|
Travis343 posted:I wonder if they'll put anyone else on the team in Tim's place until he gets rescued. What rhymes with basin rodd? If Harper's back I'll give Tynion a big ol' smooch on the butt. That was her college, right? There's a connection. Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 13:31 on Sep 14, 2016 |
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
I have absolutely no expectation of seeing Harper return, at least for another few years.X-O posted:Mr Oz who up to this point has only been in Superman books. Popular theory points to him possibly being Ozymandias from Watchmen. I can't imagine it being anyone else. I mean, one, the name. Two, now that this character is interacting beyond Superman, it means this is a larger, universe-wide story, and what else could it be than the Watchmen connection?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 15:27
|
|
|
Tynion has stated on twitter that Harper will at least show up in the upcoming arc of Detective, so...
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
It's gonna be Carrie Kelley, obviously. But no yeah, fingers crossed that it's Bluebird. She was a fantastic original character that basically nobody did anything with outside of the utterly regrettable Batman Eternal, so here's hoping she gets brought back. Revol posted:
Well to be fair it could be a whole host of things from a rogue Monitor to a New God to some agent of Darkseid to a wholly original "god" character like Pandora, but it's almost certainly the Watchmen connection because DC can't leave that awful little plot thread well enough alone. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Sep 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Eh it's already out there, I'd rather at least get a good writer like Tynion the chance to play around with it and maybe do something cool.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
It's clearly Baby Doll dressed up as annevil munchkin
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Eh it's already out there, I'd rather at least get a good writer like Tynion the chance to play around with it and maybe do something cool. I mean, yeah, it's basically only Tynion, King, and maaaaybe Tomasi (although he doesn't seem really that interested in stories of that scale, and it's why I love his work as much as I do) that could even possibly silk purse the sow's ear that is that aspect of Rebirth 1, but I'd rather they just have dropped the thing entirely. That aspect of Rebirth 1 was the by-far worst part of it, and unless they get some huge sort of "big idea" creative to set in on some sort of overarching creative path (like Hickman or someone who really goes for big, overarcing epic stories of that scale), it's probably not gonna go anywhere, and if it's the usual Johns/DiDio/Lee trinity it most certainly isn't gonna go anywhere good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
I like Year One but it's got lots of stupid Miller-isms, like Gordon being SO BADASS he can take out a younger guy twice his size so easily that he has to give him a bat to "make it fair". Incidentally, it also features fully grown Batman saving baby Barbara Gordon, so take that, creepy people who think the relationship is acceptable.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:I like Year One but it's got lots of stupid Miller-isms, like Gordon being SO BADASS he can take out a younger guy twice his size so easily that he has to give him a bat to "make it fair". Wasn't it James Jr.? I thought that the baby in Year One was a boy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:06
|
|
catlord posted:Wasn't it James Jr.? I thought that the baby in Year One was a boy. Oh, you might be right. So that'd mean Barbara wasn't even born.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
catlord posted:Wasn't it James Jr.? I thought that the baby in Year One was a boy. Yeah, Bronze Age Batman had Barbara Gordon actually be Gordon's adopted daughter, in fact.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Yeah, Bronze Age Batman had Barbara Gordon actually be Gordon's adopted daughter, in fact. Oh? That was going to be a second part of that, I thought I'd heard she was a niece or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
catlord posted:Oh? That was going to be a second part of that, I thought I'd heard she was a niece or something. She was Gordon's niece in Post-Crisis pre-Flashpoint DCU, yes. Ironically, Year One is why the change was made in the first place - or, rather, it's the only reasonable explanation, considering that she was Gordon's daughter pre-Crisis and only had the "adopted daughter" explanation included after Year One became big, since Gordon's son being born (with no Barbara Gordon around) was such a huge plot point of Year One (which was considered the new permanent canon Batman origin pre-N52). So, assumingly, they made her his niece so she'd be old enough to still be able to fight crime when Bats was at least relatively young over a minimum of 19 years after whenever Year One happened. Since N52 has Zero Year, the definitive origin story, and they firmly establish Bruce Wayne's age (25) and Barbara Gordon's age (16 at the absolute youngest, but probably closer to 18) within that arc, that's probably why they re-retconned her to being his biological daughter again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Yup, I believe Jim legally adopted her eventually but they were not biological father/daughter. Barbara is older than James Jr. as seen in The Black Mirror when it's suspected that James Jr. has killed one of Barbara's friends. There's a one-shot with Tim Sale art showing Barbara trying to get used to life in Gotham after moving in with Jim. There were actually a lot of stories made after the fact that dealt with Jim's hosed up home life and marriage, designed to slide into that nebulous Year One/Long Halloween period during Batman's early years. His first wife takes James Jr. back to Chicago a bit before Barbara's father either dies or gets arrested and she comes to live with Jim in Gotham.