DC Speculation -- how will layoffs affect the Bat books?

[Ascended]

Eh, to me Bruce being a jerk to the Batfamily screams of pandering towards Batfam fans. Most writers are no doubt aware of the massive hate the fan base has towards Bruce and make him a dick on purpose so the Batfamily members look more sympathetic. They never come out looking bad when he's being a dick to them, he's the only one who comes out of those encounters worse for wear.

I dunno, I feel like the kids are often written as being in the wrong when they clash with Bruce. Not always and not on every level, but often. I can't speak for *every* conflict between Bruce and the kids of course, but there's plenty of "listen to your father you dolt, he's actually right" in the conflicts I've seen, or instances where the kids are the ones being jackasses. When Nightwing first got his solo, the first fight he had with Bruce was all on Dick; he threw the first punch and was the one being a d-bag while Bruce was trying to be chill. Or so it seems to me anyway, that *was* twenty years ago or something.

And it's ironic to hear how Bruce is supposedly written "like a high schooler's idea of what cool looks like" when some of the Batfamily are written in ways that scream "how do you do fellow kids, aren't these guys hip!" We gonna act like Jason Todd isn't every Edgelord teenage boy's angsty fantasy come true? Guns? Check. Willing to kill? Check. Tragic backstory? Check. Parental figure he doesn't get along with? Check. He ticks all the boxes a kid who "isn't going through a phase mom!" would love.

And then there's Dick, hey kids, this guy's younger and cooler than Bruce, EVERYBODY looooves him, he's the bestest leader ever, OMG look at his ass tee-hee, such a ladies man, super cool flipz and quipz, etc. I love him but yeah, it's pretty heavy handed.

Ha! A fair point. But let's be real, the comments about Dick's ass come from his twitter fans, not DC.

But Jason being an extreme edgelord and Dick being a great guy or Damian being the embodiment of Batgod sensibilities don't negate the fact that Batman is now built to appeal to the lowest common denominator and the most base concept of cool.

[SiegePerilous02]

Jason doesn't appeal to me much for those very reasons, but that doesn't magically mean Bruce isn't ticking off several edgelord boxes himself and has been doing it for longer. And is more prolific.

With Jason it at least can work because Red Hood was basically designed to be DC's Punisher, and I'm sure there are other nuances to his character that appeals to others besides just "guns are cool." Batman as he is now rides off of "he's super rich and can beat everyone with prep time, and he wallows in his dark brooding trauma." He went from Superman's BFF to being one of the rich assholes Clark would have taken down several pegs back in the Golden Age or the New 52, and should absolutely be doing so now.

The people who write off the entire character as being a problem because he's rich and embodies toxic masculinity can be annoying when the do a blanket generalization for the character's entire 80 year history, but they can have a point with the modern guy. And it's annoying that we have to say that.

[Light of Justice]

Ha! A fair point. But let's be real, the comments about Dick's ass come from his twitter fans, not DC.

Still DC helped that with sexualizing Dick on many comics, even their official account once posted Dick deliberately showing his ass on twitter.

[Ascended]

Yup, I like Jason in the "Punisher/Moon Knight" kind of role, it's a good niche that nobody in DC really owns and it's fitting for both his history and his "trying too hard" edgelord attitude, but Jason's not a character I'd call a favorite, by any stretch. And since he fills such a narrow niche, he can get away with that attitude in a way Bruce can't.

But what do I know, I liked Jason best when he was treated as a villain killing other villains, not as an anti-hero who just played too rough.

Still DC helped that with sexualizing Dick on many comics, even their official account once posted Dick deliberately showing his ass on twitter.

It's true, DC has played into it a little. You give the customer what they want. It's far from damaging to his character; a little self-objectification never hurt anyone's confidence.

[SiegePerilous02]

Yup, I like Jason in the "Punisher/Moon Knight" kind of role, it's a good niche that nobody in DC really owns and it's fitting for both his history and his "trying too hard" edgelord attitude, but Jason's not a character I'd call a favorite, by any stretch. And since he fills such a narrow niche, he can get away with that attitude in a way Bruce can't.

But what do I know, I liked Jason best when he was treated as a villain killing other villains, not as an anti-hero who just played too rough.

I know it didn't go over too well with everyone (and the killing of the security guards was OOC even for this version, the only thing I didn't like), but I liked Morrison's Red Hood. Especially compared to what else was happening at that time.

Him trying to thwart Batman and Robin with a phone poll was the bitchiest thing he could have done, and it was fantastic.

