Controversial Batfam ideas

[AmiMizuno]

Donna and Cassie are technically different have they both have superpowers. Cassie is the daughter of Zeus and Donna is a superpowered girl. Dick, Jason, and Tim are regular boys.

[Tzigone]

Apparently Bruce was able to convince her off camera, because Donna and Cassie exist in YJ.

Well, originally, Diana didn't bring them into fighting crime. Neither of them were sidekicks of Wonder Woman. Of course, that's in the comics, not the show. I don't think Diana ever had such an idea in the comics, and don't really think it makes that much sense that she would. At least in certain eras, when Amazons were trained young.

The age is not the problem here, guys. It's the fact that he did it without his still-living father knowing, so soon after losing his own boy

Didn't you read the comics? Jason's death was absolutely 100% his own fault for not listening to Bruce and as long as Tim listens to Bruce no such thing will happen to him. Seriously, DC had a ghastly mentality about Jason. And Jack might have been in a coma at the time - not sure - maybe that makes it more okay? ;p Really, I don't mind the kid sidekicks, that's the genre. But I don't blame Jack Drake for his reaction, either.

[Light of Justice]

Didn't you read the comics? Jason's death was absolutely 100% his own fault for not listening to Bruce and as long as Tim listens to Bruce no such thing will happen to him.

That's........ weird. Okay, maybe some people say that Jason's death was absolutely 100% his own fault for not listening to Bruce (even though I disagree), but that doesn't mean Batman can say "as long as you follow my words, I ensure you will be fine". That's very arrogant of him when he can't even ensure his own safety. They're fighting criminals, unstable criminals, even Batman can't predict what will happen exactly in the middle of chaos. To ensure child's safety as long as they listen to him, Batman should not have that confidence. Any parents should not have that confidence (and that's why Jack's reaction is perfectly justified). Even if somehow Batman has that confidence, he certainly doesn't have it because of Jason's death.

[Agent Z]

Apparently Bruce was able to convince her off camera, because Donna and Cassie exist in YJ.

I'm not sure Clark would have an issue with it since he was a superhero as a teenager.

Depending on the continuity anyway.

[Zaresh]

That's........ weird. Okay, maybe some people say that Jason's death was absolutely 100% his own fault for not listening to Bruce (even though I disagree), but that doesn't mean Batman can say "as long as you follow my words, I ensure you will be fine". That's very arrogant of him when he can't even ensure his own safety. They're fighting criminals, unstable criminals, even Batman can't predict what will happen exactly in the middle of chaos. To ensure child's safety as long as they listen to him, Batman should not have that confidence. Any parents should not have that confidence (and that's why Jack's reaction is perfectly justified). Even if somehow Batman has that confidence, he certainly doesn't have it because of Jason's death.

Not to mention that Tim has been near dead no few times, has lost his own father because he was into the vigilante life, and has done plenty of things against Bruce or Batman orders, much like any other robin.

[The tall man]

Bruce is in a dammed if you do dammed if you don't situation when it comes to sidekicks. If he allows any to fight crime with him and they get hurt or die then he's at fault. People will say he was irresponsible and the blame lies solely with him. However if he attempts to stop any sidekick from being a vigilante then he's the overbearing jerk and a hypocrite. And usually it's the same people making both arguments. They will condemn Batman for allowing children to be placed in harm's way, but then turn around and criticise him for trying to prevent their personal fave from crime fighting. Also if said sidekick screws up its also Batman's fault. They are given an order or directive and proceeds to disobey (Spoiler in wargames and Jason with Joker). But people look to pin the blame on Bruce because a couple of sidekicks don't know how to listen and follow orders. I guess Batman has to babysit them 24/7. Bruce needs to be done with sidekicks, he should have been after the whole Jason fiasco.

[Agent Z]

Bruce is in a dammed if you do dammed if you don't situation when it comes to sidekicks. If he allows any to fight crime with him and they get hurt or die then he's at fault. People will say he was irresponsible and the blame lies solely with him. However if he attempts to stop any sidekick from being a vigilante then he's the overbearing jerk and a hypocrite. And usually it's the same people making both arguments. They will condemn Batman for allowing children to be placed in harm's way, but then turn around and criticise him for trying to prevent their personal fave from crime fighting. Also if said sidekick screws up its also Batman's fault. They are given an order or directive and proceeds to disobey (Spoiler in wargames and Jason with Joker). But people look to pin the blame on Bruce because a couple of sidekicks don't know how to listen and follow orders. I guess Batman has to babysit them 24/7. Bruce needs to be done with sidekicks, he should have been after the whole Jason fiasco.

For decades, Jason's death was blamed on himself so turn about is fair play.

[Aahz]

Not to mention that Tim has been near dead no few times, has lost his own father because he was into the vigilante life, and has done plenty of things against Bruce or Batman orders, much like any other robin.

