Things you never want to see in a Batman comic ever again

[Pohzee]

That's... exactly what they're doing or did.


You develop a threat by having it be threat. That's it. It doesn't matter how that's accomplished.

And yes, those additions do flesh out a character's history. Those added bits don't exist in isolation, they recontextualize some events, enhance others, etc.

You don't seem to be understanding the difference here. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can explain it, but I can try.

Year One era stories (Legends of the Dark Knight, Dark Moon Rising, etc.) are self-contained stories set in the early years of Bruce's career. The purpose of these stories is to flesh out Batman's career with events that happened during this period. These stories do not exist to set up for future arcs or threats. They are simply entire stories set in the past that tell a complete tale (beginning, middle, and end) that adds more stories to that era of a character's history, but does not modify it significantly going forward.

Snyder and Tynion often tell stories in the present day that use flashbacks to the past to introduce a new threat from the shadows of the character's history. These arcs are set in the present and thus are present day stories. The connections the writers create to the hero's past are meant to establish the new villain as a threat. Forcing the character into the character's history makes the villain appear to be a bigger menace and is an easy way to introduce a new threat without building it up. Rather than introduce the character in the modern day and build up their reputation, writers like Snyder insert them into the past and make them an large part of the character's past to make the threat seem important. This story begins and resolves in the modern day. It is a modern day story that creates a fictional history to give it articial weight. It is not a story that is set in the past or intended to flesh out an era of the character's history.

You seem to view these stories the other way around. You view these stories as attempts to flesh out the character's histories that have repercussions in the modern day. In reality, it is the other way around. In order to establish a new and menacing modern day threat, Snyder and Tynion modify a character's history to add weight to their modern day story.

There are ways to create new, interesting, and menacing threats without having to stuff them into a character's history. Most of Batman's famous rouges, including Joker and Ras al Ghul, were introduced in the then present day without writing them into Batman's origins. Snyder's route of conjuring new villains out of the past feels cheap because the reader is expected to believe that these signicant events happened in the past without any mention or additional altercation happening between then and the present. It feels cheap and unearned to tell the readers to accept that something happened in the past with no indication before that the event had ever happened. This is why I call it a shortcut.

In small doses, this might have been fine. Black Mirror is one of my favorite stories, but looking back, it does seem to use the traditional "threat from the past" mold that Snyder overuses. (It does however use a character that had been previously introduced rather than inventing a new one.) I accepted the Court of Owls change to Dick Grayson's history at the time despite disliking it, but after so many similar stories written by Snyder and Tynion, for character including but not limited to Kate Kane, Cassandra Cain, Alfred, Batman, Dick Grayson, and Ras al Ghul, it feels like part of a cheap story template than a meaningful attempt to enrich the character's history. That's because that is exactly what this type of story is: an easy template to quickly establish a modern day threat that carries weight to it. There are other, more challenging ways to build up threats, but rather than add variety to their storytelling, Snyder and Tynion reuse the same basic plot structure over and over and over again.

[Thom1]

Attachment 48499

10char

Here I've written some sample pages for "The War of Jokes and Riddles"

Joker: I'm the Joker.

Henchman: You're the Joker

Joker: I make jokes

Henchman: You make...jokes

Joker: That are funny.

Henchman: Really funny.

Joker (angrily pointing at a building defaced with a riddle): And this....ISN'T...FUNNY!!!


AND SCENE

I kid, I kid. Kind of.

[RebirthgotmebackintoDC]

I don't agree.



What have they actually rewritten or undone, apart from Year One? Any other type of retcon is fair game as long as it's additive and not contradictory.

I agree with you, I don't mind mysterious villains from the past, as long as the villain challenges an aspect of the hero, or is reinvented in a meaningful way. Court of owls ws amazing, they challenged Bruce's opinion that Gotham is his City, no one knows it like I do. Tynion's colony is a fantastic antagonist to Batwoman. It's ruin by her father and forces her to answer the question of who she wants to be. A superhero or a soldier? meaning is she willing to sacrifice lives for the greater good. Seeing actual war, Kate is more familiar with that idea and while in real life, it's not always possible to get the no causality perfect ending, in comics and ESPECIALLY DC, it's kind of the norm. So having this organization presents her with a conflict.

The LOS is also a cool addition to the Bat mythos. While I maintain, and I know we will disagree, that the Shiva retcon was unnessesary, she could have just beaten him without the retcon, and honestly, it wouldn't have been that bad that way, the LoS is a represents a possible future for Cass and a new challenge for Bruce.

The new Ra's is fantastic he operates in our real world now, and uses modern means to take down the planet. AND he's still a boss, in Snyder's story, he almost destroyed the world 3 times ( ithink). And to top it off, Snyder made Ras a comment of the times and the issues we face without being political. Because a character like Batman should be for everyone, regardless of personal belief, who's to say what someone should or should not take from a character. I thought it was all very well done.

So basically, I'm hesitant on retcons or reinventions and stuff like that, but if done well, like I think they have been by both Snyder and tynion, they could really add layers to a hero.
Also side note, Riddler is now one of my favorit villains based of Year Zero, what a boss

[Frontier]

Here I've written some sample pages for "The War of Jokes and Riddles"

Joker: I'm the Joker.

Henchman: You're the Joker

Joker: I make jokes

Henchman: You make...jokes

Joker: That are funny.

Henchman: Really funny.

Joker (angrily pointing at a building defaced with a riddle): And this....ISN'T...FUNNY!!!


AND SCENE

I kid, I kid. Kind of.

This reminds me of all the parodies of Brian Michael Bendis' dialogue I've read on this forum. King is really moving up in the world .