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:She was Gordon's niece in Post-Crisis pre-Flashpoint DCU, yes. Travis343 posted:Yup, I believe Jim legally adopted her eventually but they were not biological father/daughter. Barbara is older than James Jr. as seen in The Black Mirror when it's suspected that James Jr. has killed one of Barbara's friends. Ok, thanks. I've not read any comics that touched on that, I actually thought it'd been retconned back at some point before Nu52. I was going to mention that in my post, but then I started thinking that I might be super wrong, so thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
I feel like that plot thread was the entire crux of Rebirth. I can't imagine a way they could've proceeded with the next few years of DC Comics without ever mentioning it again. Lurdiak posted:I like Year One but it's got lots of stupid Miller-isms, like Gordon being SO BADASS he can take out a younger guy twice his size so easily that he has to give him a bat to "make it fair". The one that always springs to mind is Catwoman being a hooker or whatever. Why, Frank? Why?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
To me the entire crux of Rebirth was bringing "real" Wally West back, considering it was a Wally story with a Wally framing narrative and he was the pov character with all the narration. Everything else - Watchmen, three Jokers, gay Aqualad, reinvention of Blue Beetle's powers, "time was stolen", etc - was subordinate to reintegrating Wally West.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
Flashpoint was a Flash story yes, but it was done to facilitate all of the New 52. The point was to soft reboot Batman & GL and hard reboot everyone else to be younger. That story, despite being framed as a Flash story, wasn't just done to split Barry from Iris and DELETE Wally West. Rebirth was about bringing Watchmen into the DCU proper. It was done through Wally, but you have to be pretty drat stubborn to have not seen that it was not about him. The marketing was all about The Watchmen. I can't imagine DC would do universe-wide reboot to bring back The Flash that Geoff Johns doesn't even want. Wally was bonus points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 03:47
|
|
|
The Detective Issue was mediocre and Tim's fate stupid. However, there's at least one good thing to come out of this. The final issue of his Teen Titans is a memorial issue. With everyone in the team getting together to paid their respects and give their last goodbye to their fearless leader. Bedard did a great job to show what Tim meant to the kids and I thought it was nice he used Tim's disappearance to break up this iteration of the Titans and leave them go their separate ways until they're reunited again by Damian. Speaking of Damian, I loved the final panel of the book. Damian in the batcave looking in a respectful silence the glass cabinet holding Tim's Red Robin costume, not the lame pseudo Robin of Tynion but the true Red Robin costume. Is a really powerful moment that dovetails nicely into Damian's Titans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 03:55
|
|
|
It would be meaningful if it ever felt like Tim was actually friends with anybody on the Teen Titans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:The Detective Issue was mediocre and Tim's fate stupid. I agree, Detective was a lot of fun, and the old Red Robin costume is probably the worst costume design of the last ten years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Roth posted:It would be meaningful if it ever felt like Tim was actually friends with anybody on the Teen Titans. The only I felt it wasn't properly developed the friendship was with the new Power Girl and maybe Raven. All the others were well developed over time, Bunker in particular. Then again, Bunker was simply the best loving character in the whole series.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:The only I felt it wasn't properly developed the friendship was with the new Power Girl and maybe Raven. All the others were well developed over time, Bunker in particular. Note to self: avoid any comics featuring a character named Bunker.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 04:56
|
|
|
Dark_Tzitzimine posted:The only I felt it wasn't properly developed the friendship was with the new Power Girl and maybe Raven. All the others were well developed over time, Bunker in particular. I can't really agree at all. Tim basically contributed nothing to most of the arcs, Power Girl was just kinda there, Superboy and Bart just leave and are never heard from again, and Cassie basically stopped having any personal interest in anything after the issue with her Aunt was solved. On the other hand, Beast Boy's friendships with Bunker and Raven are the only ones that were consistently payed attention to. Everybody mostly just talks about what's immediately happening with the plot never taking a break to slow down for character development. Chaos Hippy posted:Note to self: avoid any comics featuring a character named Bunker. Actually, Bunker's a pretty neat character. I would like to see him written well, but I think he's about to shelved and forgotten about pretty soon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
