CaptainFoamerang

Originally Posted by Erudin

Here is the offical date and updated costume for Spider-Man.

I like it much better than the prototype suit..

Originally Posted by Veritech

not to really defend some of the decisions made here, but to be honest, Executive Producers don't really have any power when it comes to the creative process in movies, tv, etc. They're figureheads and generally not the ones who make the big decisions. i need to dig up the articles, but there were more than a few times Quesada and the folks who represent Marvel at these films wished they actually had input when making them.

Originally Posted by GATE-keeper

Ummm, OK, so when did Thor start talking normal? Or is this supposed to be Ultimate Thor?

Originally Posted by White Hot Flash

Guy Gardner.

Of all the main character Green Lanterns, he's the one that's stirring up the pot the most. He says all the things the rest of them wish they could say, and still gets respect from the Guardians at the end.

Originally Posted by Agonus

Not familiar with AC2, but the "progress" thing about Bruce and Gotham actually is one of the things that bugs me about Batman.

Look at all the time, money, and effort he's sunk into protecting Gotham and trying to make it a better place. Has he made any progress? For all his reputation and how much thugs are supposed to be terrified of "the Bat" they're still in Gotham, aren't they?

Unless Gotham is supposed to be Bruce's own personal hell that he can never actually fix. I remember reading something about a story that either alluded to or specifically said there was some mystical reason as to why Gotham is so utterly corrupt to it's core. Did anything like that ever make it in canon?

Now I understand that publishing reasons of why Gotham can't be cleaned up, but considering how, for the most part, they build on what's happened previously, it sure as hell seems that Bruce isn't helping anything and Gotham's actually -worse- off for all Bruce's done.

Originally Posted by TrueGentleman

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.

Originally Posted by TrueGentleman

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

Originally Posted by Ironik

I don't think he looks thuggish enough. Guy has that mashed pugilist nose look about him. he looks more like Jeremy Renner to me.

Originally Posted by TrueGentleman

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.)

Originally Posted by TrueGentleman

The rogues gallery typically includes the classic villains, not the whole roster.

Originally Posted by TrueGentleman

One further observation to continue Padnick's comparison of Batman's and Superman's enemies: While Superman regularly encounters opponents with similar powers of super-strength and invulnerability from similar (alien) backgrounds - e.g. Bizzarro, Darkseid, Doomsday, General Zod, Mongul, and so on - Batman doesn't have a counterpart among his rogues gallery. None of his archenemies possess equivalent resources or share his background. The Penguin, a flying creature-themed, gadget-weidling arriviste, is the closest thing the Dark Knight has to a doppleganger. His superiority over them is virtually inherent.

Originally Posted by Smersh

When Superman is fighting someone who's on an equal level with him, conventional law enforcement and the court system are incapable of dealing with that threat.

That's much less the case with the threats Batman faces.

I do have to wonder what would happen if Bruce invested an amount of money equal to what he spends on being Batman on social welfare programs, drug treatment centers, job retraining and the like. I suspect he doesn't because he likes being Batman.

Batman is dangerous. No one can decide what is right except for him, and we have only his assurance that he will never compromise his principles. He's completely unaccountable to anyone. He's got a deep-seated belief that only he can deliver real justice in Gotham because of endemic corruption, and is not afraid to use fear and violence to promote his ends. That's not to say that the people he fights aren't bad people - but there is no protection from Batman for someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You can't sue Batman if he injures you in the pursuit of a bad guy. And, of course, Batman always only goes after bad guys - there's never any ambiguity or mistaken identity...

I've not read a Batman comic in 15 years, so correct me if I'm wrong on any of those points.