Since Im on the "unpopular opinion" kick, here goes another.
I absolutely hate power scaling in DC and Marvel alike but, somehow, Marvel's is kind of worse on the basis that it at least tries to go for something more "realistic" comparatively to DC.
A huge example are Magneto and Dr Doom. How the fuck these two lose any fights whatsoever? Dr Doom is basically magic evil Batman where he apparently can do literally anything, tech or magic alike so lets just leave it at that.
Magneto's powers have been retconned to get so OP that he controls the magnetic fields of literally anything, thus he isnt limited at anything metallic (and apparently he has some degree of mind powers too tho idk if that wasnt retconned by another retcon as is the way with comics). This mf can pull iron out of your blood, control the eletric pulses of your brain and even control Earth's rotation. Not even mentioning he can make a force field so powerful that it can tank Cyclops going all out on it. So how come he loses any fights whatsoever?
When you make your villain so OP that nothing less of another power boost as OP for the heroes would work just make their defeat come off as nothing short of an asspull, a deux ex machina. And they always come with the "Oh he was distracted" or "Oh X was holding him back" or "He wasnt going for the kill" which you know are just excuses at the end of the day because the creators of these characters never intended for him to get that OP nor for their plots to go that long.
I don't like when writers make a big deal about Batman not killing or not using guns
You mean that they try to make Batman look worse off for not using them or make a constant point how its vital that Batman never takes a life or uses guns whatsoever to the point it feels soap boxy? Because there are two unhealthy extremes here.
I personally stand vigilantes shouldnt kill on the mere basis that its not their jurisdiction, they are all technically breaking the law by their very nature but when they at least leave the criminals to be properly arrested and prosecuted, you can argue they are providing a "service" to society at large without becoming judge jury and executioner. It makes the "legally" easier to swallow to the system and the public.
The problems begin when we go beyond your typical mobs or bank robber and start adding super villains into the mix. At first its fine but as escalation kicks in and villains, old and new, are forced by the narrative to do worse, making harder for the reader to buy that they deserve anything less than death so when said death isnt brought upon them, it becomes frustrating and even immersion breaking. Batman with the Joker is the "go to" example but I'd argue this plagues all of capeshift media one way or the other.
If they wanted Batman to not use guns or actively kill people that's fine, it just the fact they constantly have to draw attention to it, and they constantly engineer scenarios where his ethos ensures that more people will die. The worst part is Redditors saying it's okay because all life is sacred which is why Batman will violently assault hundreds of criminal and police officers in order to ensure Joker stays alive.
At what point does the world's greatest detective come to the realization that Joker always gets aways and always murders people in exchange.
As I have said in the reply above, I dont think any super hero should kill if it can be avoided, therefore I do not think Batman should kill The Joker
HOWEVER, that doesnt mean that I dont recognize that the narrative makes such a mockery (unintentional or otherwise) of Batman's morals and philosophy by having the system, who should be the one to decide The Joker's fate, be so incompetent at best and corrupt at worst (added with The Joker just becoming far far more grotestically evil over the years) that it becomes immersion breaking.
I much prefer the stories where his rogue's gallery finds some level of redemption like we saw with mr Freeze and Bane a couple of times just to mention a few. Batman should be a nightmare to those that seek evil but be a great helper to those that are just in a lot of pain and lashing out, like Killer Croc and Two Face. Gotham is a broken city full of broken people and a lot of those broken people become something horrifying as payback and Batman is meant to be the "glue" to bring it and its people back together, as difficult as it is. I can buy The Joker being in the "irredemable" bunch, with others like Victor Z and Professor Pyg, however, have them either dying due to their own actions, due to their victims fighting back or because even the system got fed up with them and executed them. And then there are those that arent "redeemed" but still willing to "play along" like Penguin basically "trading" information with Batman in exchange for him turning a blind eye to minor crimes.
The problem is basically defined as "status quo" and "Escalation" (as I also mentioned above). The villains are too iconic to be anything else so they'll return to those roles and they need to be alive to do so, while also doing worse things to stand out.
Therefore, unintentionally or not, the writers make Batman and his values look stupid instead them being harsh, intimidating but ultimately benevolent because nothing changes and everything just becomes "worse" because it is all to keep the writers "engaged".
But then again, despite it all being kind of infuriating, we sadly cannot act like the system giving a slap to the wrist to repeat DANGEROUS offenders is all that unrealistic, especially today.
I guess its a reminder why DCAU Batman is one of my favorite takes of the character and the mythos, especially since many of the villains either die off or "retire" from villainy one way or the other. Same goes to the Arkham verse, in both The joker is allowed to be killed off, for the absolute narrative better (Knight not withstanding...).
