Is Batman Broken?

[phantom1592]

Jason never deserved what the Joker did to him. This is revisionist history by writers who didn't like him in the first place.

I wouldn't call it Revisionist history...The Death in the Family storyline showed him being angry, impulsive and not following directions and getting killed. Now whether that was written out of character or not is a different thing. I never read a 'live' Jason story.. Though I heard he may or may not have killed someone before.

So the 'problem child' aspect is pretty rooted.

[phantom1592]

Batman has never been alone.

That's what I've been saying from the start.

And Oracle didn't appear in every Batman comic.

It seemed like it to me... and not just Batman, but Nightwing too. I remember an issue where nightwing was knocked out and captured and fingerprinted... Oracle was able to detect his prints being run on a national database, override the program and insert a false identity for him in just seconds.

Takes the whole 'Oh crap I'm gonna blow my secret ID' concept when there's that kind of guardian angel hovering over your shoulder all the time.

That said, I always liked Dick and Babs together since she was more then just tech support to him. They had that whole dating relationship going that really worked.

[AlexanderLuthor]

I wouldn't call it Revisionist history...The Death in the Family storyline showed him being angry, impulsive and not following directions and getting killed. Now whether that was written out of character or not is a different thing. I never read a 'live' Jason story.. Though I heard he may or may not have killed someone before.

So the 'problem child' aspect is pretty rooted.

People wanted a solo Batman. They had just read Year One (404-407) and then Max Allan Collins (not my favorite writer) threw Jason right back into the mix. He was kind of a punk, although it was really no different than the divisive characters we see now (N52 Wally for instance). The 800 Line was always going to vote for death because people wanted to see the spectacle of it

[Agent Z]

I wouldn't call it Revisionist history...The Death in the Family storyline showed him being angry, impulsive and not following directions and getting killed. Now whether that was written out of character or not is a different thing. I never read a 'live' Jason story.. Though I heard he may or may not have killed someone before.

So the 'problem child' aspect is pretty rooted.

Being impulsive has been a trait all Robins share. Jason just gets singled out because he was the first to die. And the Diplomat's Son was at most ambiguous over whether or not he killed a rapist. Jason's no more deserving of death than any of Joker's victims.

[Agent Z]

That's what I've been saying from the start.




It seemed like it to me... and not just Batman, but Nightwing too. I remember an issue where nightwing was knocked out and captured and fingerprinted... Oracle was able to detect his prints being run on a national database, override the program and insert a false identity for him in just seconds.

Takes the whole 'Oh crap I'm gonna blow my secret ID' concept when there's that kind of guardian angel hovering over your shoulder all the time.

That said, I always liked Dick and Babs together since she was more then just tech support to him. They had that whole dating relationship going that really worked.

Yeah like they haven't used all kinds of contrivances to keep secret identities in the modern age in superhero comics.

[SmokeMonster]

Yup, that is pretty much why I am against it. Batman isn't Dumbledore or Professor X

But why not?

If he can take in one orphan kid and turn them into a superhero, why can't he take in 10 or 15 over the years? It's not like he doesn't have the money for it.

[Caivu]

But why not?

If he can take in one orphan kid and turn them into a superhero, why can't he take in 10 or 15 over the years? It's not like he doesn't have the money for it.

You just don't understand. Batman was created first, so he can never ever resemble any other character that was created later. Not ever.

</sarcasm>

[lucius121]

The reason for the steady progression of side kicks is simple, it's to bring in new fans, DC aren't idiots they know that there has been a steady decline in readers for a while, the first attempt to remedy that was the NU52 and it worked briefly but the problem was that while the NU52 brought back a lot of old fans it didn't attract many new ones and as stories progressed those old fans who came back left again because they didn't like the direction their characters were being taken in.

If you want to appeal to new readers you have to have try and stay relevant. The reason a lot of posters don't like the new kids is because they weren't designed with you in mind, I often think this forum should be renamed comic book nostalgia, that way those who are not interested in reminiscing about the good old days would know to stay away.

I'm not a big fan of Duke, Harper, Steph or Damien but I know why they were created, I can see that others really like those characters so I'm glad they exist.

