Batman's Definition Of A Hero

Not everyone’s definition of a hero is the same, but they follow basic principles. These principles are unanimously agreed upon by society. The hero is the main protagonist, they are someone that you can in some way relate to, and in some point in the plot of the story or their life, they undergo philosophical change. A type of change that alters the way the hero sees tasks laid before them and the way that the hero deducts rational thought. The change that occurs upon the hero almost certainly changes the deduction process of the hero’s spectator(s). However, many prefer to think deeper than just these basic principles. People develop their own expectations of what a hero would appear to be, mostly people think the hero should do upon others
as they would do upon themselves. A morally just person, one who make sacrifices for the welfare of others. I disagree with this, in film and literature, the protagonist isn't always this expectation of a good samaritan. There are protagonists that are rooted for by the spectator that does not always follow this cookie cutter.
When speaking about the basic principles of a hero, an audience will usually have more, personal, developed versions of these principals.
Some members of an audience would think differently or think more of a person they would look up to, whether it is a matter of higher standards or self-worth. However, I would argue for a more loose interpretation of a hero, a hero is not always what a person wants. When an audience specializes their definition of a hero, it becomes more difficult for an audience to see the heroic actions of a protagonist, favorable or not. For example, in the case of the hero, Batman, it is said “He's the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs”. When it says needs that is in the perspective of the audience, the people of Gotham City. My interpretation, a looser one, would be closer to what Gotham deserves, what the hero has to offer in forms of heroism. The importance to keep little development of the basic principles of a hero allows the audience to appreciate the hero, and what they stand
for.
What a person looks for in a hero is important; in that it changes the way a person deducts ideas. While this seems like a stretch, it can be seen with a deeper inspection. When a hero undergoes change, the audience member is effected by the lesson the hero learns. If a person doesn’t find a key principle in the hero that they value, why would the lesson of the hero matter to them? The audience member would get a select set of philosophical ideas that follows their definition of a hero. This limits an audience member’s influence to a certain spectrum of thinking. For example, if an audience member’s definition of a hero involves that a hero is ruthless, that person will only be intrigued by movies that have a ruthless hero. The audience member could then be influenced by the ruthless hero, becoming a ruthless person themselves. This changes the thought process or the deduction process of a person in reaction to an event. This has its pros and cons, but it would be better if the audience member valued ruthless heroes as well as selfless ones, so that they would be influenced in a more balanced manner.
The most popular de facto belief is that all heroes are good in the eyes of the audience in most ways. This includes morality and intentions, however there are protagonists, the hero, who are not morally just and their intentions any more. There are many examples of this in literature and film however, movies like “The Wolf of Wall Street” are like this, situations where you would never think about the implications of the hero was doing. So, the definition of a hero is much broader than what it was said to be by practice. The title of a “hero” could be bestowed upon whoever the audience could develop sympathy for. An audience then considers heroes, like the protagonist of “The Wolf of Wall Street”, heroes despite qualifying characters of low morality as non-heroes consciously. So, the viewer should not fool themselves believing this lie they think as a truth.
There are, however, counter arguments to maintaining a broad definition of a hero. It’s more of an individualist idea, that is a person’s idea of a hero must be different and specialized because that makes that person an individual. This is false, however, I argue that the person’s look on heroes creates the personality of the person, not vice versa. Of course this is not the sole identifier of a person, but a person to stride to be, a hero. A role model, especially in the case of a young, impressionable audience, for example a small boy making Superman their role model. Another would be that the definition is too broad, that almost any protagonist could be a hero, even if the story does not revolve around the protagonist. In my view, this is the point, every movie with a protagonist has the hero, a pair of eyes to see through, and person the sympathize for, and a lesson to learn from. An audience can take away a different meaning or lesson each time they review the work. That is the point of there being a hero present. Pass this, there are not many strong and obvious arguments against a broad definition of hero.
With this, using a broad definition of a hero is superior to the classic, specialized definition of a hero.
The superiority of a broad definition of a hero is due to the main, unanimous principles a hero has, not including morality. Since heroism can be applied to almost any protagonist, lessons and meaning can be learned from the hero’s struggle. It can create a hero that is relatable to a wide variety of people, and anyone can take away meaning, as unique as themselves. What they take away will create what is them, and how they deduct their reasoning and ideas. This all happens even if the protagonist is not the highest of moral standards, everyone learns or develops an opinion of the hero themselves, not just the plot. With that the broader definition of a hero allows for the reader to better formulate thoughts and ideas along with
ideology.