on that treadmill if it meant having no relationships at all with friends or family?

I like the story, I like the characters; they are extreme and that is what makes them interesting, whether live-action, cartoons, or comics. I don't think they are normal though.

 

[Morpheus 02]

I wasn't arguing with you. I was expressing my dislike for the attitude of those people in general who choose to define Batman as pathological. For whatever reason, you chose to take up their side of the argument in response, and I simply refuted the arguments you offered. So you were the one who chose to rebut me, not the other way around.

And of course Bruce isn't conventional, but that's because he's brilliant and gifted, not because he's maladjusted or "insane" as some would have it.

Why can't he be both? Bruce, in Gotham, is still pretty fresh from his parents' murder. He still retains some pre-murder innocence and naiveity at this point

The 15 years-down-the-road Batman can be pathological. Now, not at Gotham's Penguin level of pathology...but certainly off in certain areas.

In Gotham at this stage, Bruce is naive about life, such as being so optimistic about his friendship with Selina. Also, he has some standards as to how life should be, but day by day, seeing how the world totally fails to live up to those ideals. Over time, he could become emotionally jaded, as people keep failing him, and no true parent to "ease" him into reality.

Also, Alfred might act as a father figure to a certain degree (and perhaps Jim Gordon later). But certainly his relationship with Alfred is a bit twisted. despite some of the fatherly advice & hugs Alfred gives, Alfred is still Bruce's employee, and Bruce brings that up every so often. It's kind of the mirror image of youth workers who start treating young teens as peers, especially when it comes to their emotions. It might not necessarily lead into anything illegal, but certainly can stunt the youth worker emotionally.

Again, Bruce isn't as "bad" as many others, and is strong in a number of areas...making him a superhero. But he's deeply flawed, and those flaws will just grow over time.

EDIt: Just saw LaxScrutiny's post...and some good stuff in there. Definitley agree with it.

 

[Christopher]

Why can't he be both? Bruce, in Gotham, is still pretty fresh from his parents' murder. He still retains some pre-murder innocence and naiveity at this point

The 15 years-down-the-road Batman can be pathological. Now, not at Gotham's Penguin level of pathology...but certainly off in certain areas.

Sure, you can interpret Batman as pathological, and many have done so. My point is that I don't like that interpretation, not that it's impossible. I prefer to see what Batman does as an act of nobility, of empathy. I prefer the optimistic interpretation that he's a hero to the cynical one that he's just some self-destructive nut. I don't like the way that latter interpretation implies that helping others is an irrational act. Think about priests and nuns and monks. These are people who give up all worldly possessions and endure lives of hardship and arduous discipline in service to others. Does that make them insane? Or does it just make them really, really selfless and dedicated? Extreme choices are not necessarily unhealthy choices.

In Gotham at this stage, Bruce is naive about life, such as being so optimistic about his friendship with Selina. Also, he has some standards as to how life should be, but day by day, seeing how the world totally fails to live up to those ideals. Over time, he could become emotionally jaded, as people keep failing him, and no true parent to "ease" him into reality.

Yes, but then he wouldn't have what it takes to be Batman. Batman is not about being cynical and hopeless and uncaring. Just the opposite. Batman is someone who devotes all his time and resources to helping other people. He may have a tough, forbidding exterior, but his entire life's work is a profound act of empathy and idealism. He's as disciplined and driven as a warrior, but for the cause of preserving life and safety, not destroying it.

Also, Batman couldn't possibly be effective if he were out of touch with "reality." He's the world's greatest detective. He does his job by observing the facts and details of the world around him. He couldn't do so successfully if his perceptions of that world were unreliable. He's more keenly in touch with reality than most people will ever be. Just because he chooses to engage with it in an unconventional way, that doesn't mean he's blind to it. If anything, it's the billionaires who go through their lives without dedicating themselves to the needs of others who are out of touch with reality, the reality of human suffering that Batman confronts and attempts to ameliorate every night. Bruce Wayne is a far saner billionaire than most.

Again, Bruce isn't as "bad" as many others, and is strong in a number of areas...making him a superhero. But he's deeply flawed, and those flaws will just grow over time.

