TrueGentleman

Good grief, the "Eldritch Cleaver" gag? And there I was trying to puzzle out whether there was some visual allusion to one of Berni Wrightson's works going on.

(Of course, one has to pronounce that in a North American accent for it to work properly.)

If Baron Von Darkeve has an analog for Werewolf by Night, perhaps Baron Thunder crossed with the Darkhold? (There's also Man-Thing, Tomb of Dracula, Zombie, and all the other horror comics of the 70s to go through.)

(Incidentally, I picked up the last copy of the issue at my local comics shop yesterday.)

So the Fantastic Four's dynamic of family and friends is being swept aside for a quasi-corporate version of the Avengers? And new costumes are supposed to convince the comics audience that "everything is fresh and new in the series again"?

Honestly, I think I preferred Professor Impossible forming the Violet Hour after he got divorced:

The jovial chap who supplies weary spacers with lovely doxies and/or fembots is a mere panderer, though he does have an obvious insight into Kirk's Achilles Heel.

That's a less impressive feat when one considers how Wesley Crusher was also able to pull off that supposedly lethal fashion statement.

Q got stabbed by Guinan with a fork. For a near-omnipotent being, he deserves no respect.

Besides, Q frequently returned to annoy Picard like Star Trek's answer to Mr. Mxyzptlk.

Who was Kirk's only recurrent nemesis? Khan Noonien Singh, thank you very much.

Bah. Kirk regularly went mano-a-mano against opponents with god-like powers, e.g. Gary Mitchell, the Squire of Gothos, Apollo.

Interesting...
Given how useful I find Ninja Run, I now might consider investing in this pack for travelling variety.

How about Lori Lemaris? Lucy Lane? Lyla Lerrol? Luma Lynai? (Of course, those possibilities would require Christopher Nolan to give a tinker's dam about the Superman canon, which, to judge from his remarks, he doesn't.)

Annoyingly, Variety has shielded the original article behind a pseudo-paywall, but here's the text:
Although other high-profile actresses such as Jessica Biel, Olivia Wilde, Mila Kunis, and Rachel McAdams have been rumored - we dodged a speeding bullet when Kristen Stewart reportedly turned down the role - Variety remains the industry standard for this kind of information.

Now, now, we all know that the Penguin's crimes revolve around birds of every feather, not just flightless Antarctic seabirds, in much the same way that Catwoman's are not limited to those involving domestic felines.

Then again, perhaps the flightless Penguin is inherently jealous of the frequently airborne Batman.

Citation needed.

This doesn't count.

I stand corrected. Reynolds now goes in the same category as Nathan Fillion, and Chris Evans's burden to succeed has been doubled.

It's been done (and parodied).

And evidently it's getting harder to find that among American actors. Ryan Reynolds and Chris Evans had better pull through on Green Lantern and Captain America or else American superheroism will be defined for this generation by Kick-***'s Aaron Johnson and the upcoming Super's Riann Wilson.

That's a rather large assumption about wealth, but never mind. The point under discussion is not simply an index of being rich but the sources of wealth with respect to class background as well.

The Batman made a name for himself primarily by fighting tie-wearing nerds whose noms du crime consist of unthreatening verbs and nouns preceded by a definite article (aliases that began with "Doctor", though, were guaranteed to be evil-sounding). There isn't a millionaire playboy, much less a crooked capitalist, slum lord, or decadent aristocrat, among the lot of them.

It's not until the 70s that Ra's al-Ghul arrives to provide the Batman with anything resembling an evil counterpart (though I maintain he is an ultimately poor match for the profile). Nor is it coincidental that at about this time, Gotham City's police and politicians started to develop a reputation for corruption in order to provide the Caped Crusader with a more suitable backdrop for his vigilante activities.

None of them possess wealth on the Wayne family's scale or come from the same patrician background as Bruce Wayne. Only Ra's, though from an entirely different culture, could conceivably count as an aristrocrat, but he's a self-made man who has amassed similar wealth over the centuries.

That's certainly what Batman stands for in principle but doesn't really put into practice in the comics. As the article points out, none of his most notable opponents (typically from in the Golden and Silver Ages) either come from similarly patrician backgrounds or possess equivalent wealth and resources. For the same period, Superman was already battling against opposite numbers Bizarro and General Zod, the Flash against Professor Zoom, Green Lantern against Sinestro, Aquaman against Ocean Master, etc., etc.

What was the best that DC could furnish for Batman at the time? The Killer Moth, a nameless criminal a who created a fake identity as wealthy philanthropist Cameron van Cleer in order to crash Bruce Wayne's charity parties. Despite having a Moth Cave, a Mothmobile, a Moth Signal, etc., he remains strictly C-list.

