Tom King's Batman: Yay or Nay

[Frontier]

I do agree that actually seeing it would have been more compelling, but Bruce just talking about it still shouldn't have elicited the scandalized reaction from the fandom that it did. It was showing a vulnerability on his part that I guess segments of the fandom are not comfortable with. He wears black and drives a cool car, so I guess he can't even talk about times when he was weak?

I don't have anything against Bruce having moments of weakness, just, again, it's not how I see him acting as a kid.

How well defined is Bruce as a child, really? The majority of the time we know he likes things like Zorro and Gray Ghost, and he's sad that his parents got shot. We often hear that he was traumatized, but that's never really explored, he just goes on THE MISSION almost immediately afterward. Maybe King didn't explore it as much as he could have (thus far?), but it's more that what we are usually told happened. And he still ultimately ended up channeling it into something positive after a period that couldn't have been that long, so what even changed?

In comics or outside of it? But even in the comics I feel like there have been a lot of disparate flashbacks to Bruce's childhood then we can probably recall.

It is the opposite, but no matter how overly detailed or sparse the style of writing, you are generally not going to be getting natural sounding dialogue in a superhero comic of all places. People don't really talk the way King writes most of the time, but nobody in real life talks like a superhero period.

The same can be said for fiction in general, where everything is constructed to serve the story rather then necessarily capture how people actually talk, although that doesn't mean dialogue can't be good, bad, or in-character depending on the writer.

But then that probably becomes a matter of taste.

Maybe Bruce and Selina sounded normal(ish) in Morrison's run, but you can probably find examples elsewhere in that very issue or Morrison's work in general with characters speaking in a weird way.

Well, it's Morrison, of course you can .

But the comparison was centered around Bruce and Selina. If I wanted to be even more direct about it I would've compared it to how Brubaker wrote them (or wrote characters in general), and he's the exact opposite to King whereas Morrison and King aren't entirely all that different.

I generally prefer Batman being more down to Earth, which is why I vastly prefer pre-Crisis Bronze Age Bruce. But unfortunately, that has not been the case for the character since the 80s, and while he has returned to that mentality before, he just as often has not. We are still reading about a grown man in a dracula costume who drives a car with bat fins attached to it.

Doesn't mean he has to act crazy or mean.

Barry and Wally run around in a red and yellow onesie and nobody calls out their sanity, and their the nicest and most compassionate guys in the DCU.

Complaints of Bruce acting overly weird in this run, and OOC complaints for the characters in general seem strange to me. Because with how often these characters get rebooted or re-interpreted depending on the writer who is using at the time (and that's not even getting into the at times radical other media appearances), I don't think anyone can rightly determine what is "in character" for someone. There is precedence for everything here with the exception of Holly, and even she is in a new continuity with a different history with a traumatic event in her past that I don't believe previous versions of her had to deal with.

I feel like the core characterization and who those characters are are generally consistent enough to warrant people being able to call something out as out-of-character not really what you would expect them to act.

Even in an adaption, where it's starting from scratch and doesn't have the length of continuity the comics have to deal with (even in a reboot) still have enormous precedence for how those characters should look and act.

I still can’t get all this controversy around Bruce almost committing suicide when he was like ten years old. In Snyder’s run, he had Bruce willingly wanting electro shock therapy and having second thoughts at last second. Was that as controversial back then? It’s a sincere question, since I didn’t frecuent cbr community by the time that issue was released and I find it similar to what King did. Personally, I don’t have a problem with either

I'm curious about this too.

[SiegePerilous02]

I don't have anything against Bruce having moments of weakness, just, again, it's not how I see him acting as a kid.

In comics or outside of it? But even in the comics I feel like there have been a lot of disparate flashbacks to Bruce's childhood then we can probably recall.

There probably were, but evidently none of them are definitive. The widest reaching forms of media Batman gets are in movies and cartoons, and those flashbacks usually show something generic like him playing while his parents watch adoringly, him falling into the cave to see the bat, or (of course) them getting shot and his dead eyed stares afterward. Not much else to go on. If before that he was a happy go lucky kid who was smart for his age, those traits didn't go away if he has periodic dark episodes after seeing his parents gunned down before him.

Otherwise, I think the traits usually assigned to him (happy pre-Wayne murder, determined/angry/sad post-murder) are so generic that embellishing things here and there isn't going to change things too much.

Doesn't mean he has to act crazy or mean.

Barry and Wally run around in a red and yellow onesie and nobody calls out their sanity, and their the nicest and most compassionate guys in the DCU.

Well, I wouldn't say he's mean here. And still not acting any crazier than he usually has in the past few decades.