[The tall man]

The problem is that Batman beating Jason to a bloody pulp is actually in character for modern Batman.

It isn't normal; especially with Jason whom he should sees as his greatest failure (his own, not Jason, by the way) which happened because he couldn't learn in time how to truly communicate and bond with Jay. I'm not saying that he should be okay with everything Jason does but if you want an actual good Batman and Red Hood antagonistic interaction, Event Leviathan is far better, with Bruce clearly sad about Jason being Leviathan (since he was sure he was). He didn't jump at him just to pummel it. He offered sincere condolences and it felt genuine. There was respect and a true sense of sorrow in their interaction, on both part. You could see how both of them felt bad about what was about to happen but also felt it was unavoidable and even necessary. Neither of them looked bad here at least not as human beings.

The same goes for Damian being left alone and totally unsupervised, except when Batman gets to bark at him. It shouldn't be in-character for him. I'm not saying that he should express his feelings like a perfect father, World's n°1 or something. But he should at least seems to have feelings! And it ins't obvious at all. I mean, for **** sake, he seems more attached to Jarro in Death Metal than to ANY other Batfamily member in the main books save B&R during New 52. It shouldn't take Damian dying for us to see how much Batman cares for him.

It shouldn't be normal that the undertone of King's run that Damian's a mutt Bruce got dropped on him and that his true family will only be with Selina and the daughter they'll have together be allowed to flourish, and yet it happened and at times I feel as if I was the only one seeing it in King's run!

The way Batman is written needs to change, and short of a hard reboot or the excision of large parts of his history, which would in truth serves no one, the character needs to be written as making amend. Batfams aren't demanding that Bruce parade around with a bell and a sign saying that he is sorry like some does about "The End is Nigh". But he needs to change willingly and openly.

He can still be the Dark Knight, grim and all, without being an *******. He can still beat criminals like an unrelenting machine and yet stop to smile at kids and love his whole damn family. It's not mutually exclusive! But it does require the character to act in that direction nowadays, because the writing of Bruce as the Ultimate Jerk, Peak Toxic Masculinity is so ingrained nowadays that you'd rather picture Batman punching his family in the face for not obeying his codes 100% of the time than to gently explain to them why he adders to those and why they need to find their own to become healthier individuals.

And that's just sad, really.

I want Bruce as Batman to be a hero, a real one, not the piece of **** he is so often written to be even in his own books.

A lot of readers have this same mentality that's why it would be best to separate Batman from the family. Why is all the onus on him, what exactly is the family's part in this ongoing drama, or is it all Bruce's fault and the family are just innocent victims of Bruce's bad behavior and terrible abuse. Batman should not have to change as a character or how he's written for the sake of the family. This is his personality, it's how he's been for years and it has served him well. So well that he's the biggest superhero in the world. But because batfamily fans don't like how he treats the family he is the one who has to change. How about the family deal with it or go their own way, how about family fans demand that the family not interact with Batman or are involved with his stories. Writers seem to have this perverse obsession with making Batman the family's whipping boy. All the family's problems are laid at Bruce's feet and he's always the one who is in the wrong. Well true Batman fans will always push back against those notions. We like Bruce as he is and don't want him to change for the benefit of others. Particularly when he gets nothing out of it. No one is calling for any other character in the DCU to change who they fundamentally are, especially for the sake of others. All this talk of Bruce has to change or apologize is not for his benefit nor his well being. It's for family fans who think their faves deserve better. And maybe they should leave Batman's orbit to try and get it. See how well that goes.

And Batman is a hero, every night he puts on that cowl and risks his life to save innocent people shows his heroism. All the good works he does with his money shows his heroism. His relationship with the family has no bearing on his heroism, and he shouldn't have to be the family's whipping boy or #1 dad to be seen as one.

[SiegePerilous02]

A lot of readers have this same mentality that's why it would be best to separate Batman from the family. Why is all the onus on him, what exactly is the family's part in this ongoing drama, or is it all Bruce's fault and the family are just innocent victims of Bruce's bad behavior and terrible abuse. Batman should not have to change as a character or how he's written for the sake of the family. This is his personality, it's how he's been for years and it has served him well. So well that he's the biggest superhero in the world. But because batfamily fans don't like how he treats the family he is the one who has to change. How about the family deal with it or go their own way, how about family fans demand that the family not interact with Batman or are involved with his stories. Writers seem to have this perverse obsession with making Batman the family's whipping boy. All the family's problems are laid at Bruce's feet and he's always the one who is in the wrong. Well true Batman fans will always push back against those notions. We like Bruce as he is and don't want him to change for the benefit of others. Particularly when he gets nothing out of it. No one is calling for any other character in the DCU to change who they fundamentally are, especially for the sake of others. All this talk of Bruce has to change or apologize is not for his benefit nor his well being. It's for family fans who think their faves deserve better. And maybe they should leave Batman's orbit to try and get it. See how well that goes.

