Batman General Discussion

I dont think Joker cares about their gender. To him all humans are meat puppets except for Batman. Yes he killed them but not because he hates women, but because they were no longer funny to him, and he would do the same to any man.

How can we be sure the Joker is even telling the truth? I mean really.

I'd expect Batman to be smart enough to realize if he's fought a single one of them or several over the years.

But Harley isn't disposable in a meta sense. Harley isn't just his sidekick. She's unique. It's not the Joker who's being misogynistic here; it's whoever came up with this screwed up idea. It's as if Batman went to the orphanage and picked up a black-haired, blue-eyed boy every time the last one died. It takes no account for her story - Harley's just some blonde, blue-eyed bimbo in red and black. She's replaceable. The idea that just anyone could be Harley, that multiple someones could be Harley and have her flair and personality, that each and every one of them could call Joker "Mr. J" and mean the same exact thing as if they were Barbie dolls punched out in a factory - that's what's misogynistic. That's the screwed up thing.

And on Joker's level, it doesn't make sense. He's telling the same joke over and over. Why would it get any funnier?

True, although it isn't the first time Batman writers tend to think of his villains as easily replaceable props. Half the time someone writes Clayface, they don't bother to mention which Clayface it is, and I think they don't even have it clear themselves most of the time. Then there are things like Killer Moth and Firefly being replaced by guys they don't even bother to introduce properly after killing them off for shock value. Or Jeremiah Arkham randomly becoming the new Black Mask, because. (I'm not objecting to the arc of Arkahm going insane, because the seeds were planted ever since his first appearance, but turning him into another Black Mask was a very flimsy proposal).

edited 25th Dec '12 12:53:40 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

The difference is, tho, that Harley's had a lot of crap sent her way not because people aren't interested in her character, but because they're turned on by her and think she's an airhead. And then they make her personality irritating and abrasive. See Arkham City.

To be fair, Arkham City was written by Paul Dini, the character's daddy himself, and the one who has written her best appearances. Everyone has a few slips.

The thing is, it really wasn't so much her lines as her appearance and her nasal voice. Tara Strong is brilliant, but she didn't do much towards making Harley likable here. And Dini headed a team of writers. What I'm saying is that he didn't write it alone. His priority may have been more on the main storyline, not on random henchmen saying how they want to kill and rape her.

It's quite possible that the Joker a) found women to dress up as HQ because he kind of sort of missed her, then killed them when they didn't fit his fancy, b) found women to dress up as HQ specifically to kill them, or c) acquired a bunch of female corpses of roughly the right size and dressed them up as HQ for the sole purpose of this "joke."

Reminds me a bit of how the network came back to Timm and Dini when "Harley and Ivy" was being produced for Batman; TAS, complaining that the Joker behaved in an ungentlemanly manner when he kicked Harley in the butt to get her out the door (oddly, his later comment that the two had been "busy little beavers" got past the network, a line which Timm and Dini changed themselves to "busy little bees" because they felt it went a bit too far).

He's the Joker. He's a sick freak who'll do anything if he thinks it's funny. Treating his girl-friday (hench-wench?) as disposable seems in keeping with his personality.

I think the increasingly stark attempts to alter the air of Batman mythos by having it as focused on outright depravity as possible, particularly in regards to his rogues gallery, is starting to file off what made the characters to likeable and engaging in the first place. In their attempt to make all of Batman's rogues gallery into an array of dismal freaks each more outright disturbing than the last, it's like everything is just dictated by how much shock or flinch value it can create, and that's it.

I'm sure someone in the writing staff thought that the idea of Harley being a disposable asset that isn't unique at all would be a shocking twist, but honestly why should I care about Harley at all now? Less rant-ingly, now that the relationship and origin that defines her character is revealed to be false and lacking in substance, why should I consider the character to have any real substance at all?

It's the same for with the twist they did on Mr. Freeze - now that the main defining component of his character is revealed to be a deluded lie, why should we continue to care about the character as he is?

I was already worried about this happening when Morrison came on, but now that it's changed hands it really seems like they're trying to ape an exaggerated Morrison-esque atmosphere without any real care about balancing the characters with it.

edited 26th Dec '12 12:55:46 AM by KnownUnknown

Like I said before, the Batwriters are treating their characters, mostly their villains, as disposable props to throw into costumes and then to maim or kill or twist for shock value. I had forgotten to mention the change of the General into Anarky II, thus ruining two characters at once in a move that ultimately went nowhere. Much like with Dr. Arkham and Black Mask.

