bruce: [gesturing to a broken bank vault door] who broke it?
bruce: i’m not mad. i just wanna know.
selina: i did it, i broke it…
bruce: no. no, you didn’t. harley?
harley: don’t look at me, look at riddler.
eddie: what?! i didn’t break it!
harley: huh. that’s weird. how did you even know it was broken?
eddie: because it’s sitting right in front of us and it’s broken!
eddie: no it’s not!
jon: if it matters, probably not… ivy was the last one in the bank.
ivy: liar! i don’t even need money!
jon: oh really? then why were you and harley in here earlier?
ivy: harley has an account here and i tag along sometimes. everyone knows that, crane!
selina: alright, let’s not fight. i broke it, let me pay for it, batman.
bruce: no! who broke it!
harley: [whispering] batman, two-face has been awfully quiet…
harvey: really? really?!
harley: yeah, really!
[everyone starts arguing]
bruce: [off to the side] i broke it. i threw a grenade and it ripped the door off its hinges. i predict 10 minutes from now they’ll be at each other’s throats with war paint on their faces and a pig head on a stick. good. it was getting a little chummy around here.
selina and harvey as a couple is an insurmountable amount of power….they control gotham…batman cries himself to sleep every night…but also? selinas cats keep getting hair on his suits and goddamnit selina is that my coin in the litterbox and selina just wants some shiny jewelry and a date night and harvey thinks she has some kind of tricky magic because somehow whenever she asks him to do something his coin lands in her favor and she looks unbearably smug about it every time…”harvey baby come here and try on this suit” “its leather.” “only on one side! the other one is faux fur!” “selina what the fuck”. she loves 2 give him kisses on Both cheeks and harvey pretends it doesnt make him ridiculously happy…theyre in Love
Ya’ know how there’s supposed to be, like, 9 seasons or something of Gotham?
Well imagine this.
Imagine Wayne befriending a majority the Gotham villains. Yeah, Wayne’s already friends with Selina, but imagine him befriending all the other villains as well.
Imagine Wayne gaining Ivy’s friendship– imagine him growing on her, because a friend of Selina’s is someone Ivy decides she can trust despite having trust issues.
Imagine Oswald having a soft spot for Wayne and Wayne actually growing on him because Oswald knows what it’s like to lose a mother and he can sympathize.
Imagine Wayne actually trying to answer Nygma’s riddles and even finding them fun rather than rolling his eyes and saying he doesn’t care for riddles. Imagine how impressed Nygma would be when Wayne actually manages to figure a few out.
Imagine Wayne befriending Harvey Dent, because hey– he’s genuinely a good law attorney, and there’s not many of those, so they automatically click and Harvey even gets a bit protective of him in a brotherly sort of way.
Imagine Wayne becoming a friend of Jonathan Crane despite Jonathan having random terrors. Imagine Wayne helping calm him down when he’s freaking out.
Imagine Wayne even befriending Jerome. Imagine Wayne going against his better judgement and helping Jerome get away from Hugo Strange in Blackgate, and imagine the only reason Jerome doesn’t kill him is because he doesn’t have enough energy to do so. Imagine them actually eventually growing on each other as time and seasons went by, and Jerome actually gaining a soft spot for Wayne despite never admitting it.
Now imagine what the last season of Gotham would be like.
Imagine everyone Wayne became friends with becoming even colder criminals.
Selina would cross the line and kill someone innocent in a robbery gone bad– it would be an accident, and someone she didn’t mean to hurt, but she did and that was that.
Ivy would push Wayne and everyone around her further and further away while a teacher (as in the comic origins) isolates her and convinces her to let him do biological tests pertaining to plant life on her because he ‘loves her’ and guilt trips her into agreeing, and eventually he’d mentally break her down so horribly that she’d stop trusting him along with everyone else.
Oswald would grow convinced that his mother’s death was something that had to happen for him to get where he was, and eventually there would be a day he just didn’t even care– he’d be ruthless.
