You can make that case for every superhero!
Why Batman is Secretly Terrible for Gotham.
- Thread starter Professor Zoom
- Start date
You can make that case for every superhero!
Sure, but most other superheros tend to be "indirectly" responsible for their destruction (it happens in combat, not entirely their fault, etc). Nolan's Batman, on the other hand, seems to go out of his way to blow other people's shit up. In TDK, he's at least as destructive, if not more-so, than the Joker!
Sure, but most other superheros tend to be "indirectly" responsible for their destruction (it happens in combat, not entirely their fault, etc). Nolan's Batman, on the other hand, seems to go out of his way to blow other people's shit up. In TDK, he's at least as destructive, if not more-so, than the Joker!
Yeah, I recall him smashing some cars when the Tumbler crashes into the parking garage and he blows up cars in order to make a path for the Tumbler while chasing the Joker.
Sure, but most other superheros tend to be "indirectly" responsible for their destruction (it happens in combat, not entirely their fault, etc). Nolan's Batman, on the other hand, seems to go out of his way to blow other people's shit up. In TDK, he's at least as destructive, if not more-so, than the Joker!
That's very fair.
You mean the equipment that was all FAILED PROTOTYPES that were NEVER going into production AS STATED IN THE FILM, all they were doing BEFORE he took them was taking up storage space.
No he was referring to a bandit that stole stuff and then dumped it in the river not the natives, which AGAIN was STATED ON SCREEN.
The thief you refer to is quite explicitly a native. This is also STATED ON SCREEN.
Well, they sort of did... meaning that they thought the Joker would do it.
Yes, it's meant to invoke the "discussions" young nerdy people might have late at night in restaurant, part as I suppose an homage to scenes from "Swingers" and popular sit-coms from the 90s like Seinfeld and Friends.
Even if the the PROTOTYPES had FAILED, AS STATED IN THE FILM, WEREN'T HIS... they were THE companies. He's a THIEF, no BETTER than the Penguin.
If you're going with the argument that it's not theft because they were lying around unused..., how would you feel if I came in and took stuff that was yours you weren't using, without your permission?
Bruce is breaking the law and justifying it by saying he's saving lives. But, even justifiable homicide still needs to be investigated after it occurs, to make sure it actually WAS justifiable. You can't just shoot someone, say it was justifiable and go home. There's an investigation. Which, AS SEEN IN THE FILM, never happens with the Batman.
Where is his witness statement? Where is the trial? Where is the investigation?
Does Batman think he's above the law? I think so.
1. "Company's." Possessive, not plural.
2. Wayne Enterprises had not been made public at that point in Batman Begins. At the time that Lucius provided Bruce with the Tumbler and the other pieces of technology, Wayne Enterprises was still a sole proprietorship owned by Bruce Wayne. They were, in fact, his.
It would be more accurate to say that Batman has determined that there is no real rule of law in Gotham, that the social contract has dissolved, and that there is no legitimate government in Gotham anymore, and that, in the absence of a functional local government, he, like any citizen, has the right to engage in vigilante activity until such time as a functional government is restored.
Meh.
Point taken. Though afterwards...even if he did own a majority, he still has taken the equipment without the knowledge or permission of the other shareholders. He, at least, should have taken it up for a vote.
Poor governance.
But how did he determine that? By just deciding? If someone came after him to stop HIS violence, would he allow himself to be put under arrest, or just decide that other person is a "villain?"
But, how could he possible argue the social contract is dissolved? There's a mayor. There's police. There mass transit (D'oh, blew that up.) For the most part, while it's a shit hole, it's not ANARCHY. How could he possibly say there's no functional government? If anything, he seems to be saying, "I can do the job better." But, he's NOT saying, "I'm doing the job because there is no police."
In the end, because of one corrupt case (Joe Chill's) Batman has decided there's no social contract? Insanity.
But in the case of the one person I remember him actually killing (Dent), Batman's not trying to write it off as justifiable homicide and pretend he's above the law/ system. He's letting everyone think that he is a murderer and the only people who will know any differently is Gordon and his family. He will be investigated and actually pursued now because of it. He goes out of his way to avoid killing (unless you're in one of the cars I mentioned up above
), and the time he does kill, he's not looking for a clean slate or to duck the system.
No. If, in his capacity as owner of Wayne Enterprises before it became a public company, he chose to transfer ownership of the Tumbler and other equipment from Wayne Enterprises to himself in his capacity as a private citizen, it is not the right of the new shareholders to question or reverse his distribution of his own property prior to the company going public.
Is that really any different than, say, how the people in Tehrir Square decided that their government no longer functioned?
Well, this hasn't happened in the Nolanverse. But in the DC Comics Universe, when Superman did it, he evaded Superman before eventually persuading him that they were on the same side.
Remember that scene in Batman Begins where Carmine Falconi pulls a gun on him in a restaurant, and he points to all the members of the City Council and police officers and union officials nearby, and he declares that he wouldn't have any problems killing Bruce right in front of them?
That's how he can say the social contract is dissolved. Because the key players of the Gotham City government, including the City Council, D.A.'s office, and the Police Department, were under the thumb of organized crime -- either through bribery or through fear and intimidation. Simply put, the government of the City of Gotham was, by that point, little more in reality than just another front for the Mafia.
Well, the new suit was made by Fox for Wayne, not for Wayne Enterprises. It is entirely possible that Wayne gave Fox his own money to make the new suit instead of using resources of Wayne Enterprises.
Winning.
And by that point I'm pretty sure Wayne used his controlling share of the company to make it private, and his, again. Otherwise "controlling shares" or not I doubt the board would stand for Wayne making sweeping staff changes (firing Poor Man's Jerry Springer guy, re-hiring Licious in higher position and then, in the next movie, sleeping during important merger meetings. There's be meetings pretty much demanding they'd fire Wayne sole share holder or not.)
Similar threads
