I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of fans of the character that wrote the book since Kevin Smith.
Speaking of: my hot take on those books is that the "bladder spasm" and "double dee" scenes pale in comparison of Smith biggest sin of fridging Silver St Cloud to prop up his own created villain.
But fans DO write Batman. Every writer is a fan, fan opinion greatly influences DC, and they even let a fan vote create a huge piece of Batman lore (the death of Jason Todd).
That page is a strong memory for me. I was not even a teenager when Knightfall came out. I always felt a lot of hate for that punk who’s smiling and smoking a cigarette!
First thing I thought was that he could just be passing him by as if he were just a beaten up dude in a batsuit. Don't think it's a stretch to think some people would just walk by with a smirk similarly to the way people in NYC do.
I think you’re forgetting how built Bruce is and how incredible his physique looks to the average person. So this most likely would not look like just some fan dressing up like Batman.
One of the most impactful panels ever. It's just so brutal. Coming right after the breaking it's like holy shit Bane had to fucking throw him off a roof too?
Seeing Bane gloating over the broken Batman was horrific. I guess that’s why readers were more open to him getting a nasty beat down by the “New Batman” later on.
I agree. It has such a cool fucking premise and then does nothing with it. What a dumb fucking book.
The ending made no sense and they didnt even do a grand Justice League vs Dark Knights battle royale. How the fuck do you line these two teams up at odds and fail to deliver the fucking fight???
It's an excellent pitch for what will one day be a great animated movie. (Assuming DC ever decides to give them an actual animation budget again, anyways).
It's weird that I'm nostalgic for the 90s, but that was when I first got into comics. I just couldn't get into any of the metal stuff. I just thought is was bad, confusing, pointless and had too many money sucking tie-ins. In a way the perfect 90s tribute lol
I think he’s definitely hated on here but I can’t tell you how many comments I’ve seen on other social media sights that are like “we NEED a Batman who laughs movie in the DCU”. I think he would’ve been a fine character for a one off villain but I just cringe when people really love him because it just feels very edgelord to me.
Don’t forget, lots of people also have only seen the design or know basics like jokerized Batman when saying that stuff, and haven’t actually read everything to do with it.
But some people will still want it despite having read it all.
What? You don't like Nightwing, Robin, Red Robin, Batgirl/Oracle, Spoiler, Orphan, Signal, Bluebird, Huntress, Batwoman, Red Hood and Batwing defending the city?
Good point. I liked in Under The Red Hood when Jason really hurts the one guy and Bruce says he shouldn't have shattered his collarbone. I liked how that showed Batman as being someone not to mess with but he won't paralyze you for life. In Arkham there's no way half the moves don't kill people
Batman - \*jumps off a high-rise, diving to pick up speed, slams boots heel-first into the nose of some street thug sending him flying face-first into the cement corner of some building after transferring the equivalent force of an 80mph car crash into his skull\*
"another non-lethal takedown in the bag"
*Alfred feverishly working to keep up with the sheer amount of deaths caused by Bruce each fight*
"You know sir, have you ever wondered whether you might be treating some of these faceless grunts a tad bit harsh?"
In college, I remember watching my roommate play the first Arkham game and getting a slo-mo final takedown on a thug. It was in a sewer area and Batman just left him facedown in like two inches of running water. We both just laughed and laughed because he was DEFINITELY dead.
This got a bigger chuckle than it should have. Imagine Bruce really killing all these people, but manipulating the evidence to say otherwise... No-kill rule, who?
I make similar comments about the Playstation Spider-Man game. I regularly whip people down to bare concrete from 20 feet in the air and they're just knocked out.
I feel like the Arkham games justify that level of violence though. These guys aren't common thieves that he goes up against. They are explicitly trying to kill him. Though the treatment of the "crazies" (and really their portrayal, but thats another issue entirely) in Asylum is a bit much.
In terms of how he deals with muggers or more common thieves, I do think Batman: Noel does a good job touching on that, showing that even he realizes he goes too far with people like that. And it depends on the writer too, I guess.
Yeah these aren't thugs trying to get money for something to eat. These are hardened gangster who are actively participating in a city destroying event. This is go-tine for batman where he needs to be quick and as brutal as possible. Or else
I like it when they establish the world runs on comic book logic and everyone he destroys will be perfectly fine in a month or so. When he's straight up torturing people or crippling them it just doesn't feel like batman.
The Arkham games sacrifice the humanizing interactions that made TAS great for gameplay reasons. Gotham feels like a ghost town, a post-apocalypse in which you encounter goons and hallucinations more than regular civilians. Some of the less informed takes about Bruce Wayne not helping Gotham enough or Batman being callous or paranoid make more sense if you assume the better marketed Arkham Batman is all they know.
I agree but I don’t wanna read a crisis event each time it resets. It gets convoluted and a bit meaningless. I’d be fine if they just wrapped up stories and reset. Do a crisis every so often
This. Why do we need a big crisis event every time there's a reboot? It's getting to the point where they aren't even that good anymore.
Just launch the reboot, say "hey, this is a new continuity" and skip the crisis altogether.
This wouldn't even be a proglem if they just rebooted things less often. If it happened every 10 years, I don't think I would really be bothered by there being a crisis every time.
They should do one of two things: either hard reboots every generation or so or commit to a real timeline where characters age, retire, and die so we don't have a 12th legacy character active using the same name as the previous 11 who are still active in their role.
Yup. Clean start and we get an inexperienced Batman who hasn't quite got his footing yet, is very much "street level," hasn't made any friends at a corrupt police department yet, and not only is organized crime a problem in Gotham between at least two major crime families, but costumed and gimmicked madmen are out there as well as serial killers and random gang violence.
The biggest loss for me would be Nightwing.
Cough (New 52) cough.
It was so fucking awkward having certain titles hard rebooted while others (like Batman Inc.) just marched along like Flashpoint didn't even happen like that didn't create obvious problems.
Then there were the mind-boggling incongruities between Superman and Action Comics.
I think limiting oneself to telling the stories of one era of a character without ever addressing time passing, characters growing or changing is much less creative. Every time Bruce has shown growth, a reboot comes along to knock off 20 years of life and make him a stubborn young man again.
Wasn't that... So people wouldn't think Bruce Wayne was obviously Batman? "Hey, at the exact same time Batman got a redheaded new sidekick, Bruce Wayne adopted a redheaded orphan... Wait a minute!" Guess I'm not sure but that's what I always assumed was the reason.
I wish they'd kept the red hair. I get for identity reasons it would be sus, but Bruce Wayne only adopting dark haired, blue eyed orphans is also a wee bit sketch.
"Are you an orphan? Do you have black hair and blue eyes? Do you have daddy issues? If so, contact Bruce Wayne adoption for immediate adoption. Acrobatics or fighting skills will fast tract you"
That’s no creepier than the fact that Batman used to make Robin wear the shortest shorts he could find, and he wouldn’t even let the poor bastard wear socks.
>It’s a cool idea, but not much beyond that
I loved the idea that his true power was shitty Batgod writing.
"Oh, you've foiled my scheme? Well, actually I had anticipated your move and prepared for this moment! My real plan involved you foiling my scheme, that was all a part of my *real* scheme, so actually, I win! HAHAHAHAHA!"
BWL could have been a really fun meta character and a great event villian. One of those who only shows up once every several years, but when he does, it's a real 'Holy shit!' moment. Instead, they ran him into the ground.
He was okay. I did enjoy the death metal event and he was the main villain in that together with His JL Batman variants. That was an interesting story and the finale with him fighting against huge golden Wonder Woman was cool. The bat-family fighting the goons at the ground was fun too.
My main problem with the *Death Metal* event was the soundtrack album that came out. None of the artists save Carach Angren* were anything close to death metal. I mean, the dude from Deftones, her out of In This Moment, and that hardon from Black Veil Brides? Fuck me.
