• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    395 months ago

    I felt they were using the fact that Batman is an orphan, and being a billionaire is an excuse to explain how he can fund his… hobby?

    But I could see the billionaire propaganda aspect as well. I guess it depends on the author’s intent.

    • Khrux
      link
      fedilink
      English
      315 months ago

      I definitely doubt the average comic author is pro billionaire. I think having an absurdly rich protagonist is just interesting for plot, not just does it easily justify the funding, but it easily generates a lot of plot hooks.

      Growing up, I absolutely loved Peter Parker as just being the average broke kid, but I was never excited by the plot that generated that was largely school drama or conversations in small apartments.

      On the other hand, there are plenty of cool things that Bruce Wayne gets to do. Sometimes he blends in with high society functions and you get an almost James Bond style investigation and sometimes you capture that Dracula style recluse skulking in his enormous manor, and both of those are very evocative even before you consider how it funds his heroics.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        65 months ago

        The question is what were they thinking on 1939, any comics that came after Batman was popular are just stuck with the formula.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      95 months ago

      Basically. Batman being broke without a regular job is the Punisher minus the guns.

      The wealth part does read differently in 2024 after 44 years of Reaganomics and screening for psychopathic tendencies when looking for CEO candidates.