PDA

View Full Version : Has Batman ever...


CHWolf
10-28-2010, 01:47 AM
...taken control of Arkham Asylum?

Literally - a legal takeover as Bruce Wayne.


Admittedly, I haven't been following comics in general since I stopped going to the the local shop, so I might be really out of touch and this has been done.


I've been pondering this for some geekwad reason, and I can't imagine it turning out to be anything other than amazing.

Bruce Wayne, philanthropist, saves Arkham from closing its doors because "like it or not, it's the only facility equipped to handle these patients".

Batman, vigilante, consistantly appears and disappears within its walls, working villains over for information or whatever he damned well pleases.

I can see the entire storyline blossoming... he staffs the facility with ringers in high positions, records therapy sessions for intel, overrides decisions and makes personal calls on keeping patients sedated, etc. etc. etc.


Arkham has always been a crapshack that falls apart at the seams whenever a storyline needs a bunch of escaped crazies - I'd like to see what happens when the revolving door gets a nice big Batarang wedged in its gears...



...Wait, what was my original question?

So, has Batman ever taken control of Arkham?

Paul Sanderson
10-28-2010, 04:24 AM
Not to my knowledge.

MBirkhofer
10-28-2010, 11:14 AM
I always found it a bit silly.

Dresses up like a bat to stop people from committing crimes. refuses to kill, because people can be redeemed. Doesn't actually take his billions and invest in better rehabilitation centers. You would think he would get better results from better education, and rehab centers.

I imagine he does have some on the list of charity's Wayne enterprises is supposed to donate to though.

Mark Bertolini
10-28-2010, 11:30 AM
I would absolutely read a story with Bats taking over the asylum. Absolutely.

Buckyrig
10-28-2010, 12:16 PM
I always found it a bit silly.

Dresses up like a bat to stop people from committing crimes. refuses to kill, because people can be redeemed. Doesn't actually take his billions and invest in better rehabilitation centers. You would think he would get better results from better education, and rehab centers.

I imagine he does have some on the list of charity's Wayne enterprises is supposed to donate to though.

At some point in there he's assuming a God complex.

Paul Sanderson
10-28-2010, 05:27 PM
Wayne does donate millions to charities, rehabilitation centres, all those things, just like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and many others do in real life. And just like in real life, there's still only so much you can do with money, even lots of it.

ronin7
10-28-2010, 06:20 PM
Wayne does donate millions to charities, rehabilitation centres, all those things, just like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and many others do in real life. And just like in real life, there's still only so much you can do with money, even lots of it.

Co-sign.

CHWolf
10-28-2010, 08:28 PM
*Gets on the phone with DC*

Hey, I have this great idea for- (click)


:U

Allegory Comics
11-06-2010, 12:51 AM
Wayne does donate millions to charities, rehabilitation centres, all those things, just like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and many others do in real life. And just like in real life, there's still only so much you can do with money, even lots of it.
Apparently in the new storyline, Bruce comes out and publicly confesses that he is the financier behind Batman -- Newsarama reports. That will be the setup for the upcoming BATMAN INC story, and allow Bruce to travel the globe to recruit more heroes to join his team. They will all wear the bat sheild.

Sounds too much like Tony Stark, to me.

Paul Sanderson
11-06-2010, 08:45 PM
Yeah, sounds pretty dopey to me. Morrison's lost the plot, I'm afraid. I yearn for the days when the Batman comics just featured good, old fashioned quality storytelling sans all these gimmicks. Hopefully they'll return to that one day.

CHWolf
11-07-2010, 12:50 AM
Maybe it's not actually Bruce. :O

Mr.Musgrave
11-07-2010, 01:09 AM
Yeah, sounds pretty dopey to me. Morrison's lost the plot, I'm afraid. I yearn for the days when the Batman comics just featured good, old fashioned quality storytelling sans all these gimmicks. Hopefully they'll return to that one day.


Yes! More of the same! We must have more of the same!

N Hammer
11-07-2010, 09:48 AM
If you like the same then more of it isn't a bad thing.

Mr.Musgrave
11-07-2010, 01:38 PM
If you like the same then more of it isn't a bad thing.


A stagnant artform is a dead artform. 60+ years of comics and they've been rehashing the same tired stories over and over again. You wanna know why no one takes comics seriously as an artform? It's dull, dry, and dead...all thanks to middle aged fanboys who want more of the same.

Allegory Comics
11-07-2010, 02:00 PM
You guys are both right, but you're at extreme opposites here.

Big surprise. :laugh:

First of all, Frank is right. This is a gimmick. But guess what? EVERY story is a "gimmick." It's called a "hook" or an "angle" that grabs readers attention and holds on. There is no such thing as a story without a hook, and every hook is a gimmick whose only purpose it is to attract attention to increase sales. So we can't blame this as being a new trend. What we CAN debate is whether or not this is a GOOD gimmick -- and no, I don't think it is.

But as Stone Cold Steve Musgrave points out, more of the same is absolutely a bad thing. Not only now, because the stories have sucked balls lately (Batman is lost and traveling though time? UGH!) but ever. You can never stay the same. You have to shake things up. That's conflict and it's another important part of storytelling. If you never upset the order of things, there is no conflict, and there is no reason for people to read it. Usually they upset the order only so they can restore it again and go back to square one.