*black metal, if anything
Like I did enjoy the Batman who laughs origin story it’s like what if Batman just snapped one day joker style. Like he fights Joker one day kills him gets infected by his laughing gas toxin. When he is poisoned in the bat cave he has a great idea to call in all the bat-family members. Then out of know where when they arrive at his secret lair he just opens fire at them while laughing like a maniac. That panel caught me off guard. Pretty dark moment if I do say so myself, and from there on out it’s a downward spiral of lunancy and madness for Bruce. He is never the same after being infected by that Joker poison. That toxin messed up his head for life. His design is interesting and pretty scary same goes for his dark demon possessed robin minions. He just has a big smile on his face when he murders people. Classic Psychopath style.
A part of me feels that he would've been more appreciated and welcomed, even after a prolonged stay, if there was more build up to this. Like a year or two before them dropping DC: Metal on us, they could've launched elseworld titles that gave us more details and attachments to their other Bruce's, without ever knowing where they would end up once done with them. Along the way we would get decent to normal conclusions for them, with some promise for more from the narrator.
So while we're just left with the mentally of "So those elseworlds were neat of them to give us", they take us for a loop and each of the Metal tie-ins become their true conclusion, showing us the final fates of these characters we may or may not have grown attached to. But honestly that's just me. I'm still waiting for an elseworld that tells us more on Talon from Earth 3, because Owlman's attachment to Dick Grayson and his own Grayson kept me interested.. Only for them to never give us anything. Hell. We've briefly dealt with Drake from Earth 3, before we've had a chance to be introduced to their Grayson and Todd equivalent.
They've overused the crap out of BWL, but if we get another Batman/Dredd crossover, I'd be pretty jazzed to see them up against a Batman Who Laughs + Dark Judges team-up.
I had a story idea for an Elseworld where we see Batman kill once and then slowly descend into a worse villain than any of his rogues (the thing he always says he’s worried about,) but it was more about what Batman as a villain would be like rather than what would a Joker-Batman be.
Graham Nolan’s great pencil work there. Right after Bane broke that Bat and cast the Dark Knight down.
EDIT: My hot take? I find much of online Bat-family fandom to be cringe and gross
Is this really a hot take apart from people who are way too much into this stuff ? Like just seeing what some Barbara Gordon haters post on this sub and other affiliated ones is enough to have a basic idea of what you can get yourself into. Also works with the stans that can't stand other people not liking their favorites.
The officials stance is its kinda cannon, so like if you want it to be cannon it is but don’t expect it to impact anything in the future. Classic DC stuff
Will never understand it either. Dark Knight Trilogy changed lots, BTAS changed lots, and, most importantly, the comics themselves changed lots. There is no "accurate" version
In my experience when changes are dramatic and well handled people praise the work and forget that it is "inaccurate" to the source material. When changes are arbitrary, poorly-handled, or miss the point that's when people start saying something is inaccurate. Typically That's because the general public can tell when a creative work has issues but aren't necessarily good at diagnosing those issues. "It's inaccurate" is an easier complaint to grab at than "this version of Batman has no clear character direction, what character he has is self-indulgently edgy, and thus character is as boring to watch as he is unlikable."
adding to this, one of the main reasons i want to see mr freeze as the next villain in the reeves universe is because of what the animated series did for his character that few villains in the rogues gallery have which is a compelling backstory and goal.
most other villains i see recommended for the next movie (clayface, hugo strange, killer croc) might be cool villains but their motivations aren’t compelling enough to be lead villains imo. i don’t see anything interesting about clayface outside of his powers.
>I dont care about comic accuracy. Its such a weird limitation to place on creative work.
Right. The comic writers constantly retcon stuff and contradict each other, so it's weird when people think a movie writer shouldn't change things.
Mr. Freeze, for one thing. It also introduced Harley Quinn.
Aside from that though, I think the Animated Series is a fairly faithful take, often called the *definitive* take. Probably not the best example here.
Riddler's redesign actually came much earlier. The idea of putting him in a suit as opposed to a one-piece was first done by [Frank Gorshin in the 1966 show](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYOulMRXQAE--s3?format=jpg&name=small) because he didn't like the one-piece suit outfit. Some comics followed this outfit in the years leading up to BTAS.
Mr. Freeze was made into an empathetic character for like the first time
Killer Croc was introduced as a mutant lizard-man hybrid for the first time (as opposed to having a human skin condition)
Introduced Renee Montoya, Harley Quinn, the Gray Ghost, Terry McGinnis, Roxy Rocket, and others for the first time
Made Zatara more a part of Batman's story with Zatanna as a potential love interest for Bruce
There are many more, but these are some major ones.
>I don’t like the idea of Bruce Wayne being the facade that Batman puts on.
Yeah, along similar lines, I like a more mentally stable Batman who can process his grief. Less "I'm still upset over the death of my parents, so I take out my anger on criminals" and more "I went through something awful at a young age, and it sucked, so I want to do everything in my power to prevent it from happening to someone else."
I agree, my take is, both Playboy Bruce and Batman are exaggerations of Bruce’s true self not masks/facades necessarily. The real absolute Bruce is the one most don’t see, the one in the cave/manor, the one that comes out when in the presence of his loved ones. Playboy Bruce is the egotistical and cocky self of Bruce personified and multiplied. While Batman is Bruce’s rage and pain personified and multiplied as well. They both are extensions of Bruce and represent parts of him but aren’t necessarily completely who he is.
One is him embracing his demons and using them to fight crime. While the other is him trying to suppress his demons and show out for the public.
The person who Alfred raised. The man who was a mentor and caring person to Dick, Jason when they had no one else. That is the true unaltered Bruce Wayne.
I particularly dislike the way that they try to force Superman into the same symmetry just to make him the exact counterpoint to Batman.
I hate the take that Clark Kent is the "real" identity when I think that the correct answer is that Kal-El fully embodies the separate parts of Supe's identity.
He's a highly compartmentalized person overall. You get a good glimpse of that in the recent Batman run by Zdarsky. In fact, I'd argue that many of the personal problems Bruce/Batman faces are caused by or at least exacerbated by this inability to switch between his identities.
Only a hot take with certain people, but Batman not killing is integral to his character, it doesn’t matter what he was like way back in his early years. If you go up to someone on the street and ask them if Batman kills, they will say no, its baked into his character and his image at this point.
Also, the early years are irrelevant. The Batman who carried a gun and killed a few people early on was relegated to being the golden age Earth 2 Batman who got killed off well before Crisis on Infinite Earths even happened. Anyone who tries to justify Batman killing by pointing to his very early start in comics is ignoring multiverses and like 2 universe reboots.
I’m fine with either. I think it depends on the tone you are going for. Blue and grey looks more heroic while black and grey emphasizes the darker or heavier aspects of his character.
I think that’s what we need to go towards- the heroic. We’ve covered the dark until it’s tired in just about every direction. It’s time to get Bats not JUST in the shadows… his biggest adversaries don’t stick to them anyway.
The joker is not his most interesting villain. Personally I prefer the mad hatter, the riddler, scarecrow, two-face, Clay face, killer croc and more. They are so much more interesting. They have deep complex backstorys that make them feel relatable or understandable at least how they could become insane. The joker is more of an idea than a real insane person. For example croc is a disfigured ”freak” that was treated like a monster and animal all his life until he became one. The riddler is narcistisc and is driven to prove himself as the smartest person in the world. And the mad hatter is just a schizophrenic perv and incel that has deep women issues. I think there is so much potential with these characters that has never been adapted or shown in movies. The joker is more of an idea. I don’t find the joker to be insane. He knows what he is doing and he is more ideologically driven to prove a point than he is psychologically driven like these other people are. Two face can’t help himself, he needs to think of everything as black and white or as dualities. Mad hatter has to find Alice. The joker do what he wants to do.
What a lot of people miss about The Joker is what I feel the most important part. The only part of his character that's been most consistent is that he aims to entertain, and coming out of the bronze age it's a weird observation because that's not super consistent with what we've seen lately.