Let's talk when the Batman starts regularly punching out actual millionaires.

Significantly more than a comparable selection for Batman (which I rank as zero, though we obviously are not going to agree on this).

But to re-rail this thread back to Padnick's article:
Then again, most of Batman's early villains tended to be mad scientist types, so perhaps the World's Greatest Detective is a crypto-anti-intellectual.

Bleeding Cool claims to have read a draft of Kelley's pilot script and describes it as "a slightly goofy comedy-drama about a hotshot business woman who moonlights as a superheroine, packed with Girl Power pop-songs and including the awkward phrase 'You go, girl'." Also, Etta Candy from the Golden Age comics is somehow being updated for the show.

Basically, it sounds like a cross between the 1967 and 1974 TV Wonder Woman adaptations. Just what post-Buffy the Vampire Slayer television needs!

To break it down more simply: super-strong, invulnerable alien describes plenty of Superman's opponents throughout his career, but super-wealthy, brilliant fighter describes few of Batman's* - and none from his classic era. Recently, several writers have tried to create "anti-Batman"-style villains, but none have made it into the ranks of the A-listers.

* Ra's is more a mastermind than a fighter, but that's a borderline case.

(Padnick breaks down the rogues gallery in more detail with respect to class issues for those interested in the original article.)

None of them are classic rogues gallery villains, though (Superman started encountering peers early in the Silver Age), and only Ra's has established any staying power. The Wrath, a perfunctory one-shot doppleganger, might as well be included if the role call is going to be expanded that far.

The rogues gallery typically includes the classic villains, not the whole roster. That said, I'm specifically looking for ones that share both Bruce Wayne's resources and background. Ra's is the only one who might qualify on both counts and even then, he's got more in common with Vandal Savage than Batman, although they all possess similarly aristocratic characters.

And yet Superman, in his early incarnation, certainly had a compelling social context in which to operate. In his fight to protect the innocent, he often stood up to people in authority. (Remember that time when he not only stopped a war in the 30s but also apprehended the arms manufacturers who coverted incited it?) Batman, on the other hand, had only a generalized hatred of criminals, which admittedly was part of the zeitgeist despite the repeal of Prohibition.

Let's not put words into Padnick's mouth (or mine). Batman lacks Zorro's noblesse oblige and the Green Arrow's social conscience, to say nothing of their rebellious anti-authoritarianism. However self-interested Batman's war on crime, though, he's not oppressing the average citizen of Gotham - he's more like a benign despot in a cape and mask.

The implications of his crusade are another matter...

Padnick's thesis is deliberately provocative (his blog reveals him to be a big fan of the Batman is, just as I am), but no less than Grant Morrison's take on the character. Morrison, in interviews, repeatedly brings up Bruce Wayne's aristocratic background, which he feels has been neglected lately. Padnick simply articulates that aspect more profoundly than Morrison currently has (although Morrison has described Batman as "the fetish fantasy psyche of the aristocrat overlord who can do anything he wants, and that’s fascinating.").

As for the class dimension, Morrison is definitely aware of that: "Because for me, coming from Britain particularly, I think there’s a big class element in Batman. I like the idea that Dick Grayson was a carnival kid and kind of lower-class specimen. And Batman’s an aristocrat, a blueblood from the higher echelons of Gotham City society."


Incidentally, while I have refrained from flagging my posts with 's and 's, I must point out that I created this thread in the spirit of intellectual playfulness. The Batman is a great character - one of my favorites - and can withstand all manner of interpretation.

Good lord, that would never hold up in a medieval court of law. John conspired against Richard's appointed regent, William Longchamp, and then proceded to conspire with foreign powers to take the crown for himself while Richard was held captive abroad.

The oppressive Spanish colonial government against which El Zorro fought has no counterpart in old Gotham, which, I must emphasize, was portrayed as a corrupt society only much, much later in Batman's history. There's very little sense of social justice in the original Batman. (Even Golden Age Superman was known to fight for the little guy early on, taking such actions as demolishing tenements and beating up slum lords.)

Too late! Padnick's controversial thesis is loose on the Internet! (His blog is down, however.)

Minus being duly deputized under the law (a minor detail that only the Adam West TV show rectified).

An illegitimate government, it must be emphasized. The redistribution of wealth is his own innovation.

The Batman, in his Golden Age origins, was quite content with the status quo in Gotham City, which was presented as well run and honest. He was strictly concerned with battling the underworld, mad scientists, etc., not fighting city hall.