Jason Todd: Robin, Red Hood, Arkham Knight Appreciation 2021

[Zaresh]

I think most of us fans are tired of them fighting already, to be honest.

Your comments have put my fears to rest for a bit. I really need to read that issue :/.

[Sergard]

For Jason to stop killing. As long as DC would never let him kill any big villain, I would prefer for him to not shot the poor henchmen left and right like some rapid dog. If you make Jason kill, make it big and have impact.

Since it's unlikely, I at least hope for Jason and Bruce's relationship to have a step forward because I'm tired of them fighting.

What would you consider a step forward? Should they work on a better father-son relationship or should they realize that it would be for the best to leave each other alone and go separate ways?

[Rise]

For them to have a better relationship. Jason can't be separated from Batman and the writers can't have Batman simply ignore him without making him look bad (Jason is family whether some fans like to admit it or not and he was a family before the bat family become a thing).

Their relationship will always be complicated, but it doesn't need to be antagonistic all the time either because it's getting really old and tiring.

[RedBird]

Jason was a child in the flashback and children can't be described as hypocrites because they are still learing and in need of guidance.

Is this an accurate depiction of Jason time as Robin back in the 80s? Not really, but it's not done to show Jason as "bad" or "rotten" (and Jason isn't rotten now to say he was rotten since the beginning) or free Batman from any blame and put it solely on Jason like it was done before since Chip established from the first issue that Batman failed and let him down. The point was to show that his rough upbringing played a role in shaping his morals and conviction.

Hypocrisy doesn't have an age limit, Jason can be hypocritical, and he has been hypocritical before, that's not the issue.
It's the context for it, that the entire scene uses a forced out of character moment just to get to that hypocrisy, and mainly that it makes Jasons sense of justice seem disproportionate as though he just has an urge to commit acts of violence for the sake of violence rather than feeling imbued by a sense of justice and a desire to right wrongs.

It's why instead of Jason being worked up over a more serious crime or criminal, and losing his temper that way, (perhaps even going to far) which is absolutely in character, he is being disproportionately belligerent to just a petty ex thief. Why create this OOC moment? Just to have Jason condemning the ex thief as someone who will always be a thief, so that Batman can point out the hypocrisy and step in with the 'insight' of, 'ah ah ah, now Jason, weren't YOU also an ex thief? Hmmm'. It's a change to his past behaviour all to justify this moment, which feels unnecessary.

Jason is already displayed as a flawed character in the book, and I enjoy that, but I don't enjoy other inaccurate or OOC flaws being arbitrarily tacked on, especially ones that have plagued the character enough as it has already from DCs revisionist history. Jason being excessive in his anger or violence towards certain crimes like for example drug dealing and abuse, (which has been shown multiple times in this book as well) already show how his rough upbringing played a role in shaping his morals and convictions, there's no need to change that or exaggerate it to have him direct that excessive violence to small time and reformed criminals. As it is, with Jason attacking someone for simply having a history of petty crime under their belt, it just shows him to be unnecessarily violent all round, and personally, that's just disappointing to see. I can understand if it's not an issue or if it's not read that way for others, but I consider it, an unnecessary blemish on an otherwise (so far) enjoyable book.

All that said, honestly, with just some added context, this scene could potentially be turned around and be contextualized as not just Jason randomly being too excessive towards such a small time crime, and using violence for the sake of violence towards an otherwise harmless ex criminal. But instead, if the story expands on this with an extra scene, it could present Jason as being very specifically excessive towards that ex thief, not as a blatant ignorance to his own background as an ex thief, (glass houses and all that) but as him psychologically projecting his own self loathing and his own deep down belief that he himself could never rise above his background. Once a thief always a thief. Not only would that remain more in character but the element of inadequacy in Jason would fit with the current story. Something like that could expand on this moment and provide it with more depth and insight to another layer of Jason's character. Now that would be intriguing to see.

[RedBird]

For them to have a better relationship. Jason can't be separated from Batman and the writers can't have Batman simply ignore him without making him look bad (Jason is family whether some fans like to admit it or not and he was a family before the bat family become a thing).

Their relationship will always be complicated, but it doesn't need to be antagonistic all the time either because it's getting really old and tiring.

Agreed.

And personally I think at times it also gets old and tiring is when the antagonistic elements in the story also seem resolvable and avoidable with just a conversation.

[Rise]

Hypocrisy doesn't have an age limit, Jason can be hypocritical, and he has been hypocritical before, that's not the issue.
It's the context for it, that the entire scene uses a forced out of character moment just to get to that hypocrisy, and mainly that it makes Jasons sense of justice seem disproportionate as though he just has an urge to commit acts of violence for the sake of violence rather than feeling imbued by a sense of justice and a desire to right wrongs.

It's why instead of Jason being worked up over a more serious crime or criminal, and losing his temper that way, (perhaps even going to far) which is absolutely in character, he is being disproportionately belligerent to just a petty ex thief. Why create this OOC moment? Just to have Jason condemning the ex thief as someone who will always be a thief, so that Batman can point out the hypocrisy and step in with the 'insight' of, 'ah ah ah, now Jason, weren't YOU also an ex thief? Hmmm'. It's a change to his past behaviour all to justify this moment, which feels unnecessary.

Jason is already displayed as a flawed character in the book, and I enjoy that, but I don't enjoy other inaccurate or OOC flaws being arbitrarily tacked on, especially ones that have plagued the character enough as it has already from DCs revisionist history. Jason being excessive in his anger or violence towards certain crimes like for example drug dealing and abuse, (which has been shown multiple times in this book as well) already show how his rough upbringing played a role in shaping his morals and convictions, there's no need to change that or exaggerate it to have him direct that excessive violence to small time and reformed criminals. As it is, with Jason attacking someone for simply having a history of petty crime under their belt, it just shows him to be unnecessarily violent all round, and personally, that's just disappointing to see. I can understand if it's not an issue or if it's not read that way for others, but I consider it, an unnecessary blemish on an otherwise (so far) enjoyable book.

All that said, honestly, with just some added context, this scene could potentially be turned around and be contextualized as not just Jason randomly being too excessive towards such a small time crime, and using violence for the sake of violence towards an otherwise harmless ex criminal. But instead, if the story expands on this with an extra scene, it could present Jason as being very specifically excessive towards that ex thief, not as a blatant ignorance to his own background as an ex thief, (glass houses and all that) but as him psychologically projecting his own self loathing and his own deep down belief that he himself could never rise above his background. Once a thief always a thief. Not only would that remain more in character but the element of inadequacy in Jason would fit with the current story. Something like that could expand on this moment and provide it with more depth and insight to another layer of Jason's character. Now that would be intriguing to see.

Jason's argument was childish, not hypocrite and it's Batman's job to teach him better.

And Jason has a very black and white way of thinking (which always has been a big flaw of his) and the point of this scene to show it. It's not trying to show Jason as bad person or doomed, but as a child who need guidance.

[RedBird]

Jason's argument was childish, not hypocrite and it's Batman's job to teach him better.

Yes it is childish, but it's also hypocrisy, it is claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behaviour does not conform. Jason is claiming that the petty thief cannot reform and that he will never become any else but a petty thief, he supposedly believes that, despite he himself 'reforming' and becoming Robin. He can be hypocritical, again, that's not even my issue with the scene, the issue is the OOC approach to his sense of morals here that then fuels an otherwise unnecessary moment of Batman pointing out the flaws in Jasons argument. An out of character moment, that being the excessive violence towards a reformed criminal, was inserted here just for the sake of having it pointed out as a fallacy. Jason has plenty of his own actual, in character flaws that work against him and that be used as teaching moments for Batman if that's what the scene 'intended', there's no need for writers to make up new ones.

And Jason has a very black and white way of thinking (which always has been a big flaw of his) and the point of this scene to show it. It's not trying to show Jason as bad person or doomed, but as a child who need guidance

In character, even in Jasons most black and white approach to dealing with criminals, his ire was always reserved for the worst of the worst kinds of criminals, and ones that were not reformed. What this scene literally shows is him being excessively violent to an ex petty thief, a crime and a type of criminal that he, in his past depictions, did not approach with such belligerence. How much people read into that as Jason being depicted as either a good or bad person, is up for debate. But my actual issue with this lies with the change to his character. That this is technically OOC, and that it is a depiction of Jason's violence being entirely unwarranted, unnecessary and indefensible, when in actuality it was once fuelled by a righteous anger that whilst at times had been excessive (depending on opinions) was at least understandable in it's justifications and somewhat defensible.

[Rise]

I feel you and I are going to start a discussion about child psychology here , but anyway.

While I'm probably thinking more deeply about it than chip intended, but a child moral standards is reflection of their own parents and people around them than their own. As adults, we see this as hypocrisy. To a child, it's simply a life fact that they learned and they don't know any better (and it's our job to make sure that they would know better). When I see a child misbehave in my class, I don't blame them and instead I try to find the source of the problem which mean summoning the parents and talking to them.

As for your second point, Jason does actually kill undiscriminately and pretty hypocrite about it which I voiced my displeasure about it multiple times before (a bag full heads say it all). He is no different than the police who are only capable of hunting the small fish, but can't do anything about the big fish which does nothing to get rid of corruption. Jason isn't doing anything better (and can't really because DC would never allow him to kill any big villain) than Batman. This is why I hope that he would stop killing random henchmen left and right.

[RedBird]

I feel you and I are going to start a discussion about child psychology here , but anyway.

While I'm probably thinking more deeply about it than chip intended, but a child moral standards is reflection of their own parents and people around them than their own. As adults, we see this as hypocrisy. To a child, it's simply a life fact that they learned and they don't know any better (and it's our job to make sure that they would know better). When I see a child misbehave in my class, I don't blame them and instead I try to find the source of the problem which mean summoning the parents and talking to them.

Haha yeah this is definitely getting to be quite an in depth analysis and look, that's both a fair and agreeable reading on the behaviours of children and a more true to life, realistic take on the things they tend to pick up from their environments and from the adults around them, but in the case of this particular issue, unfortunately I don't think Chip had approached the story with quite as much nuance as you just described, though I honestly wish it had.

As for your second point, Jason does actually kill undiscriminately and pretty hypocrite about it which I voiced my displeasure about it multiple times before (a bag full heads say it all). He is no different than the police who are only capable of hunting the small fish, but can't do anything about the big fish which does nothing to get rid of corruption. Jason isn't doing anything better (and can't really because DC would never allow him to kill any big villain) than Batman. This is why I hope that he would stop killing random henchmen left and right.

To be fair that's more Jason as Red Hood than Jason as Robin. In the case of this story, it's the changes to his approach as Robin/young Jason that disappoint me to see. As Red Hood, especially post crisis, yeah he is a touch more indiscriminate towards the criminals, in that his targets, whilst violent in their crimes can generally be small fry in the grand scheme of things. On a side note, I liked that Rhato rebirth created a better distinction for Jason and his judgement when killing, showing him to either refuse killing henchman or glad to see them reforming themselves, a development from post crisis for sure. But yeah unfortunately even then, Jasons whole quest for justice seems shallow and insignificant thanks to the limitations of the Bat world. I'd love for some kind of story where he does get to take down some kind of 'big fish', something that would have an actual and larger impact on the communities affected by them, but if that is something that's not going to happen any time soon, then I'd at least like to see more Jason stories with a main focus on actively saving people and communities rather than a focus on more insignificant 'hunting'.

[Zaresh]

You know, with how easy it is to bring back from death people in fictional, superpowered worlds like the DCU, why can't they kill big villains? It's ridiculous in hindsight. They can bring them back whenever they want to use them again. And if you want the world at constant risk, just create new menaces, as usual.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

Marketing.

Any period of time that Joker is dead is a period of time where DC is losing money. Plus, if you keep killing people just to bring them back, then death is also completely meaningless and it would make characters like Jason look like complete idiots.

[Zaresh]

Marketing.

Any period of time that Joker is dead is a period of time where DC is losing money. Plus, if you keep killing people just to bring them back, then death is also completely meaningless and it would make characters like Jason look like complete idiots.

I wasn't thinking about Joker (Joker is unkillable for how much money he does each month). I was thinking about Penguin or Scarecrow, or even smaller named villains (Batman has a ton of them). You can kill once every bunch of years and let them die. You can even let their IDs carry on new characters. And it's not like they're against killing and bring villains back because they think it hurts the impact of their death. They clearly don't care: look at Ivy for example. She barely stayed dead last time. They don't even need a story to make them be alive again, given how they seem to now restart the universe every five years or so.

It's funny. They really shouldn't have anything against going the killing way. Not for the bat side, where there's a lot of rogues. Marketing isn't a problem for many of them, and they don't really seem to care.

Of course, killing them and let them stay dead feels better. But I just needed to point it out. Also, you don't bring dead people back, you also don't get Red Hood or Winter Soldier (retconned into not really dead, but it's really the same case).

[Sergard]

For them to have a better relationship. Jason can't be separated from Batman and the writers can't have Batman simply ignore him without making him look bad (Jason is family whether some fans like to admit it or not and he was a family before the bat family become a thing).

Their relationship will always be complicated, but it doesn't need to be antagonistic all the time either because it's getting really old and tiring.

I don't see how ignoring Jason makes Batman look bad.

And to be honest, so far it doesn't feel like Bruce considers Jason family. There isn't really any difference between Jason and a criminal that Batman wants to rehabilitate. And family isn't a rehabilitation project.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

I wasn't thinking about Joker (Joker is unkillable for how much money he does each month). I was thinking about Penguin or Scarecrow, or even smaller named villains (Batman has a ton of them). You can kill once every bunch of years and let them die. You can even let their IDs carry on new characters. And it's not like they're against killing and bring villains back because they think it hurts the impact of their death. They clearly don't care: look at Ivy for example. She barely stayed dead last time. They don't even need a story to make them be alive again, given how they seem to now restart the universe every five years or so.

It's funny. They really shouldn't have anything against going the killing way. Not for the bat side, where there's a lot of rogues. Marketing isn't a problem for many of them, and they don't really seem to care.

Of course, killing them and let them stay dead feels better. But I just needed to point it out. Also, you don't bring dead people back, you also don't get Red Hood or Winter Soldier (retconned into not really dead, but it's really the same case).

Any memorable rogue in comics from the big two is still a money printing machine and sure, some more make money than others but ultimately is all about making a profit. And any time a major rogue is removed from the equation is only a way to increase profits by setting up a "huge" return story. Killing one of them to create a replacement very rarely will net the same profits as having the original deal available. Especially nowadays that is more about creating adaptations for TV, film, or videogames than creating stories for the comics.

It is kind of funny that you said that without bringing dead people back, Red Hood or the Winter Soldier wouldn't exist when for decades the biggest nonofficial rule in comic books was "Jason Todd, Bucky, and Uncle Ben are the only ones that are truly dead and are never coming back" Sure, their return was a huge success no matter the metric you use but it also gave the killing shot to the idea of death in comic books.

And to be honest, so far it doesn't feel like Bruce considers Jason, family. There isn't really any difference between Jason and a criminal that Batman wants to rehabilitate. And family isn't a rehabilitation project.

Of course, is all up to the whims of the writers, but since Jason's return, Bruce has treated him like family more times than he has treated him as a criminal. Hell, some of the criticism a lot of people have against Jason (and Damian to a lesser degree) is precisely the fact he can get away with a lot of stuff precisely because Bruce thinks of him as family.

[Sergard]

[...]


Of course, is all up to the whims of the writers, but since Jason's return, Bruce has treated him like family more times than he has treated him as a criminal. Hell, some of the criticism a lot of people have against Jason (and Damian to a lesser degree) is precisely the fact he can get away with a lot of stuff precisely because Bruce thinks of him as family.

I was specifically referring to Batman: Urban Legends.

The only "father-son" moment - if you really want to count it as one - is a flashback scene in issue 1 in which Bruce reluctantly admits that Jason is his son and then puts on his cowl because "Batman needs to stop him" even though Alfred just said that Bruce Wayne - not Batman - needs to save him. In the present, Barbara mentions that Bruce and Jason aren't "friends" right now and Bruce' first association with Jason is him being a killer.

In issue 2, when Jason learns that Batman is at his home, he thinks Batman will come through the door - but it's the window. During their argument Jason wants to take Bruce' cowl off but Bruce prevents it - although there is no reason to keep it on.

In issue 3, Batman states that he wants to "help a Robin". And I know, it's a play on words because Leslie hopes that he doesn't want to create another Robin, but I can't stop myself feeling very underwhelmed that this is about "Robin" and not about "Jason" - especially after reading Jason's gentle inner monologue about Bruce never being a "lonely orphan" because "there was Alfred, Leslie, Gordon ... then Dick ... then me ...". It just feels like Bruce still hasn't understood what Alfred had said to him in the flashback. And so far, Bruce still owes us readers action to his words. It's rather underwhelming that Bruce and Jason immediately split up at the first hurdle. How is Bruce going to "help Robin" if he turns his back on him the first moment given?

And I know, there are still three issues to go. So hopefully there's going to be more than a horizontal learning curve and that afterwards Jason can go back to having adventures outside of Gotham and interact with non-bat characters again. But I guess the three things that I'd be most interested in aren't going to happen:

a) more heartwarming scenes with Jason and Tyler
b) In issue 1 Jason states that he uses rubber bullets "so that fear doesn't get turned around on me." So Jason already took precautions to not accidentally kill somebody. At the end of the issue, the guy dies because Jason uses the gun the other guy dropped. I'd like Jason to reflect on this a little more.
c) This story lacks a neutral person in the conflict between Jason and Bruce. There is not a single person Jason can talk to - neither about his childhood nor about his current guilt.