Hypothetical questions for anyone who likes Batman
- Thread starter stevelabny
- Start date
I am currently collecting comics and The Batman has always been my favorite character. I am currently collecting all the Bat-titles (not the peripheral stuff like Birds of Prey, Robin, Nightwing, etc).stevelabny said:
I don't think this would ever happen in the hands of a continuity-based book written by someone who understands the character. Heck, even in some of the best "elseworld" style tales, The Batman never kills The Joker because the character is incapable of killing (in Kingdom Come, The Joker is offed by someone else and in The Dark Knight Returns, The Batman didn't "have the nerve" despite the final killing spree The Joker undertook).
I think that this dichotomy of The Batman recognizing that he has the power to kill men and women like The Joker but doesn't is one of the most essential limitations and traits of the character to make him interesting. It reflects that heroes only rarely cross certain lines and that, for some, such a line can never be crossed. The nature of The Batman is that he doesn't want other people to die. This is what limits him and motivates him. To allow him to kill The Joker moves him, in his mind, a step closer to the darkness that threatens to consume him.
Incidently, in continuity, The Batman (Wayne) has tried to kill The Joker at least once: In A Death in the Family (which, as a result of the silly direction in resurrecting Jason Todd, has lost much of its punch). The Batman didn't get the chance, but he did have ample time to take The Joker out before their final (and awesome) confrontation in that story. I don't think that, if push came to shove, The Batman would have done what he said he wanted to do because it's not in his nature.
This would be asinine.
I think a lot of people approach comics more like soap-operas or novels than mythology. In myths, heroes rarely die. In most cases, they live on and on, their deaths temporary (like King Arthur and most messianic figures) or else a signal for a new era (like the Norse gods or Robin Hood). The Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman are in the vein of the former. To kill The Batman off would not only be dumb from a marketing perspective, it would be -- IMO -- antithetical to the nature of comics' handling of iconic characters.
If The Batman were "killed," there would be a massive story-arc that would result in his return.
I don't think that Wayne will retire. The excellent use of the character in Batman: Beyond aside, Wayne is damned near obsessed. He's a control-freak. He needs to know that he is doing something to prevent others from dying and to punish criminals. And, phyisical limitations aside (which is what was done in BB), nothing's going to stop him.
Frankly, the best handling of this aspect of The Batman was done in Ross and Waid's Kingdom Come; despite his age, The Batman is still combating crime and working behind the scenes.
Most of these decisions, while pursued by those that want so-called realisitic/grittier comics, are antithetical to iconic characters. These characters change and adapt based upon what's happening in the world, but they don't go away. They are immortal and their heroism is such that it makes it difficult for some people to accept them... which is why they're so essential. Even Wonder Woman rarely kills and when she does, it brings to the fore many important questions about heroism (like what's recently happened in the whole Infinite Crisis prequels).
DC would be making a monstrous mistake with any of these directions, even something as seemingly innocuous as Wayne retiring (which I hear is a popular rumor). Bruce Wayne died at the age of 8 along with his parents; The Batman is all that exists now. Even were Dick Grayson to assume the mantle (and he's the only character that comes close to having such a right), he would be Dick Grayson playing as Batman; he wouldn't be The Batman. Despite what some have promoted since the mid and late 90s, the "mantle of The Bat," is not something that can be worn by anyone. Sure, its shadow may mark others (like the various Robins, Nightwing, Spoiler, the Batgirls, etc.), but it only lies with one individual in the same way that the "S" Shield only rests on one particular man's chest and only one woman is worthy of the Lasso of Truth. These are icons and icons do not change.
Would any of these stories pique your interest enough to read them? More importantly, would any of these stories make you want to read what happens next?[/QUOTE]
BrooklynKnight
First Post
Klaus said:
Except that eventually we find out that Terry was Bruces clone...
stevelabny
Explorer
Serge, since you're a reader.
If one of these 3 storylines happen, what do you do next?
Do you stop reading?
Do you keep reading because you think they'll "fix" things?
Do you give the new direction ANY chance to be entertaining?
Or do you you say "Its not Bruce, so I'm not buying!" ?
It seems most people seem to think that these characters should stay boring, never changing icons because
1> Thats just the way it is. Comics should be like Family Circus. Family Circus kids stay kids.
OR 2> The mainstream public wouldn't like it (but of course, they don't buy comics, so you cant lose sales.)
I really don't see how Batman moving on changes his iconic status in anyway. You STILL have someone in the suit. and you still have the long-lasting impact and memory of Bruce Wayne.
They won't suddenly burn all the classics. People who want Bruce can still order TONS of TPBS with Bruce in them. He will still live on in DVDs of the tv show, the cartoons, and the movies.
Bruce and Clark will always be two of the first super heroes and two of the best super heroes but it doesnt mean they always have to be. If they are half as iconic as people say, their legends will live on...
If one of these 3 storylines happen, what do you do next?
Do you stop reading?
Do you keep reading because you think they'll "fix" things?
Do you give the new direction ANY chance to be entertaining?
Or do you you say "Its not Bruce, so I'm not buying!" ?
It seems most people seem to think that these characters should stay boring, never changing icons because
1> Thats just the way it is. Comics should be like Family Circus. Family Circus kids stay kids.
OR 2> The mainstream public wouldn't like it (but of course, they don't buy comics, so you cant lose sales.)
I really don't see how Batman moving on changes his iconic status in anyway. You STILL have someone in the suit. and you still have the long-lasting impact and memory of Bruce Wayne.
They won't suddenly burn all the classics. People who want Bruce can still order TONS of TPBS with Bruce in them. He will still live on in DVDs of the tv show, the cartoons, and the movies.