Barry and Wally are also superhuman speed gods, so there is already something separating them from our reality and how we react to them. Batman's not realistic in the slightest, but he is relatively more grounded than everyone else in the DCU. And there is generally a disconnect between the Batverse and the rest of the DCU anyway. The writers of the Batman corner of the DCU frequently do want to explore Batman's mental state because the other properties don't lend themselves to that kind of psychological examination. It doesn't really make sense, but it's fiction, so cherry picking which character should be deemed crazier than the rest is to be expected.

I feel like the core characterization and who those characters are are generally consistent enough to warrant people being able to call something out as out-of-character not really what you would expect them to act.

Thing is, Holly aside, I'm still not seeing anything different from the core characterizations on display here. Nothing that can't be found elsewhere in the character's vast publication history. Plus, no matter how you slice it, the Rebirth continuity is a fresh start with a history that is still shaping itself, even if it is trying to be a mish-mash of what came before.

[Frontier]

There probably were, but evidently none of them are definitive. The widest reaching forms of media Batman gets are in movies and cartoons, and those flashbacks usually show something generic like him playing while his parents watch adoringly, him falling into the cave to see the bat, or (of course) them getting shot and his dead eyed stares afterward. Not much else to go on. If before that he was a happy go lucky kid who was smart for his age, those traits didn't go away if he has periodic dark episodes after seeing his parents gunned down before him.

Well, Gotham, the show, is entirely about focusing on Bruce Wayne as a kid dealing with his parent's death.

Barry and Wally are also superhuman speed gods, so there is already something separating them from our reality and how we react to them. Batman's not realistic in the slightest, but he is relatively more grounded than everyone else in the DCU. And there is generally a disconnect between the Batverse and the rest of the DCU anyway. The writers of the Batman corner of the DCU frequently do want to explore Batman's mental state because the other properties don't lend themselves to that kind of psychological examination. It doesn't really make sense, but it's fiction, so cherry picking which character should be deemed crazier than the rest is to be expected.

But I'd also say Barry and Wally's personalities, comparatively, are pretty grounded despite their powers.

Same for the rest of the League, really.

It's fine if a writer wants to explore Batman's mental state but I don't think that means that can't be detrimental in depicting Batman or needs to make him out to be a crazy person or a "weirdo" anymore then other heroes in the DCU are.

Thing is, Holly aside, I'm still not seeing anything different from the core characterizations on display here. Nothing that can't be found elsewhere in the character's vast publication history. Plus, no matter how you slice it, the Rebirth continuity is a fresh start with a history that is still shaping itself, even if it is trying to be a mish-mash of what came before.

It depends how you look at it.

I don't think Batman, Catwoman, or even Riddler were demonstrably out-of-character but King has them act and speak in a way that doesn't always feel true to themselves or just feels unnecessary. And they don't always "sound" right.

Comparatively I don't think Tynion always uses Batman that well in 'Tec but his characterization for Bruce rings more true then King's has at certain points.

But King's Holly is probably the most notable change to an existing character (and completely missing the point to boot).

[Barbatos666]

Nay I despise his dialogue in this book. I dont have a problem with it in Mister Miracle but on Batman its horribly overdone.
His stories fail to deliver, the execution is lousy imo.
Most importantly the book just comes across as utterly irrelevant now. What with Metal, Creature of the Night, White Knight and those crossovers with Shadow and TMNT the Batman book just looks like its filler. Even King pretty much stopped giving interviews after I am Bane. He only delivers the occasional interview to talk about Bat/Cat and that's pretty much it. What is there to even look forward to for the future? Gotham Girl? her marriage with Duke? LMAO. His work just reads like bad fan fiction now.

[CryNotWolf]

This hasn't really happened though, has it? At least not with an outcome that's completely negative. His altruism is still on display, what with all the lives lost during the war being at the forefront of his mind and his motivation to help Claire being simply that she's a girl who needed his help and he was in the position to do it.

Human beings are complicated creatures. I don't see why his decision to become Batman can't have both positive and negative reasons behind it. Especially as this is hardly new ground being covered with Batman. For better or (often times) worse, Batman is a very popular character for how dark and flawed he is. Grant Morrison wrote a best selling graphic novel about how fucked up Batman's mental state is back in the late 80s, filled with Freudian imagery and themes. If that didn't ruin Batman beyond repair, the stuff King has done so far sure as hell wont.

I also don't agree with the suicide angle when he was 10 years old being full of cynicism. A 10 year old exhibiting troubling behavior after such a serious trauma isn't cynical or a sob story, it's pretty realistic. I remember when that element was first discussed on here, some posters claimed it make Bruce "weak," which is frankly an alarming and pretty screwed up way to react to that behavior from a child.

Why are you downplaying what happened? Bruce metaphorically killed himself as a child as a convoluted means of escaping his pain because he couldn't do it any other way. How is that realistic? And that's what Batman is now. An escape. The mission is just the means. I hate that idea so much. Batman lives with his pain every day, Batman wasn't an escape, it was a reaction, a decision with "justice" in mind, not a useful cloak to hide from his sadness. It's a useless warping of the character that's only present because King likes to hamfist self-harm into all his comics, because that's apparently the only to show sorrow or depression.

