What I find somewhat ironic about his character and what he symbolizes is WHO he punishes. Everyone at Arkham is mentally unstable and are criminals yes, but he selects those that he has physical power over. Harley Quinn, Scarecrow, the Ventriloquist/Scarface are all physically weaker than him and can’t fight back without some sort of weapon. He chooses to physically and mentally abuse them. None of his examples include the big names like Joker, Two-Face, or Killer Croc. It’s not about punishing criminals that deserve it, it’s about control and the superiority he has over them. If he practiced what he preached, his methods would apply to every single criminal in Arkham
That's a great point! It really emphasises what a cowardly bully he is. It seems like his costume gives him the confidence to fight, although Batman deals with him pretty easily.
@@SerumLakeI always took the reason they peeked these three was to show the flaws/greys of Bolton actions. If it was someone like joker or zsasz being punished by him, I’d doubt anyone would have gone against him with the horrible crimes they’ve done. But with people like Harley or the ventriloquist we know these are people who are just mentally unwell and need help. This is why I feel lock up should be used more because on some level it is insane the amount of times Arkham let prisoners escape or how unaffected gotham can be so we would want more control over these criminals but Bolton takes it to the extreme. He would also play an interesting role because he would also want to stop criminals escaping so he could both be a reluctant alley or enemy in a situation
Heaven forbid how he would react to Harley being Bi and having a relationship with Ivy. Actually, that would make a funny Harley Quinn tv series episode.
Lockup's is just a sadist. Is not even vengeance. As vengeance is to harm someone that harmed you. Is just sadism (getting pleasure on harming others). Batman has to do more with justice (to right a wrong) and a limited vengeance.
A very good observation (pun intended). But I want to add another interpretation: there is the saying that "the eyes are the windows into the soul." The way I see it, Batman's white eyes allow a certain edge to them. Because you can't see his eyes, you can't really tell what kind of man is under the cowl. He leaves his criminals guessing when he strikes them. But with Lockup's eyes, there is no questioning it: he's either going to kill you or he's going to torture you and he's going to enjoy every second of it. And that strikes fear of knowing what he's going to do, unlike Batman who leaves you in the dark.
Batman also doesn’t kill because of the loss he felt when his parents got murdered. He values life, and sees taking it as the worst thing one can do to anyone else.
Yeah, I think that makes more sense. Somewhat justified for this Batman when he encountered the Justice Lords in Justice League (or were the Justice Lords in Unlimited? I can't remember).
@@Blundabus1337The real answer here is that the city of Gotham needs looser laws for giving supervillains the death penalty rather than it being Batman’s problem/issue.
While perhaps it's not intentional, Batman's costume showing his mouth (and also having prominent ears) reflects the idea that batman is a voice of the people, and listens to those who want to speak. See Baby Doll. Lock-Up, on the other hand, simply observes what he believes is good or bad and acts on it, often cruelly, without any idea of what is just or correct. Also police parallels but that's more of a Prometheus thing.
A vigilante like Lockup or the Punisher popping up would be a natural reaction to the increasingly hellish criminal underworld. The difference is that Punisher wants to eliminate it while Lockup wants it to suffer.
I think they had Lock-up not kill them because, well, the series won't last very long if the head of security at Arkham just offed the joker, riddler, ect. I doubt anyone would be upset if some crazy security guard killed the joker, except for batman. If lock-up is right wing, then so is red hood....and spoilers: most people side with red hood on killing the joker.
@@Blundabus1337 After living in s o c i e t y for as long as people are, they would agree with actually punishing criminals instead of this revolving door system Gotham has. Instead of using the tame animated series, make it exactly like the mature shows and people quickly agree with him.
@@dansmith16the criminals are being punished either way, if they're being sent to an Arkham with or without Bolton, or to a regular prison. What benefit does torturing them give? And you're talking about a revolving door system, but scarecrow escapes BECAUSE Bolton is torturing him.
3 місяці тому
@@dansmith16 People like you are why the supervillains exist in the first place in the DC universe. People with your mindset get into political power and focus more on punishment than fixing the problem. This leads to people becoming more desperate and thus inclined to crime because specific needs are not met in reality. In DC due to how things work in that universe, this ends up creating folks like Mr. Freeze, The Parasite, or Dr. Destiny,
@@Blundabus1337 Bolton was indifferent to why many of the criminals commited their crimes. Yes, what they did was wrong, but some of them were clearly suffering some form of mental illness that made them act the way they did. Sure, you still had irredeemable monsters like The Joker who revels in what he does, but the likes of Arnold Wesker (aka the Ventriloquist) was mostly just a severely unwell man who didn't want to be the way he was. Torturing someone like Wesker doesn't solve anything but he still has a chance to be redeemed and live a relatively normal life without being a danger to society with access to proper help and treatment.
Lock-Up is basically what the people who criticize and don't know who Batman is think Batman is. One thing I loved about the animated series is how they don't use Arkham Asylum as just a stand in for a prison, it actually is a mental ward for sick patients (Killer Croc isn't even put in Arkham because he's found to be cognizant of his wrong doings) and so when there is someone who is terrorizing the patients that, realistically, is seen as an awful awful thing.
@@milli5968Arkham seems to have more high-tech facilities than normal prisons. Mr. Freeze is in Arkham, and he’s not insane. Plus, that episode hinted Croc was being moved to normal prison before Baby Doll freed him.
Personally I think Lock Up should have been the season finale rather than "Batgirl Returns" since it closes this sutle "character arc" of Batman in the season that I don't think many notice. Looking back at season 3, it that has many "villain reform" episodes like Second Chance (which focus on Two Face), Catwalk (focus on Catwoman), Harley's Holiday (focus on Harley) and House and Garden (focus on Poison Ivy), in which the villains try to reform only to go back to crime in the end . If the season ended with the Lock Up episode it would give more meaning for Lock Up arguments (the villains failures supporting Lock Up ideology), as well Batman's refusal to join him (showing how he still has compassion even after the villains failed and refuse to reform)
I've always appreciated Batman's philosophy of "hate the sin, but love the sinner." It was played for laughs on the '60s show, but even there I took it seriously. And it's not just bleeding-heart sentiment on Batman's part, because there's an unspoken element of pragmatism to the argument: if it ever became completely clear that the villains couldn't or wouldn't reform, Batman would have to violate his moral code and kill them in order to guarantee Gotham's safety. I truly believe that, if only it were legal, Batman would call for every member of the Rogues Gallery to be lobotomized so he could prevent them from ever again committing crimes without having to murder them.
I do honestly hate villian reforms unless it changes the character in a strong or noticable way. It just feels like a failure of the bottle episodes the plot is to worried about rushing things back to staus quo instead of making characters more interesting. Such as having scare crow get semi reforned by seeing a family member or love intetest hurt by a gang and using his fear toxin on them. He partners with batman to get revenge but is too hostile yet at the same the likes the idea of doing some personal good. Batman shows him how to be better so now hes a grey character instead of pure bad.
@@thewhitewolf58 I see your point however I think reform episodes in BTAS work pretty well because they go beyond the typical formula of "villain tries to be good and failed". Not only some of them like "Birds of Feather" highlight how the problem aren't the villains but also Gotham's corruption and how doesn't inspire them to want to be better (why would want to reform in place where riches look down upon the low-classes and villain can easly escape from prision?) but, as UA-camr pointed out, they develop the villains by diving into a simple question "what the villains ACTUALLY want?" Take the Riddler for exemple. When he was introduced, he just wanted to get revenge on the evil CEO who stole his project, cleary wanting money and recognition for something he made. In "Riddler's Reform" He gets all this. He's has contracts with many toy companies, is famous, popular, all he wanted.... and yet still fails bc of his inability to accept that Batman is smart than him. Same goes for Catwoman, who started as animal activist to , in her reform episode, reveal that what she truly loved was the thrill of the heist and challenging Batman.
What makes Lock-Up more shocking to me isn't so much any political affiliation but the GENERAL moral question he gives you; is it alright to torture criminals who are already punished? The lot of Arkham are not innocent angels in many cases though a lot are tragic in their origins. Regardless of that, how far is too far when it comes to dealing out 'justice' and how do we really decide how much one should get for their crimes. What makes Lock-Up so incredibly dangerous is how he PLANS and dishes out his 'justice', by putting the criminal in a compromising situation where they are unable to defend themselves in a cruel twist of irony as many of their own victims. The problem is Lock-Up isn't in it for the victims. This isn't retaliation or even justification. He sees and views anyone who did something wrong in his eyes as fitting to his abuse and pain, no matter how petty their crimes are. Batman stomps all levels of criminals but when he's done, HE'S DONE. Lock-Up is someone who wouldn't stop until his victim is dead which he would then blame on them not being able to take it. And to drive home how creepy he came off to me, consider how abusive Joker is to Harley. From the way things sounded, Lock-Up came off as stepping over the line in a way that I won't mention here that a lot of media never even implied that Joker did to Harley, at least the stuff aimed at kids. And if it wasn't any more of a fist to the face that Lock-Up is a contrast of Batman, THE DUDE IS NEARLY IDENTICAL TO BRUCE. Bruce is looking at himself not so much if he became a super villain but had he let his hatred of vengeance take over him in a NORMAL job to the point he becomes abusive to everyone because "someone has to take the hits to learn." Ironically I'm on a project writing a villain like this but it disturbs me that people like this exist and not just in law enforcement. People like this exist in all professions, with the belief that their protection is needed and I've learned through experience this attitude has no alignment political. Anyone who becomes obsessed with power and control can turn into this and it's AWFUL. Edit; about his mouth. What's up with that? You'd think they'd just allow for basic movements of the lower cowl which is often down for characters in costumes like that but....the went so detailed in his cowl you see his TONGUE through it and it makes you realize why they don't usually animate the mouth under full masks like that (cough spiderman cough). That may have been an error.
What makes Lock-Up even more horrible is that non-super Arkham inmates are probably homeless people with schizophrenia, PTSD-affected Vietnam veterans, or substance abusers.
Exactly. I feel like he focuses way too much on the politics of it. "Right-wingers aren't compassionate." There’s a fine line between helping someone mentally ill and stopping violent criminals. Just look at cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York, all run by leftists. Corruption & abuse of power knows no political affiliation.
Lock-Up literally said to himself that he did what he did because Gotham is an awfully dangerous and violent place full of criminals who hurt innocent people because Batman, the cops and the justice system enable them by giving them light sentences and letting them escape Arkham all the time.
Drowning is one of the worst ways to go. There's panic, the feeling of your lungs burning as you try to hold on for as long as possible, and then the realization that you're dead as you finally run out of air. There's also that, despite common myth, witches were more often drowned. There could be other reasons, but that's what I thought of.
Lock-Up was a good foil for Batman, and the ending was chilling. The vocal performance of Bruce Weitz, Lylye Bolton's actor, was great. He truly captured the raging insanity of Lock-up very well. I think he works better as a one-shot badguy than a recurring one. Speaking of which, have you thought about making a video about Baby Dahl?
Honestly as cool as it would’ve been to have lock up in the Arkham games…let’s be honest it’d be practically impossible to have him work without changing his character, not only was Batman FAR more brutal in the Arkham games but the argument between Batman, someone who tries his best to reform criminals and Bolton, someone who specifically tries to control and outright torture criminals, kinda can’t happen since almost every criminal in the Arkham series had gone far past the point where any real redemption would be possible
When I first saw this as a young teenager, I didn't see any political overtones - and yes, I had an awareness of politics at that age - because the story was just so absurd I had trouble relating it to anything in real life. In our world, people as psychopathic as the Scarecrow would be exiled, put in a maximum-security prison with no hope of parole, or executed as soon as possible. They wouldn't get to lounge around an insane asylum. Watching this again many years later, though, I'm definitely able to read the episode's themes with more insight. I like the image of Bolton's apartment being an empty chamber with very few creature comforts. Not only does it emphasize his contempt for "soft" bourgeois society, but it's actually a credit to him in that it reveals how much of a righteous and moral (to use those two terms loosely) character resides within his psychosis. He believes that life should be hard and that discipline should be imposed, and he applies these principles to himself. As much as we might detest the man, we can't call him a hypocrite. Also, many violent fanatics do believe they are morally superior and see themselves as redeemers of a corrupt world. It certainly says something that Lock-Up is too extreme even for Gotham City, which is usually portrayed as socially conservative almost to the point of authoritarianism. Even Harvey Bullock, who often has to restrain himself from physically attacking even the most minor of criminals, is practically a bleeding-heart compared to Bolton, since he exemplifies the moderate right-wing philosophy that the letter of the law should always be upheld and vigilantism should never be tolerated. I can't help wondering whether, if Gotham City were real, not only would its courts execute every single murderer who failed to show remorse, but the local government would have the executions televised in order to instill terror into potential lawbreakers.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It’s a very good point you made about Lock-Up inflicting rigid, almost pious minimalism on himself as a means of demonstrating his moral superiority. This is in direct contrast with Bruce Wayne’s home, which is vast and filled with furniture, art work, and - dare I say it - love.
BTAS Scarecrow wasn't really psychopathic like other versions such as in the Arkham games. IIRC he never killed anyone in the show, mainly using his fear toxin to help with his crimes like robbing and fixing gambling. Of the main villains in BTAS only Joker and Poison Ivy are psychos that really crossed the lines to deserve the death sentence. He also seemed to be genuine friends with Harley and in one of (admittedly dubiously canon) Batman Adventures comics he feels sorry for a student who was assaulted and tries to get revenge on her assaulter.
There are many things that makes people think about politics nowadays that did not make people think about politics in the past and was not intended to have anything to do with politics.
Gotham is the literal definition of a liberalism political system. Just look at New York or San Francisco, Hollywood, other places were it’s just dirty and dangerous.
Yeah, many people quote the “I am Vengeance” scene, but they misunderstand. It’s a mantra he says to himself to help overcome The Scarecrow’s fear toxin, not his Tinder profile 😂
@@Sig509Ah yes its his fault not a failure of the government to punish the criminals. The idea that Batman is somehow responsible for the actions of others is mind boggling and really shows how little personal responsibility people wanna take
Not sure if anyone else has already said this, but batman's eyes being covered is part of the costume's purpose: to invoke fear. (Remember in the original opening of the show, when batmans eyes show his distaste for the shadowy criminals who flinch away from him?) Yet Bruce's humanity, compassion, fear (especially during the first seasons of the original animation), and annoyance (especially in the New Adventures and everything Justice League related) still bleed through. Whereas Lockup has his eyes fully exposed, "eyes being the windows to the soul" (reminds me of the scary eyes Harvey Dent had when he lost control in his premiere episode), his own eyes show the rage within, inspire fear all their own. He can't hide the truth of what he feels, his eyes are scary even when he's still in his prison officer uniform and supposed to be a symbol of duty, peace, and order, yet his own interests bleed through. His overall costume and its obvious police colors, might also have been emblematic of the fact that too many officers go through a power trip when donning their uniforms and weapons, especially since they will especially target those with less "power" than them.
In regard to the eyes and mouth parallels of their costumes, idk I think that might be significant. Batman hiding his eyes could represent “Justice is blind,” so therefore when he speaks it carries more weight because it doesn’t matter how he feels. On the other hand, Lock-Up’s exposed eyes shows that how he feels about the situation is all he really cares about; for him it’s not really about Justice, but power. Or maybe I’m reading too much into it, idk
I had a different thought. My assumption was that Batman's mouth is exposed because he believes he can talk to them and believes that by talking there is another way. Lock down doesn't have those believes. He only needs to see step out once and then that's it. His eyes will always remember those actions. Everything else is covered. He isn't going to listen or try and talk things out with you. He has is only going to lock on to your mistakes
I think Prometheus fills Lock-Up's role more or less as a dark reflection of Batman just with a better toolkit. Lock-Up is thematically neat, just...boring.
Yes, Prometheus was quite similar to The Wrath, a pre-crisis Batman analogue whose parents were criminals that were killed by the police. It’s a great idea, I just wish Prometheus had a better costume…
Just as a note, Lock-Up was also featured in one of the Villains United comics (I believe the one-shot that directly led to Infinite Crisis #7). Not as a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo like si many other members of the Society, but specifically being consulted by Lex himself about the best methods for breaking open the various prisons in the world. Also, I really wanted to see Lock-Up get used in The Batman. I felt like the writers could've finished Chief Rojas' story arc by having him quit the GCPD after Season 2 over Gordon's acceptance of Batman (since Rojas wanted him jailed), and then make him the finale villain of Season 3 (or 4, if they hadn't decided to integrate other DC heroes into the final season) as someone who's capturing both villains and the police who he perceives as enabling them.
They had a similar character called "Rumor" tho he wasn't done as well. He was totally gay for his boss which was fun I do think Rojas would have made a great villain, but it seemed season 3 and beyond weren't interested in continuing that storyline, especially since they wrote off Ellen Yin for no good reason.
Ya know, the fact that people like Joker and Zsasz easily get out of their cells and murder innocent people in Gotham, and neither the GCPD or Batman do really anything to actually stop them, it's not at all surprising that someone like Lockup would get fed up.
@@themanofmovies8104 Honestly these villains aren't much more sympathetic. Scarecrow is a terrorist who uses chemicals to drive people insane, Scarface is a mob boss. The only villain he is shown abusing who I would consider to be sympathetic is Harley since she is practically a child, but even then I wouldn't consider Harley a good person (especially after what she helps Joker do to Tim). If he was abusing someone like Mr. Freeze or Catwoman I'd agree with you more.
@@coolgreenbug7551would be better if he just started his own militia and went to war with both mobs at least that could do something to help Gotham a lil once both mobs are dead, tho he,l undoubtedly find some way to twist it and end up circling back around to somehow hurting regular people and taking things to far so nvm 🫤
I have a similar disdain for Harley, the show wanted us to see her as more than a henchgirl but I lost all sympathy after return of the joker. Considering what her grandkids would go on to do as well, I almost root for Bolton at the beginning. Really the only inmate I felt sorry for was arnold, simply because without scarface he’s mostly harmless.
@@MisterSandmanAU Regardless if it's cannon or not it's hard to have sympathy for a villain like Crane. And keep in mind Crane was planning on poisoning Gotham with fear gas in the "Dreams of Darkness" episode.
Lockup would have been right at home in a Batman Arkham game. Chiefly Arkham City. He could’ve been his own boss fight with him perhaps working as Strange’s right hand man.
I really liked the idea of a darker more torturous version of Batman with a character like Lock-Up. Whereas Batman will use questionable methods on criminals to get him information, he still knows how to hold back and not to go overboard, Lock-Up isn't afraid to break people for his own twisted sense of justice and protection. To me, you CAN in a way understand his ideas with how deranged and remorseless the villains of Batman's universe often are and that you could make the argument of 'En eye for an eye' with Lyle going to the methods he uses, but he only falls to their level and goes beyond in his twisted crusade for some form of justice. Batman would never allow himself to reach that point, as he knows exactly what would come next if he did.
