- Nov 14, 2010
- 3,473
- 0
- 0
This is something I've always wondered, and that is sort of addressed in Chrisopher Nolan's Batman films.
But Batman spends an enormous fortune in order for him to fist-fight criminals. If he had used that enormous fortune to provide good careers instead, then there would not be so many desperate crooks around, but also no reason for him to beat them up.
But by making Batman so fantastically wealthy unlike most other super-heroes, the closest is Tony Stark as Ironman except he doesn't go after petty crooks like Batman, isn't it obvious that Batman is largely responsible for the crime that he fights? And that by being so rich at the expense of the poor in Gothan he is sort of abusing the lower classes for his own satisfaction?
But Batman spends an enormous fortune in order for him to fist-fight criminals. If he had used that enormous fortune to provide good careers instead, then there would not be so many desperate crooks around, but also no reason for him to beat them up.
But by making Batman so fantastically wealthy unlike most other super-heroes, the closest is Tony Stark as Ironman except he doesn't go after petty crooks like Batman, isn't it obvious that Batman is largely responsible for the crime that he fights? And that by being so rich at the expense of the poor in Gothan he is sort of abusing the lower classes for his own satisfaction?