Nygma would use the job Wayne gave him at his Enterprises (as is done in canon) to make a weapon of mass destruction and not see anything wrong with his intellectual invention.
Harvey would develop the Two Face personality, and Two Face wouldn’t look out for anyone but himself because, hey– that’s what gangsters do.
Jonathan would one day stop feeling fear because the treatments would work… but along with the loss of fear he’d lose every other emotion with it.
Wayne would be forced to go up against everyone he’d befriended. He’d have to go up against Selina for murder, against Ivy for blaming everyone and waning to make humans rot, Oswald for becoming a mob king who had no more empathy, Nygma for going rogue, Scarecrow for deciding to put everyone through what he’d gone through… but he wouldn’t be able to do it as Wayne.
Wayne would have to do it as someone else– someone neutral to knowing these people he’d once cared more than anything for.
Wayne would have to do it as Batman, and that would be one of the major reasons he’d become batman.
Despite having seasons of showing Wayne befriending these villains, in the end he’d have to go up against him as all vigilantes must.
In the games Scarecrow says Joker was created because of Batman– if Batman had never existed, then neither would Joker.
So imagine Jerome seeing the bat vigilante and being the only one who fits the pieces together and he finds it funny– he finds it REALLY funny that the one kiddo he ended up getting a soft spot for is turning on everyone.
Imagine Jerome turning on Wayne before Wayne can turn on him– imagine the Joker and Batman having a dreading feeling they know who the other is, yet rather than daring to find out they never even try, because Jerome’s not sure he wants to know if Wayne is the bat and Wayne’s not sure he wants to know if Jerome is the jester.
Imagine Wayne having to go up against everyone he cared about and hoping one day his once-friends will actually get better in Arkham Asylum if he just keeps putting them back in there, and until then he can’t afford to hope so he simply shuts down and carries the burden of knowing he’s going up against the ones he spent seasons seeing as family, yet they wouldn’t know the one fighting them is the fourteen year old kiddo they had once cared about.
Imagine that being why Wayne makes up the 'no killing rule’– because he forced himself to believe it’s ethics, when really he just can’t bring himself to kill the people that looked out for him as a kid.
Imagine Wayne shutting down and being the cold law enforcer he is because he doesn’t want to face the fact he can’t save his friends, because if he did then he knows that would be where Batman met his limits– that would be where Batman broke.
Imagine Wayne realizing it’s Gotham, and Gotham doesn’t have happy endings.
If fully support Bruce loving Havrey tot he point where he just doesn’t care anymore. Like ‘Oh Harvey broke into my child’s bedroom at 1 am and passed out drunk? Well get him a blanket and some coffee’ like
Imagine your dad’s old best friend whos now a criminal just breaking into your house and its a normal thing
I might as well put all of my cards on the table. I am tired of people claiming that the D.C. Comics Extended Universe (DCEU) finally got its franchise right with the recent release of “WONDER WOMAN”. As far as I am concerned, the DCEU had been getting it right ever since the release of its 2013 film, “MAN OF STEEL”.
I enjoyed “WONDER WOMAN” very much. In fact, it is my favorite movie of 2017 … so far. But I do not consider it the best film within the DCEU franchise. But that is not my point. My point … has to do with the reasons behind this declaration regarding “WONDER WOMAN” and why I find it so troubling.
I cannot help but wonder if today’s critics and moviegoers have balls of rubber. When did it become so damn important to them that all comic book hero movies are “fun” or loaded with humor? There is NO LAW that all comic book movies have to be “fun”. The Captain America movies from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) franchise were not all fun … especially 2014’s “CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER” (which is why I am such a major fan of the movie). Neither were the Dark Knight Trilogy films directed by Christopher Nolan. And the DCEU film, “SUICIDE SQUAD” was practically loaded with humor. Yet, that film was trashed as well, and criticized for similar reasons as “MAN OF STEEL” and its follow-up, “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE” (another major favorite of mine). So, why criticize the DCEU movies for lacking a sense of humor?
