Is Batman Broken?

[Aahz]

In the end, it`s not that Jason wasn`t more reckless than Dick was in lesser time.

Actually Dick getting grounded or fired because he was reckless and disobedient, is something that happens quite often new stories about Dicks time as Robin (for example in Robin Year One), in "modern" retelling of his origin story also you also often see him trying to hunt down Zucco on his own, before Bruce starts to train him (which means in the pre flash point continuity at a the age of 12 or younger).


Btw. my definition of "modern" is everything after COIE.

Regardless, I don't see how a large supporting cast means the character is 'broken'.

The problem in the last years was that the writers often tried to squeeze to many characters in one story, prime example are the Eternals.

[SicariiDC]

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.

Amen to this dude.

[SiegePerilous02]

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.

Just because an idea worked really well once, doesn't mean repeating it over and over again until it's driven into the ground is a good idea for storytelling.

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.

I can see the appeal of Steph and appreciate that someone would have her as a favorite. But how does her presence make Bruce less "one note"? They barely have anything to do with each other. She's more tied to Tim and Barbara than to him, and the only significant story featuring them together is the godawful War Games which didn't do any favors for either of them. She can maybe enrich the wider Bat-World, but Bruce's character specifically? Nah, she doesn't inherently affect him one way or the other. He was getting along just fine before she came along. The Birds of Prey (and I have the Simone run in trade, so I'm a fan) is similar, especially since Dinah and Zinda aren't really Bat-Characters anyway.

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.

I think thinking of it in terms of franchise building instead of telling a compelling story is the wrong way to go though. The X-Men really started to lose its soul the more they added spin off books and characters, and more power was taken away from Claremont. It stopped being a story and more purely a money making machine, especially once Claremont finally left. Batman was designed with a supporting cast, but it is still clearly a story with a singular lead. And the spin offs for every single character in the Bat-Verse aren't the only thing to blame, as Bruce himself doesn't need to be featured in as many books. It's too bad that the nature of modern comics, with decompression and all, can't sustain a single Batman book with one authorial voice that's able to tell compelling stories with the entire mythos while keeping the focus on the big man himself.

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.

BvS Batman had at least Dick and Jason in his life, and he had his epiphany and is moving back to his more idealistic persona. He may be a loner at present, but obviously won't be for long, and odds are good that at least Dick and maybe Barbara will be featured in his solo movie. Meanwhile, I don't think fans of the Burton (especially the first) or the Nolan films necessarily have **** taste in Batman stories, nor the fans of the B:TAS episodes that featured Bruce on his own. And with much more of a personality than the Bat-Patriarch that we have of late.

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.

I agree that having both Batwoman and Batgirl around at the same time is pretty stupid, even if I really like Kate. I think if Babs was on Earth-1 and Kate was on Earth-2, it might solve some of that weirdness. I didn't fine Batman INC offensive, and actually enjoyed it, but I didn't think it was sustainable long term.

Your post made me really see the appeal of manga and other non-superhero/American comics. One title with one narrative with a beginning, middle and end, no extraneous spin offs, one author's vision, and consistent art. I wish superhero comics could go back to that, but at this point, there isn't a realistic way that could ever happen unfortunately.

[Lhynn]

People think BvS was a good movie? it was an embarrasment, universally panned. Miserable movie that has no reason to exist. A rushed cashgrab, etc.
Sure, a lot of people saw it, but a lot of people also see adam sandler movies, and they are by no means good.

[Pohzee]

People think BvS was a good movie? it was an embarrasment, universally panned. Miserable movie that has no reason to exist. A rushed cashgrab, etc.
Sure, a lot of people saw it, but a lot of people also see adam sandler movies, and they are by no means good.

For all the flaws that movie had, its Batman was badass. Most people that disliked it cited Batfleck and Wonder Woman as the two enjoyable parts of the movie. Most of the complaints were due to poor editing and unnecessary plotlines. The only issue that some people had with that Batman was that he killed.

[Lhynn]

Batmurders, batman takes justice in his own hands instead of serving it. He acknowledges his own limitations by using guns, instead of what the real batman does, which is surpass those limitations and become more than a man when needed.
All in all they took the character and what made him special and threw it in the trash bin.

Also le tme remind you that the biggest reason batman doesnt use an ironman suit is because no matter what tech he has at his disposal, Hes not a heavy hitter like supes or WW, he brings other things to the table, he brings wit, he brings smarts, he brings tactics, he brings a plan. He absolutely doesnt need to try and fail to keep up with the muscles.

Anyway, these things arent even my main complain, you can still have a good movie even if you rape a character in the process. My main complain comes from the fact that its a nonsensical and joyless experience and that you can do A LOT better. Plenty of good movies on the cable.

