Hypothetical questions for anyone who likes Batman

[Wayside]

1. Batman kills the Joker. Fed up with the thousands of deaths, and the revolving door on Arkham, Batman finally crosses the line he swore he never would. Where does he go from here? And how does the rest of the DC Universe deal with him now?

This might pique my interest. I read comics for about 2 years in the early 90's, but before and since, nothing. Part of the reason is how utterly unbelievable some of the premises are, among them this one: thou shalt not kill. A story just isn't interesting to me if it has no feel whatsoever for all the complicated philosophical components of actual life, among them morality. When Wolvie started carving people up in X2 my thought was "Wow, finally." Batman Begins turned me off for the opposite reason (and it's one of the things I like about the 1989 Batman).

 

[Endur]

Would you believe that any of these stories would stick and not be changed back within a year? Is there anything DC could do to make you believe it?

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?

I currently read DC comics and see Batman in team comics including JLA, World's Finest, etc.

I could see all three stories happening (and they have all happened at various times in the past). Whether they could stick for a year or more, I doubt. How long was Superman dead?

Would I want to read what happens next? Maybe. I'm jaded on the "drastic change" plot. I'm more interested in art and style these days.

The "Grayson" fan film is pretty good, btw. I'd check it out if you have not seen it yet. For a post Batman death story.

 

[Klaus]

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

Well, truth be told, Alan Moore said in an interview that if he ever thought that The Killing Joke's scene would be used to end Barbara Gordon's career as Batgirl, he'd never have put it in the graphic novel in the first place.

 

[Particle_Man]

One strange Bat-fact: The "Jason Todd" (if he really is who he says he is) beating up "Joker" with a tire iron. Does he kill Joker? If so, that is a major major plot change that happens in one panel of one comic. Does he let the Joker off with a beating? If so, why? "Jason Todd" seems to have no compunctions vs. killing, and especially not vs. the madman who "killed" him.

I am thinking that "Jason Todd" (and maybe that "Joker") were just more clayface creations...or maybe I am just hopeful.

I like democracy, and I remember people VOTED to kill Jason Todd, dammit!

 

[Filby]

One strange Bat-fact: The "Jason Todd" (if he really is who he says he is) beating up "Joker" with a tire iron. Does he kill Joker? If so, that is a major major plot change that happens in one panel of one comic. Does he let the Joker off with a beating? If so, why? "Jason Todd" seems to have no compunctions vs. killing, and especially not vs. the madman who "killed" him.

I'm not entirely convinced that the Red Hood is indeed Jason Todd -- even if all the evidence, down to his DNA, says he is, it's still a stretch IMO.

Anyway, the Red Hood/"Jason Todd" didn't kill the Joker -- just beat him within an inch of his life. The Joker has indeed come back in full swing in the last month or so, and, ever the wild card, he's gunning for Gotham's new crime lord, Black Mask.

 

[Klaus]

I'm not entirely convinced that the Red Hood is indeed Jason Todd -- even if all the evidence, down to his DNA, says he is, it's still a stretch IMO.

Anyway, the Red Hood/"Jason Todd" didn't kill the Joker -- just beat him within an inch of his life. The Joker has indeed come back in full swing in the last month or so, and, ever the wild card, he's gunning for Gotham's new crime lord, Black Mask.

I blame that hack Judd Winnick. When he brought back Jason Todd, he said in an interview he wasn't concerned with HOW he came back, only what happens after he does come back, and that he was sure some other writer would be smart enough to come up with a HOW someday.

Winnick also writes perhaps the worst Nightwing ever in Outsiders. 'Cmon, this is the guy Batman hand-picked to lead the JLA if the Big Seven ever bite the dust!

 

[WayneLigon]

I blame that hack Judd Winnick. When he brought back Jason Todd, he said in an interview he wasn't concerned with HOW he came back, only what happens after he does come back, and that he was sure some other writer would be smart enough to come up with a HOW someday.

If I had not acheived Comics Nirvana (ommmmmm) and was concerned about such things, I'd be more worried about how Jason is suddenly looking 25 when he should be at most, like, 17ish

 

[Viking Bastard]

Dudes.

It's an alternate universe Jason. Get onboard the rumour train. It's Jason from the
timeline where fans voted for Jason to live.

Maybe.

And the 'not caring about Todd's origins', that was just Winnick toying with fans. He
likes teasing the internet manbabies. But Geoff Johns came clean, Todd's return ties
directly into Infinite Crisis (like everything else these days) and is part of the big
megaplan Johns, Winnick, Rucka and Didio have planned.

 

[Henry]

Would you believe that any of these stories would stick and not be changed back within a year? Is there anything DC could do to make you believe it?

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?

I'm not currently a comics reader, but was an avid one until 15 years ago. (Just too expensive vs. other hobbies).

I don't think DC would make any of these happen and stick, either, primarily because it would upset too many of the die-hard fan base. If they DID, and it kept for, oh, say, ever, I'd be interested.

So if you guys mostly agree that it wouldn't affect your enjoyment of the cartoon or movie or video game or toys... WHY can't DC do it?

DC can't do it not because any of these fellow posters would necessarily hate it - In my opinion DC can't do it because they don't have the brass you-know-whats to actually go through with it. If a comic company had the fortitude to go through with a mahor change and stick with it, it might actually entice me. But I know that, no matter how many times Jean Grey dies, no matter how many times Bruce Wayne gets his spine snapped, no matter how many times Spider-man hangs up his suit, no matter how many times the Scarlet Witch goes omnipotent and crazy, they'll ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS go back to the beginning and hit the reset button. It's the nature of comic stories, and while it's necessary for the industry, it bugs me and it's one reason among several I don't bother to read any more.

 

[Particle_Man]

One surprising change in the Bat universe:

Spoiler

Dr. Leslie Thomkins (the comforter of the young Bruce Wayne, way back when) turns out to have snapped and become bad (letting Robin 4 die instead of live in a misguided attempt to "stop the madness" of it all). Batman basically said "Leave Gotham and don't practice medicine anymore".

Perhaps we should measure what major changes have lasted at least a decade and are still in effect (ret-cons don't count). I think a decade is the only meaninful measurement of comic changes. A year or two just doesn't cut it. That also means that nothing that happened in the last 9 years counts of course.

Let's see:

DC: Barry Allen. Still dead (replaced by Kid Flash Wally West). Superman and Lois Lane. Married (!). Clayface II. Still Dead (I think). Dick Grayson. Stopped being Robin and became Nightwing. Speedy. Became Arsenal.

Marvel: Spiderman and Mary Jane Watson. Married (!). Not as familiar with Marvel. Has any other major change lasted at least 10 years and still is in effect today?