Yes, and that's been a popular interpretation of the character for the past few decades. My point is that it's not the only interpretation, and I don't think it's the best interpretation or even a particularly plausible one. No doubt Bruce Wayne has flaws and traumas, but being Batman is how he channels and disciplines them into a constructive purpose and uses them to help other people. He couldn't do what he does if he lacked a clear understanding of himself or the reality around him. His choices are certainly eccentric, but they're the conscious, informed, and calculated choices of a highly rational and disciplined mind.

The core premise of Batman, in the modern era, is not that Bruce Wayne is insane. It's that Gotham City is insane, and that the most rational choice Bruce Wayne could make in response to that insanity was to embrace some aspects of it and channel them constructively.

 

[Forbin]

Never mind all that - what's confusing the hell out of my wife and I is: what is that place Fish Mooney is in, and how did she get there!? The last we remember she was on a boat that was under attack.

I think they grow up to become the guys on the boat in the flashbacks of season 2 Arrow.

...which might be helpful if I watched Arrow. Or would it?

 

[Mach5]

Bruce could hire an army of private security to police Gotham for what it costs him to be Batman.

Batman is officially considered a criminal. The "army" of private security policing Gotham without being given mandate by the elected officials would be the equivalent of a foreign military invasion, no matter the motive. The National guard would have to be mobilized to deal with them.

Also, those private security forces would never be able to inspire people and bring them hope the way Batman did.

 

[Christopher]

Batman is officially considered a criminal.

In some versions. In the '60s TV series and the Silver Age comics that inspired them, Batman and Robin were duly deputized officers of the law. And in most versions, the GCPD tolerates his activities even though aspects of them are extralegal. The whole "Batman is a criminal" thing is something Frank Miller featured in The Dark Knight Returns and Batman: Year One, but it was meant to reflect the specific circumstances of those stories, not to be a constant aspect of the series. But unfortunately most Batman creators since then have tried to imitate those stories indiscriminately, without recognizing that some aspects of them were not meant to reflect a normal status quo.

 

[DWF]

Why can't he be both? Bruce, in Gotham, is still pretty fresh from his parents' murder. He still retains some pre-murder innocence and naiveity at this point

The 15 years-down-the-road Batman can be pathological. Now, not at Gotham's Penguin level of pathology...but certainly off in certain areas.

Sure, you can interpret Batman as pathological, and many have done so. My point is that I don't like that interpretation, not that it's impossible. I prefer to see what Batman does as an act of nobility, of empathy. I prefer the optimistic interpretation that he's a hero to the cynical one that he's just some self-destructive nut. I don't like the way that latter interpretation implies that helping others is an irrational act. Think about priests and nuns and monks. These are people who give up all worldly possessions and endure lives of hardship and arduous discipline in service to others. Does that make them insane? Or does it just make them really, really selfless and dedicated? Extreme choices are not necessarily unhealthy choices.

Bruce Wayne creatd an alterego to combat criminals, not to fight fires, cure people of diseases or create social policies that help people. Priests and nuns don't need to create alteregos to help people nor to they need millions of dollars or scientific toys to help them, millions of dollars helps don't get me wrong though. And really Batman hasn't stopped crime or lowered it in Gotham, there's a seeming never ending stream of crime and criminals.

 

[Mach5]

And really Batman hasn't stopped crime or lowered it in Gotham, there's a seeming never ending stream of crime and criminals.

Depends on the iteration. In Nolan's TDK it's been established that Batman had indeed made a huge difference. Remember that scene where the Joker mocks the crime bosses for meeting in broad daylight?

@Christopher - you're right. Over the years I started seeing Nolanverse as the definitive version of Batman, unintentionally (and perhaps unfairly) disregarding all the others (especially the trashy 60's tv show, which I loved as a kid).

 

[Christopher]

Yep, the general premise in Batman stories seems to be that Batman has made a serious dent in conventional crime, but that it's led in turn to the rise of supercriminals to fill the niche.

But of course it's a spurious objection, since this is a fictional series, and that requires regular, ongoing danger or there are no stories to tell. Adventure is what happens when things go wrong, so adventure heroes can never be successful at preventing things from going wrong.

Although I've seen it argued that the reason the Silver Age Superman and Batman were free to devote so much time to bizarre costume changes, space and time travel, playing endless pranks on one another or on Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen, and so forth was that they'd been so successful at stopping serious crime that the frivolous adventures were the only ones left.