King Batman Run: Analysis and Enjoyment Thread

[charliehustle415]

That seems very unlikely. I would be very much against it.

I don't know about that, I just finished War of Jokes & Riddles and he did try to kill the Riddler.

Also I just realized the Him that kept being referenced in the early part of the run is the Joker because of Bruce's attempted murder of the Riddler, I always thought it was the memory of Thomas Wayne based on the letter Bruce received during Flashpoint.

Also in the very beginning King laid out his thesis: Batman is Batman because he cannot stop, and Thomas is his rival, his antithesis.

Bane was his dark mirror because he too couldn't stop being Bane.

Pretty amazing

[millernumber1]

I don't know about that, I just finished War of Jokes & Riddles and he did try to kill the Riddler.

Also I just realized the Him that kept being referenced in the early part of the run is the Joker because of Bruce's attempted murder of the Riddler, I always thought it was the memory of Thomas Wayne based on the letter Bruce received during Flashpoint.

Also in the very beginning King laid out his thesis: Batman is Batman because he cannot stop, and Thomas is his rival, his antithesis.

Bane was his dark mirror because he too couldn't stop being Bane.

Pretty amazing

It is pretty cool! I think you have a good point about the parallels between War of Jokes and Riddles and City of Bane...both feature a city controlled by villains. But I hope not. I don't want Batman to kill.

[Scott Taylor]

I wonder if Bruce will make an exception to his rule and kill Thomas.

Hopefully not. It seems much more likely that he will be placed back into the same timeline he left, at the time he left it. Like Jor El, he will then die instantly of "natural causes." The main thing I will be looking for will be whether Bruce can convince him that he is wrong prior to that happening.

[gregpersons]

I could see either Catwoman, Gotham Girl or Bane maybe killing Thomas

Catwoman doing it could make sense (and be yet another parallel to Dark Knight Rises for this run)... and would make sense as the one who "stops" Batman from killing (like Joker in War of Jokes & Riddles) but does it for him, to save him from it, in a different way than Joker did.

[charliehustle415]

It is pretty cool! I think you have a good point about the parallels between War of Jokes and Riddles and City of Bane...both feature a city controlled by villains. But I hope not. I don't want Batman to kill.

I mean, King's Batman is not a good man; I mean he got Kite Man's kid killed. I know Riddler said he planned it, but none of it would have involved him if Batman didn't approach Kite Man first to become a spy.

I think King's portrayal of Batman is definitely more toward of Dark Knight as opposed to White Knight. A lot of innocent people died because of his gambit to join the Riddler.

Also was there a continuity error in Jokes & Riddles?

Riddler says he would kill Batman's family and there's a glimpse of his inner thoughts with the entire bat-family on their knees about to be shot, but Bruce has only been Batman for about a year

[millernumber1]

I mean, King's Batman is not a good man; I mean he got Kite Man's kid killed. I know Riddler said he planned it, but none of it would have involved him if Batman didn't approach Kite Man first to become a spy.

I think King's portrayal of Batman is definitely more toward of Dark Knight as opposed to White Knight. A lot of innocent people died because of his gambit to join the Riddler.

Also was there a continuity error in Jokes & Riddles?

Riddler says he would kill Batman's family and there's a glimpse of his inner thoughts with the entire bat-family on their knees about to be shot, but Bruce has only been Batman for about a year

I reject the idea that because Batman asked someone to do something dangerous but good, and they agreed (even if under duress), he is responsible for the evil that others do. I don't think Batman is responsible for what the Joker does. That way lies moral madness.

I don't think King's primary argument in this run against Batman is that he's dark. I think if you look at #50, Knightmares, and Rules of Engagement, his argument is that Batman is a boy's response to tragedy - fundamentally immature. My own read on the situation is that King is trying to find a way for Batman to grow up, but still be Batman.

We'll have to wait for the reread to answer the question on the Riddler. I don't remember it clearly enough to say.

[charliehustle415]

I reject the idea that because Batman asked someone to do something dangerous but good, and they agreed (even if under duress), he is responsible for the evil that others do. I don't think Batman is responsible for what the Joker does. That way lies moral madness.


I don't think King's primary argument in this run against Batman is that he's dark. I think if you look at #50, Knightmares, and Rules of Engagement, his argument is that Batman is a boy's response to tragedy - fundamentally immature. My own read on the situation is that King is trying to find a way for Batman to grow up, but still be Batman.


