Your DC-Only controversial opinions...

[Last Son of Krypton]

I have to go along with Sirzechs on this one. Morrison made so many changes that he was essentially building a new character from scratch!

In the "Son of the Demon" version, we had this:

1. Batman and Talia spent several months living together (at a headquarters facility being used by Ra's, who had persuaded Batman to work with him on one very important project), and apparently regarding themselves as a romantic couple who were very much in love. Talia explicitly stated she regarded Batman as her husband -- she referred in dialogue to a previous event (in a story scripted by Denny O'Neil way, way back in the 1970s) in which Batman had woken up aboard Ra's al Ghul's yacht and was informed that Talia had accepted him as her husband while he was out cold, which was apparently "legal" according to the rules of some of her ancestors.)

2. During their time together, Talia became pregnant with Bruce's child, and Bruce knew this, and was looking forward to seeing the little whippersnapper get born.

3. Toward the end of the graphic novel, however, Talia indicated to him that she had lost the child (miscarriage or stillbirth was implied, although I don't think she used either word). Batman believed it -- and for some reason this tragedy suddenly broke up their romantic relationship.

4. On the final page, we saw a very happy married couple bringing home their adopted son, which was heavily implied to be the biological child of Talia and Bruce Wayne. The idea appeared to be that Talia had decided that neither she nor her "beloved," living the lifestyles that they did, were really the best choices to give an innocent child a nice, safe, nurturing home environment, in which neither parent was likely to get killed off suddenly, and so she'd decided to make sure the kid had a "normal upbringing" instead with a carefully-screened young couple who, for some reason, couldn't have kids of their own.

That was the Mike Barr version of "Batman's child by Talia."

Now let's move on to the "Batman and Son" version. The following was stated or implied in the way Morrison wrote the first story arc of his big Batman run:

1. Batman had never lived with Talia in anything resembling a "husband and wife" relationship.

2. Batman had never had any reason to think that he could possibly have gotten Talia pregnant.

3. Something had been done by Talia, without Batman's conscious knowledge and consent at the time (he may have been drugged so that he wouldn't remember anything), which allegedly caused her to get pregnant with his child. This something happened in a desert setting after Batman had rejected Talia's suggestion that he voluntarily participate in what he describes as "some depraved eugenics experiment."

4. Instead of the child being put up for adoption to grow up "normally" in a happy, non-violent family environment, the child knew all along that he was Talia's son and Ra's al Ghul's grandson, and was raised in accordance with the proud family tradition of being ready to use lethal force at the drop of a hat to get whatever you wanted. In other words, from a very tender age he was receiving intensive "League of Assassins" training, and he excelled at it.

That was the Grant Morrison version of the concept of "Batman's child by Talia."

To me, that sounds like two different characters, each with a different origin story to explain how he had come into existence in the first place, and with different answers to the basic question of who was entrusted with the responsibility of raising each little rascal from the cradle after Talia had given birth!

What confused the issue (back around 2006) was that it was announced in advance that Grant Morrison would, in fact, be dusting off the baby from the Mike Barr graphic novel . . . and then, when the humongous contradictions became apparent in the published material, Morrison said something to the effect that he actually hadn't bothered to reread the graphic novel in ages and had been "winging it" in a way which contradicted all sorts of details from the material which he had (rather carelessly) claimed to be his inspiration for Damian.

So the way it turned out, I'm inclined to say: "Grant Morrison created a whole different character, who had virtually nothing in common with Mike Barr's version except for the basic point of 'Talia is the mother, and Bruce Wayne is allegedly the father' -- but Grant Morrison did this almost by accident, apparently not even realizing, at first, that he was essentially creating a whole new character!"

There's also a son of Talia and Bruce in the Kingdom Come/The Kingdom continuity: Ibn al Xu'ffasch.
But I don't remember the backstory of Waid's version.

[Vinsanity]

Plot wise it makes no sense, but questionable script aside, it has a very striking visual look to it and then there's the sexual and emotional subtext...

That's why. I agree.

[FanboyStranger]

My controversial opinion:

Even though I rarely agree with him and find him far too cocksure in his opinions, I actually like what Trey Stains brings to the table. He's developed some interesting arguments that have lasted for several weeks and pages, and I think we should give him credit for that. I'm not sure I'd like to read the comics that he's arguing for, but I like that he's throwing down different ideas on how to approach comics. I know he's challenged my thinking on certain things.

[byrd156]

My controversial opinion:

Even though I rarely agree with him and find him far too cocksure in his opinions, I actually like what Trey Stains brings to the table. He's developed some interesting arguments that have lasted for several weeks and pages, and I think we should give him credit for that. I'm not sure I'd like to read the comics that he's arguing for, but I like that he's throwing down different ideas on how to approach comics. I know he's challenged my thinking on certain things.

Really? I feel like he just likes to make arguments for the sake of arguing and that if we don't listen to his way of enjoying/viewing comics we are wrong.

[Jim Kelly]

I saw BATMAN RETURNS a few times in the movie theatre and while I liked the movie, maybe even a little more than the first Burton movie, I really had a hard time with DeVito's Penguin. Not just that he was so vile, but you couldn't actually understand what he was saying unless you really strained to hear it (which was hard in a movie theatre). I'm not sure if it was his prosthetic teeth or an actual acting choice--but I knew that DeVito had some good lines yet the audience wasn't getting most of them because they couldn't make out what he was saying. I really had to work hard at liking all those sequences with Penguin, whereas the stuff with Bruce Wayne and Catwoman was very easy to enjoy and didn't require any work.

The Topps bubble gum cards were also better than the ones for BATMAN (1989).

[t hedge coke]

But Grant Morrison blah; blah, blah.

Again, read my signature.

I used Morrison because that's who you and others were specifically namechecking. You, Trey, mentioned Morrison before I did.

You ignore that I also mentioned Jack Kirby and Warren Ellis. Let's add to that Steve Ditko, Denny O'Neil, Robert Crumb, Go Nagai, Frank Miller, Joe Kubert, CLAMP, Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon, James O'Barr, Lynn Johnston, Mark Gruenwald, Alan Moore, Erik Larsen, Neil Gaiman, and Kurt Busiek. Off the top of my head.

Now, you'll call those "exceptions," too. For the sake of others in the conversations, the above are all people who've killed their own creations off in comics. It's not that rare, it's possibly, taking in all comics and not just shared universes owned by a publishing house, more common for the creator to kill the character, than it is for a later hired hand.

[Tuxedo Elf]

My controversial opinion:

Even though I rarely agree with him and find him far too cocksure in his opinions, I actually like what Trey Stains brings to the table. He's developed some interesting arguments that have lasted for several weeks and pages, and I think we should give him credit for that. I'm not sure I'd like to read the comics that he's arguing for, but I like that he's throwing down different ideas on how to approach comics. I know he's challenged my thinking on certain things.

Hah, I think that's *the* most controversial post of the whole thread! The questions could be interesting, but it seems to me he doesn't want to debate, just wants to tell everyone that they're wrong and use his fanfics as 'facts.' I also find him rude.

[dancj]

But Grant Morrison blah; blah, blah.

Again, read my signature.

1 - Your arguing technique seems to consist of telling people they're wrong rather than giving any evidence.

2 - Exceptions do not prove rules. They disprove rules. In this case, your argument included "tends to" or words to that effect so it takes more than one exception to disprove it - but many were given.

[Trey Strain]

Hah, I think that's *the* most controversial post of the whole thread! The questions could be interesting, but it seems to me he doesn't want to debate, just wants to tell everyone that they're wrong and use his fanfics as 'facts.' I also find him rude.

Now, now. I'm like those overly polite gophers in Looney Tunes.

[Trey Strain]

1 - Your arguing technique seems to consist of telling people they're wrong rather than giving any evidence.

2 - Exceptions do not prove rules. They disprove rules. In this case, your argument included "tends to" or words to that effect so it takes more than one exception to disprove it - but many were given.

What you said there is predicated on a misunderstanding of what a rule is. And you're not alone. it's very common.

A rule is not a principle that's true very single time. No! It's a principle that's true a significant majority of the time. Very few principles hold true every single time.

Rules are not always accurate in their predictive power, but they're accurate often enough to be very useful.

If I say that comics writers tend to resist killing off their own characters, you can't invalidate that statement by trotting out a few examples of a comics writer who has done it. The very fact that what you've cited is are exceptions proves that the rule is valid, because an exception is something that rarely happens, while a rule is something that usually happens. For every exception you can trot out, I can trot our many more examples of writers jumping at the chance to kill the creations of other writers. The numbers are very much on my side about that.

Rules and exceptions are about numbers.

If X is an exception, then the opposite of X must be the rule. Hence the exception proves the rule.

[Bor]

What you said there is predicated on a misunderstanding of what a rule is. And you're not alone. it's very common.

A rule is not a principle that's true very single time. No! It's a principle that's true a significant majority of the time. Very few principles hold true every single time.

Rules are not always accurate in their predictive power, but they're accurate often enough to be very useful.

If I say that comics writers tend to hate killing off their own characters, you can't invalidate that statement by trotting out n example of a comics writer who has done it. The very fact that what you've cited is an exception proves that the rule is valid, because an exception is something that rarely happens, while a rule is something that usually happens.

If X is an exception, then the opposite of X must be the rule.

Hence the exception proves the rule.

Yeah once again you are right and get to tell others how it is. Good going.
Or an oldy but good one: " Way to go Charlie Brown".

[Trey Strain]

Yeah once again you are right and get to tell others how it is. Good going.
Or an oldy but good one: " Way to go Charlie Brown".

Now will you reward me for a job well done by posting something that isn't a peevish response to something I've posted? Anything! I'm really eager to see that!

[t hedge coke]

If I say that comics writers tend to resist killing off their own characters, you can't invalidate that statement by trotting out a few examples of a comics writer who has done it.

Phrasing it that way, it absolutely does. Because by phrasing it that way, you're implying that all comics writers, or most, tend to resist killing off their own creations. And, yes, while most characters created by anyone are not killed by anyone, those comics characters that are killed are most commonly killed by their creators, and in the smaller pool of American company-owned shared universes there are still a large number of creators who have killed some of their own creations.

So, no, it doesn't support your rule that people can easily think of dozens of examples to counter it while you provide - as far as I can tell - no examples to support it.

[Trey Strain]

Phrasing it that way, it absolutely does. Because by phrasing it that way, you're implying that all comics writers, or most, tend to resist killing off their own creations. And, yes, while most characters created by anyone are not killed by anyone, those comics characters that are killed are most commonly killed by their creators, and in the smaller pool of American company-owned shared universes there are still a large number of creators who have killed some of their own creations.

So, no, it doesn't support your rule that people can easily think of dozens of examples to counter it while you provide - as far as I can tell - no examples to support it.

You don't know of any instances of writers killing off characters who other writers created? Really?

Anyway stop trying to muddy the water by throwing in characters who writers have created for the very purpose of killing them. You know that's not relevant. Or at least I hope you do.

You want numbers? All right. Here are some.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/a...ill-count.html

[Bor]

Now will you reward me for a job well done by posting something that isn't a peevish response to something I've posted? Anything! I'm really eager to see that!

Tell you what make a thread that actually accepts other peoples point of view or does not try to "lecture" people and I might think about it. I'm really eager to see that!