[SiegePerilous02]

Batmurders, batman takes justice in his own hands instead of serving it. He acknowledges his own limitations by using guns, instead of what the real batman does, which is surpass those limitations and become more than a man when needed.
All in all they took the character and what made him special and threw it in the trash bin.

Also le tme remind you that the biggest reason batman doesnt use an ironman suit is because no matter what tech he has at his disposal, Hes not a heavy hitter like supes or WW, he brings other things to the table, he brings wit, he brings smarts, he brings tactics, he brings a plan. He absolutely doesnt need to try and fail to keep up with the muscles.

Anyway, these things arent even my main complain, you can still have a good movie even if you rape a character in the process. My main complain comes from the fact that its a nonsensical and joyless experience and that you can do A LOT better. Plenty of good movies on the cable.

Jeez. Really? You wanna throw that term around just for an interpretation of a fictional character you don't like? Especially when this isn't even the first version who has killed? That would be Bob Kane and Bill Finger's original.

Anyway, they didn't throw it into the trash, it was part of a deliberate arc to show how far he's fallen, basically undoing the juvenile adolescent power fantasy Batman crosses over into a lot of the time, and actually shows the strain for what it would actually be like. It was established that he wasn't always that way, and will be moving back away from the more brutal tendencies going forward. I would rather a Batman who is neither a killer nor excessively brutal, but at least this one is more honest than a Batman who is fine with giving out excessive beat downs but is for some reason against killing. And it's not like the film just had him kill without commenting on it whatsoever.

[Lhynn]

Jeez. Really? You wanna throw that term around just for an interpretation of a fictional character you don't like? Especially when this isn't even the first version who has killed? That would be Bob Kane and Bill Finger's original.

Fair enough. I hope he becomes so riddled with guilt he actually snaps.

Anyway, they didn't throw it into the trash, it was part of a deliberate arc to show how far he's fallen

It has no effect if its featured on the first movie of a reboot, much like with superman. It wasnt earned, it was merely there for cheap shock value.

basically undoing the juvenile adolescent power fantasy Batman crosses over into a lot of the time, and actually shows the strain for what it would actually be like.

So you have a jury, judge and executioner there. You have batman stepping on the very thing he is supposed to be serving. Doing the same thing that was done to him.

It was established that he wasn't always that way, and will be moving back away from the more brutal tendencies going forward.

He already crossed the line, whats there to move forward to? Theres no statue of limitation for a murder charge. He is forever a killer.

I would rather a Batman who is neither a killer nor excessively brutal

I like it when batman is brutal. I really dont see how he could be effective otherwise. Not with gothams justice system. I honestly think he doesnt go far enough.

but at least this one is more honest than a Batman who is fine with giving out excessive beat downs but is for some reason against killing.

Batman doesnt just "not kill" because its wrong, he doesnt kill because its against the law, it cannot be overlooked, public opinion will turn on him. Because it makes him the very thing that created him, a murderer. He didnt cross the line even after jasons death for this very reason.

And it's not like the film just had him kill without commenting on it whatsoever.

Sure, thats something good i guess.

[TsukiSentinel]

I've been mulling about this for a while between the Eternals and the upcoming 'Tec, as well as Duke's current push, but I think today's Rebirth special put the nail in the coffin for me. I believe that Batman, as a character, is broken.

I know that interpretation of fictional characters may vary by reader, but 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. Batman at his most recognizable has a small bit strong supporting cast. Most of the best and most iconic Batman stories like Year One, Arkham Asylum, and The Killing Joke have him working either solo or in coordination with a few cast members, like a Robin or police officers like Jim Gordon.

Recently however, Batman books have shifted away from this in favor of a large Bat-Family and ongoing cycle of new trainees. There seems to constantly be huge events involving the entire Bat-Family, which has swollen to the size of ten or larger, depending on how you look at it. This is an enormous supporting cast. It is larger than any other super hero supporting cast and is the size of the Justice League or Teen Titans.

The size that the Bat-Family is expanding at is unsustainable. Since the New 52 has started, Snyder has forced two characters into the Bat-Family. At this rate, it will soon be a Bat-Army that needs a Bat-City to live in! I won't say much about the quality of the new characters (though I do think that they are forced and unnecessary,) but I will say that they needlessly bloat the Bat-family that is already too large. It is far to large to effectively incorporate all of them into a story and goes against the mainstream perception of the character.

Another huge issue I have with Batman right now is the age of his partners. Every partner that he currently works is either a kid or started working with him as a kid. I think that this is really weird. I understood the reason that Robin was the kid sidekick of Batman: he needed to be more relatable to a younger demographic, but Robin filled that niche and that was all that was necessary (IMO.) Even this brought about pedophilic jokes about Batman's character and lead to questioning about the wiseness of involving a child in the war on crime. Now, Batman works with five teenagers! He exclusively works with teenagers, who move away from Batman once they reach adulthood. There was some justification of this for the Robins with the theme of "Batman needs a Robin" and that a new Robin would fill the place of the old one. Now, it has grown even beyond this. In addition to former Robins, Batman works with Duke, Harper Row, Cassandra Cain, and Stephanie Brown. All said and told, Batman has worked with 9 teenagers during his career.

