DC Comics General

I agree, but the stance would be more convincing if the Bat-family's weapons of choice weren't throwing knives, often with the tendency to explode - essentially bat-shaped IED's, which probably fits the ISIS comparison better than using straightforward firearms. You'd think that for all the grim seriousness, writers would start accounting for shrapnel and concussion damage already. Factor in the general disregard for non-human opponents, and the vaunted one rule only seems to be invoked when the resident complete monsters use it to taunt the heroes.

From what I've heard about the latest Batman-Joker limited series, Batman yells at Bane for trying to kill the clown (which would likely spare numerous lives, and it's not as if Bane would be psychologically affected by the deed), yet after the situation is defused, he proceeds to pointlessly brutalize said clown, even though there's nothing to be gained by it. Not exactly upholding a moral high-ground there. All in all, it's only this sort of adherence to the letter of moral codes in between unrepentant abuse of their spirit that really grinds my gears; and I wouldn't mention it altogether if not for Batman's frequent clashes with more consistent characters in their own books.

I am not going to discuss a series I haven't read "on what I've heard about it".

It's another suspension of disbelief issue, and if you can't suspend your disbelief for it, then no harm no foul, but Batman is probably not for you

Except because there's plenty of Batman stories with no Robin or even mentions of his existence where the Batman character works just as well. Arguably, once the character needed to have '-and Robin' attached to his name, but at this point Batman doesn't really need a sidekick to substain another iteration of his mythos.

Interesting fact: the pre-Robin period of Batman comics lasted a whopping... eleven months.

edited 13th Feb '16 5:31:02 PM by HamburgerTime

Another fun fact: the first enemy Batman actually bothers to try and save from a certain death is... the Joker. Before that, even when he stopped actively killing, if you were a bad guy and he saw you dropping down a building or falling towards your own sword he was all like "well, tough shit".

Anyway, other than comics being aimed for a much younger audience who needed an identification figure (or so writers at the time thought at least), Robin also was brought in because they needed someone for Batman to deliver explanation dialogue to. Which is sort of unimportant after inner monologue boxes became commonplace in comics.

edited 13th Feb '16 5:36:47 PM by NapoleonDeCheese

Overuse of internal monologue boxes is one of my biggest problems modern superhero comics.

edited 13th Feb '16 7:36:34 PM by Cuber

You're just in time. Bayble Cuber's going to watch an inkle dribble adventure from days of old on my holo-pyramid viewer.

It beats having the characters explain what their powers are in dialogue. I find a lot of 60s-80s stuff nigh unreadable due to this.

They started beating each other because the cure to their disease was the other's blood, and the Joker wasn't simply going to let pass a chance to beat Batman , making a more civilized outcome; impossible.

Didn't the fight continue even after the blood-sharing was done - with the usual "I'll be there to stop you" routine that no further writer will actually try and hold up? Not that the whole mutual-interdependence theme itself hasn't been done to death already.

At any rate, I find the best Batman and the best Superman stories to be the ones where they team up. Batman is generally unimpressed by Superman's god-complex, ditto Superman regarding Batman's grimdarkness fetish, and the cases themselves are usually both large scale and complex, without being melodramatic or gruesome. As a double act, they actually work great, probably the second best DC team-up after the Flash and Green Lantern.

Otherwise yeah, Robins are among the grandfather clauses that the Batman mythos has consistently resisted shaking off, even as writers go for darker stories and more serious tones. Ditto strict moral codes mismatched with ultra-violent action scenes, overly vicious villains, and the official admission that locking them up is about as useful as letting them go - this is where the pretense of fighting for justice becomes an exercise in futility. The way I see it, a good superhero story is one where the good guy defeats the bad guy within the given context (so unless a cardboard prison is implied or referenced, it's not taken to be the case), and prevents him from further assaulting innocents. Thus, Endgame was pretty good. I'd even say it's a story where Batman does kill the Joker, because willingly preventing a severely wounded guy from getting medical care (of sorts) is about as close to manslaughter as it gets. Yes, strictly speaking, both of them "survive", but as an ending to a separate story, it was great, if a bit melodramatic.