Another criticism that has been lobbied against the DCEU films was the franchise’s ambiguous portrayals of its main characters. Especially Clark Kent aka Superman. I am beginning to suspect that deep down, this negative reaction regarding the DCEU franchise solely began with the portrayal of Clark Kent aka Superman in “MAN OF STEEL”. Many people seem incapable of dealing with Superman being portrayed in some ambiguous manner. They could not deal with his insecurities regarding his place in the world - insecurities that originated with his status as an immigrant from another world … and his super powers. These traits - especially his powers - led Clark/Superman to be initially regarded as an outsider and with distrust. “MAN OF STEEL” was the first time any movie had explored this aspect of Superman’s existence. And to be honest, it did not reflect well upon most of the Humans featured in the movie. When it seemed that Superman had finally risen above his insecurities in the next movie, “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE”, events in that film proved that he had not - not completely. And the reason he had not risen above his insecurities stemmed from the public’s fickle reaction to him. In the 2016 film, some people worshipped Superman as a god. And this made him feel very uncomfortable. Others regarded him as a convenient savior to be at humanity’s beck and call. Not only did many of the public felt this way, but so did the majority of political and military leaders. And others, like Lex Luthor and Bruce Wayne aka Batman, regarded him as a current or future menace. Had this ambiguous portrayal of Humanity or its ambiguous reaction to Superman’s presence annoyed a lot of people?
I do know that many critics and moviegoers had protested his killing of the Kryptonian leader, General Zod, claiming that Superman does not kill. I found this declaration either ignorant or hypocritical. Why? Because Superman had killed Zod in a previous D.C. Comics film, 1981’s “SUPERMAN II”. No one had protested. And many comic book movie fans today insist that scene never happened. It seem many fans and critics will not allow Superman to be an individual with virtues and flaws. Instead, they always seem to demand that he be some damn, one-dimensional symbol used to wallow in their illusions and fantasies of a convenient savior in an unsafe world.
This attitude has been extended to both Bruce Wayne aka Batman and Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman … but in different ways. Many critics and moviegoers not only criticized Superman for killing Zod in “MAN OF STEEL”, they also criticized the Batman character for his killing of numerous thugs and his attempt to kill Superman in “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE”. Considering that Batman has always been such a noir character among the comic book heroes, I found this criticism very hard to swallow. Have there been other occasions in which the Dark Knight had deliberately killed someone? Hmmm … he killed the Joker in 1989’s “BATMAN”. He arranged the Penguin’s death in 1992’s “BATMAN RETURNS”. Batman caused Harvey “Two Face” Dent to fall to his death in the 1995 movie, “BATMAN FOREVER”. And in 2005’s “BATMAN BEGINS”, Batman refused to save the life of his mentor-turned-nemesis, Herni Ducard aka Ra’s al Ghul from one of Gotham’s runaway monorail trains. Mind you, some countries do not consider deliberate killing by inaction a felony. Some countries do. And in my eyes, it is not only murder, but hypocrisy at its worst.
However … hardly anyone seemed to remember these previous incidents of Batman causing the death of another. Instead, they focused their ire upon Batman’s actions in the 2016 movie. Was it because Batman was not portrayed as a clear-cut hero throughout most of the film? Or that he seemed to be portrayed as a homicidal xenophobe, bent upon Superman’s destruction? Did this negative portrayal put these fans and critics off? Were they unwilling to peek into the uglier aspects of Batman’s persona … something that the comic books have never been afraid to explore? But the portrayal did not stick and eventually, Batman saw the light … again - something that a lot of moviegoers and critics had failed to notice Or perhaps they were too taking umbrage at how director-writer Zack Snyder was willing to take Batman so close to the abyss. In many ways, these same moviegoers and critics remind me of the general public featured in “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE”. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why so many were negative toward the film. Zack Synder had portrayed them in a way they probably found unflattering.