Can you see how this changes the image of Batman from a dark vigilante into a teacher or a parent? This is no longer the Batman that fights a one man crusade against crime, or even someone who employs some help in his fight against crime. This makes him a teacher for young kids who will grow up to be superheroes.

I cannot help but feel that Batman comics have lost their path: that they have become too bogged down with making new sidekicks and have warped the character into a grown adult who spends all of his time fighting crime with a bunch of teenagers. It takes me out of the character and makes me question if this is the same character that got me into comics in the first place or if Batman comics are now a proxy for teenage superheroes.

I am fine with Batman having a teenage sidekick, it is an established part of his mythos, but right now the Batman books are so kid focus that they are nearly unrecognizable to me. I know that this is nothing new and that the Bat-family was still pretty bloated in the '90's and '00's with Cass, Tim, Steph, etc., but this issue has worsened as they continue to add more and more teenage characters to the Batman mythos.

I know that some people believe that a solo Batman has to be a "Bat-Dick" Batman that ignores his allies, but I disagree. I think that Batman can be written well without an entourage of undeveloped sidekicks. I feel as though Rebirth has been a missed opportunity to restore Batman to his more solitary roots, but they continue to push a team teenagers in Detective Comics and Duke in All-Star Batman and possibly King's Batman. It has entirely taken me out of the character and entirely changed my perception of the modern Batman.

I think the problem is just you, which is fine. Everyone has a preference. However, if you planned on making a convincing argument that batman is broken, you failed.

[Agent Z]

So let me get this straight you think

I like it when batman is brutal. I really dont see how he could be effective otherwise. Not with gothams justice system. I honestly think he doesnt go far enough.

Yet somehow his killing is where you tow the line even though that would be the logical conclusion to going too far? Even though killing would be effective? Because just beating up criminals and throwing them in jail is clearly not being effective at all.

Batman doesnt just "not kill" because its wrong, he doesnt kill because its against the law, it cannot be overlooked, public opinion will turn on him.

Public opinion should have been against him from the beginning if superhero comics were at all realistic. There's a wide range of behavior besides killing that people would find deplorable.

Because it makes him the very thing that created him, a murderer.

As mentioned before, the original Batman killed people and he already displays behavior not unlike that of other criminals.

He didnt cross the line even after jasons death for this very reason.

*cough* KGBeast *cough* Darkseid *cough* various non human being *cough*

Anyway to the OP, no Batman is not broken. He's still a money maker for DC and their golden boy. There are worse things that can happen than getting a larger cast.

[Lhynn]

So let me get this straight you think
Yet somehow his killing is where you tow the line even though that would be the logical conclusion to going too far? Even though killing would be effective? Because just beating up criminals and throwing them in jail is clearly not being effective at all.

Yes, taking a life is a big deal. He knows how this can impact other peoples lives very well. Cracking bones and beating them to leave them in a couple months of intensive care its k. He is trying to prevent them from killing others.

Public opinion should have been against him from the beginning if superhero comics were at all realistic.

Not really, but the third time he saved the city im thinking people would lean in his favor.

There's a wide range of behavior besides killing that people would find deplorable.

Sure, and other people would p. much idolize him for it.

As mentioned before, the original Batman killed people and he already displays behavior not unlike that of other criminals.

Killing is over the line. Ive already explained its part of his ethos. He does not take lives, no matter how much they deserve it. This is not an excuse to have the villain of the week return (tho theres that as well). This is so that batman isnt an existence that perpetuates what created him, but an existence that makes sure no one ever goes through that, including the sons of those criminals.

*cough* KGBeast

He didnt kill him.

*cough* Darkseid

Demons and other supernatural beings are exempt of this. We are talking about creatures of pure evil that are beyond the law of man here.

*cough* various non human being *cough*

Same thing bro. Plus theres no law against that. You are making my points for me.

[Agent Z]

Yes, taking a life is a big deal. He knows how this can impact other peoples lives very well. Cracking bones and beating them to leave them in a couple months of intensive care its k. He is trying to prevent them from killing others.

By this logic, a mob thrashing is unambiguously heroic, regardless of context, so long as the victim has at least one functioning lung remaining. And you're severely underestimating what brutal assaults like the ones Batman employ can have on a living person for the remainder of their lives i.e permanent paralysis, long term psychological trauma.

