The Batman - Official 4K Trailer (2022) Robert Pattinson, Zoe Kravitz | DC FanDome 2021

[Urriak Uruk]

I disagree. He would just need to target his action as Batman. Beating up Marcone and his lieutenants and disrupting their negotiations with and international drug cartel would be useful. Taking out a warehouse full of goons who are trying to bring drugs into the city, and disposing of the drugs, would be useful. There's a lot of punching he could be doing that is useful.

I'm personally fine with the fact that comics ignore concussive brain damage and the fact you can absolutely accidentally kill someone with a blow to the head, it's basically fantasy. Believability in human behavior is vastly more important than physical realism.

Real-life law enforcement agencies (the police, FBI, CIA) do a lot of targeting as well, and it hasn't put much of a dent into international drug cartels. I'm extremely doubtful one man (even one with near-unlimited resources) can make much of a meaningful difference in the long-term. As long as there is demand for elicit goods, there's going to be crime that capitalizes on it.

I do find it ironic you mention the fantasy of Batman, as there is no way that Batman can possible exist in the real-world. So bringing in real-world arguments about fighting crime and applying them to a character who can't possibly exist seems fairly counter-productive.

The easiest example I can think of for why Batman can't exist, is it would be so incredibly easy to deduce his identity. There's only so many people that can afford his level of tech, be the right build and age, and not to mention the guy actually shows the bottom half of his face. It would be obvious that it is Bruce Wayne. I find it so funny that Kravitz looks at Batman in this trailer and says "Who are you under there?" when anyone could clearly guess "Oh yeah, this is definitely the most famous rich guy in this city."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Real-life law enforcement agencies (the police, FBI, CIA) do a lot of targeting as well, and it hasn't put much of a dent into international drug cartels. I'm extremely doubtful one man (even one with near-unlimited resources) can make much of a meaningful difference in the long-term.

The ability of one person to change the world is literally a necessary premise of superhero comics.

As long as there is demand for elicit goods, there's going to be crime that capitalizes on it.

That's debatable, and also logically equivalent to replying to "this measure will reduce crime" with "you can't get rid of crime." So what? Less crime is better than more crime.

I do find it ironic you mention the fantasy of Batman, as there is no way that Batman can possible exist in the real-world. So bringing in real-world arguments about fighting crime and applying them to a character who can't possibly exist seems fairly counter-productive.

Not really. He's still a person, and we are supposed to empathize with his struggles and victories, in order to care about the character. His behavior should thus be within the realm of reality. It needn't be the most likely behavior available, by any means, but the protagonist doesn't murder their best friend for no reason without any setup that would explain such an action.

The easiest example I can think of for why Batman can't exist, is it would be so incredibly easy to deduce his identity. There's only so many people that can afford his level of tech, be the right build and age, and not to mention the guy actually shows the bottom half of his face. It would be obvious that it is Bruce Wayne. I find it so funny that Kravitz looks at Batman in this trailer and says "Who are you under there?" when anyone could clearly guess "Oh yeah, this is definitely the most famous rich guy in this city."

That seems like a wild assumption to make, and fairly easy for Bruce to cast doubt upon. His face isn't super unique. I guarantee they could put a famous actor in the suit who doesn't have an especially recognizable jawline, and vanishingly few people would guess correctly who it was. Bruce is less famous than any actor who has played batman in a movie during my lifetime. Most people in a city do not know the names of the "famous" socialites of their city.

And none of that is even an argument that he can't exist, but simply an argument that he would eventually be found out. Which he has been, and has had to cover it up.

But again, this sort of thing doesn't matter. you can't recognize someone when they're in a mask in comic books. It's one of the core premises. And like I said before, it will never matter nearly as much as whether or not Bruce acts like a person with the traits he is written to have, such as incredible intelligence and logical acuity, an in depth understanding of crime and human motivation, etc.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

The ability of one person to change the world is literally a necessary premise of superhero comics.

That's debatable, and also logically equivalent to replying to "this measure will reduce crime" with "you can't get rid of crime." So what? Less crime is better than more crime.

Not really. He's still a person, and we are supposed to empathize with his struggles and victories, in order to care about the character. His behavior should thus be within the realm of reality. It needn't be the most likely behavior available, by any means, but the protagonist doesn't murder their best friend for no reason without any setup that would explain such an action.

That seems like a wild assumption to make, and fairly easy for Bruce to cast doubt upon. His face isn't super unique. I guarantee they could put a famous actor in the suit who doesn't have an especially recognizable jawline, and vanishingly few people would guess correctly who it was. Bruce is less famous than any actor who has played batman in a movie during my lifetime. Most people in a city do not know the names of the "famous" socialites of their city.