[Aahz]

He was the one who failed at the training.

He didn't fail in training.

People wanted a solo Batman. They had just read Year One (404-407) and then Max Allan Collins (not my favorite writer) threw Jason right back into the mix. He was kind of a punk, although it was really no different than the divisive characters we see now (N52 Wally for instance). The 800 Line was always going to vote for death because people wanted to see the spectacle of it

There is not really difference between Damian and Jason, appart from the pretty absurd skill levels the new 52 writers give Damian. They died because of quite similar reasons. And Jasons actions in diplomats son were probably more justified than Damian killing Spook.

And btw. Bruce wasn't really much better than Jason during Starlins run, in Batman #414 you had him for example brutally beat up a guy he suspected to be a murder (how was actually innocent) and in 10 nights of the Beast he locked KGBeast in a room to let him starve.
And when not written by Starlin Jason was usually not that agressive.

[GigiFusc]

I think the problem that they are trying to solve is how to keep Batman relevant in 2016 after 66 years of stories that have spanned almost every plot known to man.

Personally, I think it's a problem of their own making. I do think that the Bat universe is now saturated. How many monthly Bat related books are there now? I've lost count myself.

They also have this perceived problem that they think they need to add this Teen hook that you're speaking about in order to keep the kidz on-board. I use the term perceived simply because I don't think this is a thing. I loved Batman when I was very young and my children of 12 and 10 also like him. They don't read the comic books like I did, but they like the character. (especially my son).

I always bang on about this so I might as well keep banging - this is the type of situation where S&M people that are far removed from the fanbase (and from reality) make **** up in order to try to justify their existence, or just make a cash grab before they inevitably move on.

"We need as many Bat books as possible because people buy Bat books and we can make millions out of them - the more the better!"
"We need to get those pre-teens hooked so we need to create a book just for them with younger characters and writing that they understand!"

So, ok. On the one hand, they're trying to figure out new ways of bringing us Batman so that we don't get jaded and bored but they don't realise that the quality in their choices end up turning a lot of people off.

For me personally, I don't know why there's a Batwoman as well as a Batgirl?? The concept of Batman inc was so offensive to me and I hated it. The idea of Gordon as Batman was interesting but poorly played out IMO - that was a year's worth of Batman books that I wasn't really enjoying or interested in.

I read some of the dialogue and plot points and sometimes feel like these books aren't aimed at a 45 year old man who has followed this character for most of his life.

So where does that leave them? What should they do to combat these issues (whether perceived or otherwise)?

The answer for me is actually pretty simple - hire the single best writer and art team (and that might not be exclusively two people) you can find and re-focus on the core Batman comic. Then slowly rebuild from there. The quality of the story will keep everyone reading and having a team of writers and artists means the plots and stories themselves have top class input at all times. This is a method that was used for Star Trek the Next generation (apologies for the sudden link) to great effect.

[Chickfighter]

Batman became broken a long time ago when Miller and Moore stories became canon.

Characters like Cass and Steph are now the best thing about the Bat legacy.

[Aioros22]

Surviving. He was the one who failed at the training. He became known as the angry one... the reckless one... the one who showed all the others what happens if you don't follow orders and that specter hung over the cave for years with that trophy case

While some writers certainly tried to push that agenda after he died, it`s an agenda that ultimely can`t stick. For several reasons.

For one, because you basically have to close your eyes for all the stories he appears in Post Crisis and only look at DITF. Jason didn`t start to rebel until the later stage of his days as Robin. He was competent. He helped save Dick. He helped save Bruce. He helped save Gotham. He helped the Titans. So on. He wasn`t Dick Grayson ethically no, and it`s good, but he didn`t fell in the extreme until Diplomat`s Son and even then..

Secondly, because the reckless stample is exagerrated. Jason didn`t die because he was reckless. He didn`t die because he was showy or a bull in a china shop. He died because he made a deliberate conscious decision to save someone he wanted to save (in this case his mother) in a scenario where he didn`t go looking for a fight. It`s his mother who falsely convinces him that Joker is gone after he warns her to get out of danger.