[Caivu]

The connections the writers create to the hero's past are meant to establish the new villain as a threat. Forcing the character into the character's history makes the villain appear to be a bigger menace and is an easy way to introduce a new threat without building it up.

They're not any less "built up" than brand-new villains. In both cases, they're "built up" by being a threat. The connections to the past are just icing.

Rather than introduce the character in the modern day and build up their reputation, writers like Snyder insert them into the past and make them an large part of the character's past to make the threat seem important.

Functionally speaking, you're talking about the exact same thing. You just don't like it happening in the past for some reason.

In order to establish a new and menacing modern day threat, Snyder and Tynion modify a character's history to add weight to their modern day story.

So what? Is anything important being deleted? If not, it's just an addition, and I don't mind it.

Snyder's route of conjuring new villains out of the past feels cheap because the reader is expected to believe that these signicant events happened in the past without any mention or additional altercation happening between then and the present. It feels cheap and unearned to tell the readers to accept that something happened in the past with no indication before that the event had ever happened. This is why I call it a shortcut.

You're right, you are expected to believe that, and there's usually a good in-story justification for why the event in question has been "absent". It's not cheap.

[sakuyamons]

Here I've written some sample pages for "The War of Jokes and Riddles"

Joker: I'm the Joker.

Henchman: You're the Joker

Joker: I make jokes

Henchman: You make...jokes

Joker: That are funny.

Henchman: Really funny.

Joker (angrily pointing at a building defaced with a riddle): And this....ISN'T...FUNNY!!!


AND SCENE

I kid, I kid. Kind of.

Tom King! Is that you?

[millernumber1]

Can they just stop adding new characters to the Bat-books period? If they want a new ally do what they did with Clayface and redeem a villain. If they want a new villain turn Duke or Harper evil. No original characters required.

This I can't agree with. Every character was once new, and my faves have all been created within my lifetime.

[Assam]

This I can't agree with. Every character was once new, and my faves have all been created within my lifetime.

Steph, Tim, and Jean-Paul out age me by quite a few years, but I share the sentiment. May not have been alive for those 3, but I was around when Cass was created.

Admittedly, the situation is different now. The 90's was really when the Batfamily started expanding, but its never really stopped since. So on the one hand, yes, new characters may potentially take time away from characters we already love, but if the character is really good, (And the quality of some of the newer additions to the Family is definitely debatable), and they don't get any time to shine, we may miss out on a character as great as Tim or Steph. I have no expectations for any new addition to be as great as Cass XD

[Aahz]

In small doses, this might have been fine. Black Mirror is one of my favorite stories, but looking back, it does seem to use the traditional "threat from the past" mold that Snyder overuses. (It does however use a character that had been previously introduced rather than inventing a new one.)

Even if this charcater should have still been a teen ager at this point, and him being a serial killer was also not really in line with the few portraits of him we had before.

[Pohzee]

Even if this charcater should have still been a teen ager at this point, and him being a serial killer was also not really in line with the few portraits of him we had before.

I was willing to accept this when I read it because it was an interesting and well-written story. However, the subsequent overuse of this basic plot has diminished my opinion of the story somewhat. The story becomes less unique when the same basic template is reused ad nauseam for years on end.

In a similar vein, I also dislike recent moves to hyperconnect Batman's rogues gallery to his past. Hush and Two Face are Batman's childhood friends. The Riddler, Doctor Death, Poison Ivy, Crazy Quilt, and Mr. Freeze are all former Wayne Enterprise employees. So on and so on. It makes Bruce's crusade seem smaller in scope if all of his villains are connected to his public persona in some ways rather than a wide variety of criminals from different backgrounds. I believe that Snyder believes that a villain must be personally connected to a hero to make them important to their mythos, but I disagree.

[millernumber1]

In a similar vein, I also dislike recent moves to hyperconnect Batman's rogues gallery to his past. Hush and Two Face are Batman's childhood friends. The Riddler, Doctor Death, Poison Ivy, Crazy Quilt, and Mr. Freeze are all former Wayne Enterprise employees. So on and so on. It makes Bruce's crusade seem smaller in scope if all of his villains are connected to his public persona in some ways rather than a wide variety of criminals from different backgrounds. I believe that Snyder believes that a villain must be personally connected to a hero to make them important to their mythos, but I disagree.

I completely agree that making Batman's villains too dependent on his Bruce Wayne life is narrowing, rather than expanding.

[Agent Z]

Batman whining about people carrying guns while the Batmobile and Batplane pack more heat than a Texas tailgate.

Any story where Bruce tries to police other vigilantes. You want to do that, Bruce, wear a badge.

Any story where the drama revolves around whether or not Bruce is going to kill a particularly monstrous villain. If you're not going to go through with it, don't write it.

[Aahz]

I was willing to accept this when I read it because it was an interesting and well-written story.

It took me out of the story, it is also a little bit wired if read Year One with the knowledge that the baby Batman saves in the end is a serial killer.

[millernumber1]

Batman whining about people carrying guns while the Batmobile and Batplane pack more heat than a Texas tailgate.

Any story where Bruce tries to police other vigilantes. You want to do that, Bruce, wear a badge.

Any story where the drama revolves around whether or not Bruce is going to kill a particularly monstrous villain. If you're not going to go through with it, don't write it.

Excellent points! I am okay if Batman makes sure that other vigilantes don't kill, but he's pretty unnecessarily hostile to people he's inspired. And yes, I agree that "Will Batman Kill?" is a stupid, stupid storyline. The answer will always be no. Just...don't bother. Find a different story.

[nightbird]

DickBabs/BruceBabs/hintsforJasonBabs.
Just no dating between Batfamily in general.
+ no more new Batfamily members for another 10+ years, there is more of them than needed anyway.