I see Lock-Up in a different light. In the episode, he calls the Arkham inmates symptoms of the ineffectual authority figures. As vile and heartless as his methods and what he does later on, he does bring up a good point. Almost all the inmates usually escape and return to their criminal ways, adversely harming the citizens of Gotham. Batman usually defeats them and brings them back only for the cycle to continue. I can imagine living in Gotham City would not necessary be a good thing as you are always on the look out for some costume maniacs and their diabolical scheme, praying you don't get caught in their path. At some point you would question the justice system and how it handles these individuals incarcerations. If they existed in real life then I can assure you that people would demand a better, more effective way in keeping these lunatics at bay and not just shoving them away in a mental institution which does little to nothing in rehabilitating them or keeping them away from normal citizens. I perfectly see people like Bolton rising up and take action, IE vigilantism in dealing with these types of criminals. Most likely murder. Bolton in a way is also symptom. That being he is a result of what happens when individuals take it upon themselves to defend society against super criminals, due to the inept methods of the law. Lock-Up is wrong but it is for the right reasons. An extremist yes but ultimately to keep Gotham safe.
I think drowning as a method for Lockup murdering his prisoners (and I say murder intentionally. He's working outside of the law) works incredibly well thematically. Drowning is being surrounded by water, unable to surface, unable to breathe, overwhelmed by your surroundings until it inevitably kills you. It's one of the most terrifying, painful ways to go. Lockup drowning his prisoners is representative of his overall character: He is a sadistic, abusive bully who uses his authority to beat people (figuratively and literally) into submission, using his moral beliefs as an excuse to fulfill his hard-on for "justice" while he ruins those under his "care". He forces them into situations where they have no means to escape or defend themselves, and ultimately breaks their will for anything more. From start to finish, he *drowns* them in suffering, just as he seeks to drown them in sea-water.
One thing I love about BTAS as an adult is its commitment to the idea that even the worst villains still deserve basic human dignity and it is wrong to mistreat them. That's an idea our society should subscribe more to.
@@GoldenRedder First of all, the Joker is a fictional character and nobody in the world is or will ever be like him. Secondly, no, I would not. There is no justification for abusing prisoners, regardless of who they are. The purpose of prison should never be something as petty as revenge, or the indulgence of power fantasies. The purpose of prison should be rehabilitation first, and, if necessary, isolating those who are a danger to society to prevent injury to others.
I think the metaphor here with his eyes being visible in contrast to Batman’s mouth, is that Lock-Up sees no deeper than the surface of his perception and judges all those that fall beneath his cruel gaze. In contrast, Batman’s mouth being visible symbolizes that he believes in diplomacy and reform. Justice is traditionally seen as blind, blind as a bat is. Lock-Up sees all and resents what he perceives whereas Batman deals out judgement and parley with even those that society sees as irredeemable scum.
If this guy had been a "Punisher"-like character who actually goes out and starts committing vigilante murders of criminals and supervillains, that would've made things a bit more clear-cut. But the fact that he just imprisons his victims makes him a bit unintentionally sympathetic. One of the guys he's interested in locking up, for instance, is freaking *scarecrow* . If you've seen the latter seasons of Batman, THAT version of Scarecrow was an extremely dangerous psychopath who absolutely deserved to be locked away forever.
there was a cool BTAS comic story where scarecrow escaped arkham and went back to teaching. He gave up being the scarecrow until one of his prize students was raped by a jock. that guy deserved everything he got even though Batman saved him.
I feel like Lockup at least partially inspired the villain from the Batman Confidential run of comics called 'Bad Cop'...gonna assume whoever was on naming duty took a sick day
I'd be interested to see how Caped Crusader could reinvent Bolton. Especially since it'll be even more '30s/'40s influenced than BTAS was. How would a vigilante like him operate in a city like that?
I'd argue that Lockup's eyes being exposed shows his corrupted view of justice- Batman's eyes are hidden because justice is blind- furthermore, his mouth is exposed because justice is meant to speak for those without a voice. In contrast, Lockup's eyes are exposed, showing how his view of justice is very biased. His mouth is obscured, however, showing how he doesn't care to give anyone a voice, nor reason or express verbal compassion, rather simply only focusing on punishment. Also, I feel like a part of Lockup's character is definitely going after Frank Miller's version of Batman in the Dark Knight Returns series. This overwhelmingly fascist take on justice reeks of that interpretation of batman- furthermore, all the people that demographics that Frank Miller attacks in the Dark Knight Returns- "left wing" liberal media, rehabilitative progressive psychiatrists, less brutal police forces and so on all fall victim to Lockup. He definitely feels like a jab at Frank Miller's Batman writing- like a physical manifestation of his writing being put up against the actual batman, and not the fascist one he created. Great video!
Great to see some love for the Lego Batman Movie. Lockup was a really jarring villain when I watched the show as an adult for the first time, though it was a meaningful critique of vigilante justice, and moreso the abuse of institutional power
I’m not sure if it could sustain a whole video - I promise I really don’t like being negative about creative people’s work (as much as I bang on about how awful I’ve Got Batman In My Basement is 😂) but I may mention it in passing in another video I have in mind. I’ll definitely consider it though!
@@empatheticrambo4890 I have the basic structure of a video about Why Batman the Animated Series is the definitive take on Batman, and I think mentioning the Lego movie would be suitable there. I’ll have a play around with the script and see what I come up with!
Lock-up is just a bruh character: he look strong at the first glance but that guy is just a drill security warden. But i admit scaring Scarface that's not a small performance. Otherwise Lock-up is right about one thing: medias could be nefarious and treacherous about someone or about an event.
the only thing i think could improve the ending of Lock Up is if the Criminals from the beginning aided Batman. I feel that would fit perfectly with the contrast between Batman and Lock Up. Lock Up showed no compassion or mercy and all it leads him too is a sinking ship but thanks to the compassion Batman showed to the Criminals of Arkham now they're willingly aiding him even if it is simply because they just want revenge on Bolton.
This is a very interesting analysis of an underrated and obscure character. I applaud you for giving this guy attention. However, I must confess that I respectfully disagree with your conclusion. First off, Bolton is a totalitarian/dictator, but he is not a "fascist." A fascist is a "National Socialist." You can be a dictator without being a fascist but you cannot be a fascist without being a dictator. In fairness, this is a very common mistake. Beyond this critique however, I don't think the episode does a good job of making one hate Bolton or whatever right wing beliefs that he holds until they had him go off the deep end. It’s trying to get you to see Bolton as the bad guy. It’s trying to get you to see him a bully who uses excessive force to keep his prisoners in line. It’s trying to get you to say “Batman’s villains may be criminals but even THEY don’t deserve that. “ It fails every step of the way. First off, lets consider the obvious: Arkham is a cardboard prison. People escape at will. Second, we know that with the exception of the Ventriloquist, NONE of them repent. Third, let’s consider the prisoners. The Scarecrow performs scientific experiments on people for fun. In the animated series Harley helped the Joker torture a child for 3 weeks. In the comics Harley gave children bombs disguised as handheld games and BLEW THEM UP. The Joker has killed who knows how many people Two Face isn’t much better Zsasz keeps track on how may people he kills by tallying his body Firefly is an unrepentant pyro maniac Croc is a grisly killer who murders people in the most over the top manners Bane blew up the Arkham asylum and armed the inmates with automatic weaponry just to exhaust Batman and defeat him The Riddler kidnaps people and puts them in deathtraps Poison Ivy is a murderous eco-terrorist Scarface controls a sizable piece of Gotham’s underworld. None of these people deserve sympathy. They are unrepentant murderers. 4th, Batman’s brutality is FAR WORSE than Bolton’s. Isolated cases of kindness to criminals doesn't change that. Batman has dangled people in front of oncoming trains, threatened to cut off fingers, sealed a man in-between two stones of his cave, dropped people off the side of buildings, took off Mr. Freeze’s helmet and refused to give it back unless he gave him info, hacked into Black Mask’s pacemaker and threatened to dial up the beats per minute until his heart exploded, and that’s just SOME of his actions. All Bolton did was threaten murderous inmates, take “privileges,” chain people down, electrify their doors, and hold Scarface (a murderous crime boss) over termites. Is Bolton a good person? Not at all. He’s clearly a sadist. But he did his job. Only one man escaped during his tenure and he escaped not to go back to crime but just to escape the warden. Bolton did nothing wrong until he started kidnapping innocent people. Finally, one wonders if the Batman Beyond Bruce would take issue with Bolton's methods, considering he grows so ruthless that he lets security guards savagely beat Terry for stealing the batsuit.
No problem with differing views, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. The only thing I'd say to counter that is that you do mix the comic book characters with the BTAS versions of the characters, whereas I try to focus on the BTAS versions. Part of the reason I do this is that there are so many different Batman stories in the comics, touched by many different writers and artists, all with their own takes on who Batman and his rogues should be, their characterisation gets all jumbled up. I try to keep things focused on the BTAS versions, with a little bit of comic book reference material thrown in to add context. Another point that could be used to counter my view of Lock-Up as a fascist is, to paraphrase Barbie, he doesn't control the trains!
@@SerumLake or control the currency! im surprised no one else has quoted the barbie movie. but I guess the kind of people that get upset about right wing being linked to facism wouldnt watch that film...
@SerumLake Fair point that he kinda drifts off to non btas/tnba examples, but I'd say his point still stands in the fact that pretty much everyone he torments is unrepentant and even get worse as the show goes on. As well as that Batman's methods aren't that far off from Bolton's.
@FrozenJack2007 Well, those things are precisely what actual fascists advocate for. But nowadays, any character that does any assertive or authoritarian acts, or is generally a "meanie head" counts as fascist. At the very least with this character he alludes to wanting to establish a new order where he decides enforcement over the current government, but any other motives aside from suppressing crime aren't really mentioned in his idea of his dictatorship over the city.
I actually agreed with Bolton up until he started jailing civilians for almost no reason. I like Batman as much as the next guy but his rogue’s gallery deserves every bad thing they get and we all know it.
I always felt Lock-Up was an under used and developed character, specially considering his similarities to batman. He's highly trained, able to make his own tech (some of it near batman's level) on the limited funds he has, driven with a clear goal. And while some might call his views extreme, consider who he is dealing with. Ya, some of the b-list and minor villains they showed can invoke sympathy but imagine this episode had they used villains like Joker, Zsasz, Professor Pyg considering the levels of murder and pain they inflict; do you think the viewers would have been as sympathetic? Really think about the types of people contained in Arkham and tell me some of them don't deserve actual punishment other than just being locked up and psychoanalyzed occasionally? This is the light that would have made Lock-Up shine but that was not what the writers were going for as they needed him to be unlikable. Honestly, looking at his history and stuff, he was just a murdered parent or loved one away from being in the justice league. He had all of the markings and background of a hero, with only his anger issues keeping him from that title, leaving him an anti-hero.
I feel like the creators quickly removed him from the series because he made too many good points. Arkham WAS a revolving door for lunatics, the criminals didn't really care if they were sent there because it was relatively cosy. Batman KNEW that the likes of Joker always find a way to escape Arkham and kill more people and did anyone actually do anything to stop the pattern? At some point it turns into enabling. That JL episode where Joker was lobotomized was probably the best solution.
@@marelicainavokado I agree with you there. Lock-Up just made too much sense given the setting. They have played out the point a few times with things like putting batman on trial for making the villains and other such things. Batman exists to stop villains who never go away so its a endless cycle. So they introduce 'solution' characters like Lock-Up or the Red Hood or Damian Wayne or some other characters who take a more "kill them all" stance which forces Batman to save the villains. The Hush movie with the Riddler illustrated the problem at the end. Obviously you can't have a cartoon/comic where you keep killing off the villains or you run out of villains (or have to keep bring them back like Marvel does or have a multiverse) but you could move to some thing better like Superman throwing people into the other dimension or into that supermax prison in the ocean.
@@killjoy197im a big fan of batman, favorite fictional character since I was a child. But the animated series version objectively portrays his goals and ideals as wrong. In batman beyond he ends up jaded, he loses his company, if we say batman beyond is canon (I dont think it is personally as it makes the original story better). Then the obvious conclusion is Batman and his methods were wrong. Maybe the solution isnt one lock up is suggesting, but its obviously not Batman's and his solution ends up with no real change.
@@absolutefocus2749 Thats why over the series and animated movies they've offered different views such as the Red Hood's view that crime can only be controlled, not stopped. Then you have Damian Wayne's view that criminals should be executed (depending on the story). Or you could go with Super-Man's view in Injustice where he sent criminals to a underwater supermax for life. Batman's idea of making criminals too afraid to commit crimes doesn't work because there's too many of them, too many with powers/tech and the prison system in Gotham is a revolving door.
@@killjoy197 The bigger issue is trying to in a metaphorical sense cram in the message of music bad into a musical. Batman isnt the type of show due its story structure and need for a revolving door of villains where you can explore the topic of rehabilitation. Meaning youre just gona get unrealistic conclusions. In real life there are no superpowers and criminals in very rare circumstances break out of prison. My point is in certain comics, and certain batman stories you could tackle this issue from a phylosophical standpoint (killing joke Moore, or hell Watchmen also Moore, goddaym I love Moore) but BTAS just isnt the story properly tooled to handle this. They needed to straw man Lock up, and even still hes mostly right given how the show plays out with Batman beyond.
Been rewatching the whole Animated Series recently since I bougth the Bluray-collection this year, and I remember when I came across this episode that I thought "Huh, this is kind of a neat idea. How to make a "Batman, but too far..." Kind of like The Punisher, but make it fit in a PG rated cartoon." Because while I appreciated the effort and intentions behind Bolton as a character, I never really cared for the execution. They were simply put limited by the PG rating. But the vigilante who still believes in reform and the basis of the law vs one who goes full killer is an interesting one. I love it when Daredevil and The Punisher duke it out (their scene on the roof-top in Netflix Daredevil series is great), and it always seemed to me that Batman would benefit from his own Punisher like villain (and a Kingpin one for that matter, too). That's one of the reasons I love the Under the Red Hood movie, since Jason more or less becomes a Punisher style vigilante in that film. That, with the extra bonus of being one of Batmans failures (similar to his loss of his friend Harvey Dent) it adds a great deal of drama. I actually find it a pity that they redeemed Red Hood so fast in the comics. There are a lot of story potential with him as a villain/uneasy ally to the Batfamily than a straight up member of it. (I still like him as the Raphael of the Bat-family so to speak. I just whished we got more stories with him toeing the line before being redeemed first). So, yeah. Bolton is an interesting idea, but fails. And I guess it's because I find it unbelievable that someone who wants to go "tough on crime" and then feel like the system failed them after their overly harsh methods are criticised and they are punished for it, it just seems more likely that they would go full-on Punisher and murder the criminals or representatives of the "system" than build their own jail to keep them locked up. Just seems like unnecessary extra steps.
That's a fair assessment - I think Lock-Up has some severe control issues, which is why he wants to imprison people, rather than murder them outright. He must know that murder is wrong, and he thinks of himself as a good buy, but when the going gets tough it seems like his first course of action is to drown his prisoners. He is definitely very complex.
I've been getting back into Batman big time lately, and its really refreshing to see this reading of Bolton. I remember years ago when i first discovered this episode I'd always see people arguing that Bolton did nothing wrong, with no acknowledgement to how people like him do nothing to better the world, all they want is to exert power over others with no comprehension of nuance, or the fact that he's running a rehabilitation facility like a maximum security prison. I think there's actually something to say there, about Bolton as a criticism of the prison system, he's basically a walking personification of it
I must admit, I am baffled by the people that watch this episode and don’t see him as a reactionary, authoritarian, right wing lunatic. There’s a reason why he gets locked up in Arkham at the end, and it’s not because he’s the hero of the story!
@thebeetleball Dude.......have you seen some of the shit these fuckers in Arkham have done to go there and to KEEP going there? After seeing the closure of asylum brings people like Chris-Chan,Cyraxx and Daniel Larson back to our streets,imagine if those 3 were ARKHAM LEVEL SUPERVILLAINS? I think only more people especially seeing their personal rap sheets on the Internet at large would agree with Lock-Up even more.
@@SerumLake The issue with Lockup is that people focus on the specific people he abuses rather than what his abuse is meant to represent. We know that characters like Scarecrow and Harley (especially after she helps Joker torture Tim) are irredeemable monsters that cannot be fixed through the rehabilitation Arkham provides.
One thing I find very interesting is that in hindsight the Return of the Joker movie really casts a dark light on this episode: Bolton was more or less proven right, something I think haunted Bruce for years afterwards well into the Batman Beyond days, which is why Bruce is far more apathetic about trying to rehabilitate criminals in the Beyond era. Harley, a woman Bruce attempted to help numerous times throughout the course of the series, is unrepentant about being an accessory to the torture of a child and Arkham and the GCPD's inability to do anything about the Joker (as Bolton pointed out) more or less allowed it to happen. Hell, if you only go by the show Batman's only true canon redemption/mental recovery victory for his regular rogue's gallery in the show are Man-Bat and Ventriloquist, everyone else actually gets worse and more monstrous (Joker, Scarecrow, Baby Doll) and more mentally broken (Two-Face) or don't change at all (Poison Ivy, Mad Hatter, Riddler, Catwoman, etc...) And Bolton is honestly very correct about Arkham's security failings, I mean in Dreams in Darkness a dangerous criminal like Scarecrow was running an operation right under the place and they didn't even notice he was gone. This could also be a factor in Batman's increasingly dark demeanor/attitude in later series, Joker's constant escapes and rising body count, some of his villains becoming worse over time (Baby Doll tried to freaking nuke the city in Love is a Croc, practically destroying any sympathy points she had earlier), and this could be the reason Batman loses that optimism and compassion he openly showed earlier, a part of him felt people like Bolton had legitimate points, but he could never admit that. It also begs the question: What would Bruce have done with Joker had Tim not shot him?
Very well said, batman beyond being canon means the show itself is saying that Batman's methods and thought process are objectively wrong. His impact on Gotham's foundation was minimal, and its showed by him losing his company. He helped aleviate the symptoms, but he never cured gotham. Maybe lock up's solution isnt correct (definitely a big no to the needless torture) but Batman's solution and will imposed certainly arent correct either.
Wish there was more episodes with lock-up. I like the fact he is a less compassionate version of Batman and could have potential as recurring villain. He's not a unintelligent meathead either, with the gadgets he uses and they way he has outwitted the batman when capturing his victims. He could be a really threat to Gotham and Batman. Though would love Rumor and Lock-up to team up.
I feel the biggest irony is that if this character was present today, despite the critiques the character poses, it would fly over people's heads and Luck-Up would be very much adored.
@@Slick-Salamander Not quite. Lock-Up is more politically driven and targeted people like the media worker and an honest police office that he deemed weren't good enough or problem he didn't like. Where as Punisher dealt with the sickest of bastards that avoid getting punished by the long arm of the law or even the corrupt officials in power. I can understand how similar they would be, however Punisher doesn't like cops where as Lock-Up wants cops to be more like him. Lock-Up didn't even target the Joker, but Punisher would make a beeline for Joker.
