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

[Sergard]

See? Even though Jason is wearing the Angry Penguin logo in Titans, the emoji uses Outlaws' Red Bat.

It's a TV show. It's called marketing. Furthermore, the TV show isn't representing comic main-continuity.
Jason returning to the bat logo in comics without a good explanation is called character regression.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

It's a TV show. It's called marketing. Furthermore, the TV show isn't representing comic main-continuity.
Jason returning to the bat logo in comics without a good explanation is called character regression.

Marketing, precisely what I was arguing about in my previous post, the Outlaws' red bat is Jason's brand.


As for character regression? Jason crying at everything and angsting at Bruce for the nth time is also character regression and yet some people still claim is the best writing Jason has had in years.

[Sergard]

Little Task Force Z fanarts by kumo:

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

https://youtu.be/UT3uW0ym2wM

The horror panel. There's not much said specifically about Task Force Z but the little to that were mentioned do make me extremely wary from the book. First, Rosenberg said is a bout a "becoming a monster" and second asking themselves if Jason is a zombie too. The first one is just dragging once again if whatever Jason does is right or not, and the second is just massively stupid. Unless he's moving while his flesh is rotting and his organs fall apart, then no, he's not a zombie. Like jeez, who thought that was a question that needed to be answered?

[Zaresh]

https://youtu.be/UT3uW0ym2wM

The horror panel. There's not much said specifically about Task Force Z but the little to that were mentioned do make me extremely wary from the book. First, Rosenberg said is a bout a "becoming a monster" and second asking themselves if Jason is a zombie too. The first one is just dragging once again if whatever Jason does is right or not, and the second is just massively stupid. Unless he's moving while his flesh is rotting and his organs fall apart, then no, he's not a zombie. Like jeez, who thought that was a question that needed to be answered?

I wouldn't trust any over the top quote from any panel. They're made to bait and catch casual readers, and are often exagerated. Much like most interviews and half the solicits.

I mean, as usual, distrust wild statements. Jason isn't going to be a zombie or become an actual monster. Like, seriously not going to happen.

And if I end up being wrong, well, we will see what and how happens.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

did you see the panel? Because Rosenberg wasn't being overtly emotional trying to sell the story but simply stating the ideas that lead to the book's pitch, I certainly hope he isn't being literal because that would so stupid but DC editorial has taught me to expect the worse. And the thing about becoming a monster is in the vein of "how far I'm willing to go to do something before becoming the same thing I'm fighting?" an angle that is baffling to take with Jason since he's up there with Bruce in commitment to his ideals. He's the last member of the batfamily to worry if he's going too far, if anything, he's the type of guy to wonder if he is not doing enough.

Trying to introduce some existential crisis by Jason suddenly wondering if he's a zombie in any shape or form is just stupid. Unless is literal, then is stupid and jumping the shark. That is the kind of idea that can only work as a self-contained elseworld, not as a part of the main continuity.

[Sergard]

https://youtu.be/UT3uW0ym2wM

The horror panel. There's not much said specifically about Task Force Z but the little to that were mentioned do make me extremely wary from the book. First, Rosenberg said is a bout a "becoming a monster" and second asking themselves if Jason is a zombie too. The first one is just dragging once again if whatever Jason does is right or not, and the second is just massively stupid. Unless he's moving while his flesh is rotting and his organs fall apart, then no, he's not a zombie. Like jeez, who thought that was a question that needed to be answered?

Sorry, I don't have the time to watch the whole 1-hour video.
Can you give me the timestamps?

[RedBird]

Hmm, not much information about the premise beyond what we already knew, I guess it's down to the backups.

Since this book is meant to ultimately be a horror title, I like the idea of bringing in more psychological horror, I always thought Jason could do well within a subgenre like that, at least for one offs. The existential questions aren't really new, Jason also had moments of questioning his existence in countdown, with the whole, 'living on borrowed time' thing, though I remember thinking it was disappointingly underutilised and underexplored there, even if ultimately it was probably for the better considering what a mess countdown was.

I'm just mixed on the themes that are supposedly explored, surrounding moral boundaries, and pushing moral lines and questioning when someone truly becomes a monster. On the one hand, I actually love these kinds of themes, in an ideal world, I would love to see more introspective exploration of Jason's morality, being thrust into a different circumstance that forces him to push himself, and seeing how he justifies his decisions.

But, this kind of character exploration is a fine line to balance, it's just easy to end up going too far, or fill the character with too many doubts, or worse end up in the ever boring and eye rolling 'am....I the actual monster?' territory. At this point, thanks to DC, I just have a knee jerk reaction and wariness when I hear the words 'Jason Todd' and 'becoming a monster' in a sentence. Not to say that this is going to be BFTC levels of morality twisting and character corruption, if anything, having a story that focuses on 'pushing morality' at least implies that there is a 'set core morality' to push in the first place, which is a step up I suppose.

I guess I just don't want to be disappointed by a theme exploration that I have been looking forward to for a while (assuming it is in fact explored).

Sorry, I don't have the time to watch the whole 1-hour video.
Can you give me the timestamps?

Main section 33:42 to 40:33

[Sergard]

Okay, I found the "zombie" part at 39:32:

Matthew Rosenberg:

"[...]Jason isn't a zombie. He's not dead. But he is someone who came back from the dead and he is with people who are dead. And like it's a very fine line but it's a fine line that you can explore in comics because you have these opportunities where like people are coming back from the dead and we have brought people back from the dead ... almost. And so there is this line where he is trying to examine what it means that ... like ... is he a zombie? Like on an ethical level is he a zombie? You know, he has been dead. What does it mean for him?[...]"

[hairys]

Okay, I found the "zombie" part at 39:32:

Matthew Rosenberg:

"[...]Jason isn't a zombie. He's not dead. But he is someone who came back from the dead and he is with people who are dead. And like it's a very fine line but it's a fine line that you can explore in comics because you have these opportunities where like people are coming back from the dead and we have brought people back from the dead ... almost. And so there is this line where he is trying to examine what it means that ... like ... is he a zombie? Like on an ethical level is he a zombie? You know, he has been dead. What does it mean for him?[...]"

That sounds like the dumbest philosophical discussion ever, lol. At the very least boring.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

For real, Blackest Night did a much better job exploring the nuances of resurrection in comics books and that was just typical superhero schlock for the most part.

[Jackalope89]

Jason should be fluent in zombie, but that's it!

Bane- Graaah! Ruuuh!
Jason- No! We are not giving you any Venom!
Bane- Uuuugh!
Jason- Nope. You should have thought of that before you took Astrid's toy, now go sit in the corner!

[Zaresh]

did you see the panel? Because Rosenberg wasn't being overtly emotional trying to sell the story but simply stating the ideas that lead to the book's pitch, I certainly hope he isn't being literal because that would so stupid but DC editorial has taught me to expect the worse. And the thing about becoming a monster is in the vein of "how far I'm willing to go to do something before becoming the same thing I'm fighting?" an angle that is baffling to take with Jason since he's up there with Bruce in commitment to his ideals. He's the last member of the batfamily to worry if he's going too far, if anything, he's the type of guy to wonder if he is not doing enough.

Trying to introduce some existential crisis by Jason suddenly wondering if he's a zombie in any shape or form is just stupid. Unless is literal, then is stupid and jumping the shark. That is the kind of idea that can only work as a self-contained elseworld, not as a part of the main continuity.

I didn't. But I'm aware enough about editorial management and marketing to know they wouldn't do wild things. They are launching thematic horror-centric books for Halloween-ish; but as far as continuity goes, they won't try something wild with a brand (Red Hood) that would damage it so much (because no one would take Red Hood seriously if he turned out being a literal zombie, or a monster. They already have those in the DCU and they don't work well). Neither they would turn him a villain again, because they know most people like him as either a hero or an anti-hero. They want to catch more readers, not drive away them and the ones he already has. Look at how bad it looked FS, and it turned out to be alright, even nice. It's why I think they've suggested working with Jason in their stories, why he's the one to open so many book recently. He's once again a character uprising in popularity. Has been for the last decade, slowly, but steady. He's once again, the same as Moon Knight in Marvel. If they don't mismanage him, or make him a parody of himself, they're going to have a brand that has a regular and always steady or increasing readers base for regular sales over the years.

They may be idiots, but they aren't absolute idiots about how to deal with their pool of creative assets.

But they also know that hyperbolic statements make casual readers curious about the book. It's pure bait.

Same as Jason being a traitor is bait in FS, or Jason having a conflict with Bruce in UL is, too. Because neither of those two stories are about said things. It's just bait. FS is about Jason trying to do what Bruce would like and sacrificing his own good for trust; and UL is about Jason and Bruce rocky father-son relationship.

Edit once again: that being said, I have no problems with Rosenberg writing about what makes a monster of a character, and what makes one alive whereas other is dead. Or whatever. I choose to trust him. I trusted Chip, and I don't regret it; and I didn't trust Williamson, and I regret it.

Edit for the fourth time: and it's not like the "going too far" or the "am I supposed to be dead" hasn't being a theme that has been touched before in good takes on Jason, either (can recall times for both during Outlaws rebirth, actually. Subtle, but clearly there). I don't see what's the problem with it. Here it will go with the contrast between the rogues gallery Jason leads, who are also pretty much dead if they don't compel. While having fun. It sounds like an enjoyable read to me.

[RedBird]

He's once again, the same as Moon Knight in Marvel.

Sorry if I've asked this particular question before, but would you mind highlighting the similarities between Red Hood and Moon Knight, at least in the context here of how they are handled as characters. I only recently started reading about Moon Knight, so I don't know much of the editorial history behind the character.

[Zaresh]

Sorry if I've asked this particular question before, but would you mind highlighting the similarities between Red Hood and Moon Knight, at least in the context here of how they are handled as characters. I only recently started reading about Moon Knight, so I don't know much of the editorial history behind the character.

He's this smaller character with a very loyal fanbase, who doesn't have a regular book, but has a mini or a maxi, or a short lived series now and then across the times; each time with a different style, and a slightly different but coherent enough take / caracterization to make his fans happy enough, while also drawing in new readers. Moon Knight has had a lot more stable and steady editorial history, though. And a way smaller start as an antagonist in an anthology book.

Character wise, I guess they do share their amount of traits: dark vigilantes (who have no qualms about killing) with a troubled past and inner struggles (who have died and came back, dealing with familial drama and PTSD, trauma from an awfully unlucky lifetime in the case of Jason, and familial drama with nowadays DPD for Marc. Not that he didn't have problems with all his personas earlier in his runs, though. Well, all these packs shaping them as they're now), and some kind of "exotic" background bits in there (khonshu worship and jewish legacy for Marc; the league of assassins and the all-caste for Jason). Huh, I guess they share quite a lot; but Kaine Parker is the most alike, out of the characters I know from Marvel.

For Moon Knight, you can trust that his books will sell, even if it's just this rather small fix.