To say nothing of how it is impossible to predict or control brutal street fights. There are many cases of people dying in brawls were neither party was shooting to kill.

Not really, but the third time he saved the city im thinking people would lean in his favor.

Somehow I can't imagine there'll be any tears shed when the Joker bites the dust.

Killing is over the line.

So is torture and is far less justifiable. People can kill in self defense or defense of others.

This is so that batman isnt an existence that perpetuates what created him, but an existence that makes sure no one ever goes through that, including the sons of those criminals.

Why don’t we ask the families of Joker’s victims how well they think Batman’s accomplished that.

He didnt kill him.

He did in the original story.

Demons and other supernatural beings are exempt of this. We are talking about creatures of pure evil that are beyond the law of man here.

You’d have a point if the law as portrayed in superhero comics could hold normal men.

[SiegePerilous02]

I like DCEU Batman if for no other reason than I can't picture him condemning Diana for killing Max Lord while seemingly being completely ok with her killing the equally sentient Medusa. It's not that the one rule is inherently bad, it's that the writers frequently paint Bruce as being a raging hypocrite with it. It was probably deliberate in Rucka's case, not so much in others.

By this logic, a mob thrashing is unambiguously heroic, regardless of context, so long as the victim has at least one functioning lung remaining. And you're severely underestimating what brutal assaults like the ones Batman employ can have on a living person for the remainder of their lives i.e permanent paralysis, long term psychological trauma.

Agreed. This is generally why I prefer Bats to be more like he was in the Bronze Age or DCAU, where he didn't go so OTT with his beat downs. But if we must increase the brutality, don't shy away from the ugliness of it. I really don't think Snyder was glorifying Miller Batman the way people think, I think he was deliberately showing us why Bruce being like that is not a remotely good thing.

[Warmonger]

Batmurders, batman takes justice in his own hands instead of serving it. He acknowledges his own limitations by using guns, instead of what the real batman does, which is surpass those limitations and become more than a man when needed.
All in all they took the character and what made him special and threw it in the trash bin.

Also le tme remind you that the biggest reason batman doesnt use an ironman suit is because no matter what tech he has at his disposal, Hes not a heavy hitter like supes or WW, he brings other things to the table, he brings wit, he brings smarts, he brings tactics, he brings a plan. He absolutely doesnt need to try and fail to keep up with the muscles.

Anyway, these things arent even my main complain, you can still have a good movie even if you rape a character in the process. My main complain comes from the fact that its a nonsensical and joyless experience and that you can do A LOT better. Plenty of good movies on the cable.

Agreed

It's obvious to me that Zack Snyder doesn't understand these characters at all and the Justice League movie is doomed to meet the same fate if he stays in charge.

And some of the fanboy arguments to stick up for that trash movie are absurd. Like how some will bring up how Batman used to kill initially in the golden age. I don't care what Batman was doing 70+ years ago when he was still running around with a gun on his hip. That isn't the character that has become an American pop-culture icon dating back to the 40's/50's.

Affleck was Batman in name and appearance only. In addition to being essentially portrayed as Frank Castle with a bat cowl over his head, they also turned him into a complete dumbass. World's Greatest Detective? Not in the DCEU, apparently. EVERYTHING takes this guy by surprise.

Not to mention Snyder and Co. turning Superman into a mopey douchebag who seems to just wander aimlessly unless Lois is in trouble. Then there is the colossal miscast of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex. Why the hell they decided to tab a guy who has played nothing but whiny, timid teenagers and cast him as Superman's arch nemesis is beyond me.

The whole movie was a jumbled, incoherent mess.

[Unfinishedsentenc]

Agreed

It's obvious to me that Zack Snyder doesn't understand these characters at all and the Justice League movie is doomed to meet the same fate if he stays in charge.

And some of the fanboy arguments to stick up for that trash movie are absurd. Like how some will bring up how Batman used to kill initially in the golden age. I don't care what Batman was doing 70+ years ago when he was still running around with a gun on his hip. That isn't the character that has become an American pop-culture icon dating back to the 40's/50's.

Affleck was Batman in name and appearance only. In addition to being essentially portrayed as Frank Castle with a bat cowl over his head, they also turned him into a complete dumbass. World's Greatest Detective? Not in the DCEU, apparently. EVERYTHING takes this guy by surprise.

Not to mention Snyder and Co. turning Superman into a mopey douchebag who seems to just wander aimlessly unless Lois is in trouble. Then there is the colossal miscast of Jesse Eisenberg as Lex. Why the hell they decided to tab a guy who has played nothing but whiny, timid teenagers and cast him as Superman's arch nemesis is beyond me.

The whole movie was a jumbled, incoherent mess.

Completely agree. I'm worried that even if Suicide Squad sucks, people with still defend it to their last breath just because they can't distinguish between good characters and bad writing.