Here's an idea from an armature writer. What if lock up is a fan of Batman and is intentionally trying to emulate him. He see's how batman cleans up the streets with fear, and how he vehemently sticks to his no killing rule. So in a situation where batman is out of the picture for some reason Lockup tries to fill the the void, then when Batman returns and confronts him about his crimes we can really see a cognitive dissonance split. Or he could be a member of the suicide squad. Some one who strangely enough sought out to be part of the team.
i like to think Lock-Up's costume is a nod to all the 90s Iron-age over exaggerated "Rob Liefeld" style super heroes that feature more muscle than the average human male, armored plating gear, big weapons and pouches, plenty of pouches.
Unnerving to see the scarecrow afraid? No sir. I was rather pleased to see the master of fear shaking in his boots over this massive monstrosity of a man. Lock-up has his flaws, but so to do we all.
I always saw potential in this character. If he wasn’t so on the nose I think he could make an interesting cinematic villain. Not the main villain of course, but as a henchman.
Yes, I agree. As he is it’d be very hard to sustain a lengthy story with him as the main antagonist. He definitely wold be suitable as the villain in a TV show two-parter though. I’m a little surprised he never showed up in the Arrowverse.
@@SerumLake That is a good point! He would have been a great antagonist for Oliver! Maybe Superman and Lois will have some kind of Batman spin-off that he could show up in.
Yeah, I think part of why I find him so interesting is on some small level we kinda agree with him. He is right when he says Arkham is just a revolving door with the amount of times the super criminals escape and looking at crimes joker, riddler and others have caused and get away with there is some small part that wishes they would locked up or Gotham actually doing more. But at the same time there’s Harley, the ventriloquist or Humpty Dumpty who are just mentally disturbed people who do need compassion. The character does have a well of potential if you look
Yes, practically everything is political. One of the core beliefs of conservatism is that punishments should be hard in order to dissuade people from committing crimes. Lock-Up is the literal personification of that philosophy.
I just watched this episode and knew immediately why there's been so little from this character since. *He comes off as primarily a spiteful strawman and not a human being.* There's a few scant moments where the writers empathize with his character, but for the most part, he's just spitting out bumper sticker slogans the whole episode. For a villain like this to work, you have to show what motivates someone like this. More than just rage, it's a misaimed compassion for victims of crime, channeled into rage that, 'Somebody should be doing something to stop this!!' It's an inability to _stop_ blaming. He should make unarguably correct points that nevertheless make you feel uncomfortable. A villain like Lock-Up should make you root for him at first, then despise yourself later for doing so. He should embody the trope of, 'Your ideas are correct, but you are a man too twisted to be allowed to decide who to force them on.' The episode at least understood enough to contrast Lock-Up's self-righteous rage against Batman's compassion, but they really could have leaned into this and made Batman have to *defend* why he has hope and gives people second chances.
The show runners couldnt defend Batmans viewpoint as either they think its wrong, or they couldnt continue to tell any stories if Batman was correct. Batman beyond shows us that bruce's opinions and methods were merely alleviating the symptoms, he never cured Gotham, lost his company and became jaded. By all measures Bruce was a failure.
Destroying TVs is like a running gag in the DCAU. Joker does it in "Joker's Wild" and "Joker's Millions," Two-Face does it in "Judgement Day," Mr. Freeze does it in "Heart of Ice," and even Batman does it in "World's Finest."
I feel that he would maybe work better as a Green Arrow villain rather than a Batman villain. Green Arrow is a pretty liberal guy, and having him fight a villain with authoritarian views makes sense.
I would've loved him to appear in the arkham games, especially in Arkham City. I definitely saw him being a boss and as hugo strange main henchmen. Sadly, he didn't even as an Easter egg.
Technically he actually was secretly mentioned in Origins. His name is on a file somewhere in Blackgate Penitentiary. I like to think he becomes Lock Up after Knight
The difference between them is that lock up wants an excuse to be his worst self while Batman tries to beat some sense till they worn out their villainous impulses.
Great video as always. I would say you said some things that I disagree with. Yeah it’s politics, yeah……….. I wouldn’t say many on the right have a simplistic view on life, my family is very conservative on both my dads and moms side and we often talk about it. We do see the parts of gray in between the black and white and the majority of the right don’t just try to lock everything away. I would say he’s far far right, and in my opinion just like someone who is far far left have a very simplistic view on life, neither is good and often times they can not bring themselves to understand the others side, or at least hear them out even.
The problem with Lock Up as I see it, is that in Universe fictional limitations of the story tropes work against a moral condemnation of the character. In the real world, the number of inmates who successfully break out of prison is pretty much non-existent from a statistical standpoint, in the fictional world of BTAS however this is simply not the case. The charismatic villeins of the show have to keep escaping from Arkham again and again and again so that Batman can defeat them in entertaining stories. This is all fine as far as entertainment goes, you turn a blind eye to the revolving door of escapes and that fact that Arkham seems incapable of tightening security for those stories as part of your suspension of disbelief but when you have a story that draws attention to it, the whole thing begins to fall apart. While there was censorship in the cartoon regarding what they could show, canonically most of Batman's rouge gallery are murders with many being depraved and psychotic, The Scarecrow literally just wants to torture people, violating their bodies in the name of his insane obsession with fear. In the real world, if we had someone like the Scarrow, a man who was fixated with torturing people, with some dying in his experiments and he was to keep breaking out of prison over a dozen times to carry this out, the public outcry over the complete and total failure of the prison authorities to keep the public safe would be such that the prison would at the very least be taken over by the Government who would send in the military to secure the facility with the administration facing jail time themselves for their failures. You then multiply this with all the number members of the Rouge's Gallery and it becomes even more clear just how utterly farcical the situation is. As I said, you can ignore this all in the name of fun stories, but if the show itself wants you to focus on it in a story about it, we then have a problem in that the logic of the show, unintentionally validates Bolton's perspective in a way that would not be in the real world. I've already talked about suspension shattering issue of the non-stop escapes but lets also look at another aspect, the issue of punishment/revenge vs reform/rehabilitation. Again we run into the problem of the fictional limits of the Universe, Batman's Rouge Gallery can't be 'cured' or 'reformed' because then he would not have these characters to fight in his dramatic stories, what is worse, you have the example of The Scarecrow in this story, who all the psychologists were never able to reach, never once make him want to stop brutalising and killing people...and the first and ONLY time we see him claim he was going to give up doing it...was in response to his fear at going back to Arkham and suffering violence and abuse from Bolton, thus validating him as being in the right. This is the ultimate failure of the episode, given the logic of the show we are presented with only 2 binary choices. 1. Uncurable and unreformable villeins will escape from Arkham weeks or months after they are put away to go out and inflict horror on innocent people. 2. Said villein's are kept inside by having their doors electrified (does I might add that they are not supposed to be using outside of designed times because, you know, they are in prison and strapping them to their beds. Yes in the real world there are other options, countries like Norway have among the highest success rates at preventing re-offending though building criminals up as human beings with extremely compassionate conditions and making them feel like they can take part in society etc. But that option is not on the table in this show, we are only given the above two options and the episode expects us to except the continued suffering and murder of innocent people to avoid minimal human rights abuses (remember at no point do we see a single inmate with a burse or a single accusation of direct physical violence on Bolton's part) as the moral choice. As I said, the limitation is built into the logic of the show in order to have Batman keep fighting these iconic villeins so it can't offer us a prison that is both highly secure and does not have any kind of inhuman treatment towards prisoners and a successful treatment and rehabilitation. For this reason I don't think the episode should have been made if it's simply unworkable given these built in show limitations where Batman has to keep fighting these same villeins over and over again, it breaks suspension to draw attention to it. If you are insistent in making this episode, then you have to follow though and go deeper than the show was realistically ever going to go. Have Batman question the utterly broken system of Arkham this is unable to keep criminals secure or reform them. First you would have to offer an explanation as to why it's so utterly broken and not working so that you do not unintentionally validate Bolton's view. One idea could be a conspiracy involving corruption at the highest level with Batman exposing it and having Arkham being completely restructured and the show making a bold and radical commitment to stop using the classic rouges gallery who are either properly secure in this new reformed Arkham or being actually rehabilitated for real with writers coming up with new, original, characters to replace them. With their being no chance the writers of the show would do this though given the popularity of these rouge gallery villeins, I do think that, as much as you can gain enjoyment from the episode when watched on a superficial level, the problems it presents when you think about it's ideas on a deeper level in relation to the in-Universe fictional limitations of the show, it simply does more harm than good and makes Batman look like a fool for choosing to blindly keep supporting the broken state of Arkham.
I was with you till your brought up the Norwegian Prison System. You ever heard and Anders Behring Breivik? That dude has the highest score amongst single killer Mass Shooters and last time he was checked in on,he was not the least bit sorry about what he did and acts like he still has rights and demands the government there to get him better books to read cause he is bored.
@@ZX-Gear My point of bringing up the Norwegian prison system was not about saying that outliers like Anders and other irredeemable, unreformable sociopaths, because yes I expect the uncomfortable reality that some people will never feel remorse for their crimes and reintegrate into society, getting such a comfortable time in prison was in any way compatible with "natural justice" in relation to their crimes. I was only referring to their approach statistically higher success rate in reforming and reintegrating people who are not complete evil monsters. Ultimately this raises a wider question about where you think priorities and objects of prison should be. Do we see prison a primarily about being a form justice for the victims of crimes and deterrent so the focus should be about making prison as unpleasant as possible? The positive side of this is the feeling of the victims and the victims close friends and families that justice was done giving them some level psychological closure. I personally am not convinced deterrent works as in my view most criminals do not weight up in their mind some logical risk/reward equation in their mind that harsher prison conditions would be factor in their decision to commit the crimes, but instead they either don't think at all in the moment or they simply convince themselves they wont get caught etc. The drawback, as I've said, is making prison Hell and messing up the heads of prison inmates further rather than the focus being compassion, reform and integration, leads to higher re-offending rates which impacts on the new victims. What is the priority? Do we sacrifice the victims of the crimes of unreformed criminals because of our desire for revenge against them for their previous crimes? I can only speak for myself of course, but as someone who has suffered the pain of terrible loss, my focus and desire is for society to adapt whatever methods in it's prison system that are statically most likely to prevent such pain in other people. Of course I'm no Saint, I'm only human, if someone murdered the person I am closest too and for the sake of this hypothetical they were not a monster like Anders who would never show remorse or be reformed, would I "like" the idea they were being treated with such compassion rather than being punished? Of course not, it would burn like molten steal placed against my skin, I'd be angry, I'd want them to suffer for the pain they caused me. But I know myself to know that, eventually, months or years down the line, I would be able to let go of it and my desire would be that the prison system adopt the approach that was most likely to make them reform and not kill again and bring that pain I felt towards other people. Of course it's not a binary choice between two extremes, could for example have a prison system that adopts a dule approach, using methods of compassionate reform against most criminals, putting the needs to protect future victims first, while going full North Korean gulag on absolute scum like Anders who will never reform or any other variation you can think of reflecting your personal moral values. All this is to say I don't have definitive answers to this issues, in part because I don't think there is on, prisons and the polices their peruse are social institutions are not a maths equation with a definitive answer, but rather constantly changing and adaptive that should, under ideal circumstances strike a balance between the general moral consensus and the higher values of society with a constant and ongoing debate regarding where those lines should be continually redrawn to best reflect that. In any case, I appreciate your prise for my main thesis in the post regarding how, really, the real issue is the built in limitations of the show mean it was impossible to make the wider political commentary about prison the writers wanted to tell work and in fact it unintentionally works against the messaging they wanted to tell.
@dominicsmith5588 Maybe there is a growing number of people who want a society of safety rather than freedom especially the disastrous consequences of unchecked freedom we have seen of recently? Call it complacency but people these days don't feel safe and would gladly trade their freedoms to be able to walk the streets without the risk of needing to call an ambulance in city areas.
@@dominicsmith5588Finally someone who gets it. While I disagree with some of your notions regarding the efficacy of reform. Youve hit the nail on the head 100% with the show's format painting Bruce as wrong. This is most blatantly seen with batman beyond, where its shown Batman has become jaded, lost his company and in the end he only ever alleviated the symptoms, and never was able to cure Gotham, his broken ideology still being used by Terry where the loop will probably repeat with Terry taking on a mentoring role in the future to some upstart. The show needs villains therefore Gotham will always have crime. Even if they never reused rogues, as said, you need villains therefore youll always have Gotham seem like its filled with crime. You either can have batman win in the end. OR Make there be significant jumps in time between encounters as time goes on, in the begining Batman is resting every day while near the end of the show while crime isnt solved, its more a monthly excercise Batman goes on. OR you can just not focus on trying to tell a story YOUR OWN STORY STRUCTURE DOESNT ALLOW YOU TO TELL. Why would you make a movie saying music is bad, but have the movie be a musical, its nonsensical. Batman due its format cant be a vehicle to try and tell stories about reform unless youre really gona change the foundation.
Do you think he was right to torture the mentally ill after they had been arrested? Or to lock up the doctors from Arkham, Commissioner Gordon, and Summer Gleeson?
@@SerumLake No one thinks Lockup was justified in kidnapping Gordon, the mayor, and the other civilians. However, it is harder to justify Lockup as being in the wrong when dealing with the other villains. Obviously torturing and bullying inmates is wrong, however, Lockup is completely correct in saying that Arkham is a revolving door of a prison, and his methods are effective in keeping the villains in check. I think a lot of people also have trouble having sympathy for the villains because they are all violent mob bosses, terrorists, and serial killers. An overgrown bully like Lockup looks like an angel in comparison.
I think they gave him a Baclava because it's part of a typical army/military police gear. And the drowning thing being a commentary on waterboarding as common a method of torture by the US government.
I wonder if Lockup was an inspiration for Quincy Sharp in the Arkham games. Both are officials at Arkham who decide the system is too lenient and brutalize the inmates.
The way I interpret the inverted mask of Lock Up is that for Batman, hiding his eyes makes him seem menacing when his mouth allows for some extremely humanizing expressions, and keeps him from feleing too distant or unknowable Lock Up hiding his mouth and exposing his eyes only reveas the anger driving his actions, his mouth only indenting through the mask when his rage needs a voice. And perhaps most ironically, it makes him look like a typical burglar, ski mask and all.
What if he gets out and has to do community service... at the Gotham zoo. Start plotline where his supposedly reformed personality slip and the way animals are treated is used as allegory for the prison system in a way that doesn't lean on arkham
I'm currently doing a full re-watch of the DCAU and finished Batman the Animated Series (in production order) a few weeks ago, along with Mask of the Phantasm and Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero and even watched the cutscenes from the game The Adventures of Batman and Robin (which has surprisingly amazing animation and visuals by the way) which some consider to be the lost episode of the Animated Series. Right now I'm re-reading all the tie-in comics like The Batman Adventures, The Batman and Robin Adventures, the comic version of Mask of the Phantasm and SubZero etc. and a lot of stuff you recommended in one of your videos (thank you very much for that by the way) and then moving on to Superman the Animated Series and then The New Batman Adventures. Lock-Up was one of the last episodes I saw and honestly it started off with potential but for me it really dragged in the middle and ended pretty anticlimactically however I did like at the very end when he ended up in Arkham. One more thing I didn't necessarily care for was how feeble and cowardly they portrayed Scarecrow. I get they were trying to hype up Bolton by basically saying that if the self-proclaimed master of fear is afraid of him then he must be a big deal, but ultimately I think it just made Scarecrow seem less of a threat. It's really a shame too because after Dreams in Darkness, Scarecrow barely had any appearances. Honestly for me some of his most memorable appearances where in the Batman Adventures comics. I especially love the one where Jonathan Crane just wanted to go back to teaching but ultimately ended up falling back to his old ways when one of his students was being abused and sought to torture her abuser and I honestly think that if expanded a bit more it would have made a really great episode. Maybe even the best Scarecrow episode in the Animated Series (at least prior to his perfected design and characterization in TNBA). Regardless I'm still extremely grateful that we got his revamped version from The New Batman Adventures which was really an improvement on every level and Never Fear along with Over the Edge are some of my all-time favourite DCAU episodes.
As much as I love BTAS, you’re right, they didn’t always get the most out of the villains. However, for every time they missed the mark we have stories like Heart of Ice, Two-Face, Almost Got ‘Im, and Feat of Clay.
@@SerumLake I know you have said that for you your least favourite episode of the Animated Series is I've Got Batman in my Basement, but on a rewatch, I personally couldn't stand the episode Cat Scratch Fever. I didn't find the story interesting at all, the animation was just awful (some of AKOM's worst work) and I was never more compelled to just look at my phone out of boredom, which I did so much I had to watch the episode again. While that may have been my least favourite episode, the only episode I genuinely nodded off while watching was The Terrible Trio.
I have to say that I don’t mind The Terrible Trio. I wouldn’t put it on a best episode list though! Regarding Cat Scratch Fever, I agree that it’s not a good episode. If I did a bottom 10 episodes it’d be on the list!
If in these universe there are victims of Arkham inmates who actually die, Lockup is a logical reaction from society, who observe Batman fight homicidal maniacs over and over only for them to escape or be released due to corruption of the system. Though I think that role is already filled better with Ra'S Al Ghul and his League of Assassins.
I feel like Lock-Up was at least partially made in criticism of some of Frank Miller’s… eh, let’s be nice and call them ‘eccentricities’ when writing Batman.
Not accurate at all. Going full far-left results in, basically, a full-blown hippy nation that abolishes classism and promotes love and solidarity; where the citizens hold the power and people govern their own lives. Funny enough, I think Libertarians would be all for a far-left nation, despite them having right-wing ideology in most things.
Underneath it all, Lock-Up is empty inside. He has nothing except anger and violence. He lives in a cell, the only luxury he allows himself is a chair and a television, and given that we only see it used to watch the news, that may be solely to keep aware of what's going on in the world and not entertainment. Perhaps that is because the only thing that has ever given him any happiness is bullying and hurting others, hating anyone who gets in the way of that. Even worse is how he projects his anger when someone gets in the way of his bullying and violence. The "Liberal, Permissive Media"", the "Gutless Police", the "Coddling Doctors", and the "Mindless Bureaucrats". The "Liberal, Permissive Media" that only reports on the news going on in Gotham and never shows any bias. The "Gutless Police" regularly shown risking life and limb to fight crime. The "Coddling Doctors" whose job it is to treat the mentally unwell that make up 90% of Arkham Asylum's population. The "Mindless Bureaucrats", when the mayor of Gotham has regularly been shown to be a kind and compassionate person bereft of the corruption we usually expect of people in government. Lock-Up's insults have no basis in reality, they're just the barks of a mad dog. And yes, Lock-Up is genuinely insane. Sane people don't put on a costume and start imprisoning people without a trial, and they certainly don't go around making enemies of supervillains. I can promise you, the reason why we never saw him again in TAS is because less than a day after being locked up in Arkham, Scarface made a distraction so that Scarecrow and Poison Ivy could drop a poison gas bomb into his cell, then stood there watching as the man died, powerless to escape from his imprisonment.
