Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Serge" data-source="post: 2256189" data-attributes="member: 4049">Right...  Bane was the 90's Killer Croc.  Back in the 80's, Killer Croc was very dangerous, so much so that The Joker organized most of The Batman's enemies to take Croc down after Croc murdered Pre-Crisis Jason Todd's parents.  Croc almost killed The Batman in their contests twice and almost took over Gotham's underworld.  But, he was essentially an attempt to create a new villain that could compete with the traditional Rogues' Gallery that did not greatly expand since Ra's Al Ghul.  Croc telegraphed Bane, who likewise fell into cliche eventually.  Since Knightfall, Bane has not been anywhere near the threat he was.  Heck, he's threatening to become another one of those idiotic anti-heroes so many fans seem to like. [uote]As for Azrael, he's a bookworm hypnotized from childhood to be a super-assassin by a religious order (reminds me of Crying Freeman). Aside from killer Joe Quesada artwork in the miniseries that introduced him, Azrael never had anything worthy of mention. His stint as Batman was as lame as they come.Sorry, but the new Batgirl (Cassandra Cain) is Azrael done right. At least she's likeable.</blockquote>I think this was part of the point, though.  How many years had so-called "Bat-Fans" been crying for a more brutal Batman, one willing to kill his most vile enemies?  How many years had these same charlatans been asking for a Batman running around in body armor?  DC gave this to them and we all saw how bad it made the character.  Az-Bats was one of the more important periods in The Batman's career from a literary perspective because it forced fans to come to terms with their own attitudes regarding what is heroic and the limitations our heroes have to have in order to be heroic.  So, while I didn't like Az-Bats, I think the story arc was a good concept (although the execution left a little to be desired).Frankly, Az-Bats was almost a continuation of the Post-Crisis Jason Todd.  Again, fan reaction gone awry.  Folks had no problem with the lame pre-Crisis Todd, who was essentially a carbon-copy of Dick Grayson with blonde hair.  As soon as DC changed the character and made him less pleasant, less intellectual, and far more violent than his predecessor, many fans took an instant dislike to him.  A real shame since the character was actually very interesting.  Still, I am pleased that this direction opened up some of the best Jim Starlin stories, including A Death in the Family (whose impact has been ruined with the asinine return of Todd as the Red Hood... assuming it's really him).Finally, as to the arch-villain:  The Joker.  He's the most recognizable villain in comics, hands down.  He's also the most disturbing.  Sure, Luthor and Doom want to control the world.  Darksied's a god...  Magneto wants to protect mutants from mundanes.  The Joker wants only one thing: for everyone to die even as they realize how much everything's a joke in life.  Nothing grandiose.  No deeper meaning.  Just pure, unmitigated HATE wrapped up in a great, big smile.  If The Joker is ever done properly on the big screen, this needs to be the direction taken with him rather than a dandified gangster.  He needs to be the closest thing to pure evil.  Not necessarily maniacal, but certainly funny in a dead pan sort of way.[/QUOTE]

Verification