I thought the point was they were in the rafters and therefore wouldn't die, and then we're all armed with scoped rifles aimed at the "corrupt" politicians they viewed as a problem they were justified in forcibly removing. All of that feels very accurate to the Riddlers initial plans - kill "the corrupt people in charge" and "sacrifice yourself for the greater good" (by getting captured by the police like the Riddler does).

These were fanatics, they were extremists. In Ironman 3 they were henchmen who came off as mercenaries, people not devote to the cause and their simply to make money. Not that Ironman 3 should really be used as a great example with their use of the 10 rings only to retcon that so like... We're they henchmen mercs or were they devote ninja soldiers or...? Still, pretty different situation.

Did the Riddler think he was gonna die? Did his henchmen? I didn't get that vibe. And I think the Riddler was interested in the theatrics of his work from the get go, getting captured, the riddles (obvi lol), etc. I feel like going out on a big bang was always within character. And although he may have started by targeting the corrupt, I think his natural progression towards just targeting the wealthy or the "not like him" made sense. The Riddler killing many people via the flood felt natural to me but maybe I need to rewatch it.

As for his followers, we don't get a ton of screen time with them but the movie was very effective at evoking the right wing twitch/forum/podcast vibe of a deep dark rabbit hole - so maybe I'm projecting - but I 100% can see random people who think the Riddler's form of violence is cool or admirable being willing to dehumanize the people in the arena enough to commit mass murder. Idk, it's the disciple vs the leader dilution of the message or intent. And I'd still argue that the intent was never to improve things or be consistent, it was to make people hurt the way he did and justify it however he could.

Thanks for reading all my shit lol, hopefully you got something out of this :D

I think there's an interesting conversation to be had here but I'm not certain I'm going to do it justice via text; let me try.

I think what's happening here (with your comment and actually the other one responding to yours) is the failure to separate the underlying motivation and intent of the Riddler and the Riddler's mental state or actions.

The Riddler in The Batman stems from inequality and corruption and systemic failures. We can empathize with that concept and we can understand how it drives him to become who he is in the movie. But I think him coming from that place does not necessarily mean he's "fighting corruption for the 'little man'" as you said. In fact, I think the movie goes out of its way to show us that he's less interested in helping people and fixing the system and more interested in hurting people and damaging the system. He kills the corrupt ~judge/politician in the beginning (sorry if I get details wrong or close to right, it's been a few years and my movie memory isn't what it used to be) and leaves a boy without his father - or maybe orphans him. He propagates some of the issues that made characters like himself and Batman.

He straps a bomb to a corrupt cop which I'd argue inherently endangers more than just the person "who deserved it". He firebombs Alfred, an arguably innocent bystander in everything. He plans a partial flooding of the city and the assassination of the mayoral candidate (at least) while riling up extremists to go out and hurt people. He isn't doing these things to weed out corruption or to help people, he's doing these things because they make him feel good. He's hurting the people who "hurt him" but in reality he's cultivating the same environment that made him.

And I think the movie gives both Batman and Catwoman as counter examples to the Riddlers methods. Catwoman came from a similar background of hardship and systemic failings and instead of specifically violently hurting people, she steals from people to help abused women (and immigrants if I'm remembering correctly). She's not making the system better but she's helping people like an Anti-Hero. She's trying to kill the mob boss like the Riddler does with who he blames, but she's not cultivating an armed extremist militia and she's taking care of people she relates to.

The Batman is even more interesting IMHO because he actually falls into the same trap as the Riddler at first, he's hellbent on hurting bad people to the point that it's doing more harm than good. Then the climax of the film is realizing he can't be Vengeance, he can't be what the Riddler is and what the Riddler promotes in his goons, he has to be Hope™. He has to help people, he lights the flare and leads people to safety.

That's the central arc of The Batman, going from being interested in vengeance - in the easy solution, in the thing that makes small changes you can justify but that don't help the people that don't change the system that may even hurt everyone - to being interested in change, in leading people, in taking care of orphans, in not creating more kids without father's.

The Riddler may have come from a place of systemic injustice but he was a serial killer interested only in vengeance, he wasn't robin hood, and he was that way from the beginning of the film. I thought the third act really spelt that out in a way I really enjoyed. I don't think he was ever protecting people, I think he was always obsessed with hurting the people that hurt him.

Of course, it's Batman, we need to see Batman dress like a Bat and be a billionaire and justify not doing like... World changing philanthropy with just his money, that's part of the fantasy unfortunately. But I hope in the sequel we see more of Bruce Wayne being the character I enjoy (and what they've set up nicely in this first film) of someone who does what the Batman can't. Reinstate funding, do public projects, revitalize industry - all that shit real billionaires should do (before funding politicians to tax themselves out of existence) and that provide a real sense of Batman AND Bruce Wayne being heroes.

This is the first time I've read someone dislike the second half of the Batman. Kinda shocked to hear it reduced to "Hollywood spectacle" given the clear ties to the movies main themes and character arcs. It also was a nearly-perfect final act for a Batman movie imho with it not revolving around one villain Batman needs to physically beat up like most of the previous films.

I've been in Germany two years and gone to France three times by train.

I honestly don't think people appreciate public transit enough. Trains are the fucking bomb and if people could make trains and trams and buses a priority I think the world would be a remarkably more fun and enjoyable experience.

Vote for the political parties, even at and especially the local level, that want to put more money into public infrastructure focused around public transit. Cars and planes have their places, but they should never be the priority when city planning and a strong country is one connected by high speed rail and convenient, reliable public transit.

Yes, I confirmed. I live in Germany and hashtags like democrat or berniesanders are blocked and hashtags like Republican and donaldjtrump are not blocked.

I was only on Instagram for my friends to exchange reels and post life updates like once a year but this crosses another line. Migrating from all these monopolies is such a tax on my time but this is a small way to hurt these big giants.

I recommend everyone do the same when they have the time. I'd like to learn about RSS feeds and go back to a bunch of individual blogs for friends and family. Decentralized power is I guess the most important characteristic to look for these days. Fuck, this correction period is going to suck.

Who the fuck reads the entire steam page? My friend says buy the game, the reviews say it's great with friends, you go and buy the game not scan the steam page for predatory data hoarding policies.

#atetheonion

I really hate all the replies attempting to poke holes with minimal effort. Thanks for this comment and your robust set of examples.

Housing shouldn't be a vehicle for interest or making a living, I'd take it more extreme than what you have if I'm being honest. You can own the buildings you use 60% of the year for work or for housing but nothing else. We don't sell stocks in bananas, we sell stocks in farms. Housing should be a consumable commodity not a line item in a corp's assets sheet.

I agree with you here. This meme says "address" climate change like "EVs aren't a perfect solution to climate change" as if that's some big gotcha. They're a meaningful, incremental improvement away from ICE vehicles.

Public transit and bikes are better, but electrifying everything is also a good thing.

The main comments seem to think Milley WAS commenting on Biden's health after saying he wouldn't and I disagree.

He said Biden read the prep material, was aware of the current issues, and took national security matters very seriously. You could extrapolate that to mean he's mentally well but I don't think that's a necessary conclusion and it's definitely not a direct comment on the president's health.

No one likes how old the president is, but Milley wasn't going against his own words here in the excerpt that I read.

I moved to Germany from the US this year. There is subsidized public transit, universal healthcare, minimum vacation time, a heavy union culture, strong renter-favored laws (although capitalist for profit housing is still an ever growing plague).

As others pointed out, the terminology isn't a great tool for debate without an agree upon definition. But yes, I would move to a country that cared about people over profits.