lettered | I give up.

Current Mood: guilty

Entry tags:

I give up.

Hahaha I bet you thought you'd be getting porn.

So I've been trying to write this whole post about Super Hero Ethics and the problems I have with TDK. There were things I really loved that they brought into it, but the way they handled some of those concepts was disturbing to me. Not on the level it was meant to be disturbing, but on the level of: "I do not think that means what you think it means!" But after seeing it a second time, and complaining about it AGAIN to

my_daroga, I feel better about it. She is, after all, usually right. I do not think they handled these issues as badly as I keep making out like they did.

But anyway, I'm not posting about that. I'm also not posting about the fact that the movie was so crowded with themes and the characters so stuffed with symbolism that it felt less like a story with people than an allegory with concepts. Which is nice, for a change, but for something to be really brilliant I like it when they manage to be both.

But this post isn't about that! It's about how in my head, there's so much going on here that I want to explore. The movie was great, but it has it's faults, and those faults make me want to get my teeth on it that much more. Sort of like Harry Potter, how JKR is disturbingly unsympathetic to villains for whom grounds for compassion is all so neatly erected. Or like how I love Phantom of the Opera most in my head--I like the musical; I like the book; I even like that Kay thing to an extent, but the Version That Lives is the Phantom Of The Opera that's there, inside my mind. (See how I did that? With the lyrics?)

But this post isn't about that! It's about the porn.

Okay, not just porn. Fic. I want movie-verse Batman fic. And while I've always loved Batman what I'm really interested in (right now! Right now! I'm open! Wide open, like ~~your mom James Marsters~~ a green field ~~with Captain Jack in it~~. Only, later.) right now is movie-verse. It's only been out a week and a half but it has to have been done. Come on. I'm counting on you guys.

So anything that you might have stumbled across. ~~Since there can't be that much right now, I truly do mean anything even if it wasn't that great or you haven't read it.~~ ETA: Er. Nevermind. Only rec if you know of something GOOD. Turns out there's LOADS. This fandom is scary, y'all. Especially these emo fangirls who're all like, "OMG, stupid NOOBZ!!!!1 No one knows anything about Batman except me!!!!1 Didn't you know there was like, a cartoon?!?!!!?!" /ETA

Also, does anyone know of any comms, especially daily news letters, that link to Batman!new!movieverse?

Also, there needs to be:

Batman(Bruce Wayne)/Joker
Batman(Bruce Wayne)/Harvey Dent (Two Face)
Bruce Wayne/Rachel
Bruce Wayne/Harvey Dent/Rachel
Batman(Bruce Wayne)/Harvey Dent (Two Face)/[Rachel as absent third]
Harvey Dent (Two Face)/Joker
Gordon/Batman(Bruce Wayne)
Gordon/Harvey Dent (Two Face)
Alfred/Batman(Bruce Wayne) [unrequited]
Alfred/Lucius Fox/[Batman(Bruce Wayne) as absent third]
Jim Gordon/Sirius Black
HOLTZ/everyone

Any help would be appreciated.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I can't deny that during those scenes when Batman was interrogating the Joker I was only thinking about hot porn fic.

Sorry about that. xD

I actually saw so much more Two Face/Batman than Joker, but that was because of Rachel. I LOVE THE TRIANGLES. But mostly only when the two men like and respect each other. Or else hated each other before there was ever a woman involved.

Don't be sorry! It is awesome and makes me feel not alone! :o)

cidercupcakes wrote an awesome girl!joker/girl!batman fic, if you're interested in that...

HUH. Definitely not the first place I would've taken it, but maybe I'll look into that.

Jim Gordon/Sirius Black

When you think about that pairing, Gordon isn't really cheating on his wife, is he?

I have two versions of Gordon. One is fine and upstanding and doesn't really understand why Batman is the way he is. That Gordon always thinks of his family first.

The other is one who's willing to put his family second in order to fight for what he sees as the Greater Good. He's willing to sacrifice even his own honor to eke out some peace in the city. He understands Batman thoroughly and only isn't the same because he knows he couldn't handle it. He loves his family but often doesn't know what to do with them; his mind is still on his cases when his wife is trying to discuss her day. He's similar to the Gordon I saw in Dark Knight.

The first Gordon has a daughter who later becomes Batgirl!

Mrs. Gordon left the second Gordon long ago.

They're both great guys but of course you know I love the second one because he is BROODY. Although I do have a special place in my heart for the first one :o) He's what I saw in the cartoon.

Dude. You would get along so amazingly well with some of my co-workers. I go to them with all my comic book questions. Do you read the comics, or are you a tv-show/movie watcher? Or both?

Gordon, as explained in your comment, is a wonderfully complex character. No, not so much complex as real. Both sides of him are good, but the second has that tinge of darkness that is necessary in his line of work. And I think it's part of the reason why Batman respects him.

Broody is good. I will forever have that image of the Captain's shadow in my head from your gothic SOM idea.

