They make villains who’s goals make total sense and are something to root for, so to balance that they make the villains kill innocents just to make sure the audience doesn’t accidentally side with them.
Poison Ivy’s explicitly stated goals are mass genocide, how is that something to root for. She’s not advocating for moving to solar or nuclear and reducing emissions.
That’s the point. You have a Villain who wants something good (stop the destruction of nature) and then pair it with something very evil (genocide). It’s a very common trope in media. It leads to the “Hero” of the story being able to defend the status quo again and again without ever challenging it.
I understand, but the villain doesn’t lead with “Let’s stop the destruction of nature”, they lead with “Everyone should die”.
I don’t think Poison Ivy ever actually makes a compelling argument for conservationism and anti-capitalism. They just really REALLY hate people.
That might be the case. You seem to know more about Batman than I do so I will do as Mao suggests and shut up before I haven’t researched the topic.
Any Batman comics you could recommend?
That is a can of worms about on par with a leftist asking “In what order should I read theory”? There a 1001 correct answers, and there is no exact timeline about how you can delve into the character.
I have a decent bit of superhero knowledge and I dive into it every now and then, but I will not claim that I am some absolute authority on this subject and that I can give you a definitive list.
I will however recommend “Batman: Year One” as it is a good place to start with the character and that is considered one of the best comics of all time.
For a Batman/Joker story I would recommend the “Killing Joke” series, but I will say that is is fairly mature in its content, as it really attempts to delve into the Joker’s psychology as a tragic but evil character.
The Batman stories in the “Flashpoint” Series is fun as a side story as it follows a world where the Flash makes one change and alters all of history, and Batman ends up being Thomas Wayne (the dad) rather then Bruce Wayne (the son), and this is a much more aggressive and violent Batman, with a pretty shady moral code as Thomas goes full capitalist and is pretty evil.
The Long Halloween is also pretty good!
Thank you. Follow up question, where can I read them? DC Infinite isn’t available in my country (I also wouldn’t mind putting on a pirat hat)
Not begrudging your interests, but I think this post kind of summarizes why I have never been able to read any western comics.
I like really concrete beginning/end points for fictional media. I like to be able to say “This is book 1, I can start here. This is book 4, it’s the last one”. I also hate jumping into any series in the middle, even if it is absolutely designed for it. Anytime I have thought about trying to read any western comics (or warhammer on the same note) it just seems like a massive ambigious undertaking.
Warhammer at this point have like 1000 or more books.
I get that feeling when it comes to comics since their are a lot of reboots and stories in alternative universes and resets and stuff like this. I tried to get a better grip on Batman during the last days. The comics recommended where great but diving deeper has become very difficult since I just can’t figure out what is canon and what isn’t.
Getting into Warhammer is a lot easier in my opinion (don’t get me wrong, it can still be daunting without proper guidance). Most Warhammer book series are contained in their own. You don’t need to know the entire universe to understand the Eisenhorn books or Gaunt’s Ghosts or Ciaphis Cain. Knowing more about the universe might give you a broader understanding but it’s not required to fully enjoy them at all. The biggest hurdle is deciding on where to start. There are a lot of good starting points. Picking your first novel is pretty much depending on what you like.
Can you please share that quote from Mao?
“No investigation, no right to speak”.
“Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?”
-Mao in Oppose Book Worship
I totally agree with the sentiment, but when does one know that one knows enough though? How deep does one have to dig? How much does one have to research to be able to contribute?
Poison Ivy is malthusian.
Harry Potter is the champion of doing this as Harry manages to support a status quo that literally does nothing but work against him.
It’s like JK insists a corrupt system is the only possible system and is perfect because some bad apple will eventually trip over some rule or clause that saves the day at the 11th hour so… “It’s all good!”
I may have used the wrong wording. I think some villains have good motives but bad execution. I also used this post as a jumping off point of the whole trope rather than commentary on Poison Ivy specifically.
I know next to nothing about this version of Batman, Ivy and Freeze so I can’t speak to them, hell I can’t speak about a lot of Batman villains, this post just reminded me of this weird trend.
The villain that came to mind for me was the air bender guy from Legend of Korra, from what little I can recall from that show. Something about anarchy, I think. The antagonists from The Falcon and the Winter Soldier have been said to fit this trope as well but I can’t say for sure as I’ve never watched that show.
Yeah, Poison Ivy is a misanthrope.
That’s the easiest way to make complex villains, give them a relatable goal with terrible means. Activates the good old “do the ends justify the means” question and tempts the audience. The best superhero movies give the hero a strong moral backbone to “save” the audience and find the truth between the two. Look at how Black Panther learns from Killmonger’s criticism but does it without war and hatred
Edit: Also The Batman is pretty solid with this aspect. He sees how his quest for revenge encourages violent vigilantism and inspires the incel-like Riddler. Because of this he decides to turn toward hope and helping others instead
I don’t disagree with the sentiment. The problem is that it gives the impression that people irl are willing to go to these extreme and illogical means to achieve their otherwise good ends. That’s not the case. Indeed it’s often the opposite. The people trying to do good things are almost always unwilling to do anything ‘bad’ to achieve their aims. They usually refuse even to defend themselves against reaction.