And Batman is a hero, every night he puts on that cowl and risks his life to save innocent people shows his heroism. All the good works he does with his money shows his heroism. His relationship with the family has no bearing on his heroism, and he shouldn't have to be the family's whipping boy or #1 dad to be seen as one.

But the fact of the matter is, Batman was ALREADY changed to get to the point of his current personality. The guy of the Bronze Age does not have the personality Bruce frequently gets now in a post-Miller world. The one you like is already a changed character. And he blows.

And yeah, he's the biggest superhero in the world. You know that that comes mostly from media outside the comics right? Most people don't read those, so the general audience isn't as familiar with some of the extreme abusive/jerikish behavior he displays in the comics. Mainstream comics are not that mainstream, not compared to movies and cartoons. And as extreme as he can get in those, it's not anywhere near as bad as stuff like OMAC or War Games.

And you don't have to be a fan of the Bat-Family to point this out. I'm not wild about about most of them. I want Bruce to stop sucking for his own sake, not theirs.

[DurararaFTW]

A lot of readers have this same mentality that's why it would be best to separate Batman from the family. Why is all the onus on him, what exactly is the family's part in this ongoing drama, or is it all Bruce's fault and the family are just innocent victims of Bruce's bad behavior and terrible abuse. Batman should not have to change as a character or how he's written for the sake of the family. This is his personality, it's how he's been for years and it has served him well. So well that he's the biggest superhero in the world. But because batfamily fans don't like how he treats the family he is the one who has to change. How about the family deal with it or go their own way, how about family fans demand that the family not interact with Batman or are involved with his stories. Writers seem to have this perverse obsession with making Batman the family's whipping boy. All the family's problems are laid at Bruce's feet and he's always the one who is in the wrong. Well true Batman fans will always push back against those notions. We like Bruce as he is and don't want him to change for the benefit of others. Particularly when he gets nothing out of it. No one is calling for any other character in the DCU to change who they fundamentally are, especially for the sake of others. All this talk of Bruce has to change or apologize is not for his benefit nor his well being. It's for family fans who think their faves deserve better. And maybe they should leave Batman's orbit to try and get it. See how well that goes.

And Batman is a hero, every night he puts on that cowl and risks his life to save innocent people shows his heroism. All the good works he does with his money shows his heroism. His relationship with the family has no bearing on his heroism, and he shouldn't have to be the family's whipping boy or #1 dad to be seen as one.

Batman has been a fatherfigure since 1940, I think it's entirely valid for true fans to consider it an aspect of his character where he has regressed considerably.

[Zaresh]

Jason doesn't appeal to me much for those very reasons, but that doesn't magically mean Bruce isn't ticking off several edgelord boxes himself and has been doing it for longer. And is more prolific.

With Jason it at least can work because Red Hood was basically designed to be DC's Punisher, and I'm sure there are other nuances to his character that appeals to others besides just "guns are cool." Batman as he is now rides off of "he's super rich and can beat everyone with prep time, and he wallows in his dark brooding trauma." He went from Superman's BFF to being one of the rich assholes Clark would have taken down several pegs back in the Golden Age or the New 52, and should absolutely be doing so now.

The people who write off the entire character as being a problem because he's rich and embodies toxic masculinity can be annoying when the do a blanket generalization for the character's entire 80 year history, but they can have a point with the modern guy. And it's annoying that we have to say that.

All those kitties, dying without anyone doing something to stop the masacre.
Think of the kitties, guys.

(Red Hood story has a lot more to do (tropes wise and story wise, I daresay even themes wise but that's a bold thing to say that I will deny have said) with The Crow with Punisher, going by those sweet 90's edge stories)
Edit: definitely more like Moon Knight that Punisher, @Ascended. By far.
Edit2: Morrison's red head Jason has a totally, brand new personality. I can't believe someone could think that that character for the first arc and Winick's are the same character.

[Ascended]

Edit: definitely more like Moon Knight that Punisher, @Ascended. By far.

Yeah yeah, I know, you yelled at me about that a little while ago. I specifically added Moon Knight in that example for your benefit.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

Why people keeps thinking of Jason as an edgelord?