I take it you're in a Batman kind of mood ;-) I was the same way a couple of months ago when Indy 4 came out. Made me almost tempted to write an Indy/SOM cross-over. Almost.

Did you know they're working on a Justice League movie? If done right, it would be all kinds of awesome. But Christian Bale won't be playing Batman; that sucks.

I'm pinning this post, in case people come up with something. I'm interested, too.

Here's my thing: All Superheroes are Fascistic In Some Way. I think that's a basic tenet of their morality. With great power comes great responsibility, yes, but no matter how responsible you are you're a superhuman, superpowerful being and there are going to be issues inherent in any presentation of that. The fact that TDK addresses them--even if it's only to remind us that Batman is still a hero even if we can't call him that--is an advance over just letting it sit there and showing no sign at all that anyone finds this problematic.

Hehehehe. Awesomesauce.

is an advance over just letting it sit there and showing no sign at all that anyone finds this problematic.

Yes. As I've said, it's better than what we've been getting.

You're probably talking about superheroes as a genre, and so wouldn't say these fall into that, but personally, the main reason I love BtVS and AtS so much is I think they do address a lot of those issues. As you've said, BtVS could've done way more especially after what was revealed with Spike, but a lot of issues I have with superhero morality/ethics do get addressed.

First off: HI! HI!

I'm behind in my own comments so this is a comment of STEALTH! And skewed priorities. *g*

I haven't seen TDK yet, but I'm spoiled, so that's okay. Also, this means that this response is relatively useless. I haven't been reading much Nolan!verse fic lately (because I'm one of those crazy Bruce/Clark people, and in Nolan!verse there ain't no such animal) so I can't rec any. As far as the comms, I see that you're already watching

gotham_times, which is probably your best bet in terms of newsletters.

comicstore_news also lists Nolan!verse fic but I'm sure that it pretty much overlaps with what you'll find in GT. You probably also have checked out

batfic,

batman_slash, and

darkknightfic. I have nothing new for you! *sadness*

I'm excited that you're excited though. I hope you find something that gives you that AHA, YES!

HEE. Hi! How are you! I immediately thought of you when I did this post. I think that if I step into Batman fandom through Nolanverse I'll probably enjoy myself more. I've always LOVED Batman but I never really was interested in fic about it, even though I knew it was out there. It wasn't until now, really. But I've always wanted to give your comic fic a try. I'm...not a Clark or Superman fan and never have been, but it's you so it's probably awesome.

Thanks for the comms!

Clarity by

rubynye. It's short, for the porn battle (I guess there's *two* this time around?), Rachel/Harvey/Bruce.

And you thought of me? Whee! I'm thoughtable! I love Batman too. Just, yeah, different pairing, different verse. And after a quick run through the comms, man, there's *tons* of Nolanverse out there.

ETA: I found something else. It's not at any of the comms so it might not make GT. Now the Old King Is Dead, Long Live the King by

hackthis (Bruce/Harvey).

Edited 2008-08-09 07:29 (UTC)

Also, you should see TDK when you get a chance.

Because what if it inspires you and then you write movieverse fic?

Oh, I really want to see it, get into all the meta I see floating about and the glee. Plus, I have icons!

I see your evil plan. Maybe? *g* But I have to see it because *you* might write fic and I will want to *read* it.

I'm not so much into the whole Batman fic scene, but I'm very interested in hearing your thoughts on why you were disturbed by the way they handled some concepts, even if you're over it now, if you don't mind and are in the mood to share.

Oh! I'm totally doing a post about it! But it's taking a while to put together.

The short version is:

There's this idea that Batman is not ideal. He does the dirty work, he does what needs to be done. Meanwhile he believes in Dent, who is the ideal, who doesn't get his hands dirty. In the end Batman sacrifices himself in order to hold up that ideal of Dent. That sacrifice is treated as Batman doing what needs to be done, dirtying his hands, not being the ideal. However, it *is* an idealistic action; it is a noble self-sacrifice. So painting that action in a negative way, when it is really a positive act, makes Batman's other actions seem dark-on-the-surface-with-a-heart-of-gold-underneath.

So Batman's Patriot Act, I mean, tapping into everyone's phones, comes off as more of the same. Morgan Freeman thinks Batman Behaved Badly, just like Gotham thinks in the end that Batman Behaved Badly. But I feel like there's this suggestion that we the viewers are supposed to think, "No, no, Morgan Freeman; you misunderstand Batman! He just did that because he had to! Woobie woobie woobie!" Especially since blowing up the Patriot Act, I mean, the tapping device, is inter-cut with the end scenes and Gordon talking about how misunderstood Batman is (the hero we need but don't deserve).

The thing is, it may have been NECESSARY to tap everyone's phones to save the world. But it wasn't right. It was necessary to kill Ben to save the world from Glory, but it wasn't right. I just get the distinct feeling from the movie that what is necessary is right, but that no one else will recognize that so in doing right you are doomed to be an outcast.

