Controversial Batfamily Opinions

[Sergard]

I've just read Supersons of Tomorrow for the first time. Well ... "read". (I didn't read every dialog. Some character depictions rubbed me the wrong way and some scenes were just ... I don't know.)
Unfortunately I don't remember if I ever called Savior!Tim "evil", but in case I did, I take it back. (But I still don't like the Savior costume and identity.)
I also take the "evil Damian versions" back. There isn't any detailed information about the Damian of Savior!Tim's future in order to have a clear picture of his character. (And the other evil Damian I remembered was just some hallucination in an animated movie.)

Since yesterday I've been thinking about the word "evil" and how difficult it is to describe. The internet suggests different definitions and so far I haven't found one that coincides with my perception (Wikipedia has a nice article about the topic). Thinking about "evil" sheds also a new light on the term "villain". Until now I was under the impression that a villain is always an evil person. But I realized that's not true, at least not for me. There are a lot of villains that I don't consider evil, in a few occasions they are not even "bad".

[Restingvoice]

His default personality should not be brood though. He didn't used to be that way. Back in the Bronze Age (which is the best Batman, IMO) he had a much more varied personality set.

I agree. Especially someone who has experience dealing with children since the beginning of his career. The authors can argue that the brood is back because he lost his kids but we know it's because they just want him to be a cool solitary figure of their personal preference since they retcon that depiction even during Dick's Robin days.

Since yesterday I've been thinking about the word "evil" and how difficult it is to describe. The internet suggests different definitions and so far I haven't found one that coincides with my perception (Wikipedia has a nice article about the topic). Thinking about "evil" sheds also a new light on the term "villain". Until now I was under the impression that a villain is always an evil person. But I realized that's not true, at least not for me. There are a lot of villains that I don't consider evil, in a few occasions they are not even "bad".

Evil is a conscious, deliberate, selfish act to cause harm, physically or psychologically.
It's not self-defense, not accident, not to protect someone, and not beneficial except to the perpetrator, although the perpetrator may claim otherwise or pretend that their actions benefit someone else.

In a narrative, the term Villain is often used in exchange with Antagonist, just like Hero and Protagonist, but a story Antagonist is not always Evil and the Protagonist is not always Good, they're just in opposition, but a Hero is usually defined by their selflessness.

[Gotham citizen]

I'm sorry if I seem pedantic, but I think can be interesting say the word villain derives from the latin word villanus, which means farmhand, because a villanus was an ill-mannered person (often a slave) make wicked by the hard life he lived, so a villain doesn't has to be an evil person: he can be a good person turned in a wicked one by some disgrace. The villain is became synonyms of antagonist, because the hero is almost always also the good guy of the story, but there are a lot of characters who are "villain-heroes" (Punisher, Catwoman…); we calls them anti-heroes.

[Zaresh]

Mmmm...

For Selina to be antiheroic, she would have to still do something not only for her sake and profit, but for others too. Does she? I don't know her well enough.

I guess Frank would count, because his is a crusade against the bad guys, technically. But again, I don't follow Punisher well enough to tell.

[Gotham citizen]

Selina helped often Batman and she didn't do that for money. Good examples of that are show in the miniseries Catwoman of 1989, Catwoman Defiant, Birds of Pray (Batgirl/Catwoman) and Birds of Prey (Catwoman/Oracle), so I think she can be called anti-heroine. Same thing for the Punisher: he fight the crime using their same methods because they need a punishment, but the justice seems unable to give them that punishment; like it was said in "Punisher year one".

[Zaresh]

Selina helped often Batman and she didn't do that for money. Good examples of that are show in the miniseries Catwoman of 1989, Catwoman Defiant, Birds of Pray (Batgirl/Catwoman) and Birds of Prey (Catwoman/Oracle), so I think she can be called anti-heroine. Same thing for the Punisher: he fight the crime using their same methods because they need a punishment, but the justice seems unable to give them that punishment; like it was said in "Punisher year one".

Alright them .

[Rise]

He he, I think the other way around.

I think Dick works better when he's alone in his book, not as a team. And I do like Titans.
Jason for me works a lot better when he's in a book with a team dynamic, most of the time because having people around himself usually has made him be his best version of himself. He also is a character that benefits of interacting with others to show his range of voice, so to speak. Works with a lot of different types of personalities in his team, which is something I can't say of others. He's the kind of a facilitator than a leader, too,, which is something I like. And ge makes for a great "lancer" role, when he's not the leader of a team.

I also think that Dick had a better evolution as a character than Jason. It's just that currently we had a clearer direction for him than for Dick. But the period from 2004 to 2011 had a lot of problems for him as a character.

(I don't know if I made myself clear, I'm currently a bit too sick to write something properly)

I'm someone who usually prefer team books over solo books, but Jason is in desperate need of a good solo book to prove that he can stand on his own.

RH: Outlaw was unfortunately built on a weak premise from the beginning and Lobdell had no idea what to do with him. He moved from refusing to kill to suddenly shooting Penguin live in national tv and burning people alive to "weeeell, I actually didn't plan to kill penguin..." (then, why the heck did you kill bunch of random gangsters?) to running a casino and now apparently he become a teacher to bunch of wannabe-villain kids. This literally all happened in 15 issues which is crazy and not in good way.

Red Hood can work well and shine brighter in a solo than a team book. He just needs someone who knows how to write a solo book with him.

[Zaresh]

I'm someone who usually prefer team books over solo books, but Jason is in desperate need of a good solo book to prove that he can stand on his own.

RH: Outlaw was unfortunately built on a weak premise from the beginning and Lobdell had no idea what to do with him. He moved from refusing to kill to suddenly shooting Penguin live in national tv and burning people alive to "weeeell, I actually didn't plan to kill penguin..." (then, why the heck did you kill bunch of random gangsters?) to running a casino and now apparently he become a teacher to bunch of wannabe-villain kids. This literally all happened in 15 issues which is crazy and not in good way.

Red Hood can work well and shine brighter in a solo than a team book. He just needs someone who knows how to write a solo book with him.

I don't know, @Rise. I'm thinking about the kind of characters that work well for me in a solo book, and they are not much like Jason (the closer would be Moon Knight). Maybe with the right writer, but, I don't know. What would you had in mind for him in a solo run? Sell me the idea (I'm very open to change my mind)

[Sergard]

I don't know, @Rise. I'm thinking about the kind of characters that work well for me in a solo book, and they are not much like Jason (the closer would be Moon Knight). Maybe with the right writer, but, I don't know. What would you had in mind for him in a solo run? Sell me the idea (I'm very open to change my mind)

Should we move the discussion to the Jason Todd Thread? Exchanging story ideas doesn't sound very controversial.

[Zaresh]

Should we move the discussion to the Jason Todd Thread? Exchanging story ideas doesn't sound very controversial.

You're right. I'll move it there.

[AmiMizuno]

So when Bruce dies who becomes Batman? I mean I can't see Tim doing it. Dick I generally don't want to. I mean Damian isn't ready.

[TheManhunterfromMars]

Batwoman is an awful character and probably the worst member of the bat family

[The tall man]

So when Bruce dies who becomes Batman? I mean I can't see Tim doing it. Dick I generally don't want to. I mean Damian isn't ready.

Actually I think no one should, Batman was born with Bruce and should die with him. Besides does Bruce even want a successor, is he actively grooming anyone to replace him in the future? I think it's the complete opposite, he would actively discourage anyone from taking up the mantle and encourage them to find their own path. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if he has a protocol in place to seal or destroy the Batcave after his death. So no I don't think there should be another Batman after Bruce, he is the one and only Batman. Anyone else who takes up the mantle will always be seen as a pretender.

[Caivu]

Batwoman is an awful character and probably the worst member of the bat family

What's your reasoning? What makes her an "awful" character?

[Restingvoice]

So when Bruce dies who becomes Batman? I mean I can't see Tim doing it. Dick I generally don't want to. I mean Damian isn't ready.

The first time he died it was Dick. He didn't want to but he realized the necessity of people thinking Batman is still alive because the villains are not as scared to the rest of the family compared to Batman.

The second time it was Gordon, with backing from the government and GCPD, but it didn't work as well because it's limited by their official capacity as law enforcers, they ban the Bat-family, and the villain that showed up is just too strong.

Actually I think no one should, Batman was born with Bruce and should die with him. Besides does Bruce even want a successor, is he actively grooming anyone to replace him in the future? I think it's the complete opposite, he would actively discourage anyone from taking up the mantle and encourage them to find their own path. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if he has a protocol in place to seal or destroy the Batcave after his death. So no I don't think there should be another Batman after Bruce, he is the one and only Batman. Anyone else who takes up the mantle will always be seen as a pretender.

He has a protocol to clone himself and transfer his memory and trauma to the next clone so Batman will be the exact same character with the exact same obsession to fight crime, but this is a new addition, and one of the machines was destroyed by Alfred.

In a DCeased, he has prepared a suit for Damian, he just didn't expect him to use it so soon.

In Batman Beyond, he forces himself to be Batman until he can't move properly anymore and closed shop until Terry came along. In this version, he has a bad relationship with Dick and Tim so he couldn't ask them.

In Rebirth, when he thought he's about to die, he recommends Duke to go to Dick to continue their mentorship, but mention nothing about Batman.

So, in general, he doesn't ask any of his kids to become Batman, but he has some sort of preparations anyway. He has no protocol to destroy the Batcave, most likely because he knows the family is going to use it, even if they're not Batman.