21 Comments
Posted by TheProtagonist

Too Soon

Posted by Trevel8182

Great question Ectoborge!

Edited by drgnx

This was kind of Answered in "the last family of Krypton". Jor-el wanted to Babysit humanity and he and Laura actually prevented the Birth of many other human heroes because they saved them from the circumstances that created them!

Posted by G-Man

@drgnx: ...I did mention that series in the video...

Online
Posted by iceslick

@g_man: I noticed you looked a little tired or sleepy in this video. lol Anyways, I agree with you Tony. I don't think Jor-el or Thomas Wayne would be better heroes than Bruce Wayne or Kal-el/Clark Kent. Also the Jor-el in MOS and Thomas Wayne from Flashpoint have completely different morals. So, you can't put them on the same plato.

Edited by Jonny_Anonymous

I enjoyed Batman more when he was just a urban myth, criminals where scared of him because they didn't know what the hell he was or if he would kill them also it stopped Batman from becoming this overpowered "master of everything" character

Online
Posted by 2cool4fun

I think damian is better than bruce, if he lived, he would have grown to be an even stronger batman, i mean he was 10 and had more skills then bruce in his first year as batman, besides, not even bruce was able to defeat the guy who killed damian.

Edited by drgnx

@g_man said:

@drgnx: ...I did mention that series in the video...

That's what I get for responding before watching the whole video <.<"

Edited by ectoborge

Thanks G-man

I would totally read a Tomas Wayne and Jor El Superman/Batman comic.

No need for another video discussing weather Batman should kill. I think that he can or cannot depending on the story. Flashpoint Batman and Dark Knight Batman are both great interpretations of the character.

If he kills someone in self defense that's fine as opposed to killing someone out of vengeance.

I think the non killing thing should depend on the power-set. Batman uses non-lethal boomerangs vs Wolverine who has claws. I think Superman who is a human hurricane should be able to use his full potential on the bad-guys. After all "Shuster and Siegel had Superman kill Ultra-Humanite" one of the first super-villains he faced.

Thanks again for answering my question,

Ectoborge

Posted by tuckboarder

Honestly what this comes down to is would they be better heroes, and i'd say no, Jor-El did what he had to do to save his kid, but that was literally all his life was about after a point, so he's really only driven by family, and then theres Tommy boy, he became so dark and awful thing when his son was lost, and went full punisher. As enforcers of justice, they both lack, because it's more about justice on their terms, for them.

Edited by Justthatkid

I prefer Bruce as Batman, Thomas is to violent.

Posted by GreatKirbysGhost

Since the original superheroes embody the Oedipal war of the son to succeed the father (as these characters, the two best-known superheroes and sons of the Golden Age, demonstrate), the specific qualities of their fathers each exist as the respective son's paternal imago, ideal beyond the capabilities of the son but only present in the father's absence.

This is not airy theory but the basis of these characters' stories in a very real way, something that Alan Moore used in Superman's visions of the Krypton that never was in For The Man Who Has Everything and that Grant Morrison exploited for Doctor Hurt during Morrison's run on Batman (where Hurt plotted to embody the other, just-as-believable paternal imago, the father whose evil reached to the very ends of the son's imagination).

Is ideal nonexistence superior to non-ideal existence (in the sense that Batman or Superman can be said to "exist"?) I don't think so, and I don't think Batman or Superman would either, at least not in their original incarnations. The imago is not of the highest important to either Bruce Wayne or Kal El. They recognize the metaphorical or symbolic "father": the Law, where they find their (secret) identities.

Edited by Provehito

Definitely agree with the myth Batman part. Certainly that's a much more effective way of freaking out criminals. I mean, who wouldn't be shocked to death by the silhouette of a random Bat-looking guy in the night?

Posted by Mia26

Too soon, man ... too soon ....

Posted by Ace20XD6

Well with Thomas Wayne, it did feel like the Flashpoint Gotham was a little better than before, Harvey Dent never became Two-Face, and Penguin never became a villain either.

Edited by LyraFay

Bruce is a better Batman than Thomas, because he has the drive. Thomas is doing it out of revenge, he's not thinking when he's the Batman. Also he extremely out of control due to the endless drinking on the job, which doesn't help his cause.

Posted by TheMultiverse

Are they better at being "heroes"?

NO.

Their drive was completely self centered. Jor El spent his final years trying to conceive a child (against the rules), and figure out a plan to have his son basically rule a planet. Instead of spending that time to figure out a plan to save his own people. LOL.

Thomas just went mad, and ran around killing people in seek of some revenge for the loss of his family. He had no care for human rights, or the the right to live, or anything.

Posted by RedheadedAtrocitus

Better is such a normative and subjective term. I think its almost unfair really considering that we have seen Jor-El and Thomas Wayne at the helm of their respective son's roles in various example. If anything it could definitely said they did things differently than their sons did, but not necessarily better.

Posted by ShadowPro

wait, is there an actual comic where these two are heroes?

Posted by christianrapper

how can jorel make a better superman. he couldn't even build a rocket big enough for his whole family. what kind of father sends his son into space by himself? it was dumb that he didn't build a bigger ship.

Posted by Hathouty

≥►.◄≤ as Melissa answered I cant believe that a mother able to get paid $5382 in one month on the internet. did you look at this site➡➡➡www.Blue78.com