And none of that is even an argument that he can't exist, but simply an argument that he would eventually be found out. Which he has been, and has had to cover it up.

But again, this sort of thing doesn't matter. you can't recognize someone when they're in a mask in comic books. It's one of the core premises. And like I said before, it will never matter nearly as much as whether or not Bruce acts like a person with the traits he is written to have, such as incredible intelligence and logical acuity, an in depth understanding of crime and human motivation, etc.

I'm fairly certain we have diametrically opposed viewpoints on this topic, doesn't seem like we agree on anything when it comes to Batman.

 

[grimslade]

I am excited for this film. I like the standalone nature and its exclusion from the DCEU. It seems to take a lot from The Long Halloween. The cast looks amazing and the gritty feel of Gotham looks fantastic.
Batman is a sociopath. A high-functioning sociopath with incredible wealth and a need to punish criminals. Make no mistake, Batman does not want to eliminate crime; he wants to hurt criminals. That is why he patrols and does not kill. He breaks criminals. Bane breaking the Bat is the counterpoint to Batman's crusade. Being the World's Greatest Detective is a way to mentally break criminals by unraveling their plots. This is not just Miller-era Batman. Bruce Wayne may play philanthropist, but Bruce is a false person, an alternate identity, the true personality is the Bat.

 

[wicked cool]

I disagree. He would just need to target his action as Batman. Beating up Marcone and his lieutenants and disrupting their negotiations with and international drug cartel would be useful. Taking out a warehouse full of goons who are trying to bring drugs into the city, and disposing of the drugs, would be useful. There's a lot of punching he could be doing that is useful.

I'm personally fine with the fact that comics ignore concussive brain damage and the fact you can absolutely accidentally kill someone with a blow to the head, it's basically fantasy. Believability in human behavior is vastly more important than physical realism.



That sounds pretty grim. Probably not what I want from a story about a hero. IMO the best Batman avoids that sort of pessimism. YMMV of course, based on what you like in a story.

we have had real life people who have taken down criminals by themselves or with just a handful of others and are considered heroes. Not sure where your argument is going with Batman. Dont like this type of hero then dont see it

Eliot Ness, Wyatt Earp in many peoples minds are considered heroes and where much more violent than Batman

I almost feel like your arguing towards 2 much violence in movies/kids heroes?

Also others seem to be arguing that if we took all of Bezo's money it would wipe out poverty and most crime. I would strongly disagree with that. Ive been down the politics route in these forums and i dont plan on going there again but assault/murder etc are not just related to money.

 

[Stalker0]

Bruce Wayne has Bezos level money. More, actually, IIRC. He literally could just end homelessness in Gotham. Permanently. And still be one of the wealthiest people in the world.

So just to crunch a few fantasy numbers here, lets test this premise.

So if we assume Bruce Wayne has the wealth of Jeff Bezos (about 190 billion dollars), and Gotham is like NYC with a population of 8.8 million. If we assume a standard household of 4 people (2 parents + 2 children), that is 2.2 million households. The current poverty line for a 4 person household is: $26,500. That line is probably too low for Gotham (aka NYC) but hey its a baseline.

If Bruce Wayne wanted to provide Gothamites enough money to maintain the poverty line, that is: 58.3 billion dollars per year (yep with a B) as our baseline.

Now current NYC growth rate is roughly ~50k per year (12,500 houserules), so each year we would add on another

$331,250,000​

in expenses every year (the growth rate would probably increase if we guaranteed people money but lets just keep it simple).

Now lets look at inflation, to properly maintain things we would need to at least adjust our base income for inflation. Inflation has been quite low for the US these last 20 years or so, but lets look at a ballpark of about 1.5% inflation to get the ball rolling.

So over 20 years, if we wanted to account for growth and inflation, how much money would Bruce need to put in the fund?

​ $1,424,663,390,091​

Aka ~1.4 Trillion dollars (with a T). Overall we go from 58.3 billion per year in expenses to 85.7 billion on Year 20.

So Bruce could not just dump his fortune into a master account and fund the whole operation for even a handful of years, let alone 20. But he is a wise business man afterall, and of course could put his money into a wealth generating account, using the interest to pay for the fund. In order to do this, what kind of return would Bruce need to generate the $1.4 trillion if he put his entire $190 billion on the line?

37.5%, which no investment on earth generates that kind of return in any consistent way (sure you could take a chance at bitcoin but you are taking a monstrous gamble with the futures of many people if you do that). Reasonable longterm investments are in the 10% range, and even 20% is considered a very good year.....37.5% is incredible. Frankly if you made that return year after year the SEC would come breathing down your neck, as the assumption would be illegality. Also we should note that return would only fund us for the 20 years, as time went on that would not be enough unless you reinvested money back into the fund....and if you do that you will need an even higher rate of return in the beginning in order to pay for the fund.