Thing is, you picked up the comic book to be entertained, so there's something inherently meta be said Gotham's Clown Prince who aims to "entertain" you... and if you compare this assessment Joker's two most thematically adjacent characters, one Harley who breaks the 4th wall w/ the frequency of Deadpool for largely all the same reasons, and one Punchline who has found her niche in a lot of modern social commentaries around computers; that checks out.
When Joker is in himself a compelling character, it's generally because this one characterization is consistent. When authors miss the point, audiences get Joker fatigue.
Agreed. Personally, I want to see more of scarecrow because I think there’s something so human about fear that it’s part of the human identity. Professor crane’s situation reminds me of Socrates and other philosophers who were too ahead of their time and got killed for it. It’s interesting to see scarecrow portrayed the same way because he was also kind of a genius
I am sick and tired of seeing the Joker in any media. I wouldn’t mind if he wasn’t in any comic, game, or movie for the next decade. He’s meant to be a wild card in Batman’s rouges but he shows up too much to have any thematic weight
He’s way too over-saturated. Between Heath Ledger’s performance, Joaquin Phoenix’s performance, Jared Leto’s performance, the tease in The Batman, and the fact he’s been the main villain in all 4 Arkham games (even in the one where he’s dead), it’s just too much.
Which is pretty wild they had such restraint to not use joker until Tim showed up
Heck sheer fact they had Batman deal with joker immediately after joker killed Jason was wild
If that happened today joker would have been back in like the next arc lol
I dislike the 'wife dies' backstory for the joker, I feel like the joker isn't necessarily a villain that needs a sad backstory, in fact I like the gangster backstory because it shows that despite what he tells batman he was always a monster, and it gives him reason to know how to handle a variety of weapons
My hot take… The “Prep Time” Argument is the worst excuse fans use as a lynchpin for “why Batman will always win”. I love me Batman too, but come on.. no amount of prep time saves you from everything! Plus the world often doesn’t allow for prep time when shit just pops off. But for real… anyone with almost unlimited funds and beforehand knowledge of a situation may have one hell of an upper hand, but he’s not omnipotent.
And a lot of the time, if I mention that, they break my back for saying it… but not my will to stand by that fact!
I think the bat family is good when they are their own characters with their own relationships with each other. They may all have some relationship with Batman, but their relationships with each other should be just a important.
I get that. Too many iterations of Robin, Batgirl, etc all practically picking up their own mantles at this point. At any given time there should always be one Robin, and one Batgirl, with the whole family coming together for big events. Sounds much more consistent than Batman having a whole child army at his disposal ready to pounce on a single mugger all at once.
I know it will never happen, because each of the batfamily is at least one person's favorite character, but i still think batman woukd be better if it did happen
Batman isn’t the mask like a lot of Batman fans believe, he’s best when he’s Batman and Bruce Wayne. He doesn’t create his villains, it’s not his responsibility to kill them and he does a lot for Gotham outside of just being Batman. Oh and the Robins are best portrayed as his sons, not his soldiers and if he didn’t take them in, most of them would’ve ended up dead or going down a path of crime.
Snyderverse wasn’t all bad:
Warehouse fight - Batman moves like a ninja and uses gadgets, who would’ve thought.
Batman using a voice modulator - practical, elegant, no need for Bale-ish growling.
Batman pulling Flash aside when he’s scared and telling him to start by saving just one person. Encapsulates Batman as a leader, not just a vigilante.
>Batman pulling Flash aside when he’s scared and telling him to start by saving just one person. Encapsulates Batman as a leader, not just a vigilante.
This was Whedon, not Snyder. That scene doesn't happen in the Snyder Cut.
Robin should have to train as extensively as Bruce did, therefore it only makes sense for Dick to be Robin, as by the time he is ready Bruce would be at least in his forties.
No, I think the major difference is the fact that the Robins are children learning these things while Bruce had at youngest been a legal adult, from what I can understand of his training years. He didn’t do his heavy training at the same intensity he taught his Robins when he was their age - he did it much older. Their bodies are at very different stages, and youth _absolutely_ carries the edge for this. Dick is honestly the best example of this.
Dick had grown up learning gymnastic routines since he could walk, and was already heavy into the sport during his formative years as an adolescent, which is also the best time to imbed things like muscle memory, stamina, flexibility, and the habits needed to keep it up in adult hood. An adult without a background like that would need MUCH more time to achieve the same skill level he did at the circus, and because they don’t have the same physical conditioning, many things may be outright impossible for them.
It’s like getting into sports - the best time to form skills to be a pro is pre-adolescence. 10 years training and you can be breaking records. They’ve laid the groundwork for achieving the best results they can out of their bodies before it can’t take their abuse anymore, and the peak age is mid-20s for a reason. 30yos aren’t breaking world records the way teens and 20-something’s are for a lot of sports for this reason. So many sports - Olympic ones even - have their athletes retire before they’re old enough to be off their parents insurance because their body just can’t be pushed like it had anymore. Most of those Olympians started training as young children. They wouldn’t have been able to achieve the same things if they started later. This is why I don’t think the Robins being so good as teenagers where Bruce had to be an adult to be that good isn’t so out there
The proficiency that characters like Bruce are supposed to have require a bit of suspension of disbelief for me far more than their teenage protégés do. A lot of what they’re learning with Bruce as Robins is more specific martial arts training and education for being detectives. While they still need intense physical conditioning for at least a couple years to be as proficient as they’re said to be at that age as otherwise “normal” children (3-5ish years, I guess), their bodies are just gonna take to it far better than an adult would. Not everybody’s body will take it as well, either, which is what makes Bruce so exceptional. Not just anyone can replicate that, and the Robins are lucky enough kids to take well to it, too.
Besides, Robins aren’t at the strongest they’ll ever be as Robins, either - they’re not comparable to Batman as his “peak” form. They just have a powerful foundation to surpass Bruce later on in life if only because they are getting the best of Batman’s training much earlier than he did. Nightwing is closer to surpassing Batman than he was Robin for that reason, and assuming his Robins will surpass him only makes sense. The Robins are just only getting started, while Batman is further along, and closer to his limits. Their training means they’ll be able to surpass him.
Tim and Cass are too similar to Bruce and too intentionally put together to take up the role of Robin and Batgirl that they are by far the least interesting interpretations of those identities because they are completely lacking in anything that makes them anything more.
Just because a character is similar to Bruce Wayne doesn't make them the perfect next Batman.
Terry McGinnis is an interesting character but his existence either means most of the Bat-Family don't exist or Bruce destroys his relationship with them all, tainting one of the most important things about Batman and thus making me absolutely despise Batman Beyond. Realistic, yes. But a depressing end for Bruce.
Jace Fox is a character that could work in a similar timeline to Earth Two (the original version) and actually has much more potential to bring to the Batfamily than Duke, Harper, Luke, and Azrael.
Harley is more interesting as a partner to The Joker than anything else.
Batman being one of the smartest people in the DC universe is absurd. I don't want him inventing space ships or time machines type technology. Let his expertise remain to creating his weapons and all, and even that with the help lf his allies.
He is a detective, don't make him Reed Richards or Tony Stark.
I’m pretty sure that’s his role, sure he’ll whip out something high tech now and then but mostly he’s just been high intellect type genius. It’s been stated numerous times that Lex Luthor and Mr. Terrific are smarter than him and full that role.
*The Killing Joke* isn't a masterpiece because it is a great story. It is a good story, but not perfect. The reason it is so well liked is because it is innovative in its...
* Non-chronological storytelling (which for the medium was very uncommon at the time)
* Use of dynamic color
* Use of black and white in flashback sequences
* Open-to-interpretation ending
* Emotional backstory for a hated character like the Joker (and the subsequent questionability of this backstory due to Joker's unreliable narration; he's a "multiple choice" origin kind of guy)
* Shockingness in the scene where Batgirl gets paralyzed
* Iconic depiction of character outfits; especially tropical Joker outfit with the camera as this has become very iconic
All in all, *The Killing Joke* is such a highly-acclaimed comic not because it is a great story. I personally find the narrative kind of one-dimensional: Joker shoots Barbara and kidnaps the commissioner to brainwash him, Batman stops him. Boring, right? And modern retellings have **tried** to improve this by adding subplots like a romance between Barbara and Bruce—which was awful an unnecessary.