Lockup being a random criminal in the Batman adventures comic is a thing I see a lot. Comics and shows allow a villain to have complex motivations once before they just become another monster with a theme. Two-face started out with a warped sense of Justice taking matters into his own hands. Then later they still reference that in the story but his actual actions just paint him as a bank robber with a number fetish
I joke around with a friend who started to show me all the DC stuff (Never had interest in Super Heroes) and I said after the episode ,,What if he was the Arkham Knight?"
I disagree that Lock-Up is necessarily a 'right-winger,' or at least I would argue that he is not right-wing by today's standards. It would seem more to me that Lock-Up is a direct reference to police brutality and vigilantism, from which originates the desire to inflict pain on those who are legitimately guilty of severe moral wrong. As you've pointed out in your other videos, all of the villains in BTAS seem to be reflections of Batman. If that is the case, then Lock-Up is a reflection of Batman's desire to lash out at criminals he is punishing and, ideally, take them off the streets permanently (ie: Not only by locking them up, but by breaking their spirits.) Batman is only able to be himself by exercising significant restraint against himself. In that sense, he is ''locking away' a part of himself. This might sound like a stretch, but in fact this specific motif of Batman needing to heavily compartmentalize himself in order to control his anger has already been explored, much more directly, in countless other Batman media. I feel that this explanation so satisfyingly describes the motive behind the character of Lock-Up, that no insertion of a so-called 'political lens' is needed to understand the character. Now, I'm so confident in the above analysis that I'm sure I could convince you, a hardcore BTAS fan and UA-camr, of my proffered explanation-- _If only I left it at that._ However, I don't feel personally satisfied simply debunking the idea that Lock-Up is necessarily right-wing. Rather, at the risk of completely blowing my credibility, I also feel it necessary to point out the inherent foolishness of making this a political conversation at all, and specifically of dismissing someone's methods on the basis of their being "right-wing" alone. You do sound like an Englishman, so I might not be able to convince you, even if I were able to successfully articulate my point of view (of which I am not certain in my ability,) but I feel like giving a crack at it regardless. By yesterday's standards, perhaps that case could be more elegantly made that Lockup is 'right-wing' (there was, after all, an ongoing conversation within political circles, at the time of BTAS's creation, about the viability/ ethicality of torture against POWs as a means of extracting information.) Looking at things objectively, however, we can see that Lock-Up is anything but a by-the-books, 'law and order' sort of fellow that you'd typically associate with being right-wing. He is completely ruthless against criminals, to the point of going outside the law to imprison innocent people he perceives could be a threat to civilization in a grander sense; he additionally appears to be what we would call a sadist looking for justification. In other words, Lock-Up is both a mental case and a criminal, just like anyone else in Arkham Asylum, and is therefore a _target,_ rather than an _ally_ of the right-wing. His impulses clearly have nothing to politics, and everything to do with his own God-complex. Further, I think it is entirely unwholesome to claim that the left has some kind of a monopoly on compassion and 'self-awareness.' Our own personal opinions aside, these things are not mutually exclusive to either political persuasion, at least not inherently. They additionally seem to be mostly absent from today's left-wing crowd, which seems to have adopted a hollow, bureaucratic interpretation of what it means to have 'compassion,' (ie: compassion on paper, not in practice,) and ironically seem to lack compassion (to the point of often advocating for extrajudicial vigilantism against political dissidents) when dealing with certain types of people. However, if you are instead willing to be ideologically liberal when interpreting Lock-Up, such as by loosely generalizing his character into the vague personification of a 'tough on crime' approach to law enforcement (which would therefore make him 'right-wing by proxy' in the eyes of many) then what does that necessarily make Batman? In accordance with his own beliefs, he beats criminals and throws them in jail. By this token, Batman is, for the most part, a less extreme version of Lockdown. Does that make Batman 'right-wing'? Are the ordinary police of Gotham City, who are even less extreme than Batman, therefore to be considered 'left-wing'? Or, are they still 'right-wing,' because they are still on team law-and-order? I think I've already made my point as to the silliness of this endeavor, but let's go one final step further with it: If the mere embrasure of law and order is right-wing, then what can be considered left-wing? Criminality? Do you really want to live in an ideological interpretation of the world where being left-wing means being pro-crime?
So a couple of things: 1. Lock-up literally criticises the media for being “liberal”, and views that as a significant enough crime to lock Summer Gleeson up. 2. Lock-Up is the personification of the right wing view on punishment - namely that the punishment should be firm, with little consideration for shades of grey, in order to act as a deterrent (which doesn’t work, by the way) - but taken to an extreme. 3. The writers of the episode have described Lock-Up as a proto-MAGA supporter. If the writers say he’s right wing, that makes him right wing in my books. You are right that there are elements of Batman that are right wing, but it varies depending on who’s writing him. For instance, Frank Miller writes an anti-establishment, Randian Batman, who’s also a bit of an anarchist. But my videos always focus on the BTAS Batman, who is waaaay more liberal. He provides free healthcare to Gotham’s poor, funds a halfway house for repentant criminals, defends people of colour from being evicted from their homes in the slums, demands that his company cut ties with a slash and burn outfit in the rain forest - I could go on.
I completely agree with this. It seems like he's imprinting his own political bias on the character that doesn't have any leanings on a political spectrum.
Thank you. I was going to post about how disingenuous it is to force modern day politics into an old cartoon which was trying to convey deeper points about humanity as a whole. But you put it into words better than I could've.
In all fairness, police brutality is usually seen as a specifically right wing vice. But, if things were under a Soviet style government, would that make it “right wing?”
Another difference between Lock-Up and Batman are their views towards the oppressed. We all know that Batman genuinely is a good person who wants to protect the innocent and he doesn't vent his frustrations on any of the villains, whether physically or verbally. Meanwhile, Lock-Up just wants to be in control; he doesn't care about the people and he NEVER did. That's too complicated for him. Instead, he goes the easy way out: punishing the guilty. Or who he sees as that.
I wonder if Lockup and Anarchy ever crossed paths in the comics. Having a right-wing extremist and a leftwing extremist in the same story seems to easy to pass up
Isn't viewing a character as either left or right, by your definition in this video, a simplistic black and white worldview thing to do that right wingers tend to do?
@@crispychips7161 not at all. This was, what, two sentences in an 8 minute video about a character that was written as a criticism of right wing ideology. Additionally one of those sentences was a joke mocking Fox News. It is a generalisation, yes, but is not comparable to an ideology. Let’s compare who is harmed by my light mocking with people who are harmed every day by conservative policies. Hopefully you see the difference now.
@@SerumLake oh, I get the joke. i hear it meny times "my political opponents are evil terrorists. Laugh." This seems less like a funny joke and more like you trying to pass a narrative. Jesus, the title of the video is called "the right wing batman "with the thumbnail boldly saying "fascist" You don't even use evidence for what makes bolton fascistic other than hateing criminals and being a corrupt enforcer. You quote nothing in the video that directly implies he's a fascist I haven't heard him spout fascist doctrine or an interview implying he's a fascist. Just the underlying premise of him bullying and murdering criminals and these "jokes." Sprinkled across your video. Also, that wessley response you made in your last comment I'd just like to address. Yeah, no shit you do less damage than a whole ass political movement that wasn't the comments original point. he was pointing out that you have the same black and white worldview that you attribute to violent fascists. Not a good look.
@@SerumLake 'A Stalin functionary admitted, Innocent people were arrested: naturally - otherwise no one would be frightened. If people were arrested only for specific misdemeanours, all the others would feel safe and so become ripe for treason.' -Paul Johnson When the police officers are right wing, tough on crime is a right wing position and the left is anarchists. When the police officers are left wing, tough on crime is a left wing position and the right is libertarian. It has nothing to do with ideology- it is the purest expressions of Lenin's 'who/whom'.
I find it ironic how much you deride Lock-Up as a right wing man, and then say that right wingers view the world as black/white, while you yourself paint the right with a black brush, using Lock-Up as your example when most people, even on the right, would look at him as a nut. Nuance isn't restricted to a political ideology
I don't think you're correct about your assumptions about political parties, I think there are gray areas displayed in everyone. You did a great analysis of the character, however, I personally do not feel that he is entirely some identifiably right-winged individual, rather simply an authoritative one.
That’s cool, you don’t have to agree with me. I’d just add that, for me, the key thing that identifies him as a right winger is his approach to crime and punishment - he’s the embodiment of the conservative stance of zero tolerance for crime, issuing harsh penalties as a deterrent. Then there’s the fact that he locks up Summer Gleeson simply for being “permissive” and “liberal”. In his mind tolerance and understanding are dirty words. If you get the chance I’d recommend listening to some of the interviews that the writer of this episode, Robert Skir, has done in recent years on Batman the Animated Podcast and Batman the Animated Series Podcast. He has talked at length about how depressing he finds it that Lock-Up is still relevant today with the rise of populism and anti-intellectualism, particularly in the United States.
@@SerumLakeI understand that he might be a commentary on EXTREME right wing but it feels like you wouldn't also criticize EXTREME left wing becouse it's just as bad
@@jaredgarcia8638 Yup. And yes, they are indeed of opposite ideologies but I think they share the same fanatical drive for societal reform, not on the level of individuals as Batman does but of entire systems and structures. Again, this is only my head canon. The divergence and juxtaposition of their views could make for a story point for a more talented writer than myself.
I started watching Peaky Blinders recently and they described the political spectrum as a circle, rather than a line. If you head off in one direction, you'll end up meeting up with the other side when you go too far. I thought that was quite clever.
I see where you’re coming from, but there are a couple of things that indicate he is intended to be an extreme right wing figure. 1) He represents the right wing view that the only way to tackle crime is to use harsh punishment as a deterrent, with minimal interest in the cause of criminal behaviour. 2) He views being liberal as a crime - hence why he imprisons Summer Gleeson (that one is the big giveaway) 3) The director of this episode has since told me that, yes, Lock-Up is a fascist. If not for TV censors, Lock Up would’ve likely executed his prisoners - or at least would’ve tried to. This was also backed up by the episode’s writer Bob Skir’s appearance on Batman the Animated Podcast, and more recently Batman the Animated Series Podcast. I recommend listening to those podcasts if you’re interested in BTAS, they have lots of cool insights from people that worked on the show.
@@SerumLake Oh alright, thanks. He did strike me more as an absolutist authoritarian, he reminds me a lot of that other villain from Batman Beyond, that guy was a conspiracy nut hellbent on blowing up government offices
You're right that he's a hardline authoritarian, but he has the overtones of rightwing authoritarianism. He's very much the American tough-on-crime approach taken to its (il)logical extreme, rather than, say, a Stasi agent.
Lock-Up is seriously flawed, but let's not pretend Batman's approach makes perfect sense. In the Batman/Punisher comic you showed a few panels of, Punisher was about half a second away from saving thousands of people's lives until Batman stopped him to save one life - that of an unrepentant serial killer. If that's "compassion", as you put it, then it's severely misplaced. I like the idea I've seen a few other commentors say: it should've begun with Lock-Up using his methods on inmates like Joker to get the audience rooting for him, then show him abusing the more vulnerable inmates.
But it would still be wrong since it still avoids the main issue: Arkham is a hospital first. It is there to help people, even someone like The Joker. If her wants to be that cruel he should get a job at Blackgate.
Even more fucked-up is the Batman/Judge Dredd crossover, which is the exact same... except Judge Dredd is *acting completely within the confines of his universe's law*.
@@jordanloux3883 I mean when you think of the Nuremberg Trials though how many war criminals did they allow to live so long as they got "help?" Some people at the end of the day refuse to change or become better, and will actively drag others down with them if they aren't stopped
@@adrianshephard378 You did know that Nuremberg was a kangaroo court and a completely illegal abuse of justice, right? People were tortured into signing confessions in a language they didn't understand. If at any time you see injustice and mention Nuremberg was good, you become a hypocrite.
Something I thought on about, with the character Lock-Up, and a Superman character from the episode Prototype, I think his name was Sergeant Mills, basically that combined both kind of gave off Judge Dredd vibes(in the homage sense)
I feel like your assessment that he is right wing is ill fitting. he represents an aspect of humanity as a whole. pure hatred and disregard for those he thinks morally deficient and there is not a single political philosophy without people like that.
He takes a specific right-wing tinge to it, though. "Law and order" and those who are "weak" (morally) or "too soft". A left-wing Lock-Up would be... err, he'd just be Anarky.
@@anon9469 A left wing Lock-up would be going after those he deemed rich and powerful and who were oppressing the poor/minorities/anyone who won’t get on with his scheme against the rich and powerful.
@@anon9469 I think we're overlooking something important here: when we're discussing his expression on "permissive liberal media", he may very well not be talking about Liberal/Leftist policies, he (considering the time period being the 90's) could be saying that the information is given out liberally by the media to glorify and praise the criminals it reports on. He views the news reporters constantly showing off these villains roaming around the city and getting people to turn into their channels, and they may be doing it just to get a quick buck.
In the 90's when this aired the last riot involved millions of damages and multiple fatalities but was derided by media as a horrific event. for the last 6 years, all but one riot in the US was considered justified ans when a man decided to kill police from a parking garage in Dallas social media tried to justify his actions. Between that and extremely permissive actions in mass looting situations and the release of criminals who kill within weeks of release It'd be no surprise that he's gained footing. Hell, on the fictional side, you think the random Gotham citizen really likes the fact that scarecrow runs out of Arkham for the 87th time to terrorize the city? Or the joker kills another dozen?
Thank you very much. Somebody has finally made this point. Like yeah Lock-up has narcissistic problems but why tf are we out here defending criminals that have killed dozens of people in Gotham. I really doubt that an average Joe in Gotham would view Lock-up as a villain given the fact that he tortures ACTUAL villains
Look up, made me think of a an old saying of eyes are the window to the soul because I can imagine the reason there’s nothing covering his eyes is because he has nothing to hide like announcing to the world. This is his true self and I also feel like it’s a way of shedding. His original persona has Lyle and becoming lock up 24 seven because once his costume is removed, he still the same, as if he’s accepted this new position, and this kind of mirrors Batman away, especially more recent comics, where Batman treats the persona of Bruce Wayne, like his costume, and Batman is his true persona
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #1 НАЧАЛО ПУТЕШЕСТВИЯ [Новый сезон] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/380Q7gLWGvk/mqdefault.jpg)
What I find somewhat ironic about his character and what he symbolizes is WHO he punishes. Everyone at Arkham is mentally unstable and are criminals yes, but he selects those that he has physical power over. Harley Quinn, Scarecrow, the Ventriloquist/Scarface are all physically weaker than him and can’t fight back without some sort of weapon. He chooses to physically and mentally abuse them.
None of his examples include the big names like Joker, Two-Face, or Killer Croc. It’s not about punishing criminals that deserve it, it’s about control and the superiority he has over them. If he practiced what he preached, his methods would apply to every single criminal in Arkham
That's a great point! It really emphasises what a cowardly bully he is. It seems like his costume gives him the confidence to fight, although Batman deals with him pretty easily.
So, Lock-Up is also a bully?
I never noticed this but it makes sense. Good eye.
@@SerumLakeI always took the reason they peeked these three was to show the flaws/greys of Bolton actions. If it was someone like joker or zsasz being punished by him, I’d doubt anyone would have gone against him with the horrible crimes they’ve done. But with people like Harley or the ventriloquist we know these are people who are just mentally unwell and need help. This is why I feel lock up should be used more because on some level it is insane the amount of times Arkham let prisoners escape or how unaffected gotham can be so we would want more control over these criminals but Bolton takes it to the extreme.
He would also play an interesting role because he would also want to stop criminals escaping so he could both be a reluctant alley or enemy in a situation
Heaven forbid how he would react to Harley being Bi and having a relationship with Ivy.
Actually, that would make a funny Harley Quinn tv series episode.
I think Lockup’s costume is intentionally an extreme version of police swat armor in the show
Yes, he definitely views himself as being the ultimate authority, and isn’t afraid of getting his hands dirty.
@@SerumLake that and much like Robocop before it shows the militarization of police in Americs.
It also seems inspired by Nineties Antihero costumes in Image Comics line. The Dark Age '80s and '90s had lots of killer superheroes.
@@darlalathan6143 i can see that!
@@darlalathan6143 Yes, very true. He wouldn't be out of place in some of those comics. I could see him as part of Youngblood or something :D
I think Lockup's vs Batman's eyes might be a riff on "justice is blind."
that's a good observation!
Lockup's is just a sadist. Is not even vengeance. As vengeance is to harm someone that harmed you. Is just sadism (getting pleasure on harming others).
Batman has to do more with justice (to right a wrong) and a limited vengeance.
I thought the same thing
A very good observation (pun intended). But I want to add another interpretation: there is the saying that "the eyes are the windows into the soul." The way I see it, Batman's white eyes allow a certain edge to them. Because you can't see his eyes, you can't really tell what kind of man is under the cowl. He leaves his criminals guessing when he strikes them. But with Lockup's eyes, there is no questioning it: he's either going to kill you or he's going to torture you and he's going to enjoy every second of it. And that strikes fear of knowing what he's going to do, unlike Batman who leaves you in the dark.
I also feel it might be evocative of the eyes from 1984. Big Brother, always watching
Batman doesn't kill because he's afraid of becoming the Joker, it's because he's afraid of becoming this kind of guy
If this guy killed the joker... would that be a bad thing?
I mean, it's the FUCKING joker.
It just washes off the back of The Punisher and Red Hood. Are either of them 300IQ billionaires? Batman is supposed to be about self-control.
Batman also doesn’t kill because of the loss he felt when his parents got murdered.
He values life, and sees taking it as the worst thing one can do to anyone else.
Yeah, I think that makes more sense. Somewhat justified for this Batman when he encountered the Justice Lords in Justice League (or were the Justice Lords in Unlimited? I can't remember).
@@Blundabus1337The real answer here is that the city of Gotham needs looser laws for giving supervillains the death penalty rather than it being Batman’s problem/issue.
Lockup ironically seems like the version of Batman that people claim Batman is
The whole reason he was created.
The version of Batman liberal leftists claim he is.
@@junea2669 That would be the Godamn All-Star Batman.
@@jamesbrice3267 You know what? Nevermind me, that one is.
@@junea2669 tbf there are some pretty poorly written batmans out there
While perhaps it's not intentional, Batman's costume showing his mouth (and also having prominent ears) reflects the idea that batman is a voice of the people, and listens to those who want to speak. See Baby Doll. Lock-Up, on the other hand, simply observes what he believes is good or bad and acts on it, often cruelly, without any idea of what is just or correct. Also police parallels but that's more of a Prometheus thing.
That's a great observation, thanks for sharing it!
A vigilante like Lockup or the Punisher popping up would be a natural reaction to the increasingly hellish criminal underworld.
The difference is that Punisher wants to eliminate it while Lockup wants it to suffer.
I think they had Lock-up not kill them because, well, the series won't last very long if the head of security at Arkham just offed the joker, riddler, ect.
I doubt anyone would be upset if some crazy security guard killed the joker, except for batman. If lock-up is right wing, then so is red hood....and spoilers: most people side with red hood on killing the joker.