This kind of writing is poor because it’s easy and removes any subtlety from the equation. No reasonable person on earth is going to think a villain is right to commit genocide to fix the world’s major problems. Nevermind lesser problems. Irl it’s the billionaires who are willing to cause untold suffering in the search for profit. There are ways to make that dramatic and exciting but Hollywood is not set to to write it.
This kind of writing is propaganda. It wraps human action in individualism and builds a model of ‘villain’ that can be invoked every time imperialists want to start another war. Later, the subjects of this propaganda rarely if ever seriously question the motives of the people destroyed by imperialist war in part because they’ve been conditioned to think in a certain way about the ‘enemy’.
I absolutely agree that putting that dilemma into a story can be great for drama. I just reject the Hollywood rendition of it because it’s always the same. When I watch most action movies, I time how long it takes to reveal that the volunteer at the soup kitchen suddenly tells the audience that the best way to feed the homeless is to the lions.
I’m not talking about Poison Ivy and Batman, yet. I can’t talk to Poison Ivy or to Batman in the specific. In the abstract, philanthropy and an individual approach to solving crime can never be successful. These are palatable methods because the writers want people to limit what they think is possible. If they were serious about creating a model for helping people they’d show someone organising the workers e.g. in Gotham or elsewhere rather than thinking anyone can solve everything alone. (That said, I’m not against Batman in the way that I’m against Marvel.)
Show me the dilemma faced by all the people who, to pay their bills, are sat in an office in New York committing slow violence against child labourers being poisoned by chemicals in a garment factory in India. Then show me the workers organising themselves to improve working conditions.
In the sequel, they can overthrow the directors of the company. In the third movie, they can start a revolution. If this were written by Hollywood, those workers would be the villains, pointlessly terrorising random targets. But irl the only violence they’d be involved in is as victim of the state and the employer.
Heath Ledger’s Joker is basically the textbook example. He is… pretty much right, but the body count means you can’t agree with him.
Joaquin Phoenix Joker however did nothing wrong… until he killed his therapist, but that happens after he’s too far gone… He’s the real victim there and the movie is aware of that. Which is why the movie is so good.
eh, there’s probably a scene in the show where they like blow up a hospital for no reason at all just to make them horseshoe theory
Act 1 : villiain is volunteering at a childrens hospital.
…
Act 3 : villain is blowing up the hospital.
Obamas gamer moment
By the way the funniest thing about entire thread is that liberals use popculture to explain reality and communists use reality to explain popculture. A microcosm of idealism vs materialism.
deleted by creator
“Would give his life to save a random child”, yet doesn’t use any of his money to finance affordable housing projects in Gotham.
Batman doesn’t do that, Bruce Wayne does. He is extremely philanthropic and his family was too. Plus I can support him over supporting the absolute disaster that is the Gotham Police Department.
https://glitterpancake.tumblr.com/post/110382878890/bruce-wayne-outside-of-batman
Here’s someone else’s research, but either way the Wayne family is known to have been extremely philanthropic throughout the comics. Sorry bud, Batman is indeed the good guy
People like OP remind me that there are, indeed, those who think Batman is worse than people with genocidal tendencies just because his daddy was rich.
I used to be one of those people, even advocated for retiring the character because “Rich guy who beats up the mentally ill… not a relatable hero for millenials…”
But I realized that was the result of a poor understanding of the character and oversimplification of the themes.
Batman is usually the number 1 guy adovcating for the very people he regularly fights to given the chance for rehabilitation.
Not solely incarceration but a legitimate chance to re enter society and build a respectable career.
The exception is Frank Miller who tends to write Batman like a fascist, but… that’s because Frank Miller is a fascist with a warped sense of morality and reality.
It’s actually rather fitting imo that Batman is so misunderstood.
Howso?
Well, he’s a misunderstood figure in the comics itself. Kinda fitting that a lot of people IRL misunderstand him as well.
The comics strongly imply he does, but the city is just THAT corrupt, to the point that even with his checkbook and super hero work, it’s still a tall order.
Lmao in basically all media, the Wayne foundation is a center pillar for Wayne enterprises.
I mean, didn’t they also try to commit literal genocide while Batman whlie still being a billionaire goes out of his way and risks his life every night to protect the innocents doing a much better job than Gotham police? And still, Bruce Wayne was always philantropic and keeps city in check as much as he can, even his parents used their wealth to help the people.
He is a billionaire but he ain’t Iron Man.
Honestly my biggest gripe with so many Hollywood movies. Villains bring up great points and then just so we have to keep rooting for the status quo commit senseless murder
That’s MCU for ya
It’s a trend I’m noticing, people are unhappy with the status quo, but the higher ups love it.