Instead, *The Killing Joke* is such a highly-acclaimed comic because it does non-narrative things that were originally only expected of major books like *Catcher in the Rye* (unreliable narrator) and *Fahrenheit 451* (open-to-interpretation ending). Not many other comics were doing at the time, and if they were they were not mainstream titles with mainstream characters like Batman and Joker. It even beat the film industry to the punch with successful non-chronological storytelling (*Pulp Fiction*, which perfected this, came out **six years** after *The Killing Joke*). *The Killing Joke* set the bar for comic storytelling much higher and in that way changed the comic industry, which makes it so beloved.
No one should inherit the cowl. Not even Damian. They should all realize that it was only a burden to Bruce but it was also the only way he understood how to deal with his trauma.
If he is used, he should go back to his clown themed weapons and death traps, and be a less of a murdering psychopath.
Enough with the edgelord Joker who is supposed to be some sorta critique of the society or a dark reflection of Batman. That shit is overplayed and boring now.
Joker was a good, fun character when writers remembered when he was a clown.
I know everyone has opinions on Killing Joke (I personally love the story, regardless if its author doesn't), but Joker taking Gordon through a demented amusement park, caging him like an animal or freak show (titling him the "Common Man") and having circus Freaks help him was an incredible idea. It fits into both the clown theme he has as well as the demented shit he thinks up. I want that back again. I want whoopee cushions, I want laughing gas that wasn't immediately a death sentence (just a distracting version to put people into fits of laughter but wouldn't kill them), giant boxing gloves, comically large guns, that's Joker. Too many modern interpretations of the Joker forget his clown motif and try to go straight for Heath Ledger's interpretation (which not saying it's bad, it is amazing, but besides the makeup and laughing he isn't really much of a clown in other aspects like his comic version).
A Batman who’s just one wrong step away from being as bad as his villains is the most boring take on the character and also one that fundamentally misunderstands him. If that’s your preferred take then you don’t really like the character.
They need to ditch the "gritty realism" angle with the movies for a bit. I'd like it if there were more modern movies that reflected the lighter pulply tone of silver age batman.
The Joker needs to go away for a while. And when he inevitably comes back, he needs to be wackier. Mark Hamil’s Joker in TAS and Arkham was perfect because he said the most outlandish things and was actually funny, but he was also capable of horrifying deeds. I loved it in the comics when he did shit like eat the population of china for a pun or become an ambassador in the Middle East so Batman couldn’t beat the shit out of him for killing Jason. He needs to be less edgy and more funny.
Batman can't beat everyone with prep time. Yes, batman likes to plan ahead, and likes to keep contingencies however a lot of the time those plans/contingencies fail, and he gets his ass kicked. Having backup plans, and always winning aren't the same things. It only seeks to give Batman a fighting chance.
-the bat family has gotten waaaayyyyy too big and a lot of fat needs to be trimmed
-Damian Wayne sucks ass and has ruined Batman comics for me
-Batman and catwoman are a shitty couple
-Harley Quinn has been ruined
>-the bat family has gotten waaaayyyyy too big and a lot of fat needs to be trimmed
I agree, but I'm so conflicted about who to trim. Who would you cut out?
The problem with Damian is that they keep factory resetting the character. He is honestly a great Robin but editorial wants him to be a little shit with no redeeming qualities.
I think Batman should win more often and his enemies shouldn't scape Arkham like they had the damn key to it, if his enemies can scape whenever they want from prison and keep killing people, the moral dilema of not killing becomes meaningless and stupid
Bat family is lame. Alfred and Commissioner Gordon are more important support characters than any Robin. Most stories are better with just Batman. Sometimes a Robin is beneficial to the story, but a whole family of Robins and former Robins and Batgirls and Batwoman is not for me.
I used to feel the same until i realized the so called "batfamily" are mostly just reduced to two dimensional caricatures of what they're supposed to be.
Smart. Angy >:( . The funny. Woman. Woman #2. Woman smart. Cyborg but batman.
It shouldn't be like this. If done right batman's children are not only a welcome extension of his own character but successors to his legacy.
They usually shine in their own titles. Nightwing, Robin, Batgirl, Birds of Prey (Oracle), Catwoman and Harley Quinn have all had excellent solo series.
Also Teen Titans/Outsiders/Young Justice often has good representation with at least one of them depending on the timeline/continuity.
Im glad the fans dont write batman
I think that's a cold take to most people until they realize you're talking about them.
Exactly, thats why i feel like its an opinion that would genuinely piss off the most people
What are you talking about? My takes on Batman are the only true and right ones and everyone should love and respect them. /s
Last time we let a fan write, Batman pissed himself.
I'm pretty sure there have been plenty of fans of the character that wrote the book since Kevin Smith. Speaking of: my hot take on those books is that the "bladder spasm" and "double dee" scenes pale in comparison of Smith biggest sin of fridging Silver St Cloud to prop up his own created villain.
Dude, that’s a take that’ll get you held up and carried away in joy with most fandoms. 9/10 fan ideas/fanfics are **cringe.**
Sturgeon’s law.
11/10*
I’ve read **some** diamonds in the rough with various franchises. **BUT,** none with DC, so I’ll take that for this case.
But fans DO write Batman. Every writer is a fan, fan opinion greatly influences DC, and they even let a fan vote create a huge piece of Batman lore (the death of Jason Todd).
That page is a strong memory for me. I was not even a teenager when Knightfall came out. I always felt a lot of hate for that punk who’s smiling and smoking a cigarette!
Same. Like wtf did Batman do to you that you’re glad he’s broken and bleeding in the streets?
I take it he was some small time crook who was glad Batman was seemingly out of the picture
That would make sense.
First thing I thought was that he could just be passing him by as if he were just a beaten up dude in a batsuit. Don't think it's a stretch to think some people would just walk by with a smirk similarly to the way people in NYC do.
I think you’re forgetting how built Bruce is and how incredible his physique looks to the average person. So this most likely would not look like just some fan dressing up like Batman.
One of the most impactful panels ever. It's just so brutal. Coming right after the breaking it's like holy shit Bane had to fucking throw him off a roof too?
Seeing Bane gloating over the broken Batman was horrific. I guess that’s why readers were more open to him getting a nasty beat down by the “New Batman” later on.
The batman who laughs should have been a 1 off villian
Has he been recurring? Dropped the comics after Death Metal reset everything.
Metal was so bad it basically put me off major comics. What a collosal waste of time that was all style and no substance
I just read the wiki on Death Metal. I haven't been able to pick up comics in years due to where I live, but Jesus it sounds horrible.
I agree. It has such a cool fucking premise and then does nothing with it. What a dumb fucking book. The ending made no sense and they didnt even do a grand Justice League vs Dark Knights battle royale. How the fuck do you line these two teams up at odds and fail to deliver the fucking fight???
It's an excellent pitch for what will one day be a great animated movie. (Assuming DC ever decides to give them an actual animation budget again, anyways).
Your righteous fury is my righteous fury.
At this point I don't even think this is a hottake
The batman who laughs is the most 90s character I've seen in years
Metal seemed like a tribute to the 90s.
It's weird that I'm nostalgic for the 90s, but that was when I first got into comics. I just couldn't get into any of the metal stuff. I just thought is was bad, confusing, pointless and had too many money sucking tie-ins. In a way the perfect 90s tribute lol
It seems like he’s pretty much universally hated on here. I am a fan of the character but they did use him a bit too much for a while there.
I think he’s definitely hated on here but I can’t tell you how many comments I’ve seen on other social media sights that are like “we NEED a Batman who laughs movie in the DCU”. I think he would’ve been a fine character for a one off villain but I just cringe when people really love him because it just feels very edgelord to me.
Don’t forget, lots of people also have only seen the design or know basics like jokerized Batman when saying that stuff, and haven’t actually read everything to do with it. But some people will still want it despite having read it all.
