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

[Zaresh]

Does anybody else miss the version of Jason who killed and could not care less what the family thought. I don`t want him to be full on "Under the Red Hood" or Morrison Jason but I just feel like he has lost his edge.

Not me at least, I'm fine with things as they're now, as much as I was with things as they were three or four years ago too. People aren't static, and characters shouldn't either. Also, as for B:UL, if Jason isn't killing, it isn't because what anyone thinks, but because his own, personal reasoning. He's still not against killing, he's just way more aware of what the consecuences are, for people involved in between his acts.

And besides, if you want Jason as an antihero or not a villain (this is my case, at least), you better get used to him not killing. WB doesn't seem to want promient heroes or antiheroes who kill in their comics and content aimed to teens and young adult readership. Of course, this is probably a lot different for more mature content, like Black Label stories, or TV life action shows. And elsewrolds. But for mainline comics, eh... I can see, smell and even taste their standing regarding the killing characters issue. Which, well, is logical, and not only because he could be seen as non-family friendly: it's not like Jason can actually kill any character that actually matters, either. Not for real. So making him an always-killing-the-very-bad-guys vigilante is kind of wasting the time too. He would be stuck in a permanent place in where he just kills thugs who probably didn't deserve being killed, or characters no-one cares about because they're new and have no fanbase. All the time. Of course, you can build the new evil guy in a way that people would care, but that's not an easy thing to acchieve. And actually, it could backfire, and people would protest if you kill them for good. And also, you can only use that card once in a while.

Just my opinion.

It would be actually interesting if Jason finds ways of messing the bad guys lifes badly without killing them, actually. Sort of how Lobdell did with Black Mask in the first arc of RHATO Rebirth. But not even that can last for a long time, I'm afraid.

He could actually kill his own new villains, as he has before, after long arcs. Characters that Batman wouldn't have a say in because he wouldn't know, nor Batman fans, either, because they wouldn't ask for them to show up in other batbooks. But again, not an easy task to carry on with success, and not a trick you can repeat all the time. And, of course, not family friendly.

[Godlike13]

Does anybody else miss the version of Jason who killed and could not care less what the family thought. I don`t want him to be full on "Under the Red Hood" or Morrison Jason but I just feel like he has lost his edge.

Yes.
………….

[Zaresh]

Yes.
………….

Well, you also want Jason to stay villainous, if I recall.

I know there're people here who disagree with my take even when they want him in the heroes side, though. I'm in the minorty about this issue, I think (edit: well, maybe not o.o). Aaand, have to add, Jason has killed characters in the last two-tree years, to be fair. Unnamed characters, that's it (edit: oh, and one of the three jokers. A spare one in a maybe not really in continuity story). Which is where my spin to this matter comes from. It's a waste of time, better go straight with him and make him more... varied and creative. And conflicted. Jason's not the Punisher, he doesn't do it because of some misplaced sense of justice. Not mainly or only. To my understanding at least.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

I find as a pretty reductionist interpretation of Jason's character to think his "edge" was just being a murderous, traitorous *******. He's so much more than that and is precisely these nuances in his character what makes him such a compelling part of the Batman mythos. Being fixated on the idea Jason needs to kill to be interesting only turns him into a static character whose only purpose is to be a prop for other characters, and perpetuating the ridiculous notion that Jason is a perpetually broken man that only serves to highlight Bruce's mistakes and show how good Dick is in comparison. But there must be a balance, Jason can't also be just Dick 2.0 again. He needs to spread his wings as it were, and find his place in the world outside Bruce's giant shadow.

surprisingly, Lobdell was able to understand this despite having just a superficial knowledge of Jason back at the start of the N52 and the reason RHATO worked that well.

[Blue22]

I find as a pretty reductionist interpretation of Jason's character to think his "edge" was just being a murderous, traitorous *******. He's so much more than that and is precisely these nuances in his character what makes him such a compelling part of the Batman mythos. Being fixated on the idea Jason needs to kill to be interesting only turns him into a static character whose only purpose is to be a prop for other characters, and perpetuating the ridiculous notion that Jason is a perpetually broken man that only serves to highlight Bruce's mistakes and show how good Dick is in comparison. But there must be a balance, Jason can't also be just Dick 2.0 again. He needs to spread his wings as it were, and find his place in the world outside Bruce's giant shadow.

surprisingly, Lobdell was able to understand this despite having just a superficial knowledge of Jason back at the start of the N52 and the reason RHATO worked that well.