Taking another example, lets say Bruce just prepared a fund to one day tackle the problem. He puts his entire 190 billion into a solid earning fund (10% is a decent performer long term for a low risk fund). Unlike last time, he reinvests all of the money back into the fund, letting it grow and grow. Over 20 years the fund would grow to about 1.1 trillion..... a lot of money, but still not enough to cover 20 years of expenses, and wouldn't begin the touch the 20 years after that.


So while I do believe taxing the wealthy has its place (I think wealth can create a lot of negative ills in society when it grows too high), it is NOT a cure-all to solve poverty. Bruce Wayne with all of his riches, couldn't even cover the poverty line for Gotham's citizens (and lets be honest 26k per year in NYC is not exactly "making it by"). He could certainly do some real good.... but he would not stop poverty. One of the richest men in the world.... just simply isn't rich enough.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

we have had real life people who have taken down criminals by themselves or with just a handful of others and are considered heroes. Not sure where your argument is going with Batman. Dont like this type of hero then dont see it

Eliot Ness, Wyatt Earp in many peoples minds are considered heroes and where much more violent than Batman

lol

Okay.

You know Wyatt Earp was not at all a hero, right? Like, read about the guy's life, rather than watching movies about him.

Putting that aside, what on earth is your point? I literally said upthread that changing the world as just one person is a necessary assumption of superhero comics. Nothing about anything I've ever said relies on the idea that Batman couldn't make a difference on his own.

I've said that he is ignoring some of his most practical and powerful tools for not only reducing poverty and crime, but for keeping Gotham safe once he has done so, in those stories where he isn't really doing anything significant to address poverty, drug treatment, and other systemic issues that contribute to crime rates, in the city of Gotham.

Because he is so wealthy that he could do so and still be one of the wealthiest people alive in the DC world.

I think maybe you aren't conceptualising just how many resources Bruce Wayne has, canonically. TBH, just making him dramatically less wealthy would help make his stories make more sense. Maybe make his kit a little less slick now and then, show him repairing rather than replacing things sometimes, and keep him outside of the "1 percept of the 1 percent" level of wealth, and it becomes much more a story about a guy who is doing what he can.

I almost feel like your arguing towards 2 much violence in movies/kids heroes?

Also others seem to be arguing that if we took all of Bezo's money it would wipe out poverty and most crime.

No one has ever argued that. That's such a wild hyperbolisation of what people have argued that it seems like it could only possibly be made in bad faith.

I would strongly disagree with that. Ive been down the politics route in these forums and i dont plan on going there again but assault/murder etc are not just related to money.

"Just related", no. But it is a proven fact that more economically egalitarian societies have dramatically less violent crime. The vast majority of violent crime exists because of poverty.

 

[Urriak Uruk]

Putting that aside, what on earth is your point? I literally said upthread that changing the world as just one person is a necessary assumption of superhero comics. Nothing about anything I've ever said relies on the idea that Batman couldn't make a difference on his own.

I've said that he is ignoring some of his most practical and powerful tools for not only reducing poverty and crime, but for keeping Gotham safe once he has done so, in those stories where he isn't really doing anything significant to address poverty, drug treatment, and other systemic issues that contribute to crime rates, in the city of Gotham.

Because he is so wealthy that he could do so and still be one of the wealthiest people alive in the DC world.

I think maybe you aren't conceptualising just how many resources Bruce Wayne has, canonically. TBH, just making him dramatically less wealthy would help make his stories make more sense. Maybe make his kit a little less slick now and then, show him repairing rather than replacing things sometimes, and keep him outside of the "1 percept of the 1 percent" level of wealth, and it becomes much more a story about a guy who is doing what he can.

So @Stalker0 already makes this point with his well-research comment above, but there's no way that Bruce Wayne alone can stop all crime (or homelessness) on his own.

For one thing, that comment assumes Bruce Wayne is as wealthy as Jeff Bezos (the wealthiest man on Earth with $198 billion), when the last comic to name Bruce Wayne's net worth puts it only at about $10 billion. That puts him as the 245th richest person on Earth, still among the top 0.1% richest people.

It's still a ton of money, but that's not nearly enough to do anything permanently... the annual budget of NYC is $88 billion. ANNUAL.

It's also important to recognize that Bruce Wayne already does a ton of non-profit work through Wayne Enterprises to address poverty and other causes of crime. It's just that they aren't enough to solve the cesspool that is Gotham City in a permanent way.

Which gets back to why I love Batman so much; he's got almost no chance of actually succeeding, but he's giving it his all anyway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So just to crunch a few fantasy numbers here, lets test this premise.

So if we assume Bruce Wayne has the wealth of Jeff Bezos (about 190 billion dollars), and Gotham is like NYC with a population of 8.8 million. If we assume a standard household of 4 people (2 parents + 2 children), that is 2.2 million households. The current poverty line for a 4 person household is: $26,500. That line is probably too low for Gotham (aka NYC) but hey its a baseline.

If Bruce Wayne wanted to provide Gothamites enough money to maintain the poverty line, that is: 58.3 billion dollars per year (yep with a B) as our baseline.

Now current NYC growth rate is roughly ~50k per year (12,500 houserules), so each year we would add on another

$331,250,000​

in expenses every year (the growth rate would probably increase if we guaranteed people money but lets just keep it simple).

Now lets look at inflation, to properly maintain things we would need to at least adjust our base income for inflation. Inflation has been quite low for the US these last 20 years or so, but lets look at a ballpark of about 1.5% inflation to get the ball rolling.

So over 20 years, if we wanted to account for growth and inflation, how much money would Bruce need to put in the fund?

​ $1,424,663,390,091​

Aka ~1.4 Trillion dollars (with a T). Overall we go from 58.3 billion per year in expenses to 85.7 billion on Year 20.

So Bruce could not just dump his fortune into a master account and fund the whole operation for even a handful of years, let alone 20. But he is a wise business man afterall, and of course could put his money into a wealth generating account, using the interest to pay for the fund. In order to do this, what kind of return would Bruce need to generate the $1.4 trillion if he put his entire $190 billion on the line?

37.5%, which no investment on earth generates that kind of return in any consistent way (sure you could take a chance at bitcoin but you are taking a monstrous gamble with the futures of many people if you do that). Reasonable longterm investments are in the 10% range, and even 20% is considered a very good year.....37.5% is incredible. Frankly if you made that return year after year the SEC would come breathing down your neck, as the assumption would be illegality. Also we should note that return would only fund us for the 20 years, as time went on that would not be enough unless you reinvested money back into the fund....and if you do that you will need an even higher rate of return in the beginning in order to pay for the fund.

Taking another example, lets say Bruce just prepared a fund to one day tackle the problem. He puts his entire 190 billion into a solid earning fund (10% is a decent performer long term for a low risk fund). Unlike last time, he reinvests all of the money back into the fund, letting it grow and grow. Over 20 years the fund would grow to about 1.1 trillion..... a lot of money, but still not enough to cover 20 years of expenses, and wouldn't begin the touch the 20 years after that.


So while I do believe taxing the wealthy has its place (I think wealth can create a lot of negative ills in society when it grows too high), it is NOT a cure-all to solve poverty. Bruce Wayne with all of his riches, couldn't even cover the poverty line for Gotham's citizens (and lets be honest 26k per year in NYC is not exactly "making it by"). He could certainly do some real good.... but he would not stop poverty. One of the richest men in the world.... just simply isn't rich enough.

What you're missing here is that I never said that he could just send all of Gotham a check every month and end poverty. Literally the premise of your entire post is based on something I never even implied, much less said.

He could, however, buy most of the housing in Gotham, and the empty lots that could be housing, and use his wealth and property investments to bully the city government into changing zoning laws to facilitate installing more affordable housing in the parts of town where jobs are/where he is going to put more jobs, and use those resources to then house all the homeless and improve the quality of life of places currently run by slumlords. He could provide low interest loans for small businesses to marginalized Gothomites. He could improve the state of Gotham's schools.

I lot of this, perhaps even most of it, he could do while mostly providing seed money for projects, using his companies resources and credit, establish funding funds and trusts, etc, so no, he wouldn't need to spend nearly that much liquid funds to do any of it.

By funding political candidates, he could change city laws, and as Batman he could keep those candidates safe (especially with the help of his various allies), not to mention breaking the power of the people who would endanger them with his nighttime raids and cooperation of the non-corrupt elements of the GCPD.

Even if we go by the very low ball estimates I've seen in some places that would only put in the top several hundred wealthiest people in the world, he is still plenty wealthy enough, and his company integrated into the infrastructure of Gotham enough, that he could make a much greater difference with his economic and political resources than he does by beating up random criminals at night.

But then again, he also would make more of a difference just by focusing his efforts on the people who are profiting the most on the crime and poverty and victimization in Gotham. The whole spending his nights patrolling for individual burglars thing just doesn't make any sense, even in the context of the DC universe.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which gets back to why I love Batman so much; he's got almost no chance of actually succeeding, but he's giving it his all anyway.

This makes the Batman story, for me and for quite a lot of other readers, completely meaningless, pointless to bother reading.