The Batfamily after 2006 became bloated
What? You don't like Nightwing, Robin, Red Robin, Batgirl/Oracle, Spoiler, Orphan, Signal, Bluebird, Huntress, Batwoman, Red Hood and Batwing defending the city?
How is there still crime??
With a roaster that bloated idk Nightwing is in bludhaven or should be
I love it for the Arkham Games, but when Batman is ridiculously brutal with petty criminals, it makes his no-kill rule look stupid.
Good point. I liked in Under The Red Hood when Jason really hurts the one guy and Bruce says he shouldn't have shattered his collarbone. I liked how that showed Batman as being someone not to mess with but he won't paralyze you for life. In Arkham there's no way half the moves don't kill people
Batman - \*jumps off a high-rise, diving to pick up speed, slams boots heel-first into the nose of some street thug sending him flying face-first into the cement corner of some building after transferring the equivalent force of an 80mph car crash into his skull\* "another non-lethal takedown in the bag"
\*slams shield into thugs throat and throws propane at another guy
"He's all tuckered out."
Poor little guy
"I overfed these men?"
Dr. Fishy!!! Nooooo!!!
Alfred: "Good job neutralizing him sir" \*adjusting Bruce's cowl feedback so it reads a pulse coming from the guy with the shattered neck vertebrae\*
*Alfred feverishly working to keep up with the sheer amount of deaths caused by Bruce each fight* "You know sir, have you ever wondered whether you might be treating some of these faceless grunts a tad bit harsh?"
In college, I remember watching my roommate play the first Arkham game and getting a slo-mo final takedown on a thug. It was in a sewer area and Batman just left him facedown in like two inches of running water. We both just laughed and laughed because he was DEFINITELY dead.
B-b-but detective mode says they're just unconscious.
Uh huh. And who do you think programmed detective mode to say that?
This got a bigger chuckle than it should have. Imagine Bruce really killing all these people, but manipulating the evidence to say otherwise... No-kill rule, who?
I make similar comments about the Playstation Spider-Man game. I regularly whip people down to bare concrete from 20 feet in the air and they're just knocked out.
I feel like the Arkham games justify that level of violence though. These guys aren't common thieves that he goes up against. They are explicitly trying to kill him. Though the treatment of the "crazies" (and really their portrayal, but thats another issue entirely) in Asylum is a bit much. In terms of how he deals with muggers or more common thieves, I do think Batman: Noel does a good job touching on that, showing that even he realizes he goes too far with people like that. And it depends on the writer too, I guess.
Yeah these aren't thugs trying to get money for something to eat. These are hardened gangster who are actively participating in a city destroying event. This is go-tine for batman where he needs to be quick and as brutal as possible. Or else
I like it when they establish the world runs on comic book logic and everyone he destroys will be perfectly fine in a month or so. When he's straight up torturing people or crippling them it just doesn't feel like batman.
"Okay, Batman, what happened to your goldfish, that's what you just did to these men." *"I OVERFED THESE MEN?!"*
The Arkham games sacrifice the humanizing interactions that made TAS great for gameplay reasons. Gotham feels like a ghost town, a post-apocalypse in which you encounter goons and hallucinations more than regular civilians. Some of the less informed takes about Bruce Wayne not helping Gotham enough or Batman being callous or paranoid make more sense if you assume the better marketed Arkham Batman is all they know.
Batman after breaking someone's arms and shattering their knees for littering: justice has been served
Periodic reboots are good. Decades of continuity limits creative freedom
I agree but I don’t wanna read a crisis event each time it resets. It gets convoluted and a bit meaningless. I’d be fine if they just wrapped up stories and reset. Do a crisis every so often
This. Why do we need a big crisis event every time there's a reboot? It's getting to the point where they aren't even that good anymore. Just launch the reboot, say "hey, this is a new continuity" and skip the crisis altogether.
This wouldn't even be a proglem if they just rebooted things less often. If it happened every 10 years, I don't think I would really be bothered by there being a crisis every time.
They should do one of two things: either hard reboots every generation or so or commit to a real timeline where characters age, retire, and die so we don't have a 12th legacy character active using the same name as the previous 11 who are still active in their role.
Are you talking about rebooting it so Batman would be in his early years again?
Yup. Clean start and we get an inexperienced Batman who hasn't quite got his footing yet, is very much "street level," hasn't made any friends at a corrupt police department yet, and not only is organized crime a problem in Gotham between at least two major crime families, but costumed and gimmicked madmen are out there as well as serial killers and random gang violence. The biggest loss for me would be Nightwing.
That’s pretty much every Batman movie
I agree BUT if you are going to reboot you need to go all the way and start fresh and not pick and choose what stays.
Cough (New 52) cough. It was so fucking awkward having certain titles hard rebooted while others (like Batman Inc.) just marched along like Flashpoint didn't even happen like that didn't create obvious problems. Then there were the mind-boggling incongruities between Superman and Action Comics.
I think limiting oneself to telling the stories of one era of a character without ever addressing time passing, characters growing or changing is much less creative. Every time Bruce has shown growth, a reboot comes along to knock off 20 years of life and make him a stubborn young man again.
Batman dying Jason Todds red hair to make it black like Dicks is super creepy.
I thought that was a visibility thing. Then again the whole costume is bright.
Nah man, he dyed his hair so people would think that it was the same Robin.
But like… Dick was a young adult when he stopped being Robin. Jason was like adolescent. The height difference alone would give it away
In Batman the Animated Series when Tim first becomes Robin, Two Face thinks he’s Dick which never made sense to me at all
Man’s got a yellow eye that hasn’t blinked in years and you think he’s got perfect vision? /s that’s hilarious
That is true his depth perception must be fucked up which is why he probably didn’t notice the change in height Lmfao
Wasn't that... So people wouldn't think Bruce Wayne was obviously Batman? "Hey, at the exact same time Batman got a redheaded new sidekick, Bruce Wayne adopted a redheaded orphan... Wait a minute!" Guess I'm not sure but that's what I always assumed was the reason.
It's not any creepier than a child army. If you can get past that, you can get past dyed hair
I wish they'd kept the red hair. I get for identity reasons it would be sus, but Bruce Wayne only adopting dark haired, blue eyed orphans is also a wee bit sketch.
"Are you an orphan? Do you have black hair and blue eyes? Do you have daddy issues? If so, contact Bruce Wayne adoption for immediate adoption. Acrobatics or fighting skills will fast tract you"
I like the red hair with the white streak. Adds a cool factor.
That’s no creepier than the fact that Batman used to make Robin wear the shortest shorts he could find, and he wouldn’t even let the poor bastard wear socks.
It was Robin's decision to have the shorts
The batman who laughs is just joker in a bdsm suit. Poorly written character soooo overrated
It’s a cool idea, but not much beyond that
>It’s a cool idea, but not much beyond that I loved the idea that his true power was shitty Batgod writing. "Oh, you've foiled my scheme? Well, actually I had anticipated your move and prepared for this moment! My real plan involved you foiling my scheme, that was all a part of my *real* scheme, so actually, I win! HAHAHAHAHA!" BWL could have been a really fun meta character and a great event villian. One of those who only shows up once every several years, but when he does, it's a real 'Holy shit!' moment. Instead, they ran him into the ground.
It looks cool and that's it
He was okay. I did enjoy the death metal event and he was the main villain in that together with His JL Batman variants. That was an interesting story and the finale with him fighting against huge golden Wonder Woman was cool. The bat-family fighting the goons at the ground was fun too.
My main problem with the *Death Metal* event was the soundtrack album that came out. None of the artists save Carach Angren* were anything close to death metal. I mean, the dude from Deftones, her out of In This Moment, and that hardon from Black Veil Brides? Fuck me. *black metal, if anything
That’s just false advertisement lol.