The Bart stuff is to me the absolute worst character change of the new 52 and the sooner we can get a proper Bart back as Impulse the better
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Batman doesn't kill people because it's morally wrong to kill people, guys. If a character can't do a thing for the sole reason that it's not the right thing to do, superhero comics might not be your thing. There's also a couple of in-universe justifications for why Batman doesn't kill people that we've missed. Snyder's Joker is also immortal. Batman couldn't kill him even if he wanted to. Gordon shoots him and he comes right back. And in Hush, Loeb brings up the pragmatic justification, which is that Gordon shuts Batman down if he steps over that line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:Batman doesn't kill people because it's morally wrong to kill people, guys. If a character can't do a thing for the sole reason that it's not the right thing to do, superhero comics might not be your thing. Wasn't he only immortal temporarily because of the Lazarus Pit or whatever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
monkeu posted:Wasn't he only immortal temporarily because of the Lazarus Pit or whatever? I haven't read Endgame since it came out but I do remember that it implied this Joker had lived for centuries, maybe through multiple Lazarus Pit baths.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:I haven't read Endgame since it came out but I do remember that it implied this Joker had lived for centuries, maybe through multiple Lazarus Pit baths. Nah, Joker found a pond filled with the same chemical that gives the pits their regenerative properties. That is how he grew his face back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
yeah that was all fake-out bullshit
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:Batman doesn't kill people because it's morally wrong to kill people, guys. If a character can't do a thing for the sole reason that it's not the right thing to do, superhero comics might not be your thing. Not only that, the "realism" or "practicality" argument against Batman's no-kill policy is bullshit as well. It's long since been proven that killing criminals doesn't prevent crime in real life, it's sure as hell not going to help in a universe where everyone inevitably comes back from the dead. Batman is a good person with a pragmatic outlook, and killing is both morally wrong and ineffective as a deterrent, therefor Batman doesn't kill. No further justification is necessary. Anyone making the argument that Batman "should" kill is probably revealing more about themselves than they realise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
AmbassadorFriendly posted:Batman doesn't kill people because it's morally wrong to kill people, guys. If a character can't do a thing for the sole reason that it's not the right thing to do, superhero comics might not be your thing. Chaos Hippy posted:Anyone making the argument that Batman "should" kill is probably revealing more about themselves than they realise. The whole question of whether or not Batman should kill is a distraction. Batman kills and always has killed. Batman killed in his first story, and continues to kill. Every time he gets into fisticuffs with criminals, he is likely to kill them or leave them with injuries that kill them eventually (whether in the next few hours or in decades). He regularly forces people into life-and-death situations, like exchanges of gunfire, risking the lives of everyone around him. He also drags children into these situations. He has indirectly caused people to get themselves killed. The no-kill rule is just a fiction intended to make him friendlier. The problem is that people have internalized it, to the point of holding it up as a half-assed moral precept. This causes some doublethink. The healthy thing to do is to admit that you enjoy stories about a violent vigilante dressed as a bat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
That is the most half assed rationalization I have ever heard. I mean putting people in dangerous situations does not mean you killed them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:
Actually he doesn't kill anyone because Batman is a fake nonreal person so he's able to fight people and then they don't die because that's what the story says. Sorry you're unable to grasp the very basic foundation of how fiction works. Also you're literally right, he's doesn't kill people because it's a fiction, because he's fictional and not real. He's fake. He's a make-em-up. Literally anything can happen, because he has no agency. Because he's fake. Because nothing he does actually has happened or is bound by what I like to refer to as "reality". Also, of course he's a violent vigilante dressed as a bat. Any idiot would admit that. He's just a violent vigilante dressed as a bat who doesn't kill people. NieR Occomata fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 06:58
|
|
|