See, I don’t see it that way, when it comes to presenting Batman as the product of a broken child’s trauma, because, honestly, that’s all Batman has ever been: a child’s power fantasy. There is something inherently immature and unrealistic about someone growing up and fighting crime with a mask and a cape. As much as I love superheroes, I will never not be able to see that. Take one look at those “real life superheroes” they showcase on the news, who look utterly ridiculous, and it clicks.

Oh please. Fighting crime is not an inherently childish ideal. That's what I'm talking about with this ridiculous cynicism. I don't understand why people are so quick to handwave the idea of Batman and talk about it like it's only something to be shamed, despite the good we've seen him do on page over the course of nearly a century. If people could do it like he does, they absolutely would, but the real world is an infinitely more dark and cruel place than comics and we don't have plot armor, so we read Batman instead.

That being said, just because I think it’s fucking insane, that doesn’t mean I feel it has to be devoid of a sense of nobility. There is still something noble about Batman’s crusade, even if it is just his way of processing grief as a child, and, for me, that all makes sense because, without it, you wouldn’t have Batman; you’d have a Bruce Wayne who honored his parents’ memory by using the resources at his disposal to save Gotham the same way they did: through economics, through politics, through social programs, but, at the end of the day, nobody wants to read a comic book about a billionaire tackling systemic racism in the way the GCPD polices the narrows, so, we have that desire to do good manifested in an adult male who dresses like a bat and beats his problems into submission.

Well first of all Bruce saw first hand how well that worked out for his parents. It didn't. And he's tried those methods you've described, but even in comic books you can't fix something like that by just throwing money at it. So he goes out every night and risks his life to try and make sure as few people are mugged, raped, or killed as possible. He obviously has the in-universe capability we could never even hope to aspire to, so don't try to compare his situation to reality on a 1:1 basis because that's just disingenuous. I also like how you try to say Batman is a "noble" idea then manage to say that all he does amounts to nothing more than "beating his problems into submission" when he should be fixing problems what you say is the RIGHT way. I honestly don't see why you're a fan of a character you claim is a borderline delusional wastrel who squandered his life running away from "growing up".

[Scott Taylor]

I like it as well as Morrison's run. Better than Snyder's run.

[Nick Miller]

I cannot give it my endorsement as its so uneven. Even within a single issue, some things are good, others are awful. It took tynion 100 issues to get good. Maybe King will turn it around?

I read around 25 on-goings, and the good ones, once done, I do a reread and honestly i do not have a desire to to reread Kings work, particularly the Jokes of Riddles and War.

Still buy it and read it though! (I’m an addict)

[JBatmanFan05]

I'm enjoying King's run, it reads very well in trades. I really now believe it's best to read arcs that way, in trades.

The only issue I had with Snyder & King is...Grant Morrison's end to Batman Inc where he understands yet laments that Batman is now kinda forever stuck in this nihilistic grim n gritty (the post-Miller landscape) no matter all the happy endings or positive messages or whatever. "Bruce Wayne" is still mostly a dead character, a downplayed and ignored person in the Batman/Bruce dynamic. It's all filtered through Batman nowadays.

[batfan08]

Why are you downplaying what happened? Bruce metaphorically killed himself as a child as a convoluted means of escaping his pain because he couldn't do it any other way. How is that realistic? And that's what Batman is now. An escape. The mission is just the means. I hate that idea so much. Batman lives with his pain every day, Batman wasn't an escape, it was a reaction, a decision with "justice" in mind, not a useful cloak to hide from his sadness. It's a useless warping of the character that's only present because King likes to hamfist self-harm into all his comics, because that's apparently the only to show sorrow or depression.



Oh please. Fighting crime is not an inherently childish ideal. That's what I'm talking about with this ridiculous cynicism. I don't understand why people are so quick to handwave the idea of Batman and talk about it like it's only something to be shamed, despite the good we've seen him do on page over the course of nearly a century. If people could do it like he does, they absolutely would, but the real world is an infinitely more dark and cruel place than comics and we don't have plot armor, so we read Batman instead.



Well first of all Bruce saw first hand how well that worked out for his parents. It didn't. And he's tried those methods you've described, but even in comic books you can't fix something like that by just throwing money at it. So he goes out every night and risks his life to try and make sure as few people are mugged, raped, or killed as possible. He obviously has the in-universe capability we could never even hope to aspire to, so don't try to compare his situation to reality on a 1:1 basis because that's just disingenuous. I also like how you try to say Batman is a "noble" idea then manage to say that all he does amounts to nothing more than "beating his problems into submission" when he should be fixing problems what you say is the RIGHT way. I honestly don't see why you're a fan of a character you claim is a borderline delusional wastrel who squandered his life running away from "growing up".

