Rewatching old Batman TAS and am surprised how many times I take the criminal’s side. Batman there just reinforcing the capitalist patriarchy. Turns out he’s not the hero we need.
I think that precisely what makes TAS good - and the good Batman stories in general - is how, at least in characters’ first appearances, it seems that the idea is to show how social problems have driven these “villains” crazy, and the objective is always, with some exceptions (i.e. Red Claw), to make the audience sympathize with them, producing social awareness of this problems in the audience. Unfortunately, as the characters are reused, they are reduced to caricatured villains and the incentive to sympathize with them fades. For example, Two-Face appears as an antagonist in 6 episodes and only in the stories Two-Face and Second Chance is he depicted as a human being. And this only gets worse in the sequel: The New Batman Adventures.
I actually think it’s a good thing that, despite generally showing some sympathy, Batman always opposes his antagonists when they reach a point of social rupture: Batman is not a revolutionary, because Bruce Wayne could never be a revolutionary. Batman not being exactly on the side I would be on is not a problem: it gives the cartoon a verisimilitude.
Now, regarding “the hero we need” and other ideas of the sort, present in Nolan’s films and Miller’s comics, they are radically fascist, there’s nothing to discuss.
Ok, but Batman is there to protect innocents, not solve systemic issues. I don’t care how tragic your back story, when you start freezing people to death, turning them in to plants, or murdering them in mundane ways, you’re the bad guy.
Also, Batman throws them in Arkham Asylum expecting them to get help. Bring it up with Arkham why they keep reoffending.
Rewatching old Batman TAS and am surprised how many times I take the criminal’s side. Batman there just reinforcing the capitalist patriarchy. Turns out he’s not the hero we need.
I mean He is a billionaire lol
I think that precisely what makes TAS good - and the good Batman stories in general - is how, at least in characters’ first appearances, it seems that the idea is to show how social problems have driven these “villains” crazy, and the objective is always, with some exceptions (i.e. Red Claw), to make the audience sympathize with them, producing social awareness of this problems in the audience. Unfortunately, as the characters are reused, they are reduced to caricatured villains and the incentive to sympathize with them fades. For example, Two-Face appears as an antagonist in 6 episodes and only in the stories Two-Face and Second Chance is he depicted as a human being. And this only gets worse in the sequel: The New Batman Adventures.
I actually think it’s a good thing that, despite generally showing some sympathy, Batman always opposes his antagonists when they reach a point of social rupture: Batman is not a revolutionary, because Bruce Wayne could never be a revolutionary. Batman not being exactly on the side I would be on is not a problem: it gives the cartoon a verisimilitude.
Now, regarding “the hero we need” and other ideas of the sort, present in Nolan’s films and Miller’s comics, they are radically fascist, there’s nothing to discuss.
Ok, but Batman is there to protect innocents, not solve systemic issues. I don’t care how tragic your back story, when you start freezing people to death, turning them in to plants, or murdering them in mundane ways, you’re the bad guy.
Also, Batman throws them in Arkham Asylum expecting them to get help. Bring it up with Arkham why they keep reoffending.
I’d buy that if he weren’t already also in a position to help solve systemic issues.
There’s the Wayne Foundation that does… stuff. I dunno I don’t know much about it.
What did Clayface do wrong, exactly, except go after a rich asshole?