Dini at least tried with his Ventriloquist II (only for it to be undone by others anyway), making the best out a wasted character that still was popular enough with fandom and creators, and was killed anyway because James Robinson wanted a big pile of corpses.

BTW, was this Harley thing Snyder's idea? Because I keep telling everyone Snyder is an overrated Morrison wannabe who just keeps retconning things when they don't need to, but people never listens.

It could be considering he is head of this event, but it could just as well be SS's writer. It certainly would fit in line with what hes written so far.

Well, I am happy to say that the Death Of The Family page has at least 100 Wicks going to it!

Mr. Freeze is a character that didn't have a lot of characterization for a long time. Batman The Animated Series did give him the best characterization. But the fact is that things change. I wonder if Freeze sees his mother in Nora.

I'm not so sure that DOTF destroyed Harley Quinn's characterization. I mean, she Took a Level in Badass against Joker. At the very least, she's different from what was shown about Harley Quinn before.

Eh, I wasn't fond of the changes Snyder made to the Batman mythos in his main Batman run (if he's responsible for that Joker/Jason Todd retcon then that's even more frustrating) but I do think he's a good writer, I mean his run on Swamp Thing with Jeff Lemire's Animal Man is amazing. In spite of those retcons I also though the Court of Owls story arc was really good up until the last two chapters where it all goes to hell with that Lincoln March nonsense.

Good writers don't always have good runs on things and/or don't always write or spearhead things that work, it's true.

Heck, even Morrison - I don't particularly like his run on Batman, as it always felt to me like he was twisting the mythos in ways it shouldn't go in order to make it fit a style he was more in tune with. Which really worked for the Doom Patrol - the outright devotion to making the universe as bizarre as possible is one of the things that make his Doom Patrol great, but I just never felt it worked with Batman - and over-the-top characters like Flamingo fell flat with me as a result.

A similar rationale is the reason why Jeph Loeb is still on my list of favorite comic writers (for his Batman work and the Batman/Superman series) even though a great deal of comic readers hate him for his recent actions with Marvel.

edited 26th Dec '12 2:18:14 PM by KnownUnknown

Hey, question. How involved is Batman in the Justice League? Like, does he show up at every meeting or does he just go when he's needed? My JLA knowledge is fuzzy.

If Batman's on the team, he'll show up at every meeting.

edited 28th Dec '12 2:01:26 AM by TheConductor

That's an interesting question. Then again, that's like asking how Bruce Wayne is able to juggle the duties of Wayne Enterprises, and being Batman in Gotham City and in the Justice League. Jobs, I might add, that he would be working on 24/7 and would technically require him to sleep at some point!

Luckily, Batman dodges that issue by having him be that Escapist Character most people wish they were, with the implication being that an EC doesn't need to worry about silly details like sleep. Still, I have seen Batman cartoons featuring Batman struggling with sleep and juggling responsibilities.

Although the others will not always notice it.

Or Aquaman will throw another hissy fit.

One thing I find interesting about Batman is how there are Loads And Loads Of Characters. It makes sense, considering that the franchise started way back in May 1939, and 70 plus years is a long time.

One result of LALOC is that some characters go on to become as famous as they can get, and some just fade into the mists of...whatever. For instance, have you heard of a character named Steeljacket? He appeared in Batman Knightfall Volume 3. Apparently, the dude is a genetic scientist who crossed his DNA with a bird's DNA, and made himself into a bird-man...but he apparently has to wear a steel costume, because it made his bone structure weaker. Who was he? Nothing has even been stated there, other than the scientist part. Why did he mess around with his DNA? No reason has ever been stated. Why did he target Mafia goons? No reason has ever been stated. Other than a couple of appearances, the character amounted to nothing, and I can see why. A Generic Doomsday Villain is usually not a good way to introduce a character.

edited 30th Dec '12 7:47:24 AM by TiggersAreGreat

Wait, so was Steeljacket like a vigilante or a villain?

Well, that's just it. There is so little characterization given to Steeljacket that his motives are just murky. In fact, he fought Robin (Tim Drake) in a big aerial battle, and he lost when the cops blew holes into his fragile wings and crashed on top of a car. He shouldn't have survived that, but he somehow did. In fact, the last that was shown of him was a scene of him as a patient in Arkham Asylum. The good news is that they amputated his wings so he can't fly. The bad news is that his claws are still as sharp and deadly as ever!

Like I said, this character never became high-tier, and it's painfully clear that a number of factors simply worked against him.

Yeah, there's a lot of characters like that. For example, have you ever heard of Harold Allnut? He was this mute hunchback who worked for Batman and designed his gadgets for him. He was a cool character concept but they never really did anything with him.