But it makes sense though. I mean, in Batman typical stories, Batman's parents are traditionally depicted as good, benevolent rich conglomerates.
However, if that was the case, how could they not have helped the city? Gotham has always told as a crime-ridden corrupted city. How can this possibly happens if the Waynes are as good as it was usually portrayed?
Thomas Wayne got all the money. He got all the resources. They even got techs and Lucius Fox. But Gotham was still in terrible condition, which contribute to Bruce eventually became Batman.
The only logical conclusion is that we were always told only from Batman's prespectives. Of course, as a kid, Bruce didn't know better. All he knew was that their parent was good, benevolent rich people. So much for a "World's Greatest Detective."
reply
share
Goliard (1413)
5 years ago
I can help you out here. . .
With a seventy-year history, the particulars are inevitably/understandably muddy and often outright conflicting. But the most consistent versions of the Wayne canon describe his parents as good, upstanding, absurdly rich people who spend a significant amount of time trying to not only help individuals, but improve life in Gotham across the board.
There are any number of stories that refer to their philanthropy. . .not hard to find. To speak specifically to your statement about them being able to "save" the city single-handedly: No. That would take more than a fortune; it would take changing human nature; working the politics of the situation; applying comprehensive social programming, and much much more.
Not an easy task; not a knock on the Waynes that they didn't/couldn't do this.
reply
share
actionkamen (23176)
5 years ago
It's a city, not the world. A man as rich and good as Thomas Wayne would be able to help a city tremendously if he's really trying. While it may not be a perfect city with no crimes whatsoever, it would obviously not as delapidated crime-ridden shithole as Gotham with trash and super rats everywhere.
Look at where real world biggest and wealthiest companies are located. Are Cupertino, Redmond, etc. as bad as Gotham?
Also it would make no sense to be a multibillionaire and then resides in a place like Gotham. Except if you're somekind of mafia.
Even Howard Stark (or Tony for that matter) would not want to live in Gotham. And he's an arms dealer.
And philanthropy doesn't only done by good people. Crooks also do philanthropy.
reply
share
Goliard (1413)
5 years ago
"It's a city, not the world. "
Yes. . .that's true but irrelevant.
"A man as rich and good as Thomas Wayne would be able to help a city tremendously if he's really trying."
What makes you think he's not? Your logic is not rigorous. You simply don't know what he does, or what shape Gotham would be in if he didn't.
"it would obviously not as delapidated crime-ridden shithole as Gotham with trash and super rats everywhere."
You're radically exaggerating. A good description: "Gotham City is New York at night; Metropolis is New York in the daytime." I forget who said that, but it works in just about any iteration of the city (Movies/Games/TV/Animated).
"Look at where real world biggest and wealthiest companies are located. Are Cupertino, Redmond, etc. as bad as Gotham?"
None of those are. But there are others you could make the argument. East Palo Alto, off the top of my head.
"Also it would make no sense to be a multibillionaire and then resides in a place like Gotham. Except if you're somekind of mafia."
He *doesn't* live in Gotham proper. He lives in a gated estate, on Wayne Manor.
"And philanthropy doesn't only done by good people. Crooks also do philanthropy."
Yesssss. . .your point?
reply
share
actionkamen (23176)
5 years ago
There are any number of stories that refer to their philanthropy. . .not hard to find.
You brought up philantrophy. My point was that philantrophy does not prove their goodness.
reply
share
Goliard (1413)
5 years ago
Ah. I get that. . .but you're looping back on your initial statement, which was "Thomas Wayne doesn't do enough (philanthropy)." If someone replies "yes he does. . .and this has been covered extensively in both the comics *and* movies. . ." then it doesn't make much sense to respond with "philanthropy does not prove goodness."
Hence my confusion as to what you were trying to get at.
reply
share
actionkamen (23176)
5 years ago
I didn't mean Thomas Wayne doesn't do enough philantrophy. But more in using all his power to influence the way the city was run. Like I said, he not only got money, but also tech, etc.
Philantrophy can be done for many reasons. Just doing philatrophy doesn't mean he's really helping people. That's why I said crooks also do philantrophy. Obviously they do it not to help people.
I think people underestimates what a really really rich person could do to the society. And of course he doesn't need to do that. He can be rich and a pompous jerk and he's not at fault. Some real world rich people are like that, and that's fine. They are not breaking the law.
They, the Waynes, just wouldn't be as good as the way they were depicted traditionally. And this movie is exploring the possibility of such alternative angle. Like what if Thomas Wayne is actually not as good as what people thought. And that's cool.
reply
share
AP (5256)
5 years ago
Keep in mind that, in some versions such as the Nolan Trilogy, they were killed precisely because they were fighting corruption.
reply
share
UncleRuckis (2545)
5 years ago
Bruce Wayne is richer than his parents were and is as selfless as they come, yet even he can't fix Gotham with just his money and influence alone. Hence, the need for Batman.
You can't take Gothams shittiness as evidence that the Waynes weren't trying to help. That corruption runs crazy deep.
reply
share
actionkamen (23176)
5 years ago
I understand. That's the basic premise of the Batman's story. If The Waynes could fix Gotham then there would never be Batman. So I guess the comic writers needed to establish the fact that Gotham is beyond help.
However, this movie is kinda on it's own. It's not a Batman story. And the filmmakers really desconstructed most of the previously established Batman's premises.
Thomas Wayne was depicted, contrary of traditional portrayals, as a pompous jerk. I don't particularly like it myself, but I think it makes sense in this movie's universe.
reply
share