@@Blundabus1337 After living in s o c i e t y for as long as people are, they would agree with actually punishing criminals instead of this revolving door system Gotham has. Instead of using the tame animated series, make it exactly like the mature shows and people quickly agree with him.
@@dansmith16the criminals are being punished either way, if they're being sent to an Arkham with or without Bolton, or to a regular prison. What benefit does torturing them give? And you're talking about a revolving door system, but scarecrow escapes BECAUSE Bolton is torturing him.
@@dansmith16 People like you are why the supervillains exist in the first place in the DC universe. People with your mindset get into political power and focus more on punishment than fixing the problem. This leads to people becoming more desperate and thus inclined to crime because specific needs are not met in reality. In DC due to how things work in that universe, this ends up creating folks like Mr. Freeze, The Parasite, or Dr. Destiny,
@@Blundabus1337 Bolton was indifferent to why many of the criminals commited their crimes. Yes, what they did was wrong, but some of them were clearly suffering some form of mental illness that made them act the way they did.
Sure, you still had irredeemable monsters like The Joker who revels in what he does, but the likes of Arnold Wesker (aka the Ventriloquist) was mostly just a severely unwell man who didn't want to be the way he was. Torturing someone like Wesker doesn't solve anything but he still has a chance to be redeemed and live a relatively normal life without being a danger to society with access to proper help and treatment.
Lock-Up is basically what the people who criticize and don't know who Batman is think Batman is. One thing I loved about the animated series is how they don't use Arkham Asylum as just a stand in for a prison, it actually is a mental ward for sick patients (Killer Croc isn't even put in Arkham because he's found to be cognizant of his wrong doings) and so when there is someone who is terrorizing the patients that, realistically, is seen as an awful awful thing.
Killer croc has been put in arkham though. He was there in Trial
Did you forget to upload?
Yeah, even in TNBA he gets transported to prison after being declared sane
Lock-Up is like the Batman universe's equivalent to Rorschach from Watchmen, in terms of methods and general attitude towards criminality.
@@milli5968Arkham seems to have more high-tech facilities than normal prisons. Mr. Freeze is in Arkham, and he’s not insane. Plus, that episode hinted Croc was being moved to normal prison before Baby Doll freed him.
Personally I think Lock Up should have been the season finale rather than "Batgirl Returns" since it closes this sutle "character arc" of Batman in the season that I don't think many notice. Looking back at season 3, it that has many "villain reform" episodes like Second Chance (which focus on Two Face), Catwalk (focus on Catwoman), Harley's Holiday (focus on Harley) and House and Garden (focus on Poison Ivy), in which the villains try to reform only to go back to crime in the end . If the season ended with the Lock Up episode it would give more meaning for Lock Up arguments (the villains failures supporting Lock Up ideology), as well Batman's refusal to join him (showing how he still has compassion even after the villains failed and refuse to reform)
That’s an interesting observation that I hadn’t considered before. Thanks for sharing it.
I've always appreciated Batman's philosophy of "hate the sin, but love the sinner." It was played for laughs on the '60s show, but even there I took it seriously. And it's not just bleeding-heart sentiment on Batman's part, because there's an unspoken element of pragmatism to the argument: if it ever became completely clear that the villains couldn't or wouldn't reform, Batman would have to violate his moral code and kill them in order to guarantee Gotham's safety. I truly believe that, if only it were legal, Batman would call for every member of the Rogues Gallery to be lobotomized so he could prevent them from ever again committing crimes without having to murder them.
That actually happened in the alternate universe episode of Justice League, so you're probably right!
I do honestly hate villian reforms unless it changes the character in a strong or noticable way. It just feels like a failure of the bottle episodes the plot is to worried about rushing things back to staus quo instead of making characters more interesting. Such as having scare crow get semi reforned by seeing a family member or love intetest hurt by a gang and using his fear toxin on them. He partners with batman to get revenge but is too hostile yet at the same the likes the idea of doing some personal good. Batman shows him how to be better so now hes a grey character instead of pure bad.
@@thewhitewolf58 I see your point however I think reform episodes in BTAS work pretty well because they go beyond the typical formula of "villain tries to be good and failed". Not only some of them like "Birds of Feather" highlight how the problem aren't the villains but also Gotham's corruption and how doesn't inspire them to want to be better (why would want to reform in place where riches look down upon the low-classes and villain can easly escape from prision?) but, as UA-camr pointed out, they develop the villains by diving into a simple question "what the villains ACTUALLY want?"
Take the Riddler for exemple. When he was introduced, he just wanted to get revenge on the evil CEO who stole his project, cleary wanting money and recognition for something he made. In "Riddler's Reform" He gets all this. He's has contracts with many toy companies, is famous, popular, all he wanted.... and yet still fails bc of his inability to accept that Batman is smart than him. Same goes for Catwoman, who started as animal activist to , in her reform episode, reveal that what she truly loved was the thrill of the heist and challenging Batman.
As with all good batman villains, lockup is holding a mirror up to an aspect of the bat and twisting it
well said.
What makes Lock-Up more shocking to me isn't so much any political affiliation but the GENERAL moral question he gives you; is it alright to torture criminals who are already punished?
The lot of Arkham are not innocent angels in many cases though a lot are tragic in their origins. Regardless of that, how far is too far when it comes to dealing out 'justice' and how do we really decide how much one should get for their crimes.
What makes Lock-Up so incredibly dangerous is how he PLANS and dishes out his 'justice', by putting the criminal in a compromising situation where they are unable to defend themselves in a cruel twist of irony as many of their own victims.
The problem is Lock-Up isn't in it for the victims. This isn't retaliation or even justification. He sees and views anyone who did something wrong in his eyes as fitting to his abuse and pain, no matter how petty their crimes are.
Batman stomps all levels of criminals but when he's done, HE'S DONE. Lock-Up is someone who wouldn't stop until his victim is dead which he would then blame on them not being able to take it.
And to drive home how creepy he came off to me, consider how abusive Joker is to Harley. From the way things sounded, Lock-Up came off as stepping over the line in a way that I won't mention here that a lot of media never even implied that Joker did to Harley, at least the stuff aimed at kids.
And if it wasn't any more of a fist to the face that Lock-Up is a contrast of Batman, THE DUDE IS NEARLY IDENTICAL TO BRUCE. Bruce is looking at himself not so much if he became a super villain but had he let his hatred of vengeance take over him in a NORMAL job to the point he becomes abusive to everyone because "someone has to take the hits to learn."
Ironically I'm on a project writing a villain like this but it disturbs me that people like this exist and not just in law enforcement. People like this exist in all professions, with the belief that their protection is needed and I've learned through experience this attitude has no alignment political. Anyone who becomes obsessed with power and control can turn into this and it's AWFUL.
Edit; about his mouth. What's up with that? You'd think they'd just allow for basic movements of the lower cowl which is often down for characters in costumes like that but....the went so detailed in his cowl you see his TONGUE through it and it makes you realize why they don't usually animate the mouth under full masks like that (cough spiderman cough). That may have been an error.
What makes Lock-Up even more horrible is that non-super Arkham inmates are probably homeless people with schizophrenia, PTSD-affected Vietnam veterans, or substance abusers.
Exactly. I feel like he focuses way too much on the politics of it. "Right-wingers aren't compassionate." There’s a fine line between helping someone mentally ill and stopping violent criminals. Just look at cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York, all run by leftists. Corruption & abuse of power knows no political affiliation.
I mean, I've worn balaclavas like that. Sometimes, they really are so form fitting that you can make you your mouth's movements with them on.
That is why I don’t like Bruce in Batman Beyond, I prefer the young version that atleast smiled once in a while
Lock-Up literally said to himself that he did what he did because Gotham is an awfully dangerous and violent place full of criminals who hurt innocent people because Batman, the cops and the justice system enable them by giving them light sentences and letting them escape Arkham all the time.
Drowning is one of the worst ways to go. There's panic, the feeling of your lungs burning as you try to hold on for as long as possible, and then the realization that you're dead as you finally run out of air. There's also that, despite common myth, witches were more often drowned.
There could be other reasons, but that's what I thought of.
That’s a good point. It’s slow, traumatic, and sadistic. Right up Lock-Up’s alley.
No one was ever worse off with the removal of witches. A series of bad things had to happen in the first place.
@@dansmith16 Moron thinks the witch hunts targeted actual witches? Lmao
@@dansmith16
Except maybe the witches themselves.
“Another villain made possible by a grant from the Wayne Foundation.”
To be fair, he did seem disturbed long before his introduction to Arkam.
Lock-Up was a good foil for Batman, and the ending was chilling. The vocal performance of Bruce Weitz, Lylye Bolton's actor, was great. He truly captured the raging insanity of Lock-up very well.
I think he works better as a one-shot badguy than a recurring one. Speaking of which, have you thought about making a video about Baby Dahl?
She’s on the list! 👍
I never thought of him as political i just thought he was a control freak
I think Bolton would have made a decent miniboss in the Batman Arkham games. The Asylum going Wild and Bolton Trying to dispense justice and order
Honestly as cool as it would’ve been to have lock up in the Arkham games…let’s be honest it’d be practically impossible to have him work without changing his character, not only was Batman FAR more brutal in the Arkham games but the argument between Batman, someone who tries his best to reform criminals and Bolton, someone who specifically tries to control and outright torture criminals, kinda can’t happen since almost every criminal in the Arkham series had gone far past the point where any real redemption would be possible
When I first saw this as a young teenager, I didn't see any political overtones - and yes, I had an awareness of politics at that age - because the story was just so absurd I had trouble relating it to anything in real life. In our world, people as psychopathic as the Scarecrow would be exiled, put in a maximum-security prison with no hope of parole, or executed as soon as possible. They wouldn't get to lounge around an insane asylum.
Watching this again many years later, though, I'm definitely able to read the episode's themes with more insight. I like the image of Bolton's apartment being an empty chamber with very few creature comforts. Not only does it emphasize his contempt for "soft" bourgeois society, but it's actually a credit to him in that it reveals how much of a righteous and moral (to use those two terms loosely) character resides within his psychosis. He believes that life should be hard and that discipline should be imposed, and he applies these principles to himself. As much as we might detest the man, we can't call him a hypocrite. Also, many violent fanatics do believe they are morally superior and see themselves as redeemers of a corrupt world.
It certainly says something that Lock-Up is too extreme even for Gotham City, which is usually portrayed as socially conservative almost to the point of authoritarianism. Even Harvey Bullock, who often has to restrain himself from physically attacking even the most minor of criminals, is practically a bleeding-heart compared to Bolton, since he exemplifies the moderate right-wing philosophy that the letter of the law should always be upheld and vigilantism should never be tolerated. I can't help wondering whether, if Gotham City were real, not only would its courts execute every single murderer who failed to show remorse, but the local government would have the executions televised in order to instill terror into potential lawbreakers.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It’s a very good point you made about Lock-Up inflicting rigid, almost pious minimalism on himself as a means of demonstrating his moral superiority. This is in direct contrast with Bruce Wayne’s home, which is vast and filled with furniture, art work, and - dare I say it - love.
BTAS Scarecrow wasn't really psychopathic like other versions such as in the Arkham games. IIRC he never killed anyone in the show, mainly using his fear toxin to help with his crimes like robbing and fixing gambling. Of the main villains in BTAS only Joker and Poison Ivy are psychos that really crossed the lines to deserve the death sentence.
He also seemed to be genuine friends with Harley and in one of (admittedly dubiously canon) Batman Adventures comics he feels sorry for a student who was assaulted and tries to get revenge on her assaulter.
There are many things that makes people think about politics nowadays that did not make people think about politics in the past and was not intended to have anything to do with politics.
Gotham is the literal definition of a liberalism political system. Just look at New York or San Francisco, Hollywood, other places were it’s just dirty and dangerous.
>Gotham is Socially Conservative
Has no Death Penalty
Meanwhile......in Metropolis.
I love your focus on Batman's compassion. I think that it's something that often gets missed in many fns interpretations of the character.
Yeah, many people quote the “I am
Vengeance” scene, but they misunderstand. It’s a mantra he says to himself to help overcome The Scarecrow’s fear toxin, not his Tinder profile 😂
compasion that causes hundreds of people to die when criminals go away from Arkham over, and over again
@@Sig509Ah yes its his fault not a failure of the government to punish the criminals. The idea that Batman is somehow responsible for the actions of others is mind boggling and really shows how little personal responsibility people wanna take
Like all the great Batman Villians before him Lock Up also represents an aspect of his personallity.
a third of batman's audience sees him as compassionate, a third sees him as "vengeance", the other third sees him as he actually is.
Not sure if anyone else has already said this, but batman's eyes being covered is part of the costume's purpose: to invoke fear.
(Remember in the original opening of the show, when batmans eyes show his distaste for the shadowy criminals who flinch away from him?)
Yet Bruce's humanity, compassion, fear (especially during the first seasons of the original animation), and annoyance (especially in the New Adventures and everything Justice League related) still bleed through.
Whereas Lockup has his eyes fully exposed, "eyes being the windows to the soul" (reminds me of the scary eyes Harvey Dent had when he lost control in his premiere episode), his own eyes show the rage within, inspire fear all their own.
He can't hide the truth of what he feels, his eyes are scary even when he's still in his prison officer uniform and supposed to be a symbol of duty, peace, and order, yet his own interests bleed through.
His overall costume and its obvious police colors, might also have been emblematic of the fact that too many officers go through a power trip when donning their uniforms and weapons, especially since they will especially target those with less "power" than them.
In regard to the eyes and mouth parallels of their costumes, idk I think that might be significant. Batman hiding his eyes could represent “Justice is blind,” so therefore when he speaks it carries more weight because it doesn’t matter how he feels. On the other hand, Lock-Up’s exposed eyes shows that how he feels about the situation is all he really cares about; for him it’s not really about Justice, but power.
Or maybe I’m reading too much into it, idk
No, that makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing that observation.
I had a different thought.
My assumption was that Batman's mouth is exposed because he believes he can talk to them and believes that by talking there is another way.
Lock down doesn't have those believes. He only needs to see step out once and then that's it. His eyes will always remember those actions. Everything else is covered. He isn't going to listen or try and talk things out with you. He has is only going to lock on to your mistakes
The fact that even SCARECROW is scared of this guy.
That just proves how much of a monster he is.
I think Prometheus fills Lock-Up's role more or less as a dark reflection of Batman just with a better toolkit. Lock-Up is thematically neat, just...boring.
Yes, Prometheus was quite similar to The Wrath, a pre-crisis Batman analogue whose parents were criminals that were killed by the police. It’s a great idea, I just wish Prometheus had a better costume…
@@SerumLake his arkham asylum suit is pretty cool
Personally I wouldn’t have minded seeing him become DC’s answer to arcade or even jigsaw.
Just as a note, Lock-Up was also featured in one of the Villains United comics (I believe the one-shot that directly led to Infinite Crisis #7). Not as a blink-and-you-miss-it cameo like si many other members of the Society, but specifically being consulted by Lex himself about the best methods for breaking open the various prisons in the world.
Also, I really wanted to see Lock-Up get used in The Batman. I felt like the writers could've finished Chief Rojas' story arc by having him quit the GCPD after Season 2 over Gordon's acceptance of Batman (since Rojas wanted him jailed), and then make him the finale villain of Season 3 (or 4, if they hadn't decided to integrate other DC heroes into the final season) as someone who's capturing both villains and the police who he perceives as enabling them.
They had a similar character called "Rumor" tho he wasn't done as well. He was totally gay for his boss which was fun
I do think Rojas would have made a great villain, but it seemed season 3 and beyond weren't interested in continuing that storyline, especially since they wrote off Ellen Yin for no good reason.
Can agree, Chief Rojas and Ellen Yin vanishing from Season 3 onwards feels quite off.
Ya know, the fact that people like Joker and Zsasz easily get out of their cells and murder innocent people in Gotham, and neither the GCPD or Batman do really anything to actually stop them, it's not at all surprising that someone like Lockup would get fed up.
@@themanofmovies8104 Honestly these villains aren't much more sympathetic. Scarecrow is a terrorist who uses chemicals to drive people insane, Scarface is a mob boss. The only villain he is shown abusing who I would consider to be sympathetic is Harley since she is practically a child, but even then I wouldn't consider Harley a good person (especially after what she helps Joker do to Tim).
If he was abusing someone like Mr. Freeze or Catwoman I'd agree with you more.
Why do I have a feeling Lockup joined the mob so that he tour kill them when the time was right.
He feels more like the kind of guy who would join the mob during gang warfare just so he could kill random thugs
@@coolgreenbug7551would be better if he just started his own militia and went to war with both mobs at least that could do something to help Gotham a lil once both mobs are dead, tho he,l undoubtedly find some way to twist it and end up circling back around to somehow hurting regular people and taking things to far so nvm 🫤
i find it funny how the people who often crtizite batman often end up describing the character of lock up instead of batman
You want to feel bad for Scarecrow but then you remember what he did in Arkham Knight
Arkham isn't canon to the DCAU what are you talking about
@@MisterSandmanAU Making apologies for criminals is what enables more crime. Doesn't matter if it is canon.
I have a similar disdain for Harley, the show wanted us to see her as more than a henchgirl but I lost all sympathy after return of the joker. Considering what her grandkids would go on to do as well, I almost root for Bolton at the beginning.
Really the only inmate I felt sorry for was arnold, simply because without scarface he’s mostly harmless.
@@MisterSandmanAU Regardless if it's cannon or not it's hard to have sympathy for a villain like Crane. And keep in mind Crane was planning on poisoning Gotham with fear gas in the "Dreams of Darkness" episode.
Lockup would have been right at home in a Batman Arkham game. Chiefly Arkham City. He could’ve been his own boss fight with him perhaps working as Strange’s right hand man.
Welp the new vr Batman game showed him off
I really liked the idea of a darker more torturous version of Batman with a character like Lock-Up. Whereas Batman will use questionable methods on criminals to get him information, he still knows how to hold back and not to go overboard, Lock-Up isn't afraid to break people for his own twisted sense of justice and protection. To me, you CAN in a way understand his ideas with how deranged and remorseless the villains of Batman's universe often are and that you could make the argument of 'En eye for an eye' with Lyle going to the methods he uses, but he only falls to their level and goes beyond in his twisted crusade for some form of justice. Batman would never allow himself to reach that point, as he knows exactly what would come next if he did.
I think that's what the Arkham Knight should've been
I see Lock-Up in a different light. In the episode, he calls the Arkham inmates symptoms of the ineffectual authority figures. As vile and heartless as his methods and what he does later on, he does bring up a good point. Almost all the inmates usually escape and return to their criminal ways, adversely harming the citizens of Gotham. Batman usually defeats them and brings them back only for the cycle to continue. I can imagine living in Gotham City would not necessary be a good thing as you are always on the look out for some costume maniacs and their diabolical scheme, praying you don't get caught in their path. At some point you would question the justice system and how it handles these individuals incarcerations. If they existed in real life then I can assure you that people would demand a better, more effective way in keeping these lunatics at bay and not just shoving them away in a mental institution which does little to nothing in rehabilitating them or keeping them away from normal citizens. I perfectly see people like Bolton rising up and take action, IE vigilantism in dealing with these types of criminals. Most likely murder. Bolton in a way is also symptom. That being he is a result of what happens when individuals take it upon themselves to defend society against super criminals, due to the inept methods of the law. Lock-Up is wrong but it is for the right reasons. An extremist yes but ultimately to keep Gotham safe.