^Pretty much all of this^

The development that Jason's gone through since the New 52 began (aside from a few...unfortunate hiccups at the start) is the main reason that he's gone from being one of my most hated characters in the Batman mythos, to one of my favorites. I love where Jason's at now....well....accept for the new costume. I hate that.

[RedBird]

Does anybody else miss the version of Jason who killed and could not care less what the family thought. I don`t want him to be full on "Under the Red Hood" or Morrison Jason but I just feel like he has lost his edge.

I think most people search for a balance for Jason, but to answer the question, yes, for sure, because a version of Red Hood that above all else just wants his bat family, and promises daddy he wont be be lethal as long as he gets pats on the back UwU, should stay exactly where it belongs, in fanon based webtoons or alternate universes. Having Jason give up his entire philosophy, something that defined him and was shaped by the tragic event in his life (much like how Batmans shaped him) is insulting to the character, and he is giving it up for what? To be part of a 'family' with a good portion that he barely knows or interacts with, and that can barely stand his presence and visa versa?

Like you said, he shouldn't be Morrison levels of deranged, or even UTRH levels of brutal, but he should still get to have his own perspective and his own sense of morals, he did get to have that a few years ago, and seeing that independence slowly being lost from Jason is frustrating to witness.

Being fixated on the idea Jason needs to kill to be interesting only turns him into a static character whose only purpose is to be a prop for other characters, and perpetuating the ridiculous notion that Jason is a perpetually broken man that only serves to highlight Bruce's mistakes and show how good Dick is in comparison. But there must be a balance, Jason can't also be just Dick 2.0 again. He needs to spread his wings as it were, and find his place in the world outside Bruce's giant shadow.

I think this highlights exactly the problem, making it all the more frustrating since this not a natural thing that simply occurs, it is more or less a narrative that DC themselves continue to push and perpetuate that could be remedied if DC simply gave Jason one thing. A single shred of credibility.

Of course Jason can only be Batman's mistake and the 'bad son' if his entire philosophy is constantly discredited and barraged by storylines that are only focused on tearing them down to ensure Batman (the one with the 'right' philosophy and shhh please don't question how many more people Joker killed yet again) is kept up on a pedestal and not hampered by God forbid, any sort of nuance on the argument or the notion that anything should permanently change about repeat criminals in a broken system.

Instead of allowing both characters enough room to explore the values of each philosophy, DC now constantly draws a clear line of Batman right, Red Hood wrong, and what's worse? Even Jason has accepted it's wrong.
You know what this means? He's was wrong to have ever had his own stance on crime. The entirety of UTRH which was celebrated as an engaging clash of two understandable philosophy's, it was all a mistake. There's no room for nuance here anymore, this wasn't a story that ever engaged the audience by asking difficult questions, apparently the real solution is just that Jason is entirely wrong, that's all. In fact it was a mistake for Jason to have ever felt that he was ever wronged. All of Jason's pain, the anger, all of which had shaped his stance on crime and repeated criminals and the injustice on victims like himself? All wrong.
This acceptance has discredited everything. What a sad state for a character with so much potential.

The irony of the situation now is that Jason is more popular than ever, and more prominent than ever and that's only revealed the worse aspects of the characters treatment now. I'm seeing a lot of Jason fans like myself become disillusioned with DC and any ability they have at actually making one of their most popular antiheroes work. It was one thing when the character was being ignored, it's another thing to see the creators actively cut the character, and widdle them down to fit a mold they were never intended to fit.

[Konja7]

Instead of allowing both characters enough room to explore the values of each philosophy, DC constantly draws a clear line of Batman right, Red Hood wrong, and now what's worse? Even Jason has accepted it's wrong.
You know what this means? He's was wrong to have ever had his own stance on crime. The entirety of UTRH which was celebrated as an engaging clash of two understandable philosophy's, it was all a mistake. There's no room for nuance here anymore, this wasn't a story that ever engaged the audience by asking difficult questions, apparently the real solution is just that Jason is entirely wrong, that's all. In fact it was a mistake for Jason to have ever felt that he was ever wronged. All of Jason's pain, the anger, all of which had shaped his stance on crime and repeated criminals and the injustice on victims like himself?
All wrong. This acceptance has discredited everything. What a sad state for a character with so much potential.

To be fair, I've understood Judd Winnick also think Jason's stance was totally wrong when he wrote UTRH.

So, this nuance seems to be unintentional.

[RedBird]

To be fair, I've understood Judd Winnick also think Jason's stance was totally wrong when he wrote UTRH.

So, this nuance seems to be unintentional.

What Winnick intended was that he wrote Jason as a villain, and a villain he was. It was only unexpected that the audience was siding so much with the character. But what Winnick wrote was a good empathetic villain. And the key to any good empathetic villain is making their POV understandable with some nuance or allowing them some points to their argument. Bringing to light some shades of grey. Batman is the protagonist and Red Hood is the antagonist, but the story as it's written never answers the question of who is right or wrong, it simply asks. Had the story played out like any other, that big speech at the end would have been to help disengage the audience with Jason to prove how evil and incredulous his stance was, rather than making it more powerful.

But even if somehow, it was completely unintentional. So what? 'Somehow' unintentional or not, it's what engaged the audience, it's a reason they enjoyed the character and what increased his popularity. Even if it was a 'happy accident' the point still stands that DC is watering down something that helped define the character.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

Winnick fully intended to present Jason as being completely in the wrong and Bruce as the one being in the right in that particular argument, he even doubled down and removed any ambiguity about it in the Green Arrow he wrote later that effectively works as a sequel to UtRH. And did you forget how Jason's return was widely considered to be a mistake because no one at DC knew what to do with him? How every writer that used him kept throwing stuff to the wall to see what stuck, getting progressively ridiculous every time?

It was until Lobdell finally streamlined Jason's characters and editorial decided to go the redemption route that Jason was cemented as a worthwhile character and one able to carry series on his own.

Furthermore, Anti-hero characters really don't really work in mainstream comics anymore. Villains keep getting viler and viler but there's no way they will allow any anti-hero to kill them and finally justify their views because then they would lose money. And if they do kill them, is just a publicity stunt meant to raise sales for a bit before resurrecting them and therefore, rendering their death meaningless. The only characters that are allowed to remain dead are those that failed to make an impact in the readership, and again, that does no favors to anti-hero characters. And once editorial decides to push a character seriously they keep getting sanitized to fit the role of a hero, just see at what happened to Harley.

[RedBird]

Winnick fully intended to present Jason as being completely in the wrong and Bruce as the one being in the right in that particular argument, he even doubled down and removed any ambiguity about it in the Green Arrow he wrote later that effectively works as a sequel to UtRH. And did you forget how Jason's return was widely considered to be a mistake because no one at DC knew what to do with him? How every writer that used him kept throwing stuff to the wall to see what stuck, getting progressively ridiculous every time?

Not that I agree but, again, so what?
This feels like such a strawman? My original argument was about how UTRH was an engaging story with two philosophies clashing, and how that stance heightened Jasons popularity, not that is was what 'Winick intended'. Winick wrote a good example of an empathetic villain, maybe a little too good, and was just surprised that people sided much more with the villain. But what does writer intentions matter when Jasons popularity came from what fans wanted and what they fell in love with? Thanks for making my point for me. You're right, DC didn't know what to do with Jason, because Jason's continued existence is only because of fans who loved the character, and loved UTRH and loved his stance and loved his perspective and loved his attitude, so why does the writers supposed 'true intentions' matter again?

It was until Lobdell finally streamlined Jason's characters and editorial decided to go the redemption route that Jason was cemented as a worthwhile character and one able to carry series on his own.

The redemption that started in new52 Rhato was more so just removing Jason from Gotham and his post UTRH obsession with one upping Bruce, which was great. It wasn't about redeeming him by way of removing his own sense morals and justice like it is now, back then he still had freedom, he just didn't have the stupid 'vendetta against the bats' that the post UTRH writing had saddled Jason with for years. I'm going to miss this short era that allowed Jason to exist as is.

Furthermore, Anti-hero characters really don't really work in mainstream comics anymore. Villains keep getting viler and viler but there's no way they will allow any anti-hero to kill them and finally justify their views because then they would lose money. And if they do kill them, is just a publicity stunt meant to raise sales for a bit before resurrecting them and therefore, rendering their death meaningless. The only characters that are allowed to remain dead are those that failed to make an impact in the readership, and again, that does no favors to anti-hero characters. And once editorial decides to push a character seriously they keep getting sanitized to fit the role of a hero, just see at what happened to Harley.

Whilst I myself don't buy into this argument about anti heroes being obsolete, given the way things have gone as of late, I think this must be accurate to how DC views it. Tragic. This wasn't the even the case until around Rebirth, even Harley was still being her chaotic self before this weird shift.

[Konja7]

But even if somehow, it was completely unintentional. So what? 'Somehow' unintentional or not, it's what engaged the audience, it's a reason they enjoyed the character and what increased his popularity. Even if it was a 'happy accident' the point still stands that DC is watering down something that helped define the character.

My point was that DC never tried to create an anti-hero with a valid stance about killing villains when Winnick wrote UTRH.

So, it's unsurprising that they will make Jason "good" when they try to make him mainstream.

The options for Jason were always a villain or a "redeemed" hero.

[RedBird]

My point was that DC never tried to create an anti-hero with a valid stance about killing villains when Winnick wrote UTRH.

So, it's unsurprising that they will make Jason "good" when they try to make him mainstream.

The options for Jason were always a villain or a "redeemed" hero.

Yeah, I suppose it is pretty on point for DC to go for the most uninspired route in the most underwhelming way possible.

[Zaresh]

What Winnick intended was that he wrote Jason as a villain, and a villain he was. It was only unexpected that the audience was siding so much with the character. But what Winnick wrote was a good empathetic villain. And the key to any good empathetic villain is making their POV understandable with some nuance or allowing them some points to their argument. Bringing to light some shades of grey. Batman is the protagonist and Red Hood is the antagonist, but the story as it's written never answers the question of who is right or wrong, it simply asks. Had the story played out like any other, that big speech at the end would have been to help disengage the audience with Jason to prove how evil and incredulous his stance was, rather than making it more powerful.

But even if somehow, it was completely unintentional. So what? 'Somehow' unintentional or not, it's what engaged the audience, it's a reason they enjoyed the character and what increased his popularity. Even if it was a 'happy accident' the point still stands that DC is watering down something that helped define the character.

Writers rarely can control what their readers get from their creations. It's why I'm not so fond of over analysing how a work can be problematic based on the writers own personal ideas and acts, and why I'm not fond either, about analysing what a writer could be supporting with their work based on what some readers get from it. You can be the most leftist person out there and yet find that very conservative people like your work because X or Y thing they get from it, and the other way around.

I get your points about Jason stopping killing, and I can agree with many of them. In a absolutely broken system like Gotham's, with absolutely imposible perps like those, hardly stoppable even in a system that wouldn't been so broken even, it's honestly reasonable that, in order to protect people in said system, some individuals would that that way. I can even agree with their way of doing it, when in real life I'm strongly against death sentences (but in RL pers can be redeemed, murdering rarely is white or black, and the system can stop it by imprisonment sentences alone. Also, in RL death is definitive, you can't come back from that. And you have to trust the system in order to not hurt it by lessing its credibility. Overall, it's a complex matter.). It's more like how a system in in a war zone, and in a warzone more than what you find in real life this side of the world. I often read the argument against Jason killing that it's not his place to decide who lives or who doesn't; but it's not like there's someone out there doing that work either in Gotham. Feels a little irresponsible, waiting for the system to do their thing (imprison, reeducating, reforming, even treating those who are not mentally well. Gotham it's a really messed place, for Batman to work as he is nowadays), when they clearly don't; and, meanwhile, let vulnerable people suffer incredibly by these criminal acts. It's a reasonable argument.

But as I said in my other posts, there're issues in and outside the narrative that don't help Jason's place. Zdarsky addressed one of said issues for his story in Cheer: killing the despicable criminals who are endangering innocent, vulnerable people often also affects said people in not so good ways. He wisely uses that reason for making Jason stop, or more like measure, his acts. It also still highlights the flaws in Bruce reasoning and approach. It was nicely done, it adds to the character's growth and I like it. There's also other problematic issue in Jason's way of approaching crime fighting; that when you are so proactive in crimefighting, or just in defending the vulnerable citizens from these perps, by using their same methods and ways (being a criminal in control of an underground system--something he's not anymore nowadays, but that some readers still love and want back), you're validating these same ways and methods for less heroic criminal acts. And that also can generate a vicious circle where nothing really changes for good. And then, there's the thing about how it all affects Jason. I think taking lives is not a clean, easy thing: unless you're a psychopath who doesn't feel any empathy or is at all worried about the effects and consequences of their acts.

And then, there's the interesting approach about what would Jason do in a system that does stops these threads, like the one in FS seemingly (but really don't) does. Potential for a story there.

A complex issue it all, for me, at least.

But well, it's not like WB and DC are allowed to showcase a character who thinks that killing can help saving future victims or giving them some sense of security is a viable way of dealing with a thread, because DCU resembles out world even when it really doesn't, and readers expect justice to work as it works in our side of the world (Edit: and again, eh, killing named villains? nani, what?). And that's how we're here.

[Dark_Tzitzimine]

Three Jokers Jason is up for preorder

https://www.bigbadtoystore.com/Produ...qn74LZ0aAy0xYU

[nadler]

I recall Shane Davis mentioning some years back he had sent in a pitch that basically ends with Jason as the new head of the League of Assassins. A pity DC never picked that up.