As for “WONDER WOMAN”, I get the feeling that many critics and film goers are complimenting the movie for THE WRONG REASONS. Unless I am mistaken, the movie I understand that it is the first truly successful comic book heroine movie and I am not only glad, but relieved. However, the movie seemed to possess a more ambiguous and complex tale than many are willing to admit. And these same fans and critics seemed to think that it is the only DCEU movie that is truly a “fun” movie. Strange … I never came to that conclusion. Looking back on the film, I noticed that the movie possessed pockets of innocence and humor - especially in the first half. But once the movie shifted to the war zone in Belgium, it gradually became more grim and angst-filled. Diana’s innocence and naivety, which seemed humorous in the film’s first half, proved to be an impediment to her character growth in the second half. Yet, I have only come across a few articles willing to admit this.
In fact, many were so busy emphasizing Diana’s compassion, warmth, frankness, strength and warrior skills so much that they seemed to turn a blind eye to her personality flaws. Many had ignored that Diana’s bubble-like upbringing had made her too naive for her own good. Although one might be inclined to compliment her frankness, many had failed to notice that this trait proved to be an impediment to Steve Trevor’s attempts to report his actions in Eastern Europe to his superiors. Or that there is a time to be frank and a time to keep one’s mouth shut. Many critics and filmgoers have been so busy focusing on Diana’s virtues or trying to paint her as a more superior costumed hero/heroine than Superman and Batman that it seems as if they have deliberately turned a blind eye to her flaws. Or pretend that she had overcome her flaws by the end of World War I. Many have also complimented Wonder Woman aka Diana Prince for coming to the conclusion that humanity is not all good or all bad. The ironic thing is that Wonder Woman came to her balanced opinion of humanity after her experiences in “BATMAN V. SUPERMAN”, not in this movie. She came to this conclusion after a conversation with Batman aka Bruce Wayne in the 2016 movie. After her World War I experiences, Diana had spent nearly a century maintaining an emotional distance from humanity and maintaining a cynical view (which I share, by the way). And many filmgoers and critics have either failed to notice this … or refuse to acknowledge this aspect of her character.
Now, I am a big fan of “WONDER WOMAN”. So far, it is my favorite movie of the Summer 2017 season. But the movie does have its flaws. I have a deep suspicion that a great deal of the movie’s acclaim originated from gender politics.“WONDER WOMAN” is the first truly successful costumed hero/heroine movie in which the protagonist is a woman. As a woman, I am pleased by this turn of events. But I am also disturbed that so many are using this aspect of the film to judge it superior to the other films within the DCEU franchise. Nor do I regard “WONDER WOMAN” to be morally straightforward as many critics and moviegoers insist that it is. In this movie, the character of Princess Diana aka Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman is forced to shed her naivety and truly grow up. And in a rather painful manner. If the movie truly was that morally absolute to me, I would not have found it that interesting in the first place. Nor do I regard the public’s misconception of the movie as morally absolute as a sign of its superiority over the previous three DCEU films. I have reached a point in my life in which fictional works with a black-and-white morality are not as interesting as it used to be when I was a lot younger.
Due to certain arguments, I do not regard “WONDER WOMAN” as the “savior” of the DCEU franchise. Unlike many moviegoers and critics, I did not find the character of Wonder Woman to be ideally moral. In fact, there were times when I found her idealism and moral absolutism rather annoying. And I did not find the movie as morally absolute as many claim it was. Despite being thrilled that the film is the first comic book hero movie with a woman protagonist to be very successful, I do not regard that as an argument to view it superior to the other DCEU films.
For me, the idea that “WONDER WOMAN” is the D.C. Extended Universe franchise’s “savior” is a load of horseshit to me. As far as I am concerned, the DCEU never required any “saving”. At least not yet.