Like I did enjoy the Batman who laughs origin story it’s like what if Batman just snapped one day joker style. Like he fights Joker one day kills him gets infected by his laughing gas toxin. When he is poisoned in the bat cave he has a great idea to call in all the bat-family members. Then out of know where when they arrive at his secret lair he just opens fire at them while laughing like a maniac. That panel caught me off guard. Pretty dark moment if I do say so myself, and from there on out it’s a downward spiral of lunancy and madness for Bruce. He is never the same after being infected by that Joker poison. That toxin messed up his head for life. His design is interesting and pretty scary same goes for his dark demon possessed robin minions. He just has a big smile on his face when he murders people. Classic Psychopath style.
A part of me feels that he would've been more appreciated and welcomed, even after a prolonged stay, if there was more build up to this. Like a year or two before them dropping DC: Metal on us, they could've launched elseworld titles that gave us more details and attachments to their other Bruce's, without ever knowing where they would end up once done with them. Along the way we would get decent to normal conclusions for them, with some promise for more from the narrator. So while we're just left with the mentally of "So those elseworlds were neat of them to give us", they take us for a loop and each of the Metal tie-ins become their true conclusion, showing us the final fates of these characters we may or may not have grown attached to. But honestly that's just me. I'm still waiting for an elseworld that tells us more on Talon from Earth 3, because Owlman's attachment to Dick Grayson and his own Grayson kept me interested.. Only for them to never give us anything. Hell. We've briefly dealt with Drake from Earth 3, before we've had a chance to be introduced to their Grayson and Todd equivalent.
the batman who laughs is just a blatant judge death rip-off
They've overused the crap out of BWL, but if we get another Batman/Dredd crossover, I'd be pretty jazzed to see them up against a Batman Who Laughs + Dark Judges team-up.
I had a story idea for an Elseworld where we see Batman kill once and then slowly descend into a worse villain than any of his rogues (the thing he always says he’s worried about,) but it was more about what Batman as a villain would be like rather than what would a Joker-Batman be.
That would be a hundred times better than whatever that was. Actuall progression and slowly turning into a bad guy
God it is SO edgelordy too. I can’t stand it.
Graham Nolan’s great pencil work there. Right after Bane broke that Bat and cast the Dark Knight down. EDIT: My hot take? I find much of online Bat-family fandom to be cringe and gross
Is this really a hot take apart from people who are way too much into this stuff ? Like just seeing what some Barbara Gordon haters post on this sub and other affiliated ones is enough to have a basic idea of what you can get yourself into. Also works with the stans that can't stand other people not liking their favorites.
Three Jokers was super disappointing
Did that story end? I don’t remember it ever ending?
Yes, it did. It's Black Label though so it's not canon, thank christ
>it's not canon But the mobius chair stuff is? So does that mean they can follow that up differently if they wanted to?
The officials stance is its kinda cannon, so like if you want it to be cannon it is but don’t expect it to impact anything in the future. Classic DC stuff
[удалено]
Will never understand it either. Dark Knight Trilogy changed lots, BTAS changed lots, and, most importantly, the comics themselves changed lots. There is no "accurate" version
In my experience when changes are dramatic and well handled people praise the work and forget that it is "inaccurate" to the source material. When changes are arbitrary, poorly-handled, or miss the point that's when people start saying something is inaccurate. Typically That's because the general public can tell when a creative work has issues but aren't necessarily good at diagnosing those issues. "It's inaccurate" is an easier complaint to grab at than "this version of Batman has no clear character direction, what character he has is self-indulgently edgy, and thus character is as boring to watch as he is unlikable."
adding to this, one of the main reasons i want to see mr freeze as the next villain in the reeves universe is because of what the animated series did for his character that few villains in the rogues gallery have which is a compelling backstory and goal. most other villains i see recommended for the next movie (clayface, hugo strange, killer croc) might be cool villains but their motivations aren’t compelling enough to be lead villains imo. i don’t see anything interesting about clayface outside of his powers.
>I dont care about comic accuracy. Its such a weird limitation to place on creative work. Right. The comic writers constantly retcon stuff and contradict each other, so it's weird when people think a movie writer shouldn't change things.
What stuff did it change
Mr. Freeze, for one thing. It also introduced Harley Quinn. Aside from that though, I think the Animated Series is a fairly faithful take, often called the *definitive* take. Probably not the best example here.
Mr. Freeze’s origin, Harley, and The Riddler’s redesign
Riddler's redesign actually came much earlier. The idea of putting him in a suit as opposed to a one-piece was first done by [Frank Gorshin in the 1966 show](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYOulMRXQAE--s3?format=jpg&name=small) because he didn't like the one-piece suit outfit. Some comics followed this outfit in the years leading up to BTAS.
Mr. Freeze was made into an empathetic character for like the first time Killer Croc was introduced as a mutant lizard-man hybrid for the first time (as opposed to having a human skin condition) Introduced Renee Montoya, Harley Quinn, the Gray Ghost, Terry McGinnis, Roxy Rocket, and others for the first time Made Zatara more a part of Batman's story with Zatanna as a potential love interest for Bruce There are many more, but these are some major ones.
I don’t like the idea of Bruce Wayne being the facade that Batman puts on. I thoroughly believe that both identities should be the *real* Bruce.
>I don’t like the idea of Bruce Wayne being the facade that Batman puts on. Yeah, along similar lines, I like a more mentally stable Batman who can process his grief. Less "I'm still upset over the death of my parents, so I take out my anger on criminals" and more "I went through something awful at a young age, and it sucked, so I want to do everything in my power to prevent it from happening to someone else."
I believe the opposite, Bruce Wayne AND Batman are both personas. Neither is the real Bruce, and yet both are.
I agree, my take is, both Playboy Bruce and Batman are exaggerations of Bruce’s true self not masks/facades necessarily. The real absolute Bruce is the one most don’t see, the one in the cave/manor, the one that comes out when in the presence of his loved ones. Playboy Bruce is the egotistical and cocky self of Bruce personified and multiplied. While Batman is Bruce’s rage and pain personified and multiplied as well. They both are extensions of Bruce and represent parts of him but aren’t necessarily completely who he is. One is him embracing his demons and using them to fight crime. While the other is him trying to suppress his demons and show out for the public. The person who Alfred raised. The man who was a mentor and caring person to Dick, Jason when they had no one else. That is the true unaltered Bruce Wayne.
When he is in the batcave with his costume on with his mask off talking to someone is the real him. He doesn't talk like batman or bruce wayne then.
I particularly dislike the way that they try to force Superman into the same symmetry just to make him the exact counterpoint to Batman. I hate the take that Clark Kent is the "real" identity when I think that the correct answer is that Kal-El fully embodies the separate parts of Supe's identity.
He's a highly compartmentalized person overall. You get a good glimpse of that in the recent Batman run by Zdarsky. In fact, I'd argue that many of the personal problems Bruce/Batman faces are caused by or at least exacerbated by this inability to switch between his identities.
Batman should be able to get married and still be Batman, just like Superman. Batman is best when he allows himself to be happy.
Exactly, Batman doesn't have to be a weird miserable loner.
Only a hot take with certain people, but Batman not killing is integral to his character, it doesn’t matter what he was like way back in his early years. If you go up to someone on the street and ask them if Batman kills, they will say no, its baked into his character and his image at this point.
Also, the early years are irrelevant. The Batman who carried a gun and killed a few people early on was relegated to being the golden age Earth 2 Batman who got killed off well before Crisis on Infinite Earths even happened. Anyone who tries to justify Batman killing by pointing to his very early start in comics is ignoring multiverses and like 2 universe reboots.
Blue and grey is the superior colour scheme
I’m fine with either. I think it depends on the tone you are going for. Blue and grey looks more heroic while black and grey emphasizes the darker or heavier aspects of his character.
I think that’s what we need to go towards- the heroic. We’ve covered the dark until it’s tired in just about every direction. It’s time to get Bats not JUST in the shadows… his biggest adversaries don’t stick to them anyway.
Excuse me, sir? OP is asking for hot takes
Judging by most the responses it is at least mildly toasty
Yes, yes it is.