I like the irony of the one with unconcealed eyes being worse at judging right and wrong.
Technically thats exactly what serum is doing in this video.
@@user-jj5pm4xo6nhow so?
I think drowning as a method for Lockup murdering his prisoners (and I say murder intentionally. He's working outside of the law) works incredibly well thematically. Drowning is being surrounded by water, unable to surface, unable to breathe, overwhelmed by your surroundings until it inevitably kills you. It's one of the most terrifying, painful ways to go.
Lockup drowning his prisoners is representative of his overall character: He is a sadistic, abusive bully who uses his authority to beat people (figuratively and literally) into submission, using his moral beliefs as an excuse to fulfill his hard-on for "justice" while he ruins those under his "care". He forces them into situations where they have no means to escape or defend themselves, and ultimately breaks their will for anything more. From start to finish, he *drowns* them in suffering, just as he seeks to drown them in sea-water.
One thing I love about BTAS as an adult is its commitment to the idea that even the worst villains still deserve basic human dignity and it is wrong to mistreat them. That's an idea our society should subscribe more to.
cheezemonkeyeater
I feel that if you lived in a world with joker, you not think that way.
@@GoldenRedder First of all, the Joker is a fictional character and nobody in the world is or will ever be like him.
Secondly, no, I would not. There is no justification for abusing prisoners, regardless of who they are. The purpose of prison should never be something as petty as revenge, or the indulgence of power fantasies. The purpose of prison should be rehabilitation first, and, if necessary, isolating those who are a danger to society to prevent injury to others.
@@cheezemonkeyeater100%
We kind of live in that world, I mean, you hear about cities being ravaged by rioters and criminals getting lenient sentences for abhorrent crimes...
@@cheezemonkeyeaterActually yes, it should.
Its a crime that lock up is only in one episode such a good character i love this guy
Yes
I think the metaphor here with his eyes being visible in contrast to Batman’s mouth, is that Lock-Up sees no deeper than the surface of his perception and judges all those that fall beneath his cruel gaze. In contrast, Batman’s mouth being visible symbolizes that he believes in diplomacy and reform. Justice is traditionally seen as blind, blind as a bat is. Lock-Up sees all and resents what he perceives whereas Batman deals out judgement and parley with even those that society sees as irredeemable scum.
Sounds like the character was always intended as a PG rated analogue to The Punisher.
Yeah, very much so, and I think that’s why he’s struggled to take hold in the comics.
If this guy had been a "Punisher"-like character who actually goes out and starts committing vigilante murders of criminals and supervillains, that would've made things a bit more clear-cut. But the fact that he just imprisons his victims makes him a bit unintentionally sympathetic. One of the guys he's interested in locking up, for instance, is freaking *scarecrow* . If you've seen the latter seasons of Batman, THAT version of Scarecrow was an extremely dangerous psychopath who absolutely deserved to be locked away forever.
there was a cool BTAS comic story where scarecrow escaped arkham and went back to teaching. He gave up being the scarecrow until one of his prize students was raped by a jock. that guy deserved everything he got even though Batman saved him.
@@FrozenJack2007 They wouldn't have done that for BTAS. That's a bit too much. Maybe in the comics, sure.
@@zeddwulfen7737 yeah that's what i said. i double checked and it was in Batman Adventures Annual 1.
I feel like Lockup at least partially inspired the villain from the Batman Confidential run of comics called 'Bad Cop'...gonna assume whoever was on naming duty took a sick day
Now that’s a deep cut reference. Bravo!
I'd be interested to see how Caped Crusader could reinvent Bolton. Especially since it'll be even more '30s/'40s influenced than BTAS was. How would a vigilante like him operate in a city like that?
If I were a betting man I’d bet a lot of money that Lock-Up won’t be in Caped Crusader. I could be wrong though!
I'd argue that Lockup's eyes being exposed shows his corrupted view of justice- Batman's eyes are hidden because justice is blind- furthermore, his mouth is exposed because justice is meant to speak for those without a voice. In contrast, Lockup's eyes are exposed, showing how his view of justice is very biased. His mouth is obscured, however, showing how he doesn't care to give anyone a voice, nor reason or express verbal compassion, rather simply only focusing on punishment.
Also, I feel like a part of Lockup's character is definitely going after Frank Miller's version of Batman in the Dark Knight Returns series. This overwhelmingly fascist take on justice reeks of that interpretation of batman- furthermore, all the people that demographics that Frank Miller attacks in the Dark Knight Returns- "left wing" liberal media, rehabilitative progressive psychiatrists, less brutal police forces and so on all fall victim to Lockup. He definitely feels like a jab at Frank Miller's Batman writing- like a physical manifestation of his writing being put up against the actual batman, and not the fascist one he created. Great video!
Lockup was and is the embodiment of zero tolerance. The worst kind of zero tolerance.
Joker, "Indeed my good man, indeed."
Zero tolerance is a reactionary Fascist concept.
Great to see some love for the Lego Batman Movie. Lockup was a really jarring villain when I watched the show as an adult for the first time, though it was a meaningful critique of vigilante justice, and moreso the abuse of institutional power
I have to admit something… I didn’t actually like the Lego Batman movie. Having said that, I acknowledge its cultural significance.
@@SerumLake I’d happily watch a video of you explaining your thoughts on the film. I loved it even if the family message was a smidge corny
I’m not sure if it could sustain a whole video - I promise I really don’t like being negative about creative people’s work (as much as I bang on about how awful I’ve Got Batman In My Basement is 😂) but I may mention it in passing in another video I have in mind. I’ll definitely consider it though!
@@SerumLake maybe a video about the pros and cons of Batman adaptation could be a longer subject, like a contrast between different examples?
@@empatheticrambo4890 I have the basic structure of a video about Why Batman the Animated Series is the definitive take on Batman, and I think mentioning the Lego movie would be suitable there. I’ll have a play around with the script and see what I come up with!
Lock-up is just a bruh character: he look strong at the first glance but that guy is just a drill security warden. But i admit scaring Scarface that's not a small performance.
Otherwise Lock-up is right about one thing: medias could be nefarious and treacherous about someone or about an event.
the only thing i think could improve the ending of Lock Up is if the Criminals from the beginning aided Batman. I feel that would fit perfectly with the contrast between Batman and Lock Up. Lock Up showed no compassion or mercy and all it leads him too is a sinking ship but thanks to the compassion Batman showed to the Criminals of Arkham now they're willingly aiding him even if it is simply because they just want revenge on Bolton.
That would have been amazing!
This is a very interesting analysis of an underrated and obscure character. I applaud you for giving this guy attention.
However, I must confess that I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
First off, Bolton is a totalitarian/dictator, but he is not a "fascist." A fascist is a "National Socialist." You can be a dictator without being a fascist but you cannot be a fascist without being a dictator.
In fairness, this is a very common mistake.
Beyond this critique however, I don't think the episode does a good job of making one hate Bolton or whatever right wing beliefs that he holds until they had him go off the deep end.
It’s trying to get you to see Bolton as the bad guy. It’s trying to get you to see him a bully who uses excessive force to keep his prisoners in line. It’s trying to get you to say “Batman’s villains may be criminals but even THEY don’t deserve that. “
It fails every step of the way.
First off, lets consider the obvious: Arkham is a cardboard prison. People escape at will.
Second, we know that with the exception of the Ventriloquist, NONE of them repent. Third, let’s consider the prisoners.
The Scarecrow performs scientific experiments on people for fun.
In the animated series Harley helped the Joker torture a child for 3 weeks. In the comics Harley gave children bombs disguised as handheld games and BLEW THEM UP.
The Joker has killed who knows how many people
Two Face isn’t much better
Zsasz keeps track on how may people he kills by tallying his body
Firefly is an unrepentant pyro maniac
Croc is a grisly killer who murders people in the most over the top manners
Bane blew up the Arkham asylum and armed the inmates with automatic weaponry just to exhaust Batman and defeat him
The Riddler kidnaps people and puts them in deathtraps
Poison Ivy is a murderous eco-terrorist
Scarface controls a sizable piece of Gotham’s underworld.
None of these people deserve sympathy. They are unrepentant murderers.
4th, Batman’s brutality is FAR WORSE than Bolton’s. Isolated cases of kindness to criminals doesn't change that.
Batman has dangled people in front of oncoming trains, threatened to cut off fingers, sealed a man in-between two stones of his cave, dropped people off the side of buildings, took off Mr. Freeze’s helmet and refused to give it back unless he gave him info, hacked into Black Mask’s pacemaker and threatened to dial up the beats per minute until his heart exploded, and that’s just SOME of his actions.
All Bolton did was threaten murderous inmates, take “privileges,” chain people down, electrify their doors, and hold Scarface (a murderous crime boss) over termites.
Is Bolton a good person? Not at all. He’s clearly a sadist. But he did his job. Only one man escaped during his tenure and he escaped not to go back to crime but just to escape the warden.
Bolton did nothing wrong until he started kidnapping innocent people.
Finally, one wonders if the Batman Beyond Bruce would take issue with Bolton's methods, considering he grows so ruthless that he lets security guards savagely beat Terry for stealing the batsuit.
No problem with differing views, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. The only thing I'd say to counter that is that you do mix the comic book characters with the BTAS versions of the characters, whereas I try to focus on the BTAS versions. Part of the reason I do this is that there are so many different Batman stories in the comics, touched by many different writers and artists, all with their own takes on who Batman and his rogues should be, their characterisation gets all jumbled up. I try to keep things focused on the BTAS versions, with a little bit of comic book reference material thrown in to add context.
Another point that could be used to counter my view of Lock-Up as a fascist is, to paraphrase Barbie, he doesn't control the trains!
@@SerumLake or control the currency! im surprised no one else has quoted the barbie movie. but I guess the kind of people that get upset about right wing being linked to facism wouldnt watch that film...
@SerumLake Fair point that he kinda drifts off to non btas/tnba examples, but I'd say his point still stands in the fact that pretty much everyone he torments is unrepentant and even get worse as the show goes on. As well as that Batman's methods aren't that far off from Bolton's.
@FrozenJack2007 Well, those things are precisely what actual fascists advocate for. But nowadays, any character that does any assertive or authoritarian acts, or is generally a "meanie head" counts as fascist. At the very least with this character he alludes to wanting to establish a new order where he decides enforcement over the current government, but any other motives aside from suppressing crime aren't really mentioned in his idea of his dictatorship over the city.
National Socialist is literally an intentional lie by the nazis to cover up their fascism. Its not real. And its irrelevant to discussion of fascism.
I actually agreed with Bolton up until he started jailing civilians for almost no reason. I like Batman as much as the next guy but his rogue’s gallery deserves every bad thing they get and we all know it.
I always felt Lock-Up was an under used and developed character, specially considering his similarities to batman. He's highly trained, able to make his own tech (some of it near batman's level) on the limited funds he has, driven with a clear goal. And while some might call his views extreme, consider who he is dealing with. Ya, some of the b-list and minor villains they showed can invoke sympathy but imagine this episode had they used villains like Joker, Zsasz, Professor Pyg considering the levels of murder and pain they inflict; do you think the viewers would have been as sympathetic? Really think about the types of people contained in Arkham and tell me some of them don't deserve actual punishment other than just being locked up and psychoanalyzed occasionally? This is the light that would have made Lock-Up shine but that was not what the writers were going for as they needed him to be unlikable. Honestly, looking at his history and stuff, he was just a murdered parent or loved one away from being in the justice league. He had all of the markings and background of a hero, with only his anger issues keeping him from that title, leaving him an anti-hero.
I feel like the creators quickly removed him from the series because he made too many good points. Arkham WAS a revolving door for lunatics, the criminals didn't really care if they were sent there because it was relatively cosy. Batman KNEW that the likes of Joker always find a way to escape Arkham and kill more people and did anyone actually do anything to stop the pattern? At some point it turns into enabling. That JL episode where Joker was lobotomized was probably the best solution.
@@marelicainavokado I agree with you there. Lock-Up just made too much sense given the setting. They have played out the point a few times with things like putting batman on trial for making the villains and other such things. Batman exists to stop villains who never go away so its a endless cycle. So they introduce 'solution' characters like Lock-Up or the Red Hood or Damian Wayne or some other characters who take a more "kill them all" stance which forces Batman to save the villains. The Hush movie with the Riddler illustrated the problem at the end. Obviously you can't have a cartoon/comic where you keep killing off the villains or you run out of villains (or have to keep bring them back like Marvel does or have a multiverse) but you could move to some thing better like Superman throwing people into the other dimension or into that supermax prison in the ocean.
@@killjoy197im a big fan of batman, favorite fictional character since I was a child. But the animated series version objectively portrays his goals and ideals as wrong. In batman beyond he ends up jaded, he loses his company, if we say batman beyond is canon (I dont think it is personally as it makes the original story better). Then the obvious conclusion is Batman and his methods were wrong. Maybe the solution isnt one lock up is suggesting, but its obviously not Batman's and his solution ends up with no real change.
@@absolutefocus2749 Thats why over the series and animated movies they've offered different views such as the Red Hood's view that crime can only be controlled, not stopped. Then you have Damian Wayne's view that criminals should be executed (depending on the story). Or you could go with Super-Man's view in Injustice where he sent criminals to a underwater supermax for life. Batman's idea of making criminals too afraid to commit crimes doesn't work because there's too many of them, too many with powers/tech and the prison system in Gotham is a revolving door.
@@killjoy197 The bigger issue is trying to in a metaphorical sense cram in the message of music bad into a musical. Batman isnt the type of show due its story structure and need for a revolving door of villains where you can explore the topic of rehabilitation. Meaning youre just gona get unrealistic conclusions. In real life there are no superpowers and criminals in very rare circumstances break out of prison.
My point is in certain comics, and certain batman stories you could tackle this issue from a phylosophical standpoint (killing joke Moore, or hell Watchmen also Moore, goddaym I love Moore) but BTAS just isnt the story properly tooled to handle this. They needed to straw man Lock up, and even still hes mostly right given how the show plays out with Batman beyond.
Been rewatching the whole Animated Series recently since I bougth the Bluray-collection this year, and I remember when I came across this episode that I thought "Huh, this is kind of a neat idea. How to make a "Batman, but too far..." Kind of like The Punisher, but make it fit in a PG rated cartoon."
Because while I appreciated the effort and intentions behind Bolton as a character, I never really cared for the execution. They were simply put limited by the PG rating.
But the vigilante who still believes in reform and the basis of the law vs one who goes full killer is an interesting one. I love it when Daredevil and The Punisher duke it out (their scene on the roof-top in Netflix Daredevil series is great), and it always seemed to me that Batman would benefit from his own Punisher like villain (and a Kingpin one for that matter, too).
That's one of the reasons I love the Under the Red Hood movie, since Jason more or less becomes a Punisher style vigilante in that film. That, with the extra bonus of being one of Batmans failures (similar to his loss of his friend Harvey Dent) it adds a great deal of drama. I actually find it a pity that they redeemed Red Hood so fast in the comics. There are a lot of story potential with him as a villain/uneasy ally to the Batfamily than a straight up member of it. (I still like him as the Raphael of the Bat-family so to speak. I just whished we got more stories with him toeing the line before being redeemed first).
So, yeah. Bolton is an interesting idea, but fails. And I guess it's because I find it unbelievable that someone who wants to go "tough on crime" and then feel like the system failed them after their overly harsh methods are criticised and they are punished for it, it just seems more likely that they would go full-on Punisher and murder the criminals or representatives of the "system" than build their own jail to keep them locked up. Just seems like unnecessary extra steps.
That's a fair assessment - I think Lock-Up has some severe control issues, which is why he wants to imprison people, rather than murder them outright. He must know that murder is wrong, and he thinks of himself as a good buy, but when the going gets tough it seems like his first course of action is to drown his prisoners. He is definitely very complex.
At this point there are too many punisher style batmans
I've been getting back into Batman big time lately, and its really refreshing to see this reading of Bolton. I remember years ago when i first discovered this episode I'd always see people arguing that Bolton did nothing wrong, with no acknowledgement to how people like him do nothing to better the world, all they want is to exert power over others with no comprehension of nuance, or the fact that he's running a rehabilitation facility like a maximum security prison. I think there's actually something to say there, about Bolton as a criticism of the prison system, he's basically a walking personification of it
I must admit, I am baffled by the people that watch this episode and don’t see him as a reactionary, authoritarian, right wing lunatic. There’s a reason why he gets locked up in Arkham at the end, and it’s not because he’s the hero of the story!
@thebeetleball Dude.......have you seen some of the shit these fuckers in Arkham have done to go there and to KEEP going there? After seeing the closure of asylum brings people like Chris-Chan,Cyraxx and Daniel Larson back to our streets,imagine if those 3 were ARKHAM LEVEL SUPERVILLAINS? I think only more people especially seeing their personal rap sheets on the Internet at large would agree with Lock-Up even more.
@@SerumLakeTrue. The comment section of any video in which he is in is absolutely depressing. The exception being this video I think.
@@SerumLake The issue with Lockup is that people focus on the specific people he abuses rather than what his abuse is meant to represent. We know that characters like Scarecrow and Harley (especially after she helps Joker torture Tim) are irredeemable monsters that cannot be fixed through the rehabilitation Arkham provides.
"We could have made our own order!"
"I was born to fight your brand of order!"
One thing I find very interesting is that in hindsight the Return of the Joker movie really casts a dark light on this episode: Bolton was more or less proven right, something I think haunted Bruce for years afterwards well into the Batman Beyond days, which is why Bruce is far more apathetic about trying to rehabilitate criminals in the Beyond era. Harley, a woman Bruce attempted to help numerous times throughout the course of the series, is unrepentant about being an accessory to the torture of a child and Arkham and the GCPD's inability to do anything about the Joker (as Bolton pointed out) more or less allowed it to happen. Hell, if you only go by the show Batman's only true canon redemption/mental recovery victory for his regular rogue's gallery in the show are Man-Bat and Ventriloquist, everyone else actually gets worse and more monstrous (Joker, Scarecrow, Baby Doll) and more mentally broken (Two-Face) or don't change at all (Poison Ivy, Mad Hatter, Riddler, Catwoman, etc...)
And Bolton is honestly very correct about Arkham's security failings, I mean in Dreams in Darkness a dangerous criminal like Scarecrow was running an operation right under the place and they didn't even notice he was gone. This could also be a factor in Batman's increasingly dark demeanor/attitude in later series, Joker's constant escapes and rising body count, some of his villains becoming worse over time (Baby Doll tried to freaking nuke the city in Love is a Croc, practically destroying any sympathy points she had earlier), and this could be the reason Batman loses that optimism and compassion he openly showed earlier, a part of him felt people like Bolton had legitimate points, but he could never admit that.
It also begs the question: What would Bruce have done with Joker had Tim not shot him?