Let's be serious and honest here; ultimately, in ongoing superhero comics letting the villains go, locking them up and killing them off are all just as ineffective. As long as the villain is C list and above, they'll just keep returning no matter what, and that's more of a meta quirk of the genre than anything directly steming from the heroes' in-universe course of action.

edited 14th Feb '16 6:27:34 AM by NapoleonDeCheese

Like I said, it's only when it's referenced within a story itself - as Joker stories in particular have the habit of doing - that this becomes an actual issue. There's no such problem with, say, gravity-assisted curtain calls - even when the villain returns a few months later, it's clear there's nothing more the hero could have done to prevent it. If anything, it makes the code even more redundant.

However, there is another side to the problem, one that the Nolanverse immediately addressed, but mainstream titles only mention, yet rarely provide resolution - the matter of a corrupt legal system. What I liked about Nolan's Batman was that he went after the judges first, criminals second. That way, there was no blaming the guy for only doing band-aid service and not attacking the root of the problem, even if some villains broke out of prison. To contrast, when stories like Batman vs. Robin mention the very real issue of high-level mobsters avoiding imprisonment altogether, never mind conspiracies pulling even more strings, the plot has to be resolved by another villain, because indeed, let's be honest - allowing a corrupt system to have the final call is something superheroes were designed to fight against. This, and not metafictional immortality, is the true failing of the code.

edited 14th Feb '16 7:00:27 AM by indiana404

And Snyder has just brough back the Joker AGAIN, rendering all of Endgame pointless.

Well yeah, if Bruce survived and became Batman again of course Joker survived. We've known this for several issues(and the solicits with Joker back in books like him showing up in Harley's book where she'll put the hurt on him came out ages ago).

edited 14th Feb '16 9:15:59 AM by LordofLore

Harley's books are in their own continuity.

Even Suicide Squad?

Suicide Squad is not a Harley focused title like Little Book, Harley and PG or the upcoming Gang of Harleys

I'd say that Robin, handled well, can be a great character, either with Batman or by himself. Too many fans, and writers too, for that matter, equate not liking the character with the character being stupid/useless/etc. Darwin Cooke writes an excellent Robin, for example. For a further example of how the kid sidekick can work beautifully, I refer you to Milton Caniff's Terry and the Pirtates, or to Jonny Quest, for that matter. It's not that that kind of character no longer works, it's that it has, largely, gone out of fashion. Robin persists because he's very well known, and part of the "Batman and..." trademark (and likely in no small part due to the popularity of the Teen Titans cartoons).

I personally would prefer a Batman who functioned with only Alfred and Robin, rather than the small army that he seems to have at his disposal now. Batman titles seem to be practically drowning in supporting character. "Brooding loner" indeed...

edited 14th Feb '16 11:30:55 AM by Robbery

Endgame's aftermath wasn't pointless. Alfred is missing an hand, and Gordon was Batman and is keeping Rookie.

Aflred's hand hasn't been relevant at all all this time, making it just another of Snyder's cheap attempts of creating tension by adding horror elements to the story.

And with both Rebirth and a change of writer in the horizon, I don't think the whole thing with Gordon will be more than a footnote for the Batman mythos.

Well the solicit for Detective Comics after Bruce is back says Gordon keeps the suit.

Good, I always loved the bunny suit.

"I am Alpharius. This is a lie."

At least until Rebirth, right?

Rebirth is looking more and more like a relaunch/renumbering than a full on reboot so it might still be there after it(and Snyder will be on Detective Comics again). When the current runs end the big books are also close to something important: milestones. Superman will be 32 issues away from issue 800, WW will be 33 away from 700, Batman will be 34 from 800, Action Comics will be 43 away from 1000 and Detective Comics will be 66 issues away from 1000.

In other news, the current Toy Fair revealed 2 new Bombshell statues: Raven◊ and Bumblebee◊!

Edit: Space Cat.

edited 14th Feb '16 4:13:00 PM by LordofLore

"It's not a reboot and it never was''.

On the one hand: good, I'm glad it's not a reboot.

On the other hand: what does "it never was" mean? Does that mean "Rebirth" was never a reboot (in which case, uh, okay) or that the New 52 was never a reboot (even though it totally was)? If it's the latter, does that mean they are bringing back some pre-Flashpoint characters? Please? Pretty please?