Bruce and Clark will always be two of the first super heroes and two of the best super heroes but it doesnt mean they always have to be. If they are half as iconic as people say, their legends will live on...
Whizbang Dustyboots
Gnometown Hero
Most of this thread doesn't say that this is the way it should be, they say it's the way it is. It's not cool to misrepresent people's views just to attack them.stevelabny said:
WayneLigon
Adventurer
stevelabny said:
I probably would not stop reading right away, but it would depend on the change and the nature of the change, not just the fact that there was change. I'm used to dropping titles for a time until something changes to something I like. When Steph took over as Robin (briefly as it turned out), I dropped that title. I started picking it up again later when things changed. When they gave some new guy a shot at JLA artist, I dropped the title until he was gone because looking at his art made me want to throw up.
I loved The New Warriors and after they were cancelled a second time, I waited for a new incarnation. The current miniseries was simply too painful to look at, with the Cartoon Network art and the emphasis on comedy (JLI got away with it. No one since had taken a serious book and re-oriented it towards comedy successfully), so I didn't buy the rest after I checked out the first issue. Same with Power Pack, in a way (I can swallow that a bit better since it's not really in current continuity).
I'd give a new direction a chance unless it really just was too painful to look at or read. Then again, normally I'd be safe in the knowledge that no matter what change, eventually they'll either change it back, or another more palatable change will occur.
Some of these things did happen at one point or another in continuity.stevelabny said:
Depends. If the creative team is doing something interesting enough, I may well continue reading. However, it would really take a very creative team and to me, some of the changes you mention in your original post aren't what I consider to be reasonable, good changes for the purpose telling a quality story, but for the purpose of doing something shocking.
When Valley replaced Wayne, I didn't know if Wayne was going to return or not. Still, I read the material because I liked some of what was happening. In particular, I liked how the writers (intentionally or not) were so blatantly challenging all of those readers who had cried for years for a tougher, more brutal Batman who was willing to kill. The ramifications of this sort of Batman were clear, even if the material was a little heavy handed.
I don't always expect things to be "fixed." I'll use The Killing Joke as an example.
I disagree entirely with the direction that is hinted (not canon despite what too many fans and some writers think) about The Joker. However, the material is so compelling, the writing so fantastic, and the art so beautiful that The Killing Joke remains one of my favorite comics despite the fact that it has caused some "harm" (as I see it) to the manner in which The Joker is sometimes portrayed (although I think it did an excellent job getting rid of Batgirl).
Again, if the material is handled well, I would give it a chance, although it wouldn't be a huge chance.
Let me make it clear that I don't mind some changes. Killing of Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, and other headlining characters was tough to deal with, but made sense in the long run from both a business and storytelling perspective. Of course, I also think that their demises were easier because they were both hiers to Golden Age heroes' thrones. However, to many people, these were iconic characters. For me, their ends opened up new arenas. I think it's a mistake to bring back Jason Todd, Supergirl, or Batgirl for similar reasons that it's a mistake to eliminate Wayne as The Batman or Clark Kent as Superman.
The death of Jason Todd locked The Joker in the spot of The Batman's nemesis and forced The Batman to confront things he had avoided. The elimination of Supergirl from continuity made Superman special again. The elimination of Batgirl reminded readers that The Batman's world is a dark one and that he's not a "super-friend" with a "Bat-Family." So change for me is not the issue. The issue is the point and quality of the change. I don't see much point or quality for eliminating Wayne as The Batman beyond doing it for a few high worth issues and publicity.
Everytime I took a break from collecting, it was do to money or distractions (like a lot of work). Still, if they actually did any of the things illustrated above, I don't know if I would continue buying or not.
I don't think this is it at all... At least not for me.
When was the last time you read a comic book? Iconic doesn't mean no change; it means that the changes will not be drastic. The Batman evolves to fit into our culture's attitudes regarding dark justice with self-imposed limitations. The Batman is far more a troubled force of nature than he is some "wierd creature" that beats up thugs because he has evolved over time. However, this evolution is identical to that experienced in religions and myths. The Zeus we know about today is different from the Zeus that the earliest Greek worshippers knew. As his worshippers interacted with, conquered, and were conquered by others, their god evolved and changed. However, he was still Zeus. Accept no substitutes.
Myth does not necessarily mean static. It means that there should be growth but not necessarily worthless, needless change. Of course, the debate could move into what is worthy change...
Actually, I think some people in the "mainstream" would be prone to buy extra comics after the announcements showed up in the news.... Just to see what all the hub-bub is about.
But that's part of the point. The suit is not The Batman by himself. Would it make sense to say that Indiana Jones could be someone other than Henry Jones, Jr? Would it make sense to say that someone other than Clark Kent is Superman? Would it make sense to say that someone else could assume the mantle of King of Olympians and still be Zeus?
But if he's no longer in official continuity, that's not going to sate a broad array of people.
Their legends live on by maintaining their roles as living heroes.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
And now we have Supergirl and Krypto back. From the most recent Birds of Prey, we might even have Babs/Batgirl back - it looks like they might have fixed her paralysis, or at least set her on the path to recovery.
I think everything will come back around, you give it long enough
I think everything will come back around, you give it long enough
Particle_Man
Explorer
I thought John Byrne was going to turn back the clock on every change since the first Crisis. I actually expect Wally to be de-aged and have Barry Allen back.
(Still bitter about the erasing of Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol from the DC continuity...)
(Still bitter about the erasing of Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol from the DC continuity...)
Similar Threads