The compromise? Villains used as a mouthpiece for the audience and then given a moment in the third act where they sit down to eat a basket of puppies and some “We need a solution but men like you will never give it!” for our hero to support the status quo but have a false pretense of a copout… it made me really appreciate Jack Horner for being an actual goddamn villain in a sea of “The Bad Guy is right, but…”
Now I’m randonly remembering Disney trying to actually sell Cruella DeVille of all people as a feminist girlboss antihero…
As if anyone could root for a woman who wants to skin literal puppies alive in order to make a dress…
Basically every good vs evil narrative from hollywood for the past 30 years has been this.
The “Malcom X was a bad guy!” Trope is offensive as fuck to anyone who knows basic history
Okay, which one of you is the Riddler from the new Batman?
I didn’t watch Black Panther but wasn’t that a similar thing where the “bad guy” is right but like he kills innocents to cement himself as the bad guy of the film?
In the world of Black Panther, Killmonger’s plan to arm African descendants across the globe represents the beginning stages of the Pan-African ideal, where Blacks all over the world fight for liberation by any means necessary.
He’s a villain, he murdered at least one unarmed person in cold blood and his plan was to use advanced technology to wage a bloody and violent uprising. It was to take control through power and death.
Also I think T’Challa (the protaganist) was a fed or had a deal with the US
Also I think T’Challa (the protaganist) was a fed or had a deal with the US
He was literally the diamond warlord living in glass tower full of hi tech while his subjects waded around mud streets, he also supported tribalism and superstition which divided his people so he could rule them, and let’s not forget the endangered species animal abuse and weaponisation. Somehow exactly like some of the US comics villains from 60’s, but spinned at sympthetic.
I never watch MCU stuff for this reason, like if they ever plan to make an Algerian super hero they’ll make him a Harki (our version of gusanos) or someshit.
Colossus from X-Men. While he is consistently written as one of the best and nicest superheroes in entire universe, he also have gusano moments and is indirectly a vector for all imaginable gusano propaganda against USSR. Or Black Widow who is straight up a gusano and needed an children atrocity story at her origin to make her even slightly sympathetic.
I just watched a great video breaking down Black Panther today from F.D. Signifier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQEWa5R3m4U
This entire video is good but the black panther part starts at 11:45
Thanks for the suggestion, just watched it. I’m def not an anarchist but any self-respecting leftist has to understand the strawman of an anarchist they made up for the “flagsmashers” is just ridiculous.
Poison Ivy was an eco-fascist at best. She did not want to “regrow forests”, she wanted to commit mass genocide against the human population to prevent pollution and “help” the environment. What a noble cause.
Also nowhere did Mr. Freeze ever want to help fight global warming. He became Mr. Freeze by compete accident while trying to cure his wife of a terminal illness, and he is now stuck in a cryogenic suit or he will die. All his research relates to curing his wife, not helping global warming.
That poster, and everyone here supporting them has never watched the movie or done a single related google search. But also, fuck Batman.
…I think they were just making a joke.
Explain the joke then
I think humor is probably lost on you. If you are looking for deep, incisive political commentary from a tweet about a funny reinterpretation of Batman, I think you are probably looking in the wrong place.
This was just in the new Flash movie (or am I mixing this up?). There’s a line pointing out that if Batman really wanted to change things he’d just use his billions to end poverty.
The problem is is that he does do that canonically. He spends the vast majority of his fortune on social endeavors in Gotham.
They also mentioned the in the Harley Quinn cartoon.
Ah that’s probably the one I was thinking of then.
I mean… killing millions in the process lol
NANANANANANANANANANANANA
BATMAN IS A FASCIST
that’s doesn’t make any sense, both (or the three if you want) were psicopaths with incompatible plans, please don’t put a socioeconomic problem in mid of that is pathetic
It’s a joke. Maybe English isn’t your first language? That would be understandable.
that’s correct, sorry
🤓
un-compatible
I think the word you’re looking for is “incompatible”
And Hitler just wanted to improve the human race /s
Hitler was vegan 🤓
(He wasn’t even, his favorite food he ate constantly were meat dumplings)
deleted by creator
No, Ivy wants to wipe out humans and make plants the dominant lifeform on the planet. Fries wants to cure his wife but causes a lot of damage in his quest. He doesn’t care who he hurts so long as it brings him even a step closer to saving Nora. so your meme is misinformed. And before anyone comes at me about how Bruce should use his millions (if not billions) to try and reform society, he actually does. And you need to actually read the actual comics you jackasses.
Bruce Wayne helps out plenty with donations and supporting people, while Batman helps out by keeping crime in check as much as he can as a vigilante. You do not get to attack Bruce Wayne because you’ve only watched some of the movies. Even a lot of the side media that focuses more on the Bat shows Bruce helping out where he can. But he’s only one man with so much resources. If you want to attack an actual bad billionaire in the DC, go after Lex Luthor. There’s no saving that asshole. He once got the powers of god and was told that he could finally fix everything wrong with the world as long as he didn’t try to go after Superman, all of this after being shown all the good Superman and Clark Kent have done. And guess what he tries to do? Kill Superman. Lex is just as obsessed with Supes as Joker is with Bats, but Lex is more composed and appears more civil than Joker.