He was written like a try hard and Winnick had a knack for overselling his feats but overall he wasn't edgier than other bat villains (and sometimes Bruce) at the time. The only time I can think of him going full blown edge is in Battle for the Cowl, and no one liked that take.

Also, he was never thought to be DC's Punisher or Moon Knight, he was meant to be a one shot villain who would go back to limbo after his initial story but fan demand brought him back, with the unfortunate side effect that no one at editorial knew what to do with him and for years they keep throwing stuff to the wall to see what would stick. It was only until the N52 and Lobdell that they settled on a direction for him, that of a guy with a chip on his shoulder looking to redeem himself and become a better person without compromising his ideals. Over the years he has bounced back and forth but has been kept consistent for the most part.

[SiegePerilous02]

All those kitties, dying without anyone doing something to stop the masacre.
Think of the kitties, guys.

(Red Hood story has a lot more to do (tropes wise and story wise, I daresay even themes wise but that's a bold thing to say that I will deny have said) with The Crow with Punisher, going by those sweet 90's edge stories)
Edit: definitely more like Moon Knight that Punisher, @Ascended. By far.
Edit2: Morrison's red head Jason has a totally, brand new personality. I can't believe someone could think that that character for the first arc and Winick's are the same character.

If the kitties need to be spared, maybe stuff like one of my favorite characters (Cheetah) jobbing to Jason and Batman in their latest little multiple choice DTV should happen less. Otherwise, I will keep killing kittins

I'm not fond of Jason in general. Morrison's is the only one I can stand, so I'm personally not bothered by it not meshing with Winick's (a writer I don't generally care for). It doesn't seem out of line with some of the stuff that had been going on with Jason at the time anyway, like Battle for the Cowl, being a murderous Nightwing and attacking Dick OYL or his attacking Tim in Titans Tower.

[Zaresh]

If the kitties need to be spared, maybe stuff like one of my favorite characters (Cheetah) jobbing to Jason and Batman in their latest little multiple choice DTV should happen less. Otherwise, I will keep killing kittins

I'm not fond of Jason in general. Morrison's is the only one I can stand, so I'm personally not bothered by it not meshing with Winick's (a writer I don't generally care for). It doesn't seem out of line with some of the stuff that had been going on with Jason at the time anyway, like Battle for the Cowl, being a murderous Nightwing and attacking Dick OYL or his attacking Tim in Titans Tower.

I can understand where you come from, but I most probably disagree with you, in what you see in each instance that you mentioned. I mean, if I were to just look a random character attacking my fave (let's see, Clint Barton for example) without looking beyond that, sure, I would dislike that random character a lot. But I like to see deeper in the characters that I read, which was something that I could do thanks to general good-to fine writing (despite the lows like Battle for the Cowl and the end of Jason's adventure in Countdown), and character building that then Morrison throw out the windows because he needed this flamboyant, silver agey, straight obnoxious villain for his run. Yeah, no, that wasn't Jason Todd at all.

Jason attacking Tim in the Titans Tower with cold, fast and utterly effective violence and sarcastic quiet venom? Yeah, that was grieving, psychotic Jason (because that's what Jason does with his violence through Under the Hood: grieve, and making a point while doing so). Jason making a show and a charade of himself while raiding Gotham and making the media thrive like crying out loud, bathing in arrogance? Definitely not Jason.

Edit: my point is, sure, he attacked Tim. But why and how he did it then, and what he did in Gotham for the first arc in Morrison's DickBats run are nothing alike. Not even the reason why he did both things are the same. For Tim he wanted to test the new Robin skills, and also show Bruce how dangerous it was for a teen the superheoing when a bad guy wanted to really hurt (Funny, but I recall Johns last words for Jason then to be that he respected Tim despite everything he did. It really felt like Jason had little against him, personally. However that would sound better or worse). Why he did that in Gotham when Dick was Batman? Uh... Probably to absolutely annoy and pester Dick? And show how much he despised the new dynamic duo? Envy? Jealousy? I mix of them all. Nothing like with Tim. Or with Bruce. Or heck, even why he went nuts in Battle for the Cowl.

[Sergard]

I know that the batfamily is currently part of Tynion's Batman run but I wouldn't be surprised when the layoffs - or rather DC pushing for other formats and the international market - are going to shatter the batfamily in the sense that some members will be more prominent in monthly floppies, some in OGN, some in a digital comic line, etc.

[TheCape]

To be honest comparing Jason with Punisher always felt a bit insulting to me, especially when you know the disturbing mindset of the guy under Garth Ennis (the take that most people use for him).