Very well said, batman beyond being canon means the show itself is saying that Batman's methods and thought process are objectively wrong. His impact on Gotham's foundation was minimal, and its showed by him losing his company. He helped aleviate the symptoms, but he never cured gotham. Maybe lock up's solution isnt correct (definitely a big no to the needless torture) but Batman's solution and will imposed certainly arent correct either.
Wish there was more episodes with lock-up. I like the fact he is a less compassionate version of Batman and could have potential as recurring villain. He's not a unintelligent meathead either, with the gadgets he uses and they way he has outwitted the batman when capturing his victims. He could be a really threat to Gotham and Batman. Though would love Rumor and Lock-up to team up.
I feel the biggest irony is that if this character was present today, despite the critiques the character poses, it would fly over people's heads and Luck-Up would be very much adored.
Sadly, it wouldn’t surprise me either!
Crazy steve exists
Do you mean "The Punisher"?
@@Slick-Salamanderyep
@@Slick-Salamander Not quite. Lock-Up is more politically driven and targeted people like the media worker and an honest police office that he deemed weren't good enough or problem he didn't like. Where as Punisher dealt with the sickest of bastards that avoid getting punished by the long arm of the law or even the corrupt officials in power. I can understand how similar they would be, however Punisher doesn't like cops where as Lock-Up wants cops to be more like him. Lock-Up didn't even target the Joker, but Punisher would make a beeline for Joker.
Lockup is how modern "gritty and realistic" writers try to depict Batman
Here's an idea from an armature writer. What if lock up is a fan of Batman and is intentionally trying to emulate him. He see's how batman cleans up the streets with fear, and how he vehemently sticks to his no killing rule. So in a situation where batman is out of the picture for some reason Lockup tries to fill the the void, then when Batman returns and confronts him about his crimes we can really see a cognitive dissonance split.
Or he could be a member of the suicide squad. Some one who strangely enough sought out to be part of the team.
i like to think Lock-Up's costume is a nod to all the 90s Iron-age over exaggerated "Rob Liefeld" style super heroes that feature more muscle than the average human male, armored plating gear, big weapons and pouches, plenty of pouches.
...and tiny feet!
Unnerving to see the scarecrow afraid? No sir. I was rather pleased to see the master of fear shaking in his boots over this massive monstrosity of a man. Lock-up has his flaws, but so to do we all.
I always saw potential in this character. If he wasn’t so on the nose I think he could make an interesting cinematic villain. Not the main villain of course, but as a henchman.
Yes, I agree. As he is it’d be very hard to sustain a lengthy story with him as the main antagonist. He definitely wold be suitable as the villain in a TV show two-parter though. I’m a little surprised he never showed up in the Arrowverse.
@@SerumLake That is a good point! He would have been a great antagonist for Oliver! Maybe Superman and Lois will have some kind of Batman spin-off that he could show up in.
@John Wells Superman already has a villain similar to look up. He is the Super Jailer. I think Lock up may have been partially inspired by him.
Yeah, I think part of why I find him so interesting is on some small level we kinda agree with him. He is right when he says Arkham is just a revolving door with the amount of times the super criminals escape and looking at crimes joker, riddler and others have caused and get away with there is some small part that wishes they would locked up or Gotham actually doing more. But at the same time there’s Harley, the ventriloquist or Humpty Dumpty who are just mentally disturbed people who do need compassion. The character does have a well of potential if you look
I don't think he's necessarily political tbh, I think he's just an abuser of power.
Power can be political
Yes, practically everything is political.
One of the core beliefs of conservatism is that punishments should be hard in order to dissuade people from committing crimes. Lock-Up is the literal personification of that philosophy.
@@SerumLakeyou're talking about extremely far right
Just like extreme far left is lawlessness
Like more liberal cities examples
Chicago,New York, LA
@@troymcclure681 tell that to the chicago pd the NYPD and the LAPD! 🤣
@@troymcclure681 the police there are extremely conservative lol
Hey man, if joker were real; I'd much rather have lock up deal with him, than batman
You don't get it, that is "right-wing" and "uncompassionate"! You can't have such a black/white mindset, man!
Permanently if need be.
That would be interesting..I would definitely get a kick outta that
There are like 5 batman villains that you would not want lock up to have, everyone else deserve it outright
I just watched this episode and knew immediately why there's been so little from this character since. *He comes off as primarily a spiteful strawman and not a human being.* There's a few scant moments where the writers empathize with his character, but for the most part, he's just spitting out bumper sticker slogans the whole episode. For a villain like this to work, you have to show what motivates someone like this. More than just rage, it's a misaimed compassion for victims of crime, channeled into rage that, 'Somebody should be doing something to stop this!!' It's an inability to _stop_ blaming. He should make unarguably correct points that nevertheless make you feel uncomfortable. A villain like Lock-Up should make you root for him at first, then despise yourself later for doing so. He should embody the trope of, 'Your ideas are correct, but you are a man too twisted to be allowed to decide who to force them on.' The episode at least understood enough to contrast Lock-Up's self-righteous rage against Batman's compassion, but they really could have leaned into this and made Batman have to *defend* why he has hope and gives people second chances.
The show runners couldnt defend Batmans viewpoint as either they think its wrong, or they couldnt continue to tell any stories if Batman was correct. Batman beyond shows us that bruce's opinions and methods were merely alleviating the symptoms, he never cured Gotham, lost his company and became jaded. By all measures Bruce was a failure.
Destroying TVs is like a running gag in the DCAU. Joker does it in "Joker's Wild" and "Joker's Millions," Two-Face does it in "Judgement Day," Mr. Freeze does it in "Heart of Ice," and even Batman does it in "World's Finest."
And don't forget Clayface punching Stella's TV in Mudslide. What did these writers have against TVs?! :D
@@SerumLake It must be a drinking game: take a shot every time somebody destroys a TV.
Oh, and Joker destroys a TV again in "Injustice for all."
I feel that he would maybe work better as a Green Arrow villain rather than a Batman villain. Green Arrow is a pretty liberal guy, and having him fight a villain with authoritarian views makes sense.
I would've loved him to appear in the arkham games, especially in Arkham City. I definitely saw him being a boss and as hugo strange main henchmen. Sadly, he didn't even as an Easter egg.
I want him as Higo Strange’s henchman in a movie.
He is pretty much a better version of Max Cort, Strange’s pawn from “Batman: Prey”.
Technically he actually was secretly mentioned in Origins. His name is on a file somewhere in Blackgate Penitentiary. I like to think he becomes Lock Up after Knight
The difference between them is that lock up wants an excuse to be his worst self while Batman tries to beat some sense till they worn out their villainous impulses.
Which one works?
Great video as always.
I would say you said some things that I disagree with. Yeah it’s politics, yeah………..
I wouldn’t say many on the right have a simplistic view on life, my family is very conservative on both my dads and moms side and we often talk about it. We do see the parts of gray in between the black and white and the majority of the right don’t just try to lock everything away.
I would say he’s far far right, and in my opinion just like someone who is far far left have a very simplistic view on life, neither is good and often times they can not bring themselves to understand the others side, or at least hear them out even.
The problem with Lock Up as I see it, is that in Universe fictional limitations of the story tropes work against a moral condemnation of the character.
In the real world, the number of inmates who successfully break out of prison is pretty much non-existent from a statistical standpoint, in the fictional world of BTAS however this is simply not the case. The charismatic villeins of the show have to keep escaping from Arkham again and again and again so that Batman can defeat them in entertaining stories.
This is all fine as far as entertainment goes, you turn a blind eye to the revolving door of escapes and that fact that Arkham seems incapable of tightening security for those stories as part of your suspension of disbelief but when you have a story that draws attention to it, the whole thing begins to fall apart.
While there was censorship in the cartoon regarding what they could show, canonically most of Batman's rouge gallery are murders with many being depraved and psychotic, The Scarecrow literally just wants to torture people, violating their bodies in the name of his insane obsession with fear.
In the real world, if we had someone like the Scarrow, a man who was fixated with torturing people, with some dying in his experiments and he was to keep breaking out of prison over a dozen times to carry this out, the public outcry over the complete and total failure of the prison authorities to keep the public safe would be such that the prison would at the very least be taken over by the Government who would send in the military to secure the facility with the administration facing jail time themselves for their failures. You then multiply this with all the number members of the Rouge's Gallery and it becomes even more clear just how utterly farcical the situation is.
As I said, you can ignore this all in the name of fun stories, but if the show itself wants you to focus on it in a story about it, we then have a problem in that the logic of the show, unintentionally validates Bolton's perspective in a way that would not be in the real world.
I've already talked about suspension shattering issue of the non-stop escapes but lets also look at another aspect, the issue of punishment/revenge vs reform/rehabilitation. Again we run into the problem of the fictional limits of the Universe, Batman's Rouge Gallery can't be 'cured' or 'reformed' because then he would not have these characters to fight in his dramatic stories, what is worse, you have the example of The Scarecrow in this story, who all the psychologists were never able to reach, never once make him want to stop brutalising and killing people...and the first and ONLY time we see him claim he was going to give up doing it...was in response to his fear at going back to Arkham and suffering violence and abuse from Bolton, thus validating him as being in the right.
This is the ultimate failure of the episode, given the logic of the show we are presented with only 2 binary choices.
1. Uncurable and unreformable villeins will escape from Arkham weeks or months after they are put away to go out and inflict horror on innocent people.
2. Said villein's are kept inside by having their doors electrified (does I might add that they are not supposed to be using outside of designed times because, you know, they are in prison and strapping them to their beds.
Yes in the real world there are other options, countries like Norway have among the highest success rates at preventing re-offending though building criminals up as human beings with extremely compassionate conditions and making them feel like they can take part in society etc. But that option is not on the table in this show, we are only given the above two options and the episode expects us to except the continued suffering and murder of innocent people to avoid minimal human rights abuses (remember at no point do we see a single inmate with a burse or a single accusation of direct physical violence on Bolton's part) as the moral choice.
As I said, the limitation is built into the logic of the show in order to have Batman keep fighting these iconic villeins so it can't offer us a prison that is both highly secure and does not have any kind of inhuman treatment towards prisoners and a successful treatment and rehabilitation.
For this reason I don't think the episode should have been made if it's simply unworkable given these built in show limitations where Batman has to keep fighting these same villeins over and over again, it breaks suspension to draw attention to it.
If you are insistent in making this episode, then you have to follow though and go deeper than the show was realistically ever going to go. Have Batman question the utterly broken system of Arkham this is unable to keep criminals secure or reform them.
First you would have to offer an explanation as to why it's so utterly broken and not working so that you do not unintentionally validate Bolton's view. One idea could be a conspiracy involving corruption at the highest level with Batman exposing it and having Arkham being completely restructured and the show making a bold and radical commitment to stop using the classic rouges gallery who are either properly secure in this new reformed Arkham or being actually rehabilitated for real with writers coming up with new, original, characters to replace them.
With their being no chance the writers of the show would do this though given the popularity of these rouge gallery villeins, I do think that, as much as you can gain enjoyment from the episode when watched on a superficial level, the problems it presents when you think about it's ideas on a deeper level in relation to the in-Universe fictional limitations of the show, it simply does more harm than good and makes Batman look like a fool for choosing to blindly keep supporting the broken state of Arkham.
I was with you till your brought up the Norwegian Prison System. You ever heard and Anders Behring Breivik? That dude has the highest score amongst single killer Mass Shooters and last time he was checked in on,he was not the least bit sorry about what he did and acts like he still has rights and demands the government there to get him better books to read cause he is bored.
I very much agree with your take.
@@ZX-Gear My point of bringing up the Norwegian prison system was not about saying that outliers like Anders and other irredeemable, unreformable sociopaths, because yes I expect the uncomfortable reality that some people will never feel remorse for their crimes and reintegrate into society, getting such a comfortable time in prison was in any way compatible with "natural justice" in relation to their crimes. I was only referring to their approach statistically higher success rate in reforming and reintegrating people who are not complete evil monsters.
Ultimately this raises a wider question about where you think priorities and objects of prison should be.
Do we see prison a primarily about being a form justice for the victims of crimes and deterrent so the focus should be about making prison as unpleasant as possible?
The positive side of this is the feeling of the victims and the victims close friends and families that justice was done giving them some level psychological closure. I personally am not convinced deterrent works as in my view most criminals do not weight up in their mind some logical risk/reward equation in their mind that harsher prison conditions would be factor in their decision to commit the crimes, but instead they either don't think at all in the moment or they simply convince themselves they wont get caught etc.
The drawback, as I've said, is making prison Hell and messing up the heads of prison inmates further rather than the focus being compassion, reform and integration, leads to higher re-offending rates which impacts on the new victims.
What is the priority? Do we sacrifice the victims of the crimes of unreformed criminals because of our desire for revenge against them for their previous crimes?
I can only speak for myself of course, but as someone who has suffered the pain of terrible loss, my focus and desire is for society to adapt whatever methods in it's prison system that are statically most likely to prevent such pain in other people. Of course I'm no Saint, I'm only human, if someone murdered the person I am closest too and for the sake of this hypothetical they were not a monster like Anders who would never show remorse or be reformed, would I "like" the idea they were being treated with such compassion rather than being punished? Of course not, it would burn like molten steal placed against my skin, I'd be angry, I'd want them to suffer for the pain they caused me. But I know myself to know that, eventually, months or years down the line, I would be able to let go of it and my desire would be that the prison system adopt the approach that was most likely to make them reform and not kill again and bring that pain I felt towards other people.
Of course it's not a binary choice between two extremes, could for example have a prison system that adopts a dule approach, using methods of compassionate reform against most criminals, putting the needs to protect future victims first, while going full North Korean gulag on absolute scum like Anders who will never reform or any other variation you can think of reflecting your personal moral values.
All this is to say I don't have definitive answers to this issues, in part because I don't think there is on, prisons and the polices their peruse are social institutions are not a maths equation with a definitive answer, but rather constantly changing and adaptive that should, under ideal circumstances strike a balance between the general moral consensus and the higher values of society with a constant and ongoing debate regarding where those lines should be continually redrawn to best reflect that.
In any case, I appreciate your prise for my main thesis in the post regarding how, really, the real issue is the built in limitations of the show mean it was impossible to make the wider political commentary about prison the writers wanted to tell work and in fact it unintentionally works against the messaging they wanted to tell.
@dominicsmith5588 Maybe there is a growing number of people who want a society of safety rather than freedom especially the disastrous consequences of unchecked freedom we have seen of recently?
Call it complacency but people these days don't feel safe and would gladly trade their freedoms to be able to walk the streets without the risk of needing to call an ambulance in city areas.
@@dominicsmith5588Finally someone who gets it. While I disagree with some of your notions regarding the efficacy of reform. Youve hit the nail on the head 100% with the show's format painting Bruce as wrong. This is most blatantly seen with batman beyond, where its shown Batman has become jaded, lost his company and in the end he only ever alleviated the symptoms, and never was able to cure Gotham, his broken ideology still being used by Terry where the loop will probably repeat with Terry taking on a mentoring role in the future to some upstart.
The show needs villains therefore Gotham will always have crime. Even if they never reused rogues, as said, you need villains therefore youll always have Gotham seem like its filled with crime.
You either can have batman win in the end. OR Make there be significant jumps in time between encounters as time goes on, in the begining Batman is resting every day while near the end of the show while crime isnt solved, its more a monthly excercise Batman goes on. OR you can just not focus on trying to tell a story YOUR OWN STORY STRUCTURE DOESNT ALLOW YOU TO TELL. Why would you make a movie saying music is bad, but have the movie be a musical, its nonsensical. Batman due its format cant be a vehicle to try and tell stories about reform unless youre really gona change the foundation.
The dude is literally right though, the people in that jail killed more people than live in some whole states
Do you think he was right to torture the mentally ill after they had been arrested? Or to lock up the doctors from Arkham, Commissioner Gordon, and Summer Gleeson?
@SerumLake Especially for those like The Joker,yes.
@@SerumLake No one thinks Lockup was justified in kidnapping Gordon, the mayor, and the other civilians. However, it is harder to justify Lockup as being in the wrong when dealing with the other villains. Obviously torturing and bullying inmates is wrong, however, Lockup is completely correct in saying that Arkham is a revolving door of a prison, and his methods are effective in keeping the villains in check.
I think a lot of people also have trouble having sympathy for the villains because they are all violent mob bosses, terrorists, and serial killers. An overgrown bully like Lockup looks like an angel in comparison.
I think they gave him a Baclava because it's part of a typical army/military police gear. And the drowning thing being a commentary on waterboarding as common a method of torture by the US government.
I wonder if Lockup was an inspiration for Quincy Sharp in the Arkham games. Both are officials at Arkham who decide the system is too lenient and brutalize the inmates.
thats an interesting idea... paul dini wrote that game too.
The way I interpret the inverted mask of Lock Up is that for Batman, hiding his eyes makes him seem menacing when his mouth allows for some extremely humanizing expressions, and keeps him from feleing too distant or unknowable
Lock Up hiding his mouth and exposing his eyes only reveas the anger driving his actions, his mouth only indenting through the mask when his rage needs a voice.
And perhaps most ironically, it makes him look like a typical burglar, ski mask and all.
I agree with Batman 100% because no one should be treated like that!!!
He is righteous tyrant.
I definitely remember this guy and always thought he was interesting. It's a shame he didn't show up more.
I think they had a hard time coming up with new stories for him. His gimmick is a bit one note.
@@SerumLake True...
What if he gets out and has to do community service... at the Gotham zoo. Start plotline where his supposedly reformed personality slip and the way animals are treated is used as allegory for the prison system in a way that doesn't lean on arkham
That’s a nice idea. Is it bad that I got a mental image of him waterboarding a chimpanzee? Oh lord…
I'm currently doing a full re-watch of the DCAU and finished Batman the Animated Series (in production order) a few weeks ago, along with Mask of the Phantasm and Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero and even watched the cutscenes from the game The Adventures of Batman and Robin (which has surprisingly amazing animation and visuals by the way) which some consider to be the lost episode of the Animated Series. Right now I'm re-reading all the tie-in comics like The Batman Adventures, The Batman and Robin Adventures, the comic version of Mask of the Phantasm and SubZero etc. and a lot of stuff you recommended in one of your videos (thank you very much for that by the way) and then moving on to Superman the Animated Series and then The New Batman Adventures. Lock-Up was one of the last episodes I saw and honestly it started off with potential but for me it really dragged in the middle and ended pretty anticlimactically however I did like at the very end when he ended up in Arkham. One more thing I didn't necessarily care for was how feeble and cowardly they portrayed Scarecrow. I get they were trying to hype up Bolton by basically saying that if the self-proclaimed master of fear is afraid of him then he must be a big deal, but ultimately I think it just made Scarecrow seem less of a threat. It's really a shame too because after Dreams in Darkness, Scarecrow barely had any appearances. Honestly for me some of his most memorable appearances where in the Batman Adventures comics. I especially love the one where Jonathan Crane just wanted to go back to teaching but ultimately ended up falling back to his old ways when one of his students was being abused and sought to torture her abuser and I honestly think that if expanded a bit more it would have made a really great episode. Maybe even the best Scarecrow episode in the Animated Series (at least prior to his perfected design and characterization in TNBA). Regardless I'm still extremely grateful that we got his revamped version from The New Batman Adventures which was really an improvement on every level and Never Fear along with Over the Edge are some of my all-time favourite DCAU episodes.
