As a whole, the Batbooks are in poor shape. Agree? Disagree?

[Pohzee]

I guess I can understand the notion that with all the reboots and character shifts most comic book characters go through that writers or fans could make the case for any specific take or characterization "making sense," though I'm hesitant to adopt this view because it would mean writers have a free-for-all to do whatever the heck they like with a character, and throw any and all continuity and consistency out the window.

If it makes for good stories, I'm all for it. People aren't consistent in the real world either.

[Assam]

If it makes for good stories, I'm all for it. People aren't consistent in the real world either.

So so long as it was well written, you wouldn't care if from one issue to the next, Nightwing was suddenly and inexplicably a chainsaw wielding maniac cutting people apart?

[Pohzee]

So so long as it was well written, you wouldn't care if from one issue to the next, Nightwing was suddenly and inexplicably a chainsaw wielding maniac cutting people apart?

I certainly don't mean to that extent, but I really don't mind seeing different takes on characters that I like. I remember that people boycotted Grayson because they thought that it was too far removed for Nightwing's character. I know people who were outraged that Dick supported a fascist government in Nightwing: The New Order. Personally, I found those to be the most interesting takes on the character in years.

And as a Dick fan, it is an almost necessary view to take since his characterization ranges from confident to angsty optimistic to mini-Batman over his history.

I have no issues with the liberties that King took with Bane in I Am Bane or Kyle Rayner in Omega Men because these changes were used to tell a good story. I cannot speak to the liberties King made with Holly or the cast of The Vision because I was not familiar with them before King's run(s), but based off my general opinions of stories and King's work, I don't think that I'd be too offended at these changes either.

[Frontier]

If it makes for good stories, I'm all for it. People aren't consistent in the real world either.

Well, people aren't fictional characters either .

Of course I also have experience with "good stories" coming off at the expense of characters and characterizations that I enjoy, so I think it can be a slippery-slope.

[Jackalope89]

Red Hood and the Outlaws is pretty amazing (and amazing what an team change up can do, as well).
Batman engaged to Catwoman, has been solid. Could be better in some aspects, but solid. Just wish that it was referenced in the other Bat books.
Detective Comics, unsure where I stand on that at the moment.
Batwoman's solo is solid.
Nightwing, is alright. Just wish I had an inkling of the overall direction of the story.
I guess you could count Super Sons, as Damian makes up half of that, with regular appearances from Batman (and Superman as well). And, though ending, has been a blast to read.
Batgirl, while alright, just feels completely isolated from everyone else. She had that crossover with Nightwing a little bit ago, but that was it.
Don't read Batgirl and the Birds of Prey though.

[CryNotWolf]

I certainly don't mean to that extent, but I really don't mind seeing different takes on characters that I like. I remember that people boycotted Grayson because they thought that it was too far removed for Nightwing's character. I know people who were outraged that Dick supported a fascist government in Nightwing: The New Order. Personally, I found those to be the most interesting takes on the character in years.

And as a Dick fan, it is an almost necessary view to take since his characterization ranges from confident to angsty optimistic to mini-Batman over his history.

I have no issues with the liberties that King took with Bane in I Am Bane or Kyle Rayner in Omega Men because these changes were used to tell a good story. I cannot speak to the liberties King made with Holly or the cast of The Vision because I was not familiar with them before King's run(s), but based off my general opinions of stories and King's work, I don't think that I'd be too offended at these changes either.

The "it's okay because I personally enjoyed the story" line of thinking is so droll. At that point you're just writing a costume, not a character. If you're unable to write a good story using the character in either a demeanor that's been established or as a progressive build-up from that, then what's the point of writing the character at all? Or even working in a character-based genre in the first place? Instead of constraining themselves to characters they have nothing more than a superficial grasp on and zero interest in keeping authentic, maybe these writers should stop writing stories using established characters and use their own instead...but we know they won't. It's easier to gain fame and money by writing a Batman book than it is using your own original creations.

Guys like King, as talented a writer as he is...well it just seems to me like he writes for himself first. Never do I feel like he actually cares about these characters beyond how he tangentially inserts himself in them from story to story. If it's not him vaguely airing out his personal qualms about depression or terrorism, it's him going "oh it would be cool if this character did this. I know that this action isn't really applicable to the character as previous writers have built him up, but I don't care. Screw them." Now King's a nice guy and would never say "screw them", but you get my point.

But then again he's writing for a demographic populated largely by people whose lines of thinking apex at the points of "I like this character because his design is cool and he's real strong". So maybe I shouldn't be taking such grievance with the way he apathetically and selfishly warps characters to his own desires...but it's difficult not to when I see him writing characters completely different from everyone else and not even bothering to address or explain why they are acting different in the first place. I mean really readers should not have to be taking to twitter en masse to just get King to answer things that should have been answered in his comics.

[Barbatos666]

Some of my favorite comics have high quality dialogue as well, but on average the dialogue in most superhero comics isn't anything special. The foundational stories for many of the DC and Marvel's major properties were written in the 60s and are filled to the brim with dialogue no person in real life would speak and purple prose. I love all that shit, but it's not high art. That doesn't it can't be in the proper hands.

King isn't to everyone's taste, but I don't see what he's doing that's worse than the average comic you find on the stands.



Dialogue is not the only part of story telling. And how are his sentences not put together competently and used to mask lousy writing? Put some examples.

At this point, complaining about King's dialogue is more annoying and cliché than anything on the page. Especially when it's the same people complaining about it.



Are you inside his head right now? How do you know any of this?

What are they doing that is stranger than normal for a universe that revolves around an eccentric billionaire who dresses up as a demon and punches evil clowns in the face? People keep saying that the characters in this run act weird, as if they forgot they are reading a Batman comic.



You mean like every writer ever? Seriously, what does this mean? Do you have the same complaints about Morrison, Johns and Snyder? Because every writer, especially the big name ones, have patterns and quirks that you can see in their writing.

When did I say dialogue is the only part of story telling again. But where exactly is King succeeding in other forms of story telling? Remember those Wonder Woman issues with the imaginary dimension with monsters where they spent a decade or so for no reason whatsoever? Remember the Talia arc where they defy international rules which we never found out what they were to even begin with and then Tiger shows up and dissappears and Damian cries for some reason. King's basic story telling is lazy and padded. He stretches 4 scenes worth of pages to an entire comic and usually throws something deliberately particularly stupid normally near the ending.

As for examples, he repeats the same phrases over and over again all the time.
And why is it annoying to you again? We can complain about it all we want thank you very much.

I dont need to go inside his head, wtiting is a form of communication. So far King has communicated that he's more interested is forcing Kingisms than writing a story.
Yeah other writers get carried away with their own styles too and they have faults as well everyone does but do you the difference? They actually try. Moririson may the tendency to go meta but the concepts he brings to the table make up for it so you can appreciate his effort if not the execution. Snyder may overrwrite his dialogue but his books always have content and are extremly well paced. Kings Batman crawls at about a snails pace, there is bare minimum of story telling. Entire sequences are just told to readers quite often. Show dont tell is a basic story telling requirement which King repeatedly violates. So essentially the entire comic is reduced to King's dialogue as there is nothing else to distract you from his flaws. His action sequences are terrible, he cant handle power levels, his contributions to the mythology at about 41 issues are zero. What exactly has he added? Gotham Girl haha. Who are his original villains?
More annoying is you lowballing the entire industry and comic books in your attempt to justify King. So basically writers can have Batman like Jar Jar Binks cause its comic books." Mesa Cat how wude " there this should be standard dialogue from now on.

[Daniel22]

I certainly don't mean to that extent, but I really don't mind seeing different takes on characters that I like. I remember that people boycotted Grayson because they thought that it was too far removed for Nightwing's character. I know people who were outraged that Dick supported a fascist government in Nightwing: The New Order. Personally, I found those to be the most interesting takes on the character in years.

And as a Dick fan, it is an almost necessary view to take since his characterization ranges from confident to angsty optimistic to mini-Batman over his history.

I have no issues with the liberties that King took with Bane in I Am Bane or Kyle Rayner in Omega Men because these changes were used to tell a good story. I cannot speak to the liberties King made with Holly or the cast of The Vision because I was not familiar with them before King's run(s), but based off my general opinions of stories and King's work, I don't think that I'd be too offended at these changes either.

I agree with that mindset. If characters are always chained to their previous actions and interpretations, they can never grow. At that point they aren't dynamic or interesting and they are totally predictable. We know what they are going to do and say before they do.

In the same way a strong continuity chains the best writers to the worst writers, a super strong sense that characters must stay consistent and unchanging ties the worst interpretations of a character to any future possible interpretations.

Lois Lane isn't obsessed with making Superman love her any more. That was in character for her for decades. Is she now written out of character? I understand that she changed with the times, but those stories "happened" just like any others. By ignoring them you pick and choose what to acknowledge, just like writers do. We don't want Lois to be totally in character as established on page, we want her to be in a version of her character we prefer.

[CryNotWolf]

I agree with that mindset. If characters are always chained to their previous actions and interpretations, they can never grow. At that point they aren't dynamic or interesting and they are totally predictable. We know what they are going to do and say before they do.

In the same way a strong continuity chains the best writers to the worst writers, a super strong sense that characters must stay consistent and unchanging ties the worst interpretations of a character to any future possible interpretations.

Lois Lane isn't obsessed with making Superman love her any more. That was in character for her for decades. Is she now written out of character? I understand that she changed with the times, but those stories "happened" just like any others. By ignoring them you pick and choose what to acknowledge, just like writers do. We don't want Lois to be totally in character as established on page, we want her to be in a version of her character we prefer.

So you're saying that not only is dynamicity an inherent positive value, but that the only way to gain that value is to have erratic, tensile foundational characteristics? That just seems like a very flawed line of reasoning.

You don't change, you build. That's how it should be done. And if you decide to change, you need to work for it. Give a reason for change, a sense of progression and flow, not just "oh this way suits my story better, so to hell with it".

[Daniel22]

I guess I can understand the notion that with all the reboots and character shifts most comic book characters go through that writers or fans could make the case for any specific take or characterization "making sense," though I'm hesitant to adopt this view because it would mean writers have a free-for-all to do whatever the heck they like with a character, and throw any and all continuity and consistency out the window.

I just think we each have "our" version of the characters we love, and when they are written to match that we call that "in character". When they aren't written the way they were when we fell in love with comics, we call them "out of character".

If you discovered Batman in the seventies you might think of him as a "hairy chested Lothario", as Morrison called him. He has a bunch of girlfriends, cracks a joke sometimes and travels the world. If someone else discovered him in the nineties he's a totally different character. Both are equally valid but it's impossible to write a story where Batman is in both of those people. That doesn't mean either one was written out of character. They were in character for a while, and now he's something different, just like he'll be something else in ten years.

To truly have Batman be always "in character" you'd have to just choose a date and say "There! Right THERE is correct, we have to adhere to that version or he's ooc". Very few aspects of his character have been consistent through every iteration.

[Daniel22]

So you're saying that not only is dynamicity an inherent positive value, but that the only way to gain that value is to have erratic, tensile foundational characteristics? That just seems like a very flawed line of reasoning.

You don't change, you build. That's how it should be done. And if you decide to change, you need to work for it. Give a reason for change, a sense of progression and flow, not just "oh this way suits my story better, so to hell with it".

Yes to dynamicity being an inherently positive value, usually. No to the erratic, tensile foundational characteristics.

I agree building is important. Ideally building and change occur simultaneously. They feed off each other. Building leads to change which requires more building which necessitates change... etc.

I almost always get the feeling that there IS a progression and reason for changes, though. I can't remember the last time I felt the writer had changed something for no reason and simply to suit a story.

[nonsense man]

That is why I like BTAS the best because you get those mixes of 70's lothario and 90's angst a bit. But also he could be a team player. Though we seen the future tragedy with batman beyond. The only issues of king I liked so far was the annual a batman and catwoman love story through the years. And the double date issue with lois and clark the rest has been mediocre to crap though. Making Holly a killer crap gotham girl mediocre to name a bit. He is good with the one off issue not the multipart series that others are should stick to his strengths and it would have been a better run. Also sometimes you need to put the right characters together to make good stories too. Jason with starfire and roy made no sense Jason todd with Artemis and Bizarro does. If you had the same story and swapped the characters it would suck that is why this version of the outlaws written by the same author is better because the characters fit with the story. Also I liked the Grayson as spy too and even him head of a future making people with powers illegal though damian would have made more sense in charge of that.

[Frontier]

Lois Lane isn't obsessed with making Superman love her any more. That was in character for her for decades. Is she now written out of character? I understand that she changed with the times, but those stories "happened" just like any others. By ignoring them you pick and choose what to acknowledge, just like writers do. We don't want Lois to be totally in character as established on page, we want her to be in a version of her character we prefer.

Well, if we to be accurate, that version of Lois Lane was rebooted and hasn't been seen since the Silver Age...

[Daniel22]

Well, if we to be accurate, that version of Lois Lane was rebooted and hasn't been seen since the Silver Age...

I hear you. That's kind of my point though, we want "in character" but which version? If we're going by the idea that the current version is the correct, "in character" version, than any way in which they are portrayed would be in character, since we are writing a new version. It can't be out of character if all the things we base that character on have been rebooted, retconned and restarted away.

[Frontier]

I hear you. That's kind of my point though, we want "in character" but which version? If we're going by the idea that the current version is the correct, "in character" version, than any way in which they are portrayed would be in character, since we are writing a new version. It can't be out of character if all the things we base that character on have been rebooted, retconned and restarted away.

I think if you started writing the Post-Crisis Lois as Golden Age/Silver Age Lois then that would definitely seem out-of-character with how she has been portrayed up to this point, which I think is enough to be able to go from and build on as far as characterization is concerned.