The joker is not his most interesting villain. Personally I prefer the mad hatter, the riddler, scarecrow, two-face, Clay face, killer croc and more. They are so much more interesting. They have deep complex backstorys that make them feel relatable or understandable at least how they could become insane. The joker is more of an idea than a real insane person. For example croc is a disfigured ”freak” that was treated like a monster and animal all his life until he became one. The riddler is narcistisc and is driven to prove himself as the smartest person in the world. And the mad hatter is just a schizophrenic perv and incel that has deep women issues. I think there is so much potential with these characters that has never been adapted or shown in movies. The joker is more of an idea. I don’t find the joker to be insane. He knows what he is doing and he is more ideologically driven to prove a point than he is psychologically driven like these other people are. Two face can’t help himself, he needs to think of everything as black and white or as dualities. Mad hatter has to find Alice. The joker do what he wants to do.
What a lot of people miss about The Joker is what I feel the most important part. The only part of his character that's been most consistent is that he aims to entertain, and coming out of the bronze age it's a weird observation because that's not super consistent with what we've seen lately. Thing is, you picked up the comic book to be entertained, so there's something inherently meta be said Gotham's Clown Prince who aims to "entertain" you... and if you compare this assessment Joker's two most thematically adjacent characters, one Harley who breaks the 4th wall w/ the frequency of Deadpool for largely all the same reasons, and one Punchline who has found her niche in a lot of modern social commentaries around computers; that checks out. When Joker is in himself a compelling character, it's generally because this one characterization is consistent. When authors miss the point, audiences get Joker fatigue.
Agreed. Personally, I want to see more of scarecrow because I think there’s something so human about fear that it’s part of the human identity. Professor crane’s situation reminds me of Socrates and other philosophers who were too ahead of their time and got killed for it. It’s interesting to see scarecrow portrayed the same way because he was also kind of a genius
This is not even remotely hot, it’s frigid, freezing even
I am sick and tired of seeing the Joker in any media. I wouldn’t mind if he wasn’t in any comic, game, or movie for the next decade. He’s meant to be a wild card in Batman’s rouges but he shows up too much to have any thematic weight
He’s way too over-saturated. Between Heath Ledger’s performance, Joaquin Phoenix’s performance, Jared Leto’s performance, the tease in The Batman, and the fact he’s been the main villain in all 4 Arkham games (even in the one where he’s dead), it’s just too much.
They used to have breaks with him. After Batman went after joker when jason todd died, he was out of the picture for 2 years
Which is pretty wild they had such restraint to not use joker until Tim showed up Heck sheer fact they had Batman deal with joker immediately after joker killed Jason was wild If that happened today joker would have been back in like the next arc lol
I love when they go years without him and bringing him back is an event. It's so much more satisfying.
I dislike the 'wife dies' backstory for the joker, I feel like the joker isn't necessarily a villain that needs a sad backstory, in fact I like the gangster backstory because it shows that despite what he tells batman he was always a monster, and it gives him reason to know how to handle a variety of weapons
It doesn't matter what the backstory was in TKJ. In Joker's own words, it he needs to have a past, he prefers it be multiple choice.
My hot take… The “Prep Time” Argument is the worst excuse fans use as a lynchpin for “why Batman will always win”. I love me Batman too, but come on.. no amount of prep time saves you from everything! Plus the world often doesn’t allow for prep time when shit just pops off. But for real… anyone with almost unlimited funds and beforehand knowledge of a situation may have one hell of an upper hand, but he’s not omnipotent. And a lot of the time, if I mention that, they break my back for saying it… but not my will to stand by that fact!
Batman could win this argument if he had prep time thats all im saying
I think the bat family is good when they are their own characters with their own relationships with each other. They may all have some relationship with Batman, but their relationships with each other should be just a important.
I think a lot of people forget that sometimes Batman's prep time and planning amounts to "Call Clark and get him to handle this."
Batman doesn’t always need to be serious. It’s okay to have a more silly version.
Batman universe to me was the perfect balance of his serious side but also somebody that can open up to his fellow heroes/Treat his kids well
Batfamily inflation is real and it sucks, they should keep it at ~5+Alfred
There are too many batfamily spin off characters. There should only be 3-4, max.
I get that. Too many iterations of Robin, Batgirl, etc all practically picking up their own mantles at this point. At any given time there should always be one Robin, and one Batgirl, with the whole family coming together for big events. Sounds much more consistent than Batman having a whole child army at his disposal ready to pounce on a single mugger all at once.
Yeah, get rid of some Bat-Family members and see what happens. I guarantee you the fans will be outraged.
I know it will never happen, because each of the batfamily is at least one person's favorite character, but i still think batman woukd be better if it did happen
Batman isn’t the mask like a lot of Batman fans believe, he’s best when he’s Batman and Bruce Wayne. He doesn’t create his villains, it’s not his responsibility to kill them and he does a lot for Gotham outside of just being Batman. Oh and the Robins are best portrayed as his sons, not his soldiers and if he didn’t take them in, most of them would’ve ended up dead or going down a path of crime.
I think the batfamily has become convoluted. Most of them are unnecessary
Snyderverse wasn’t all bad: Warehouse fight - Batman moves like a ninja and uses gadgets, who would’ve thought. Batman using a voice modulator - practical, elegant, no need for Bale-ish growling. Batman pulling Flash aside when he’s scared and telling him to start by saving just one person. Encapsulates Batman as a leader, not just a vigilante.
>Batman pulling Flash aside when he’s scared and telling him to start by saving just one person. Encapsulates Batman as a leader, not just a vigilante. This was Whedon, not Snyder. That scene doesn't happen in the Snyder Cut.
Yep, true, in my haste I forgot that was Whedon’s addition. Sometimes in my head I combine the best let’s of both cuts off that movie.
Robin should have to train as extensively as Bruce did, therefore it only makes sense for Dick to be Robin, as by the time he is ready Bruce would be at least in his forties.
No, I think the major difference is the fact that the Robins are children learning these things while Bruce had at youngest been a legal adult, from what I can understand of his training years. He didn’t do his heavy training at the same intensity he taught his Robins when he was their age - he did it much older. Their bodies are at very different stages, and youth _absolutely_ carries the edge for this. Dick is honestly the best example of this. Dick had grown up learning gymnastic routines since he could walk, and was already heavy into the sport during his formative years as an adolescent, which is also the best time to imbed things like muscle memory, stamina, flexibility, and the habits needed to keep it up in adult hood. An adult without a background like that would need MUCH more time to achieve the same skill level he did at the circus, and because they don’t have the same physical conditioning, many things may be outright impossible for them. It’s like getting into sports - the best time to form skills to be a pro is pre-adolescence. 10 years training and you can be breaking records. They’ve laid the groundwork for achieving the best results they can out of their bodies before it can’t take their abuse anymore, and the peak age is mid-20s for a reason. 30yos aren’t breaking world records the way teens and 20-something’s are for a lot of sports for this reason. So many sports - Olympic ones even - have their athletes retire before they’re old enough to be off their parents insurance because their body just can’t be pushed like it had anymore. Most of those Olympians started training as young children. They wouldn’t have been able to achieve the same things if they started later. This is why I don’t think the Robins being so good as teenagers where Bruce had to be an adult to be that good isn’t so out there The proficiency that characters like Bruce are supposed to have require a bit of suspension of disbelief for me far more than their teenage protégés do. A lot of what they’re learning with Bruce as Robins is more specific martial arts training and education for being detectives. While they still need intense physical conditioning for at least a couple years to be as proficient as they’re said to be at that age as otherwise “normal” children (3-5ish years, I guess), their bodies are just gonna take to it far better than an adult would. Not everybody’s body will take it as well, either, which is what makes Bruce so exceptional. Not just anyone can replicate that, and the Robins are lucky enough kids to take well to it, too. Besides, Robins aren’t at the strongest they’ll ever be as Robins, either - they’re not comparable to Batman as his “peak” form. They just have a powerful foundation to surpass Bruce later on in life if only because they are getting the best of Batman’s training much earlier than he did. Nightwing is closer to surpassing Batman than he was Robin for that reason, and assuming his Robins will surpass him only makes sense. The Robins are just only getting started, while Batman is further along, and closer to his limits. Their training means they’ll be able to surpass him.