Chaos Hippy posted:Not only that, the "realism" or "practicality" argument against Batman's no-kill policy is bullshit as well. It's long since been proven that killing criminals doesn't prevent crime in real life, it's sure as hell not going to help in a universe where everyone inevitably comes back from the dead. Obviously crime isn't gonna pack up because Batman kills, but it would stop specific genocidal maniacs who rake in ludicrous body counts. The coming back to life is part of the fictional nature because they wanna keep telling Joker stories and whatnot, but really, that's all of it. The cartoon characters are always at the mercy of the cartoonist's interests. There are all these little paradoxes in place to ensure maximum profits for the ones who own the IP and the best you can do is ignore them. Despite generally being on the "kill" side, I can perfectly enjoy a story that ends with the Joker in jail if the story doesn't rub it in my face that he'll get out and murder a million more people and how Batman doesn't kill blah blah. It's stuff like this why the end of TKJ is essentially Batman and the Joker realizing how ridiculous their comic book existence is. WickedHate fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Toxxupation posted:Actually he doesn't kill anyone because Batman is a fake nonreal person so he's able to fight people and then they don't die because that's what the story says. Sorry you're unable to grasp the very basic foundation of how fiction works. Batman is fictional, but that Batman the character kills other characters in stories is fact. That he doesn't kill people in stories is a fiction, that is to say, "a supposition known to be at variance with fact, but conventionally accepted for some reason of practical convenience, conformity with traditional usage, decorum, or the like". I can just say that it's a lie, if that's easier. Toxxupation posted:He's just a violent vigilante dressed as a bat who doesn't kill people. Evidence shows otherwise. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 07:27 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
WickedHate posted:Obviously crime isn't gonna pack up because Batman kills, but it would stop specific genocidal maniacs who rake in ludicrous body counts. The coming back to life is part of the fictional nature because they wanna keep telling Joker stories and whatnot, but really, that's all of it. The cartoon characters are always at the mercy of the cartoonist's interests. There are all these little paradoxes in place to ensure maximum profits for the ones who own the IP and the best you can do is ignore them. Despite generally being on the "kill" side, I can perfectly enjoy a story that ends with the Joker in jail if the story doesn't rub it in my face that he'll get out and murder a million more people and how Batman doesn't kill blah blah. In the end though, isn't that Gotham's fault? Batman stops and (usually) helps arrests these criminals, it shouldn't be up to him to "take responsibility" and murder them. If it's really that big a deal that the Joker is a mass murderer, then I don't see how we can blame Batman for not extra-judicially murdering him—shouldn't we be blaming the state for that instead? I mean in the end the answer is "comic books", but I don't see how Batman is in the wrong here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
If we suppose that within the DC universe the government is incapable of apprehending or containing the Joker themselves, they can't really achieve executing him either. Superheroes are already inherently extrajudicial. The same narrative laws that requires Batman to exist in the first place also means the likelihood of the state carrying out a lethal injection on one of his villains is nil. But like I said, Batman not killing is fine until people bend over backwards to justify it or whatever, because it's stupider the more it's brought past the level of metatextual. WickedHate fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 08:16
|
|
|
Everytime I see arguments about if Batman should kill people or not, or people trying to argue that he's totally killed people I just think about that Grant Morrison quote where he talks about how adults are stupid because they ask questions nobody cares about like: "How does Superman fly?" Edit - I mean, granted, it's utterly stupid that they acknowledge the no-kill argument in the comics at all. Especially since they never use the obvious justification that Batman is somebody who strongly believes in people reforming, and just go with vague crap about "Something worse will come" or that he'll completely lose himself and become a villain himself. Roth fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Sep 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 08:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
WickedHate posted:If we suppose that within the DC universe the government is incapable of apprehending or containing the Joker themselves, they can't really achieve executing him either. Superheroes are already inherently extrajudicial. The same narrative laws that requires Batman to exist in the first place also means the likelihood of the state carrying out a lethal injection on one of his villains is nil. That Batman's actions are inherently extrajudicial makes the rule even more important. Since superheroes answer to no one, and can essentially do whatever they want, they are only differentiated from supervillains by their own self-imposed moral guidelines. Doubly so with Batman, whose methods rely on violence and intimidation. His refusal to kill is what allows someone like Commissioner Gordon to rationalize working with a vigilante, and allows heroes like Superman to consider him one of their own, instead of a menace in his own right. One of the few things I give Hush credit for is Gordon's warning while talking Batman down from killing Joker. If he crosses that line, even for the clown, there's no going back. No more bat signal at the GCPD, no more League membership, no more hanging out with the blue boy scout. He might never kill again, but the damage will already be done, and he'll no longer be trustworthy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2016 09:12
|
|