This little detail stands out like an elephant in the room. It`s not usually mention, but anyone who wants to go back and read the old days of how much of a reckless bitchguy he was will be rolling their eyesockets like it`s Darkseid tripping the stairs. Jason`s decision, a deliberate decision, is something any of us would or could have done. I go even further. Bruce, as he usually is written would have done the same and it wouldn`t feel out of character.

Bringing him back? It really negated so much of what he was great at. Now he leans less from 'poor kid who got in over his head....' to 'jerkface who kinda deserved it.'

It`s a shame you only see him in that spectrum, but alas, he doesn`t read like that. It`s the kind of situation where no matter what he does or did, you want that status quo no matter what. I understand it but it doesn`t float my boat

Once upon a time, Dick, in one of the writtings to explain the "fallout" between himself and Bruce, is gently fired after charging towards the Joker against Bruce direct orders and gets shot in the arm losing his senses. Drawing a paralel between these two encounters Jason actually reads more cautious in comparison.

Now, I don`t think that makes Dick a poor sap over his head perpetually, does it? He did graduate after all.

In the end, it`s not that Jason wasn`t more reckless than Dick was in lesser time. It`s that the exageratted stample doesn`t mesh with what people read at the time because the execution (ha) was rushed and it showed. If you want to talk about how a character died, at least make sure you don`t take the wrong lessons from it. Jason should have been a perpetual reminder of how dangerous this life can be, even if you want to protect who you care about and not a batshit wa wa of how Bruce`s orders are the bible and and you die if you play Devil`s advocate.

[Cowtools]

I disagree with the OP 100%. Batman's large supporting cast is the reason I got into the character, and comics in general. It was bat woman that first caught my eye, Birds Of Prey that got me reading back issues, and the Steph Brown Batgirl that made me a monthly reader. Without these characters, Batman would be about as interesting as The Punisher - a good character, but dreadfully one note.

Regardless, I don't see how a large supporting cast means the character is 'broken'. Frankly, there aren't any other characters whose supporting casts have as many hardcore fans. Dick Grayson was voted the 3rd best character in ALL of DC comics on this very website, and Tim Drake, Barbara Gordon, Steph Brown, Kate Kane, Joker and Catwoman were all on the list! If anything, an expanding supporting cast means the franchise is healthier than ever.

Besides which, with multiple Bat-books always running, there'll always be solo Bruce adventures running concurrently with team books. Just buy the ones you want to read. Simple as that.

I think that most people can agree that Batman, boiled down to his most basic form, is a grim, solo crime fighter, whose stories are usually darker than most other superhero stories. The general public perception of Batman is, for better or worse, a dark and brooding (but badass) loner.

I don't think that's how most comic readers see Batman. As for what the general public thinks... I think the success of Batman V Superman, not to mention the way casual readers fetishise The Dark Knight Returns and Killing Joke, show that the general public has **** taste in Batman comics.

[darkseidpwns]

I think it's due to Batman being so idealized that writers cant really make him human so they substitute more "relatable" characters in to the story. Sure you could argue Damian and Cass dont fit in to that category fully but they are still young characters who are designed to attract young people.
Still I do agree that only the 4 main Robins are important to Bruce's story regardless of how one feels about them and maybe Babs, possibly JPV. The rest have proven to be flavors of the day.
I believe DC missed their mark with 2 Batmen during the Morrison era, they could have easily divided the supporting characters between Bruce and Dick back in 2011 and eliminated the need for the likes of Harper and Duke instead they chose to around completely mucking up the history of these characters and destroying many of them.

[JBatmanFan05]

Just because there's an expanded Batfamily doesn't mean you still can't do stories about Batman as a solo hero on his own. That's all on the writer and what they want to do.

Yea, this is my position. Writers and editors can still do solo Batman books amid the Batfam and other books with that Batfam.

I think DC should consider doing this more. I think there is an audience for a more loner Batman book. An audience that's always been here and one that perhaps comes from the films that feature a more solo Batman.


Kinda be like if Marvel did The Punisher-Family (with male teen sidekicks The Equalizer and The Enforcer and teen girl sidekick Death Wish (I made these up)) but didn't do a solo Punisher title. That'd be ignoring a fair audience right there (and that's an understatement).