We'll have to wait for the reread to answer the question on the Riddler. I don't remember it clearly enough to say.

I don't know about that, if someone forced me to rob a bank I wouldn't be the one in trouble.

No, not primary; but an argument can be made that is the whole point of Thomas.

Thomas is what Bruce may become

[millernumber1]

I don't know about that, if someone forced me to rob a bank I wouldn't be the one in trouble.

No, not primary; but an argument can be made that is the whole point of Thomas.

Thomas is what Bruce may become

If someone forced you to rob a bank you would be in trouble. I'm of the Platonic school that it's better to suffer wrong than do wrong. Is it as blameworthy? No - of course we wouldn't blame someone as harshly if they were forced to do something wrong. But, as in the Marvel Civil War movie, that doesn't make the victims any less dead. It was still a wrong thing that you did yourself that (usually) you can prevent.

The whole point of Thomas is to show what an adult response to tragedy CAN be - but I'm hoping that King will find a way forward for Bruce that says that Batman CAN grow up, at least a little, and not become a killer.

[charliehustle415]

If someone forced you to rob a bank you would be in trouble. I'm of the Platonic school that it's better to suffer wrong than do wrong. Is it as blameworthy? No - of course we wouldn't blame someone as harshly if they were forced to do something wrong. But, as in the Marvel Civil War movie, that doesn't make the victims any less dead. It was still a wrong thing that you did yourself that (usually) you can prevent.

The whole point of Thomas is to show what an adult response to tragedy CAN be - but I'm hoping that King will find a way forward for Bruce that says that Batman CAN grow up, at least a little, and not become a killer.

That's easy in theory, but when faced with broken limbs it would be difficult to say no; nevertheless, I think this is why I love King's run there are so many ways to read it.

I think Bruce may try to kill Thomas but will probably get stopped by Selina who then in turn will kill Thomas.

[millernumber1]

That's easy in theory, but when faced with broken limbs it would be difficult to say no; nevertheless, I think this is why I love King's run there are so many ways to read it.

I think Bruce may try to kill Thomas but will probably get stopped by Selina who then in turn will kill Thomas.

That seems so bleak. I mean, this is King we're talking about, and it WOULD be a pretty close fit to what happens in his Vision series.

(And no, my philosophy is not an easy one live out. But I don't think our world allows for an easy moral philosophy, or everyone would agree! )

[bob.schoonover]

That's easy in theory, but when faced with broken limbs it would be difficult to say no; nevertheless, I think this is why I love King's run there are so many ways to read it.

I think Bruce may try to kill Thomas but will probably get stopped by Selina who then in turn will kill Thomas.

Not to go all Babylon 5 on this, but I think the solution for Bruce is what Lorien said about the Shadow War "You cannot win this war through force. You must understand your way out of this." - Thomas can be physically beaten, certainly, and Deus Ex Manhattan can always take care of him, but in order for the story to make sense, Bruce and Thomas need some sort of closure. Bruce needs to show Thomas that what Thomas wants for Bruce will not make Bruce happy.

The family standing up (presumably under Pirate's thrall) are what give Bruce purpose and contentment. If the story ends with Thomas not understanding that, if it's just a physical fight that determines who is Batman, then Thomas serves almost no purpose in the story that couldn't have been filled by Bane.

[charliehustle415]

That seems so bleak. I mean, this is King we're talking about, and it WOULD be a pretty close fit to what happens in his Vision series.

(And no, my philosophy is not an easy one live out. But I don't think our world allows for an easy moral philosophy, or everyone would agree! )

Don't I know it (coming from a Philosophy Professor )

[millernumber1]

Don't I know it (coming from a Philosophy Professor )

Well, fist bump from former English adjunct

[charliehustle415]

Well, fist bump from former English adjunct

Whatup, fellow academic!

[gregpersons]

I don't think King's primary argument in this run against Batman is that he's dark. I think if you look at #50, Knightmares, and Rules of Engagement, his argument is that Batman is a boy's response to tragedy - fundamentally immature. My own read on the situation is that King is trying to find a way for Batman to grow up, but still be Batman.

I think that's right. And I do think he will have a moment where he shows his growth to Thomas — perhaps illustrating that Thomas's view of Batman is it's a curse, whereas for Bruce, Batman is just who he is. He's Batman because he's Batman.