As much as I love BTAS, you’re right, they didn’t always get the most out of the villains. However, for every time they missed the mark we have stories like Heart of Ice, Two-Face, Almost Got ‘Im, and Feat of Clay.
@@SerumLake I know you have said that for you your least favourite episode of the Animated Series is I've Got Batman in my Basement, but on a rewatch, I personally couldn't stand the episode Cat Scratch Fever. I didn't find the story interesting at all, the animation was just awful (some of AKOM's worst work) and I was never more compelled to just look at my phone out of boredom, which I did so much I had to watch the episode again. While that may have been my least favourite episode, the only episode I genuinely nodded off while watching was The Terrible Trio.
I have to say that I don’t mind The Terrible Trio. I wouldn’t put it on a best episode list though! Regarding Cat Scratch Fever, I agree that it’s not a good episode. If I did a bottom 10 episodes it’d be on the list!
If in these universe there are victims of Arkham inmates who actually die, Lockup is a logical reaction from society, who observe Batman fight homicidal maniacs over and over only for them to escape or be released due to corruption of the system. Though I think that role is already filled better with Ra'S Al Ghul and his League of Assassins.
More like an emotional reaction than anything else. The sense of injustice usually makes people angry, and angry people make stupid decisions.
I feel like Lock-Up was at least partially made in criticism of some of Frank Miller’s… eh, let’s be nice and call them ‘eccentricities’ when writing Batman.
Something I've noticed is that either going far-left, or far-right results in the same thing: Totalitarianism.
Not accurate at all. Going full far-left results in, basically, a full-blown hippy nation that abolishes classism and promotes love and solidarity; where the citizens hold the power and people govern their own lives. Funny enough, I think Libertarians would be all for a far-left nation, despite them having right-wing ideology in most things.
Underneath it all, Lock-Up is empty inside. He has nothing except anger and violence. He lives in a cell, the only luxury he allows himself is a chair and a television, and given that we only see it used to watch the news, that may be solely to keep aware of what's going on in the world and not entertainment. Perhaps that is because the only thing that has ever given him any happiness is bullying and hurting others, hating anyone who gets in the way of that.
Even worse is how he projects his anger when someone gets in the way of his bullying and violence. The "Liberal, Permissive Media"", the "Gutless Police", the "Coddling Doctors", and the "Mindless Bureaucrats". The "Liberal, Permissive Media" that only reports on the news going on in Gotham and never shows any bias. The "Gutless Police" regularly shown risking life and limb to fight crime. The "Coddling Doctors" whose job it is to treat the mentally unwell that make up 90% of Arkham Asylum's population. The "Mindless Bureaucrats", when the mayor of Gotham has regularly been shown to be a kind and compassionate person bereft of the corruption we usually expect of people in government. Lock-Up's insults have no basis in reality, they're just the barks of a mad dog.
And yes, Lock-Up is genuinely insane. Sane people don't put on a costume and start imprisoning people without a trial, and they certainly don't go around making enemies of supervillains. I can promise you, the reason why we never saw him again in TAS is because less than a day after being locked up in Arkham, Scarface made a distraction so that Scarecrow and Poison Ivy could drop a poison gas bomb into his cell, then stood there watching as the man died, powerless to escape from his imprisonment.
Lockup being a random criminal in the Batman adventures comic is a thing I see a lot. Comics and shows allow a villain to have complex motivations once before they just become another monster with a theme. Two-face started out with a warped sense of Justice taking matters into his own hands. Then later they still reference that in the story but his actual actions just paint him as a bank robber with a number fetish
I think Lockup would work well under Amanda Waller
Honestly it would be hilarious to see him butting heads with Peacemaker.
Yes
I get the feeling that Lock-Up would probably become good friends with Marshall Law.
I joke around with a friend who started to show me all the DC stuff (Never had interest in Super Heroes) and I said after the episode ,,What if he was the Arkham Knight?"
I disagree that Lock-Up is necessarily a 'right-winger,' or at least I would argue that he is not right-wing by today's standards. It would seem more to me that Lock-Up is a direct reference to police brutality and vigilantism, from which originates the desire to inflict pain on those who are legitimately guilty of severe moral wrong. As you've pointed out in your other videos, all of the villains in BTAS seem to be reflections of Batman. If that is the case, then Lock-Up is a reflection of Batman's desire to lash out at criminals he is punishing and, ideally, take them off the streets permanently (ie: Not only by locking them up, but by breaking their spirits.) Batman is only able to be himself by exercising significant restraint against himself. In that sense, he is ''locking away' a part of himself. This might sound like a stretch, but in fact this specific motif of Batman needing to heavily compartmentalize himself in order to control his anger has already been explored, much more directly, in countless other Batman media. I feel that this explanation so satisfyingly describes the motive behind the character of Lock-Up, that no insertion of a so-called 'political lens' is needed to understand the character.
Now, I'm so confident in the above analysis that I'm sure I could convince you, a hardcore BTAS fan and UA-camr, of my proffered explanation-- _If only I left it at that._ However, I don't feel personally satisfied simply debunking the idea that Lock-Up is necessarily right-wing. Rather, at the risk of completely blowing my credibility, I also feel it necessary to point out the inherent foolishness of making this a political conversation at all, and specifically of dismissing someone's methods on the basis of their being "right-wing" alone. You do sound like an Englishman, so I might not be able to convince you, even if I were able to successfully articulate my point of view (of which I am not certain in my ability,) but I feel like giving a crack at it regardless.
By yesterday's standards, perhaps that case could be more elegantly made that Lockup is 'right-wing' (there was, after all, an ongoing conversation within political circles, at the time of BTAS's creation, about the viability/ ethicality of torture against POWs as a means of extracting information.) Looking at things objectively, however, we can see that Lock-Up is anything but a by-the-books, 'law and order' sort of fellow that you'd typically associate with being right-wing. He is completely ruthless against criminals, to the point of going outside the law to imprison innocent people he perceives could be a threat to civilization in a grander sense; he additionally appears to be what we would call a sadist looking for justification. In other words, Lock-Up is both a mental case and a criminal, just like anyone else in Arkham Asylum, and is therefore a _target,_ rather than an _ally_ of the right-wing. His impulses clearly have nothing to politics, and everything to do with his own God-complex. Further, I think it is entirely unwholesome to claim that the left has some kind of a monopoly on compassion and 'self-awareness.' Our own personal opinions aside, these things are not mutually exclusive to either political persuasion, at least not inherently. They additionally seem to be mostly absent from today's left-wing crowd, which seems to have adopted a hollow, bureaucratic interpretation of what it means to have 'compassion,' (ie: compassion on paper, not in practice,) and ironically seem to lack compassion (to the point of often advocating for extrajudicial vigilantism against political dissidents) when dealing with certain types of people.
However, if you are instead willing to be ideologically liberal when interpreting Lock-Up, such as by loosely generalizing his character into the vague personification of a 'tough on crime' approach to law enforcement (which would therefore make him 'right-wing by proxy' in the eyes of many) then what does that necessarily make Batman? In accordance with his own beliefs, he beats criminals and throws them in jail. By this token, Batman is, for the most part, a less extreme version of Lockdown. Does that make Batman 'right-wing'? Are the ordinary police of Gotham City, who are even less extreme than Batman, therefore to be considered 'left-wing'? Or, are they still 'right-wing,' because they are still on team law-and-order? I think I've already made my point as to the silliness of this endeavor, but let's go one final step further with it: If the mere embrasure of law and order is right-wing, then what can be considered left-wing? Criminality? Do you really want to live in an ideological interpretation of the world where being left-wing means being pro-crime?
So a couple of things:
1. Lock-up literally criticises the media for being “liberal”, and views that as a significant enough crime to lock Summer Gleeson up.
2. Lock-Up is the personification of the right wing view on punishment - namely that the punishment should be firm, with little consideration for shades of grey, in order to act as a deterrent (which doesn’t work, by the way) - but taken to an extreme.
3. The writers of the episode have described Lock-Up as a proto-MAGA supporter. If the writers say he’s right wing, that makes him right wing in my books.
You are right that there are elements of Batman that are right wing, but it varies depending on who’s writing him. For instance, Frank Miller writes an anti-establishment, Randian Batman, who’s also a bit of an anarchist. But my videos always focus on the BTAS Batman, who is waaaay more liberal. He provides free healthcare to Gotham’s poor, funds a halfway house for repentant criminals, defends people of colour from being evicted from their homes in the slums, demands that his company cut ties with a slash and burn outfit in the rain forest - I could go on.
I completely agree with this. It seems like he's imprinting his own political bias on the character that doesn't have any leanings on a political spectrum.
Right on brother/sister 👍👍
Thank you. I was going to post about how disingenuous it is to force modern day politics into an old cartoon which was trying to convey deeper points about humanity as a whole. But you put it into words better than I could've.
In all fairness, police brutality is usually seen as a specifically right wing vice. But, if things were under a Soviet style government, would that make it “right wing?”
I can see this guys going up against Peacemaker.
Another difference between Lock-Up and Batman are their views towards the oppressed. We all know that Batman genuinely is a good person who wants to protect the innocent and he doesn't vent his frustrations on any of the villains, whether physically or verbally. Meanwhile, Lock-Up just wants to be in control; he doesn't care about the people and he NEVER did. That's too complicated for him. Instead, he goes the easy way out: punishing the guilty. Or who he sees as that.
I wonder if Lockup and Anarchy ever crossed paths in the comics. Having a right-wing extremist and a leftwing extremist in the same story seems to easy to pass up
Isn't viewing a character as either left or right, by your definition in this video, a simplistic black and white worldview thing to do that right wingers tend to do?
I wouldn’t say so, no.
Well, there you have it. The good old "it's totally different when I do it." Argument.
@@crispychips7161 not at all. This was, what, two sentences in an 8 minute video about a character that was written as a criticism of right wing ideology. Additionally one of those sentences was a joke mocking Fox News.
It is a generalisation, yes, but is not comparable to an ideology. Let’s compare who is harmed by my light mocking with people who are harmed every day by conservative policies. Hopefully you see the difference now.
@@SerumLake oh, I get the joke. i hear it meny times "my political opponents are evil terrorists. Laugh." This seems less like a funny joke and more like you trying to pass a narrative. Jesus, the title of the video is called "the right wing batman "with the thumbnail boldly saying "fascist" You don't even use evidence for what makes bolton fascistic other than hateing criminals and being a corrupt enforcer. You quote nothing in the video that directly implies he's a fascist I haven't heard him spout fascist doctrine or an interview implying he's a fascist. Just the underlying premise of him bullying and murdering criminals and these "jokes." Sprinkled across your video. Also, that wessley response you made in your last comment I'd just like to address. Yeah, no shit you do less damage than a whole ass political movement that wasn't the comments original point. he was pointing out that you have the same black and white worldview that you attribute to violent fascists. Not a good look.
@@SerumLake
'A Stalin functionary admitted, Innocent people were arrested: naturally - otherwise no one would be frightened. If people were arrested only for specific misdemeanours, all the others would feel safe and so become ripe for treason.'
-Paul Johnson
When the police officers are right wing, tough on crime is a right wing position and the left is anarchists. When the police officers are left wing, tough on crime is a left wing position and the right is libertarian. It has nothing to do with ideology- it is the purest expressions of Lenin's 'who/whom'.
I find it ironic how much you deride Lock-Up as a right wing man, and then say that right wingers view the world as black/white, while you yourself paint the right with a black brush, using Lock-Up as your example when most people, even on the right, would look at him as a nut.
Nuance isn't restricted to a political ideology
Tolerance should not tolerate intolerance
I don't think you're correct about your assumptions about political parties, I think there are gray areas displayed in everyone. You did a great analysis of the character, however, I personally do not feel that he is entirely some identifiably right-winged individual, rather simply an authoritative one.
That’s cool, you don’t have to agree with me. I’d just add that, for me, the key thing that identifies him as a right winger is his approach to crime and punishment - he’s the embodiment of the conservative stance of zero tolerance for crime, issuing harsh penalties as a deterrent.
Then there’s the fact that he locks up Summer Gleeson simply for being “permissive” and “liberal”. In his mind tolerance and understanding are dirty words.
If you get the chance I’d recommend listening to some of the interviews that the writer of this episode, Robert Skir, has done in recent years on Batman the Animated Podcast and Batman the Animated Series Podcast. He has talked at length about how depressing he finds it that Lock-Up is still relevant today with the rise of populism and anti-intellectualism, particularly in the United States.
@@SerumLakeI understand that he might be a commentary on EXTREME right wing but it feels like you wouldn't also criticize EXTREME left wing becouse it's just as bad
Just wait until I get to Mad Stan…
In my own head canon, Lock-Up was a father, father-figure, mentor, and/or inspiration to a young Stanley Labowski, aka Mad Stan, from Batman Beyond.
That would certainly make sense to me
Are you certain? I kinda thought of mad stan as a left wing extremist, while lock up was a right wring extremists
@@jaredgarcia8638 Yup. And yes, they are indeed of opposite ideologies but I think they share the same fanatical drive for societal reform, not on the level of individuals as Batman does but of entire systems and structures. Again, this is only my head canon. The divergence and juxtaposition of their views could make for a story point for a more talented writer than myself.
@@MrJamesDuffy you know, of you break into wb animation or dc comics, make it real.
I started watching Peaky Blinders recently and they described the political spectrum as a circle, rather than a line. If you head off in one direction, you'll end up meeting up with the other side when you go too far. I thought that was quite clever.
I think you're mistaking right wing with authoritarian.
I see where you’re coming from, but there are a couple of things that indicate he is intended to be an extreme right wing figure.
1) He represents the right wing view that the only way to tackle crime is to use harsh punishment as a deterrent, with minimal interest in the cause of criminal behaviour.
2) He views being liberal as a crime - hence why he imprisons Summer Gleeson (that one is the big giveaway)
3) The director of this episode has since told me that, yes, Lock-Up is a fascist. If not for TV censors, Lock Up would’ve likely executed his prisoners - or at least would’ve tried to. This was also backed up by the episode’s writer Bob Skir’s appearance on Batman the Animated Podcast, and more recently Batman the Animated Series Podcast.
I recommend listening to those podcasts if you’re interested in BTAS, they have lots of cool insights from people that worked on the show.
@@SerumLake Oh alright, thanks. He did strike me more as an absolutist authoritarian, he reminds me a lot of that other villain from Batman Beyond, that guy was a conspiracy nut hellbent on blowing up government offices
Yeah, Mad Stan is quite similar, just on the opposite end of the spectrum.
You're right that he's a hardline authoritarian, but he has the overtones of rightwing authoritarianism.
He's very much the American tough-on-crime approach taken to its (il)logical extreme, rather than, say, a Stasi agent.
Yeah he did
Lock-Up is seriously flawed, but let's not pretend Batman's approach makes perfect sense. In the Batman/Punisher comic you showed a few panels of, Punisher was about half a second away from saving thousands of people's lives until Batman stopped him to save one life - that of an unrepentant serial killer. If that's "compassion", as you put it, then it's severely misplaced.
I like the idea I've seen a few other commentors say: it should've begun with Lock-Up using his methods on inmates like Joker to get the audience rooting for him, then show him abusing the more vulnerable inmates.
But it would still be wrong since it still avoids the main issue: Arkham is a hospital first. It is there to help people, even someone like The Joker. If her wants to be that cruel he should get a job at Blackgate.
So where’s the flaw in his philosophy?
Even more fucked-up is the Batman/Judge Dredd crossover, which is the exact same... except Judge Dredd is *acting completely within the confines of his universe's law*.
@@jordanloux3883 I mean when you think of the Nuremberg Trials though how many war criminals did they allow to live so long as they got "help?"
Some people at the end of the day refuse to change or become better, and will actively drag others down with them if they aren't stopped
@@adrianshephard378 You did know that Nuremberg was a kangaroo court and a completely illegal abuse of justice, right? People were tortured into signing confessions in a language they didn't understand. If at any time you see injustice and mention Nuremberg was good, you become a hypocrite.
I think his angry outburst did more against his case than the statements from his victims.
*Lock up represents “morality without patience”. All of you don’t act like Batman but act like Lock Up. Kim Jong Un is the best example.*
Something I thought on about, with the character Lock-Up, and a Superman character from the episode Prototype, I think his name was Sergeant Mills, basically that combined both kind of gave off Judge Dredd vibes(in the homage sense)
I feel like your assessment that he is right wing is ill fitting. he represents an aspect of humanity as a whole. pure hatred and disregard for those he thinks morally deficient and there is not a single political philosophy without people like that.
He takes a specific right-wing tinge to it, though. "Law and order" and those who are "weak" (morally) or "too soft".
A left-wing Lock-Up would be... err, he'd just be Anarky.
@@anon9469 A left wing Lock-up would be going after those he deemed rich and powerful and who were oppressing the poor/minorities/anyone who won’t get on with his scheme against the rich and powerful.
@@anon9469 I think we're overlooking something important here: when we're discussing his expression on "permissive liberal media", he may very well not be talking about Liberal/Leftist policies, he (considering the time period being the 90's) could be saying that the information is given out liberally by the media to glorify and praise the criminals it reports on. He views the news reporters constantly showing off these villains roaming around the city and getting people to turn into their channels, and they may be doing it just to get a quick buck.
In the 90's when this aired the last riot involved millions of damages and multiple fatalities but was derided by media as a horrific event. for the last 6 years, all but one riot in the US was considered justified ans when a man decided to kill police from a parking garage in Dallas social media tried to justify his actions. Between that and extremely permissive actions in mass looting situations and the release of criminals who kill within weeks of release It'd be no surprise that he's gained footing.
Hell, on the fictional side, you think the random Gotham citizen really likes the fact that scarecrow runs out of Arkham for the 87th time to terrorize the city? Or the joker kills another dozen?
Thank you very much. Somebody has finally made this point. Like yeah Lock-up has narcissistic problems but why tf are we out here defending criminals that have killed dozens of people in Gotham. I really doubt that an average Joe in Gotham would view Lock-up as a villain given the fact that he tortures ACTUAL villains
@@GLASSMOSCOWANDBEIJING You do realize that, by the end of the episode, Lock-Up has *also* become a mass-murdering criminal?
@@anon9469 I do, but his treatment of Quinn or the Scarecrow was completely justified
Look up, made me think of a an old saying of eyes are the window to the soul because I can imagine the reason there’s nothing covering his eyes is because he has nothing to hide like announcing to the world. This is his true self and I also feel like it’s a way of shedding. His original persona has Lyle and becoming lock up 24 seven because once his costume is removed, he still the same, as if he’s accepted this new position, and this kind of mirrors Batman away, especially more recent comics, where Batman treats the persona of Bruce Wayne, like his costume, and Batman is his true persona
I would’ve loved a scene in this episode where Bolton tries to do something to the Joker.