If you read Tims early stories there are a lot of occasions where he disobeys Batman or where he gets almost killed.

Dick is also usually pretty disobedient in modern stories (and iirc even in some from his original run), and you will also find enough occasion where he almost got killed (Robin Year One is a good example).

[Agent Z]

If you read Tims early stories there are a lot of occasions where he disobeys Batman or where he gets almost killed.

Dick is also usually pretty disobedient in modern stories (and iirc even in some from his original run), and you will also find enough occasion where he almost got killed (Robin Year One is a good example).

Morrison had Dick say that he pretty much did whatever he wanted when he was Robin.

[Zaresh]

If you read Tims early stories there are a lot of occasions where he disobeys Batman or where he gets almost killed.

Dick is also usually pretty disobedient in modern stories (and iirc even in some from his original run), and you will also find enough occasion where he almost got killed (Robin Year One is a good example).

It's a Robin thing. But somehow, the ones that we're told or implied they were disobedient were Jason and Steph. I guess Damian too, now, somehow, gets the ball of being the rebel one, but jury is out to see if it sticks for him as it did for robin 2 and 4.

[Godlike13]

Tzigone was being sarcastic, but it not like Bruce wasn’t blamed. There’s plenty of blame that’s been thrown at Bruce too for that over the years. At this point though the perception of Jason’s death was made to serve Jason.

[Tzigone]

Tzigone was being sarcastic, but it not like Bruce wasn’t blamed. There’s plenty of blame that’s been thrown at Bruce too for that over the years. At this point though the perception of Jason’s death was made to serve Jason.

I was being sarcastic. It was very much the party-line in the years immediately after Jason's death (starting as early as the end of Death in the Family) that Jason's death was Jason's fault for disobeying. That he was stupid and reckless. Which is weird, because he wasn't - he was doing what heroes do. But that was definitely a theme. Letters were answered that way. In the early Tim days, Alfred even basically says Jason was just a replacement son for Bruce after Dick was grown and was never going to be a capable Robin, but that Tim has potential. Tim actively think that as long as he listens to Bruce, he won't be hurt. Which is profoundly disturbing, and I keep thinking it has to be intentionally disturbing and indicative of an unhealthy/unrealistic mindset of Tim, but it really does seem to be playing it straight. By time the '90s Robin series rolls around, Tim is more independent and independent-thinking. But I don't think the idea that Jason's being reckless/disobedient as causing his own death goes away until they decided to bring him back. And the "Jason was inherently a bad seed" idea (that really started getting played up when they made him more violent/kill-y to lead up to his firing because they had the death storyline planned) didn't get dropped until significantly later. I think someone had it right when they said he was brought back as a villain because DC had spent a couple decades saying he was bad. Really I don't know how much fan opposition there was to the idea until after he was brought back and people started to look at what happened back then. And you know, that he was popular enough for people to care - they don't when minor characters get character-assassinated or blamed unfairly.

[The tall man]

Why does Bruce get 100% of the blame for Steph's death in wargames. She blatantly disobeys his directives and causes the whole event to occur, yet Bruce is seen as the bad guy. Some try to defend Steph's actions by saying Bruce should have told her all his plans and contingencies, that he kept information from her; as if she needed to know all his plans. She had a simple mandate, go on patrol and fight crime. She chose to involve herself in things she had no right to and got in over her head and it cost her her life. But it's all Batman's fault because... How hard is it for people to listen and follow orders? But writers and fans love to see characters defy or disregard Batman. It's the cool thing to tell Batman to go f**k himself because he needs to be humbled and knocked off some imaginary pedestal. But of course when said characters have consequences for their actions then the blame is laid at Batman's feet. He put them in danger, he was irresponsible, he is the bad guy and on and on rinse and repeat. But let Batman try to prevent any minor from suiting up and watch all the hate he gets from fans of those characters. This is why he's better off without them.

[Bat-Meal]

Kate needs to be put in a team again, but without any of the other Bat-Family members in the team, and they should all be adults. Preferably another monster team, like Gotham City Monsters and not another cheesy one like The Unknowns. Also, and this is the more controversial bit, Kate shouldn't be team leader, whenever there's a team with Bat-family in it the bat is usually the leader - so have a non-bat-character as the leader for a change.

And Alice/Red Alice (or whatever they are calling her now) needs some actual consistency - because she jumps around from villain to damsel to anti-hero, then back to villain and more recently damsel again.

[Caivu]

And Alice/Red Alice (or whatever they are calling her now) needs some actual consistency - because she jumps around from villain to damsel to anti-hero, then back to villain and more recently damsel again.

Alice never went back to being a villain after Elegy. The second time it was basically drug-induced mind control.