Tim and Cass are too similar to Bruce and too intentionally put together to take up the role of Robin and Batgirl that they are by far the least interesting interpretations of those identities because they are completely lacking in anything that makes them anything more. Just because a character is similar to Bruce Wayne doesn't make them the perfect next Batman. Terry McGinnis is an interesting character but his existence either means most of the Bat-Family don't exist or Bruce destroys his relationship with them all, tainting one of the most important things about Batman and thus making me absolutely despise Batman Beyond. Realistic, yes. But a depressing end for Bruce. Jace Fox is a character that could work in a similar timeline to Earth Two (the original version) and actually has much more potential to bring to the Batfamily than Duke, Harper, Luke, and Azrael. Harley is more interesting as a partner to The Joker than anything else.
Batman being one of the smartest people in the DC universe is absurd. I don't want him inventing space ships or time machines type technology. Let his expertise remain to creating his weapons and all, and even that with the help lf his allies. He is a detective, don't make him Reed Richards or Tony Stark.
I’m pretty sure that’s his role, sure he’ll whip out something high tech now and then but mostly he’s just been high intellect type genius. It’s been stated numerous times that Lex Luthor and Mr. Terrific are smarter than him and full that role.
The Killing Joke is extremely overrated
I think even the author would agree
Alan Moore hates hates almost all his stuff because almost everyone misinterpreted it lol.
*The Killing Joke* isn't a masterpiece because it is a great story. It is a good story, but not perfect. The reason it is so well liked is because it is innovative in its... * Non-chronological storytelling (which for the medium was very uncommon at the time) * Use of dynamic color * Use of black and white in flashback sequences * Open-to-interpretation ending * Emotional backstory for a hated character like the Joker (and the subsequent questionability of this backstory due to Joker's unreliable narration; he's a "multiple choice" origin kind of guy) * Shockingness in the scene where Batgirl gets paralyzed * Iconic depiction of character outfits; especially tropical Joker outfit with the camera as this has become very iconic All in all, *The Killing Joke* is such a highly-acclaimed comic not because it is a great story. I personally find the narrative kind of one-dimensional: Joker shoots Barbara and kidnaps the commissioner to brainwash him, Batman stops him. Boring, right? And modern retellings have **tried** to improve this by adding subplots like a romance between Barbara and Bruce—which was awful an unnecessary. Instead, *The Killing Joke* is such a highly-acclaimed comic because it does non-narrative things that were originally only expected of major books like *Catcher in the Rye* (unreliable narrator) and *Fahrenheit 451* (open-to-interpretation ending). Not many other comics were doing at the time, and if they were they were not mainstream titles with mainstream characters like Batman and Joker. It even beat the film industry to the punch with successful non-chronological storytelling (*Pulp Fiction*, which perfected this, came out **six years** after *The Killing Joke*). *The Killing Joke* set the bar for comic storytelling much higher and in that way changed the comic industry, which makes it so beloved.
Batman's costume should be shades of blue/grey, not black/grey. Blue is harder to see in low light than black. Come at me bro.
Apparently red is the hardest color to see in the dark though so….
I mean....it *used* to be blue/grey
No one should inherit the cowl. Not even Damian. They should all realize that it was only a burden to Bruce but it was also the only way he understood how to deal with his trauma.
The joker isn’t a good villain anymore
If he is used, he should go back to his clown themed weapons and death traps, and be a less of a murdering psychopath. Enough with the edgelord Joker who is supposed to be some sorta critique of the society or a dark reflection of Batman. That shit is overplayed and boring now.
Joker was a good, fun character when writers remembered when he was a clown. I know everyone has opinions on Killing Joke (I personally love the story, regardless if its author doesn't), but Joker taking Gordon through a demented amusement park, caging him like an animal or freak show (titling him the "Common Man") and having circus Freaks help him was an incredible idea. It fits into both the clown theme he has as well as the demented shit he thinks up. I want that back again. I want whoopee cushions, I want laughing gas that wasn't immediately a death sentence (just a distracting version to put people into fits of laughter but wouldn't kill them), giant boxing gloves, comically large guns, that's Joker. Too many modern interpretations of the Joker forget his clown motif and try to go straight for Heath Ledger's interpretation (which not saying it's bad, it is amazing, but besides the makeup and laughing he isn't really much of a clown in other aspects like his comic version).
Agree. He’s grown too invincible and overused. Also, how has no one put a bullet in this guys head by now???
A Batman who’s just one wrong step away from being as bad as his villains is the most boring take on the character and also one that fundamentally misunderstands him. If that’s your preferred take then you don’t really like the character.
They need to ditch the "gritty realism" angle with the movies for a bit. I'd like it if there were more modern movies that reflected the lighter pulply tone of silver age batman.
The Joker needs to go away for a while. And when he inevitably comes back, he needs to be wackier. Mark Hamil’s Joker in TAS and Arkham was perfect because he said the most outlandish things and was actually funny, but he was also capable of horrifying deeds. I loved it in the comics when he did shit like eat the population of china for a pun or become an ambassador in the Middle East so Batman couldn’t beat the shit out of him for killing Jason. He needs to be less edgy and more funny.
"BRuCXe Wanyes DOes MORe haRM THEna CrImnals beECUasue HE is RiCh CapitaliasT"
Batman can't beat everyone with prep time. Yes, batman likes to plan ahead, and likes to keep contingencies however a lot of the time those plans/contingencies fail, and he gets his ass kicked. Having backup plans, and always winning aren't the same things. It only seeks to give Batman a fighting chance.
-the bat family has gotten waaaayyyyy too big and a lot of fat needs to be trimmed -Damian Wayne sucks ass and has ruined Batman comics for me -Batman and catwoman are a shitty couple -Harley Quinn has been ruined
>-the bat family has gotten waaaayyyyy too big and a lot of fat needs to be trimmed I agree, but I'm so conflicted about who to trim. Who would you cut out?
The problem with Damian is that they keep factory resetting the character. He is honestly a great Robin but editorial wants him to be a little shit with no redeeming qualities.
The Animated Series has kinda been tainted by the whole Bruce/Barbara thing What's the context of this image
This is in Knightfall, right after Bane absolutely beats the tar out of Batman
The relationship is only mentioned in Beyond and Mystery of the Batwoman so the show itself has nothing to do with it.
I think Batman should win more often and his enemies shouldn't scape Arkham like they had the damn key to it, if his enemies can scape whenever they want from prison and keep killing people, the moral dilema of not killing becomes meaningless and stupid
Huntress, Azrael, and Batwoman all deserve more attention.
Multiple actors playing Batman is perfectly fine.
I don't mind the Joker oversaturation
Bat family is lame. Alfred and Commissioner Gordon are more important support characters than any Robin. Most stories are better with just Batman. Sometimes a Robin is beneficial to the story, but a whole family of Robins and former Robins and Batgirls and Batwoman is not for me.
I used to feel the same until i realized the so called "batfamily" are mostly just reduced to two dimensional caricatures of what they're supposed to be. Smart. Angy >:( . The funny. Woman. Woman #2. Woman smart. Cyborg but batman. It shouldn't be like this. If done right batman's children are not only a welcome extension of his own character but successors to his legacy.
They usually shine in their own titles. Nightwing, Robin, Batgirl, Birds of Prey (Oracle), Catwoman and Harley Quinn have all had excellent solo series. Also Teen Titans/Outsiders/Young Justice often has good representation with at least one of them depending on the timeline/continuity.
Give me one Robin with decent writing and I'm good. Excessive sidekicks is too CW for my tastes.
Tom King should never be aloud to touch batman again
The Batman is better than The Dark Knight.
I think The Batman is a better Batman movie. But The Dark Knight is a better movie in general
Mr. Freeze is criminally underutilized and lacks real focus other than "save my wife"
Dick should’ve stayed batman similar to Wally becoming the flash.