So, you can’t objectively analyze characteristics of characters that you’re a fan of? Comic books are all about “might makes right.” They always have been. You can’t beat an idea with your fists, so, you conceptualize it. You create people who are characteristically evil who have their own gimmick and, thus, can act as foils to the 6’ billionaire dressed in a cape and cowl. You’re right. Fighting crime isn’t a childish ideal. Wearing a Halloween Costume to do it as a vigilante, however? It’s the definition of childish. And there’s a difference between being a cynic and being a realist.

I also fail to see how I’m any less of a fan than the myriad of writers who suggest that Batman only compounds the problems in Gotham City and plays a hand in the creation of many of the colorful characters who comprise his rogue’s gallery. The point I’m trying to make isn’t that Batman is irrelevant or, somehow, does nothing of value to help Gotham, but, rather, that the problem is two fold, and that Bruce Wayne could do a number of things as Bruce Wayne to “save Gotham” and be equally effective, if not more so. Batman is a short term solution to a long term problem, and it goes deeper than “throwing money at it.” Bruce Wayne is in a position of influence, he has means at his disposal that he can use to great effect in terms of making Gotham a better place.

I would also say that it’s equally disingenuous to suggest that Thomas and Martha Wayne’s philanthropy was ineffective. Particularly when you’re alluding to their being in the wrong place at the wrong time as having had no impact on Gotham, as a whole.

[SiegePerilous02]

Why are you downplaying what happened? Bruce metaphorically killed himself as a child as a convoluted means of escaping his pain because he couldn't do it any other way. How is that realistic? And that's what Batman is now. An escape. The mission is just the means. I hate that idea so much. Batman lives with his pain every day, Batman wasn't an escape, it was a reaction, a decision with "justice" in mind, not a useful cloak to hide from his sadness. It's a useless warping of the character that's only present because King likes to hamfist self-harm into all his comics, because that's apparently the only to show sorrow or depression.

He described the metaphorical suicide as giving up his old life and giving himself over to a new one, to be the person who answers Gotham's cries for help. Maybe he is escaping over to something else to escape his pain, but the motivation to help people is right there on the page also. I don't see why you're making it out to be one or the other, because the book isn't really making it out that way. And this is hardly the only version of Batman to reveal that Bruce becoming Batman is a mix of different motivations. In the DCAU he said it was the only way to make sense of his shattered world, and he ended up miserable, old and alone by the end of it until Terry found him. This version is pretty much saying the same thing, but coming to the realization that his life doesn't have to end up that way. And not once is it saying "well, I guess my selfish motivations make saving all those lives I saved completely meaningless."

And even if Bruce has some negative views on himself, that doesn't mean he is a reliable narrator or right. Selina pretty much told him to cut the bullshit and quit being so hard on himself at the end of the last arc, and we should probably side with her.

[Scott Taylor]

Chances are pretty good that, had Thomas and Martha not died, Bruce would have just been a doctor like his father. There would be no Batman. Now whether or not Gotham would have been better under that scenario is a huge debate. Joker probably would have murdered quite a few more people in his first few crimes. But he also probably would have been executed.

(Guess who just re-read RIP?)

[Talon1load]

I love when people talk about realism and superheroes in the same sentence. People don’t read comics for realism. There’s nothing realistic about superheroes. They are adults dressing it tights to fight crimes. In a comic world dressing in a costume to fight crime isn’t childish, it’s just something they do. Comparing that to realism is just silly.

[Caivu]

I love when people talk about realism and superheroes in the same sentence. People don’t read comics for realism. There’s nothing realistic about superheroes. They are adults dressing it tights to fight crimes. In a comic world dressing in a costume to fight crime isn’t childish, it’s just something they do. Comparing that to realism is just silly.

That's not the sense that "realism" is typically used in those discussions. A better word would be "believable".

[Assam]

The idea that being Batman is a childish idea really doesn't work when Bruce's best friend Space Jesus, along with nearly everyone he knows, is doing the superhero thing too. This is also the reason why I ignore any complaints that Batman stories should be grounded in reality. Gotham isn't magically different from the rest of this universe. And within the confines of this universe, if you have the skill or ability, putting on a costume and fighting crime is a perfectly rational thing to do.

Hell, even in our world, among the all "Real Life Superheroes" who do work for charities and stuff, there's at least one guy I know of who really does put on a costume and act as basically a comic book hero.

[batfan08]

Chances are pretty good that, had Thomas and Martha not died, Bruce would have just been a doctor like his father. There would be no Batman. Now whether or not Gotham would have been better under that scenario is a huge debate. Joker probably would have murdered quite a few more people in his first few crimes. But he also probably would have been executed.

(Guess who just re-read RIP?)

But who’s to say The Joker would’ve even been created?