Just like with "gimmick," we can argue whether or not this is a good conflict (again, I don't think it is), but conflict is ABSOLUTELY necessary. No story can ever rest on its laurels.

Now you can both find some commonality and attack ME for a while. ;)

Paul Sanderson
11-07-2010, 04:17 PM
Oh sure, I agree, things have to change from time to time, but not change for change sake, it has to flow naturally from whichever direction the story takes you, not this robotic gimmicky change that's infecting comics these last several years. And, it's the type of change that turns people off. Some change is organic, a natural re-ordering of events. Other change is unnatural, doesn't feel right, and is purely a gimmick to try and increase sales. That sort of change actually decreases readers in the long term. It's that latter form that we seem to be getting constantly, year after year, of late.

Allegory Comics
11-07-2010, 05:29 PM
Oh sure, I agree, things have to change from time to time, but not change for change sake.
Yes ... change for change sake because you NEED change to shake up a story and create conflict that a reader will care about. Now, ideally, that change would be a GOOD move that would flow organic from the story. But that is not always the case. Organic or not, change has to happen.
Other change is unnatural, doesn't feel right, and is purely a gimmick to try and increase sales.
ALL stories are gimmicks to increase sales. You think they do this for free? They choose stories they feel will attract the most readers and sales. Always have always will. It's the age old struggle between editorial and sales. One wants to be creative and artistic and true to his talent, and the other (usually your bosses) just want to generate sales. Quality be damned.

But never fool yourself into believing mainstream publishers' stories are about anything other than sales. Indy's maybe (that's why we call them "starving artists"), but when you've got the Mouse or the Frog on your back, it's all about the Benjamin's baby.

ronin7
11-07-2010, 06:48 PM
I'd rather make the moolah than be starving at all.

Paul Sanderson
11-08-2010, 04:25 PM
I never said it isn't about sales, Ryan, did I? But you clearly don't understand about the differences in change that I'm talking about, so you're clearly part of the problem not part of the solution, so to speak. Clearly, sales are down across the board and a re continuing to go down, so the change that is currently taking place is not the right change, nor the right stories, for the industry.

Yes, change needs to take place...we need to get rid of these idiots ruining Batman and get back to some semblance of normalcy and build on that for the future. What's happening now is just hurting the industry as a whole, and some day, unchecked, that may prove irrevocable.

Allegory Comics
11-08-2010, 05:50 PM
No, you never said it wasn't about sales ... you only made it sound like THIS is a "gimmick" because it was motivated by sale -- but my point was: compared to what? When is a story ever NOT about sales? When is a hook NOT a gimmick?

I'm not quite sure how that makes me "part of the problem".

What you SHOULD be saying, and what I think you mean to say but have not actually said yet, is that you agree change is necessary in an ongoing story but you disagree with the direction of this change. You feel they have changed the characters and their lives, but not changed the direction of their descent. And if that's what you mean, then I agree with you.

But you can't simply lump all change together as a bad thing. So far that's really all you've done. The concept of change is not bad. In fact, it's essential to a story. It's only the direction and realization of that change that is good or bad -- and even THAT is subjective.

Mr.Musgrave
11-08-2010, 08:24 PM
I never said it isn't about sales, Ryan, did I? But you clearly don't understand about the differences in change that I'm talking about, so you're clearly part of the problem not part of the solution, so to speak. Clearly, sales are down across the board and a re continuing to go down, so the change that is currently taking place is not the right change, nor the right stories, for the industry.



Really? Can you prove any of that? Let's see some numbers, Frank. Let's see you back up your words just once.

Flairbrusher
11-08-2010, 10:47 PM
I always found it a bit silly.

Dresses up like a bat to stop people from committing crimes. refuses to kill, because people can be redeemed. Doesn't actually take his billions and invest in better rehabilitation centers. You would think he would get better results from better education, and rehab centers.

I imagine he does have some on the list of charity's Wayne enterprises is supposed to donate to though.
Imagine how many innocent lives would have been spared if Batman just SHOT The Joker instead of trying to rehabilitate him? Just one Bat Bullet to the brain.

Buckyrig
11-09-2010, 08:07 PM
I was going to say that this argument has nothing to do with the question posed by the original post...

but then I realized the question was about Arkham Asylum.

Paul Sanderson
11-09-2010, 08:40 PM
What you SHOULD be saying, and what I think you mean to say but have not actually said yet, is that you agree change is necessary in an ongoing story but you disagree with the direction of this change. YADDA YADDA YADDA

That is what I said, in my own way, but nevertheless clearly discernible as such :rolleyes:

And dear oh dear, I never lumped all change as a bad thing. I was quite the contrary on that score actually. If you're not going to pay attention then please vacate the discussion.

Allegory Comics
11-09-2010, 10:02 PM
That is what I said, in my own way, but nevertheless clearly discernible as such :rolleyes:

And dear oh dear, I never lumped all change as a bad thing. I was quite the contrary on that score actually. If you're not going to pay attention then please vacate the discussion.
Or maybe you could learn how to communicate effectively as it seems that your point was lost on more people than just myself. It's pitiful that I had to dig for it and translate for us English speaking members.