Mostly it seems like a minor quibble, because I would have been perfectly happy with the message: "what is necessary is sometimes wrong, and so in doing what is necessary you are doomed to be an outcast."

But it bothers me. Makes me itchy.

Mostly it seems like a minor quibble, because I would have been perfectly happy with the message: "what is necessary is sometimes wrong, and so in doing what is necessary you are doomed to be an outcast."

Keeping in mind that I am a Realist, I thought that was the message.

Batman's whole argument is that he's doing what he thinks he has to do, while aware that these are not particularly moral actions. And that serving the greater good requires making choices that aren't pure. (Like when he can't save both and must choose to save either Rachel or Dent)

To me, the point was that living in the world requires unpleasant choices, and Batman's heroism lies in that he struggles with the choices (even after he's made them) but can at least have a coherent understanding of why and escapes with his values intact - even in the face of injustice. Whereas, Harvey (albeit under greater strain - he doesn't have Bruce Wayne's limitless budgets!) cannot keep his values intact.

I think that's the character's argument. I think that's the way he feels--that he's doing what he has to even if it isn't moral.

The impression I got from the movie, however, is that that's the right thing to do.

I'm probably just splitting hairs and will feel differently about it eventually.

I would say that the movie argues that it is the right thing to do - for someone in his position.

I.e. People who act outside the law, have to accept that they are outside the law. People who are inside the law - like Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent - are supposed to act the part of being inside the law. And while take on the burden of following societies rules over their own, they gain social sanction.

The heroism/fall being Batman & Jim understanding their roles, and Harvey's inability to live with it.

I would say that the movie argues that it is the right thing to do - for someone in his position.

Yeah. I have a problem with that.

I brought it up before, but a quintessential example is Giles killing Ben. Buffy was inside the "law"--not as written, but as in, she would never do something she considered wrong. Giles would; he accepts he's outside the "law". But I never felt like BtVS was telling me either one of them was right or wrong for making those choices.

The heroism/fall being Batman & Jim understanding their roles, and Harvey's inability to live with it.

That's a really awesome insight.

I brought it up before, but a quintessential example is Giles killing Ben. Buffy was inside the "law"--not as written, but as in, she would never do something she considered wrong. Giles would; he accepts he's outside the "law".

Actually, I don't think this particular example applies. Batman & Gordon & Dent occupy different roles in different spheres.

In terms of dealing with the supernatural world, both Buffy and Giles see themselves as officers of 'law' -- to an extent. The essentially operate as a team unit handling the same sphere. (The final arbiter would vary depending upon the power dynamic in the watcher/slayer relationship)

In the Glory/Ben case, the difference is one of policy. Giles' act is one where he disagrees with Buffy over how they should do there job. He's earlier raised the argument that they could kill Dawn to end the Glorificus; while he won't overstep Buffy for Dawn, he will for Ben. And it ultimately comes down to Giles viewing their shared responsibilities in a more ruthless fashion.

It is somewhat similar, I suppose - in that Batman is going to eat the ruthless points so Dent/Gordon can be heroes. But the difference is where it's directed. Batman is doing this for the Public Image Points of having the City see Hero Cops and Hero DA. Giles is doing this to allow Buffy to not have to make unpleasant choices herself, and maintain a personal image. He still sees them occupying the same office.

I think you're right re: the positions in which they view themselves.

But . . . I'm not really talking about how the characters see themselves. I'm talking about the message the movie seems to be conveying the viewer. In Batman, it seems to be: if it's necessary, it's right. In Buffy, it seems to be: if it's necessary, it can still be wrong.

Maybe. I didn't feel that way about Giles killing Ben. My feeling was: "It's right, but you should still feel a little bad about doing it."

*waves*
hey you, I was wondering what you are up to next weekend (not today-weekend but next weekend). I will likely be down in Seattle then, want to get together and do something?

I think I'm off work Sat. I'll double check. I have something in the evening but I would *loff* to do something with you during the day! Will that work?

Definitely! hmm, any ideas? We could get lunch somewhere, or go to the Zoo or maybe another museum?

When's the last time you did the aquarium? I can get us in for free (complimentary VS City Passes!)

I'm off that day, but I just realized it's my cousin's last day in town. Dunno if she'll have time for me or not.

But I have Sunday off too. That would be better. I'm not supposed to have this many days off but Z messed up my schedule again so WHATEVER.

ooh! Aquarium would work :)
Sure, Sunday sounds good, whichever fits best for your schedule. Not sure when I'll be up and about in the morning, so maybe, after lunch on Sunday?

I think that's the character's argument. I think that's the way he feels--that he's doing what he has to even if it isn't moral.

The impression I got from the movie, however, is that that's the right thing to do.

I just want to reiterate, after reading the above conversation, that I think this is true of superheros in general and I wonder if you are bothered by other versions of Batman or of other comic characters?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I give up.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

heehee

Re: heehee

Re: heehee

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I found something!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject