Page 6 of 18 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 267
  1. #76
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I think that was toyed with here and there in older comics, but not really a thing until Tim came around. I can't say I care for it. Robin's main role was to function as a Watson to Batman's Holmes and give him someone to bounce ideas off of, and to provide guidance for someone who went through a similar tragedy and also simply to have a friend. Robin being a needed morality chain to keep Batman from flying off the handle isn't a remotely good look for Batman. I think Bruce consciously reigns himself in to be a good influence for Dick, but it would still be a small part of their relationship and Bruce would would also independtly mature as he grows older (he is typically only in his early 20s when he starts).

    Even when Dick became Nightwing originally, his friction with Bruce comes across as Dick not being a totally reliable narrator and he's as much to blame for the friction in their dynamic as Bruce is, and then they come to terms at Donna's wedding like adults. Instead post-COIE changed it to Bruce firing him and it escalated from there. I think despite the overall boost in popularity for the brand, as a character Batman took some of the hardest hits in the changes around COIE. He changes, and most definitely not for the better. In a realistic scenario, the Batman-Robin dynamic wouldn't be healthy but it's fantasy. Nowadays, even within the fantasy setting of the DCU it comes across poorly, and that's not remotely a good thing to me either.
    I think people kind of oversell the idea of Robin being around keeps Batman from flying off the handle. It was more how the two balanced each other out and how Robin was the light to Batman's dark and how Batman helped the Robin's develop as people from their personal tragedies and prior lives. In general Batman's surrogate family has a healing effect on him and the loss he continually deals with.
    Much like the firing of Dick post-COIE and later crawling back to the Bat-offices when the Titans brand fell off, it comes off as a demotion that elevates Batman even further over Robin by giving him even that much more experience.

    The argument that establishing the character dynamics between Batman and the villain doesn't entirely work, because it's not as if it has to be mutually exclusive. With the simple writing of the older comics, it's not like it would have happened even if Robin hadn't been there. And in stuff like BTAS, Poison Ivy's first encounter was pretty much a villain of the week, and her more character driven episode "House and Garden" had Robin in it.
    I just don't see it so much of a demotion from just an initial encounter, because continuity-wise we know that the more Supervillains popped up in Gotham the harder it became for Batman to do his job before Robin showed up and then Batgirl. I don't even see writers thinking they need to elevate Batman over Robin because Robin is already Batman's sidekick.

    It may not be mutually exclusive but it was how a lot of those initial encounters in Post-Crisis were structured story-wise. I for one prefer where Robin comes in after Harvey Dent becomes Two-Face so we have that battle of the "partners" rivalry.

    Ivy's first appearance entirely set up her character and motivations, though. Robin worked in "House and Garden" but did he need to be in her debut episode just because he was in the comics?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
    Also, as a fan of old-school Dick Grayson and the dynamic with Bruce, Alfred being Bruce's guardian has resulted in Dick being displaced as the person closest to Bruce, who he trusted most, etc (as he was in the bronze age when Dick was a young man). I don't care for that. Besides that, though, and what's really irritating to me is that it's resulted in the idea of Bruce who took Dick in expecting Alfred to do the heavy-lifting and having to be nudged/coerced/ordered to be a parent, v. the original where Bruce willingly took on the role and had no problem being that parent.
    Isn't it always Bruce's choice, though? I mean, maybe there was one or two instances of Alfred suggesting the idea, but any neglect I can think of came less from Bruce putting the brunt of the work on Alfred and more Bruce being busy as Batman (particularly trying to find Tony Zucco or some major crime).

  2. #77
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencermalley935 View Post
    So you're A-Okay with Uncle Phillip and Alice Chilton being the "worst legal guardians ever"? If anything, I think "being clueless" is infinitely worse than Alfred at least trying to help Bruce deal with his issues in some way. Alfred being the Wayne family butler from the start also better explains how he's so devoted to Bruce's well-being than if he were just some random guy who showed up at Wayne Manor and asked for a job.
    Yeah I'm ok with them being neglectful of Bruce because they are minor characters who we barely see. We're expected to view Alfred as competent and likeable, but his raising of Bruce resulted in a more unstable individual than they did, but we're somehow expected to believe is raising of Bruce and devotion of him is a good thing? It doesn't work the way DC wants it to most o the time.

    Bruce not having any extended family on either side of the family and being raised by his butler is a little harder to swallow. Alfred's been too devoted to Bruce at times like Tzigone said. And while the original Golden Age stories were more simplistic, a modern take on it wouldn't be too different than a good version of Slade and Wintergreen, who met as adults. And they were specifically set up as a dark mirror image to Bruce and Alfred before the "Alfred raised Bruce" retcon came into effect.

    And like Tzigone also said, it demoted Dick from the most important supporting Bat-character with no positive changes: Dick's impact is a little lessened and Bruce is more of a flawed mentor, and Alfred's devotion becomes more unhealthy and enabling over a much longer period.

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencermalley935 View Post
    In Scott Snyder's All-Star Batman series, Alfred actually did send Bruce to camp for troubled boys.
    Well that clearly didn't work out lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Astralabius View Post
    I think I could tolerate Bruce being an awful person a lot better if DC was at least honest about it and let him suffer the consequences for his actions, but instead things always seem to get retconned in his favor or they get ignored.
    Or DC "adresses" Bruce's bad bahaviour, but it's always done through people like Alfred, Dick or Clark who end their criticism with several sentences about how great Bruce is.
    No, the guy is an ass and a grown man, let him apologize for his actions. Don't tell me that's he's actually such a great guy.
    They had the seeds for a more natural "well intentioned hero becomes a villain" story with modern Batman than they do with other examples. It would be less out of left field than, say, Hal Jordan in ET or Wonder Woman in Injustice. It would still be an innately terrible idea to do that with the mainstream version of one of their longest lasting icons, but it would still be more honest like you said. In some ways, being all over the place is worse because it lets him get away with it when he shouldn't.

    I'd honestly be happy with burning it all down and salting the Earth. Post-Crisis/Modern Batman sucks so much and the craving for good mainstream version remains strong.

  3. #78
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    I mean, I wouldn't want to throw out all the great, heartwarming, moments between Bruce and Alfred we've gotten over the years from the father/son bond for something more professional. But I guess I don't see the negative aspects of the relationship that others do. And we get gems like this:



    I don't think it negates Dick's importance because it's an entirely different relationship. It's like Bruce's relationship with Gordon, it's important but entirely different.

  4. #79
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I just don't see it so much of a demotion from just an initial encounter, because continuity-wise we know that the more Supervillains popped up in Gotham the harder it became for Batman to do his job before Robin showed up and then Batgirl. I don't even see writers thinking they need to elevate Batman over Robin because Robin is already Batman's sidekick
    I don't think they deliberately felt they needed to, but Year One retconned Batman's earlier world as being more grounded and gritty in comparison to how it once was, and Robin didn't fit into that. Robin was Batman's sidekick, but this reaffirmed that that role isn't important enough to be around for the milestones of first appearances of major villains. Along with Alfred being with Bruce before him. Dick being hyped up as a big deal, much like Clark, is a little lessened in post-COIE canon with less experience, history and milestones.

    It's not like they weren't still major characters (obviously), and a lot more stuff was piled on as stories continued, but it's also due in part to them being granfathered in popular icons. They were coasting off the echoes of their previous continuity a lot of the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    Ivy's first appearance entirely set up her character and motivations, though. Robin worked in "House and Garden" but did he need to be in her debut episode just because he was in the comics?
    Ivy's motivation in her first episode is fairly basic: femme fatale echo terrorist. She was fleshed out later on when she started bouncing off of other characters. Robin didn't have to be in her debut episode, but his absence didn't lead them to focus on building a complex dynamic between her and just Batman. And since we're talking about the mainstream comics here, where he DID encounter her with Batman, there wasn't any reason to change it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I mean, I wouldn't want to throw out all the great, heartwarming, moments between Bruce and Alfred we've gotten over the years from the father/son bond for something more professional. But I guess I don't see the negative aspects of the relationship that others do. And we get gems like this:

    I don't think it negates Dick's importance because it's an entirely different relationship. It's like Bruce's relationship with Gordon, it's important but entirely different.
    It wouldn't be purely professional though. They were very close friends pre-COIE so that wouldn't be an issue.

    It does negate the nature of Dick's importance a bit. Bruce always trusts both Dick and Alfred and values them both in different ways (like with Gordon and Clark also), but Dick went from being his closest confidant and friend to being the ward he sometimes (at least initially) pawned off on Alfred. Whom he knows at this point will allow whatever he wants.

    Granted, I think the retconned coldness of Bruce and how that extended to Dick would cause problems no matter what anyway.
    Last edited by SiegePerilous02; 01-27-2021 at 04:44 PM.

  5. #80
    Astonishing Member Tzigone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    Isn't it always Bruce's choice, though? I mean, maybe there was one or two instances of Alfred suggesting the idea, but any neglect I can think of came less from Bruce putting the brunt of the work on Alfred and more Bruce being busy as Batman (particularly trying to find Tony Zucco or some major crime).
    That's what I'm talking about. The idea that Bruce brought Dick home for Alfred to raise (and Alfred had to coax/shame him into any actual parenting) is one I really hate. It's incredibly selfish. I never even knew there was one where Alfred suggested it.

    Granted, I think the retconned coldness of Bruce and how that extended to Dick would cause problems no matter what anyway.
    I agree with that, because I always really liked Dick a product of a healthy upbringing. And as Bruce's issues (and, indeed problems between Bruce and Dick) have been projected/retconned back into the past, that falls apart.
    Last edited by Tzigone; 01-27-2021 at 04:47 PM.

  6. #81
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
    That's what I'm talking about. The idea that Bruce brought Dick home for Alfred to raise (and Alfred had to coax/shame him into any actual parenting) is one I really hate. It's incredibly selfish. I never even knew there was one where Alfred suggested it.

    I agree with that, because I always really liked Dick a product of a healthy upbringing. And as Bruce's issues (and, indeed problems between Bruce and Dick) have been projected/retconned back into the past, that falls apart.
    And then Alfred watched him do it with more kids, with increasingly disastrous results.

    The one nice thing about COIE is it gives us a clear divide. I can at least read the older comics and know none of that crap is around. I read them the character interactions as they were published

  7. #82
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    I don't think they deliberately felt they needed to, but Year One retconned Batman's earlier world as being more grounded and gritty in comparison to how it once was, and Robin didn't fit into that. Robin was Batman's sidekick, but this reaffirmed that that role isn't important enough to be around for the milestones of first appearances of major villains. Along with Alfred being with Bruce before him. Dick being hyped up as a big deal, much like Clark, is a little lessened in post-COIE canon with less experience, history and milestones.

    It's not like they weren't still major characters (obviously), and a lot more stuff was piled on as stories continued, but it's also due in part to them being granfathered in popular icons. They were coasting off the echoes of their previous continuity a lot of the time.
    To me it was all part of the transition of Post-Crisis Batman, where he started fighting normal mobsters and criminals until all the Supervillains started popping up and became the de-facto crime in Gotham, capping off the transition with the birth of the Dynamic Duo. And then Dick proceeds to get all the experience and history people expect him to receive from being Robin. Even B:TAS went with a similar take in terms of structuring their stories.
    Ivy's motivation in her first episode is fairly basic: femme fatale echo terrorist. She was fleshed out later on when she started bouncing off of other characters. Robin didn't have to be in her debut episode, but his absence didn't lead them to focus on building a complex dynamic between her and just Batman. And since we're talking about the mainstream comics here, where he DID encounter her with Batman, there wasn't any reason to change it.
    But that's basically the entire gist of her character and it played off Bruce's emotional investment in the conflict and the interplay between Batman and Ivy. There really wouldn't have been room for anything significant to do with Robin there in my opinion.

    There's precedent, but I don't think that automatically should negate stories just because Robin wasn't in them.
    It wouldn't be purely professional though. They were very close friends pre-COIE so that wouldn't be an issue.

    It does negate the nature of Dick's importance a bit. Bruce always trusts both Dick and Alfred and values them both in different ways (like with Gordon and Clark also), but Dick went from being his closest confidant and friend to being the ward he sometimes (at least initially) pawned off on Alfred. Whom he knows at this point will allow whatever he wants.

    Granted, I think the retconned coldness of Bruce and how that extended to Dick would cause problems no matter what anyway.
    A friendship wouldn't be deep enough for people to get invested in, in my opinion, compared to what people have come to expect. It's like when people claim Bruce and Dick are more like brothers than father and son, the relationship is far deeper than that.

    I don't think Dick ever stopped being a close confidante and partner to Bruce. I don't believe he ever intentionally pawned him off to Alfred.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
    That's what I'm talking about. The idea that Bruce brought Dick home for Alfred to raise (and Alfred had to coax/shame him into any actual parenting) is one I really hate. It's incredibly selfish. I never even knew there was one where Alfred suggested it.
    But it wasn't his intention for Alfred to raise him instead. It was just a consequence of Bruce focusing on Batman at the time because he felt he had to, sometimes for Dick's sake.

    I mean, I can't say for certain that that's actually happened. I thought you were referring to something like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    And then Alfred watched him do it with more kids, with increasingly disastrous results.

    The one nice thing about COIE is it gives us a clear divide. I can at least read the older comics and know none of that crap is around. I read them the character interactions as they were published
    I mean, allowing for the fact that Bruce tended to also benefit and help these kids' lives and make them into better people and care about each and every one of them...

  8. #83
    Astonishing Member Tzigone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    isn't that kind of the problem? It's a leftover belief that Batman didn't need a Robin and writers were trying to distance the character from the perceived camp, so they took some of Dick's experience away to make it happen. But screw that noise, that's not how it was published.
    I'm with you.

    I can't say I care for it. Robin's main role was to function as a Watson to Batman's Holmes and give him someone to bounce ideas off of, and to provide guidance for someone who went through a similar tragedy and also simply to have a friend. Robin being a needed morality chain to keep Batman from flying off the handle isn't a remotely good look for Batman.
    So very true.

    Even when Dick became Nightwing originally, his friction with Bruce comes across as Dick not being a totally reliable narrator and he's as much to blame for the friction in their dynamic as Bruce is,
    I don't really agree with that one, though. While blame is certainly more evenly distributed than post-COIE (where I'm being generous when I only give Bruce 99%), the scenes I read from a "omniscient" POV like every other comic still put a larger portion of blame on Bruce.

    I just don't see it so much of a demotion from just an initial encounter, because continuity-wise we know that the more Supervillains popped up in Gotham the harder it became for Batman to do his job before Robin showed up and then Batgirl. I don't even see writers thinking they need to elevate Batman over Robin because Robin is already Batman's sidekick.
    I do see in as a demotion. Remember, Dick used to be more experienced than Barry or Hal or even Diana. But also, he was there before the vast number of the big villains. Of course, back in the golden age, he was called a partner, not a sidekick. Not that he wasn't a sidekick, really, but it matters to me that he was junior partner, that his input was needed. Bruce respected his abilities. He even saved Bruce a few times back then.

    His experience, relative to other characters, was reduced. His place in the story shrank. The length of his history with villains also lessened. Both objectively, and relative to Bruce's. As it did also with Alfred. I certainly think it reduced him/his place a good bit, and I've certainly never seen any argument on how it any way benefited the character.


    But it wasn't his intention for Alfred to raise him instead. It was just a consequence of Bruce focusing on Batman at the time because he felt he had to, sometimes for Dick's sake.
    Distinction without difference to me. He obviously didn't intend to do any of the raising enough to actually do it. Nor, frankly, did I see any strong indication that he ever actually did plan to do those parenting things when he took him in initially, in some tellings, where it seems like he though his job ended with signing the guardianship paperwork.
    Last edited by Tzigone; 01-27-2021 at 05:03 PM.

  9. #84
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    A friendship wouldn't be deep enough for people to get invested in, in my opinion, compared to what people have come to expect. It's like when people claim Bruce and Dick are more like brothers than father and son, the relationship is far deeper than that.
    Is their relationship that deep now? It seems more unhealthy than deep. Again, it's not like there was a lack of closeness between them pre-COIE.

    But Bruce and Dick were like brothers, considering the age gap isn't that big (pre-COIE, didn't they say Bruce and Clark were around 29, and Dick became Nightwing at around 19-21?). And those are the stories where their close dynamic comes from. There is no reason a brotherly bond can't be deep, it would be different than father/son, but not innately more or less deep. Hell, Gurren Lagann runs entirely on that

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I don't think Dick ever stopped being a close confidante and partner to Bruce. I don't believe he ever intentionally pawned him off to Alfred.
    Bruce doesn't have to be intentionally neglectful to be neglectful.
    They just don't come across as close equals post-COIE. Putting Bruce in the mentor/father figure role makes him skew too far into being the dominant figure. Which he's gonna be no matter what since he's older and the main character, but it becomes too much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frontier View Post
    I mean, allowing for the fact that Bruce tended to also benefit and help these kids' lives and make them into better people and care about each and every one of them...
    A casual glance at the entire Jason Todd scenario torpedoes this thought process.

    Not that I care for Jason period mind you, and vastly prefer Bruce as an icon in general, but looking at it realistically all his issues are down to Bruce's interference in his life. And neither one of them handling things well. But the lions share of the blame would be on Bruce as the adult who took the kid in.

  10. #85
    Astonishing Member Tzigone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    3,748

    Default

    But Bruce and Dick were like brothers, considering the age gap isn't that big (pre-COIE, didn't they say Bruce and Clark were around 29, and Dick became Nightwing at around 19-21?).
    That's pet peeve for me. They were like father and son very often. Bruce said so several times in the golden age. I felt the "brothers" (heavily hyped particularly in the early '70s) was done to make Bruce seem younger and cooler and also I note O'Neil similarly wrote Roy out of Ollie's life. I'm not saying there was no "brothers" stuff before, but there a lot of father/son stuff going way back, and you could see some on the later '70s and early '80s, too. They need to be father and son to me, but father and grown son, which to me should be a relationship of equals.

  11. #86
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    Is their relationship that deep now? It seems more unhealthy than deep. Again, it's not like there was a lack of closeness between them pre-COIE.

    But Bruce and Dick were like brothers, considering the age gap isn't that big (pre-COIE, didn't they say Bruce and Clark were around 29, and Dick became Nightwing at around 19-21?). And those are the stories where their close dynamic comes from. There is no reason a brotherly bond can't be deep, it would be different than father/son, but not innately more or less deep. Hell, Gurren Lagann runs entirely on that
    Again, I don't see all these unhealthy elements that people see in the relationship now, at least to the extent others do, but I don't think anyone would argue against how close they are depicted as being now.

    Brothers in arms maybe but in terms of their family dynamic it just doesn't read like brothers at all to me, at least compared to real brothers or Kamina and Simon. A 10 year gap and Bruce coming in at Dick's life the way he did lends to that in my opinion.
    Bruce doesn't have to be intentionally neglectful to be neglectful.
    They just don't come across as close equals post-COIE. Putting Bruce in the mentor/father figure role makes him skew too far into being the dominant figure. Which he's gonna be no matter what since he's older and the main character, but it becomes too much.
    But I think it's forgivable when there are reasons for why it happens and not just because "he's an unfeeling robot who doesn't care about anyone else and pawns others off to his butler."

    I mean, you put it yourself that he's always been that way, more or less, it just goes into how you view them from a modern perspective and there have been examples of how much Bruce is inspired by and proud of how Dick ended up and how much Dick means to him.
    A casual glance at the entire Jason Todd scenario torpedoes this thought process.

    Not that I care for Jason period mind you, and vastly prefer Bruce as an icon in general, but looking at it realistically all his issues are down to Bruce's interference in his life. And neither one of them handling things well. But the lions share of the blame would be on Bruce as the adult who took the kid in.
    Just a casual glance, but if you go into it deeper Jason is a better man and a lot less worse than he could've been without Bruce's influence. Even as Red Hood, as extreme as his methods get, there are still the principles and ideals Bruce drilled into him guiding what he is doing and prevents him from going as off the deep end as some of the other Rogues (unless written by Morrison).
    Quote Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
    I do see in as a demotion. Remember, Dick used to be more experienced than Barry or Hal or even Diana. But also, he was there before the vast number of the big villains. Of course, back in the golden age, he was called a partner, not a sidekick. Not that he wasn't a sidekick, really, but it matters to me that he was junior partner, that his input was needed. Bruce respected his abilities. He even saved Bruce a few times back then.

    His experience, relative to other characters, was reduced. His place in the story shrank. The length of his history with villains also lessened. Both objectively, and relative to Bruce's. As it did also with Alfred. I certainly think it reduced him/his place a good bit, and I've certainly never seen any argument on how it any way benefited the character.
    I think even in Post-Crisis he still had a relatively good amount of experience compared to most heroes and preceded the other sidekicks (except for Zero Hour where Kid Flash came first?) within the grand scope of their careers. I think what was important was that Robin was there during the prime of Batman fighting Supervillains in his career, and he was still Bruce's partner who saved Bruce and contributed to their crime-fighting career. They were still the Dynamic Duo.
    Distinction without difference to me. He obviously didn't intend to do any of the raising enough to actually do it. Nor, frankly, did I see any strong indication that he ever actually did plan to do those parenting things when he took him in initially, in some tellings, where it seems like he though his job ended with signing the guardianship paperwork.
    I think someone having good intentions and losing sight of priorities because of those good intentions is forgiveable. It was clear to me that Bruce intended, or wanted, to be there for Dick and provide for him what he needed after his parents were killed. Which is also why he tries to hunt down Tony Zucco.

  12. #87
    Ultimate Member SiegePerilous02's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    15,234

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzigone View Post
    I don't really agree with that one, though. While blame is certainly more evenly distributed than post-COIE (where I'm being generous when I only give Bruce 99%), the scenes I read from a "omniscient" POV like every other comic still put a larger portion of blame on Bruce.
    IDK, it may not have been intended by Wolfman but Dick comes across as a whiny entitled teenager a bit in the first issue where he strolls out in his costume while Bruce (just chilling with his pipe while wearing a smoking jacket because pre-COIE Bruce was a fancy bitch and I loved him) quite reasonably and politely asks if anything is up and if he needs help. Dick snaps and tells him he can take care of himself while basically thinking "WHY IS BRUCE ALWAYS UP MY ASS, HE SUCKS SO MUCH" in the next panel. I think overall it's clear Bruce has trouble adjusting to Dick being an adult and is unintentionally condescending and controlling as a result, but as the first set up for Dick's broad arc in the run it's hard to see Bruce as being the difficult one.

    Overall, I'd say Dick's issues were simultaneously wanting to distance himself from Bruce and forge his own path while also wanting to live up to the man he thinks Bruce expect him to be. He brings a lot of the angst on himself and needs to overcome it, though Bruce's issues also remain.

    Agree with everything else you said though

  13. #88
    Moderator Frontier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    115,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    IDK, it may not have been intended by Wolfman but Dick comes across as a whiny entitled teenager a bit in the first issue where he strolls out in his costume while Bruce (just chilling with his pipe while wearing a smoking jacket because pre-COIE Bruce was a fancy bitch and I loved him) quite reasonably and politely asks if anything is up and if he needs help. Dick snaps and tells him he can take care of himself while basically thinking "WHY IS BRUCE ALWAYS UP MY ASS, HE SUCKS SO MUCH" in the next panel. I think overall it's clear Bruce has trouble adjusting to Dick being an adult and is unintentionally condescending and controlling as a result, but as the first set up for Dick's broad arc in the run it's hard to see Bruce as being the difficult one.

    Overall, I'd say Dick's issues were simultaneously wanting to distance himself from Bruce and forge his own path while also wanting to live up to the man he thinks Bruce expect him to be. He brings a lot of the angst on himself and needs to overcome it, though Bruce's issues also remain.

    Agree with everything else you said though
    I was thinking more the fallout of Kori's wedding and Dick comes to get advice from Bruce and he and Jason are in the middle of a life-or-death case. Bruce asks him to stick around to talk but then Dick is all "I don't have time for this" because he's all broody and self-loathing to everyone around him.

  14. #89
    Fantastic Member Spencermalley935's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    309

    Default

    Yeah I'm ok with them being neglectful of Bruce because they are minor characters who we barely see. We're expected to view Alfred as competent and likeable, but his raising of Bruce resulted in a more unstable individual than they did, but we're somehow expected to believe is raising of Bruce and devotion of him is a good thing? It doesn't work the way DC wants it to most o the time
    I've honestly never seen the post-crisis Batman as any more "unstable" than pre-crisis Batman honestly (although Yes he did go through a major Jerkass phase in the early 2000's) Hell pre-crisis Batman had his share of "moments" like that too, like when he blew up at Dick during the Gerry Conways Killer Croc arc or when he blamed his parents for dying when Silver St Cloud left him or when he was drummed out of the Outsiders. Alfred's always been devoted to serving and caring for Bruce in both continuities as well. There was a story arc by Len Wein where Gentleman Ghost took over Wayne Manor and hypnotized Alfred into being his butler. He broke that control when Ghost ordered him to kill Batman and so regardless of whether or not he raised Bruce in either continuity, there's always been more there than a simple professional master/servant relationship.

    Bruce not having any extended family on either side of the family and being raised by his butler is a little harder to swallow. Alfred's been too devoted to Bruce at times like Tzigone said. And while the original Golden Age stories were more simplistic, a modern take on it wouldn't be too different than a good version of Slade and Wintergreen, who met as adults. And they were specifically set up as a dark mirror image to Bruce and Alfred before the "Alfred raised Bruce" retcon came into effect.

    And like Tzigone also said, it demoted Dick from the most important supporting Bat-character with no positive changes: Dick's impact is a little lessened and Bruce is more of a flawed mentor, and Alfred's devotion becomes more unhealthy and enabling over a much longer period.
    Most modern versions of the story have Alfred as a close personal friend of Thomas Wayne so it really isn't much of a stretch that they'd name him their sons legal guardian in the event that something happened to them whether they had any extended family or not (that was the case in Zero Year). Plus I've always found it interesting that Alfred was pushed into a situation of being something he wasn't prepared to be and how that may have had an impact on Bruce growing up to be the man he became. I like to think that he helped Bruce and prevented him from becoming something potentially worse than what he is currently and it's still for my money way more interesting than Bruce being raised by some random uncle we never see and the women who mother of all coincidences was the mother of his parent's murderer. As for the Slade/Wintergreen thing, The reason Wintergreen was loyal to Slade was because they served together in the army and saved each others life, It wasn't just a professional relationship there.

    And like Tzigone also said, it demoted Dick from the most important supporting Bat-character with no positive changes: Dick's impact is a little lessened and Bruce is more of a flawed mentor, and Alfred's devotion becomes more unhealthy and enabling over a much longer period.
    I'm just gonna reiterate what Frontier said on the matter, It's an entirely different relationship but no less important.

    Well that clearly didn't work out lol.
    Well yeah, Otherwise there's no Batman.

  15. #90
    Mighty Member Astralabius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    1,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SiegePerilous02 View Post
    They had the seeds for a more natural "well intentioned hero becomes a villain" story with modern Batman than they do with other examples. It would be less out of left field than, say, Hal Jordan in ET or Wonder Woman in Injustice. It would still be an innately terrible idea to do that with the mainstream version of one of their longest lasting icons, but it would still be more honest like you said. In some ways, being all over the place is worse because it lets him get away with it when he shouldn't.

    I'd honestly be happy with burning it all down and salting the Earth. Post-Crisis/Modern Batman sucks so much and the craving for good mainstream version remains strong.
    I don't want Bruce to be a villain, but some stories really suffer from DC not being able to either admit that Bruce is kinda the antagonist of the story or letting him apologize and make up for his behavior.
    For example, Damian's story in Teen Titans. The story could only happen because Bruce actively neglected Damian and didn't watch over him for an extended period of time. But instead of being honest and treating Bruce like the bad father he needs to be for the story to work the storyline has several moments where we are told Bruce is worried about Damian. Okay, but if he's so worried and cares so much about his son then why isn't he doing anything? If Bruce cared this situation wouldn't have happened.
    The way the aftermath of Teen Titans was handled in Detective Comics wasn't satisfying either. Instead of Bruce simply admitting that he messed up with Damian and working on being a better father agaon Bruce continues to neglect Damian for the majority of the arc, blames most of their issues on Damian's personality and age, doesn't apologize for not comforting Damian after Alfred's death and despite all of this the arc ends with Bruce and Damian being on better terms again.

    I really didn't need much from this arc, I just wanted Bruce to admit that he made mistakes and for him to apologize, but apparently that was already asking for too much.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •