Originally Posted by
Sergard
I'm pretty sure that you have already stated your opinion a few times in this thread. Always leading to the same discussion. So yes, if you only redundantly repeat yourself again and again, no one is gaining anything from it, except you by getting a rise out of other people. So do what everyone else here would do in another thread if they have said everything they wanted to say: "keep quiet and go away". Come back if you have something new to add. And don't start to play victim by saying you are "in the minority". Everyone here has different opinions. Some are okay with Jason killing, others say he should not, or if it's okay to which degree. Should he be part of the bat family like the other Robins, should he be the black sheep, or should he have his own family, etc.
Nothing to add about the history before A Death in the Family. There were some good stories, yes. Death in the Family itself was rather ... not so well written. (And by that I don't mean the ending.)
I don't understand what you're getting at. Jason died - all potential that was gained from his death was used and by resurrecting him and writing UTH a twist was given that lead to new potential. Jason earned his spot by being "around for 5 years". And yes, he's just "another member", the same as Dick, Tim, Damian, Duke and Co. And a lot of Jason fans came around after his resurrection, because of the UTH comic, or the animated movie, or the Arkham Knight game, etc. And these fans - and all other fans of the character - will clearly disagree with you and your opinion that Jason "should've stayed dead", the same goes for other revived characters like Barry, Green Arrow, Superman, Wally West, etc.. I'd like to see your response when one of your favorite characters dies and DC decides to let the character stay dead because "consequences and important historical moments" should always stick forever. Nevermind that "forever" doesn't work in a concept like the DC universe. People want for example to read Bruce Wayne's Batman in 10 years, in 20 years and probably even in 100 years. So there will be always changes in continuity. Things will be undone and new "circumstances and important historical moments" will be created that will last for the next 10, 20 years or so. And nevermind that Bruce' whole Don't Kill Rule only exists because DC decided to undo all of Bruce' murdering from pre-crisis.
You do realize that Jason was an anti-hero in UTH? He was the antagonist but he wasn't a villain. His motives were clearly that of an anti-hero. And he was already running around shooting people and making jokes back in UTH. And he didn't try to kill Bruce in UTH. And the other batfam folks wasn't even around in the comic. So who are the characters "he has only ever tried to kill"? Because everything after UTH does not seem to be canon anymore. Nevermind that Bruce is stating near the end of UTH - after Jason has killed and decapitated 8 people and became a crime boss - that he is still trying to save Jason.
It doesn't make them hypocritical idiots. It makes them father and son. Parents' love should be unconditional. And if there are problems then these problems should be worked on, even if this means trying forever without any hope of ever "winning" because that's not the point of being a family.
As already mentioned, Jason was an anti-hero in UTH. Being a villain means doing evil stuff and hurting/killing innocent people/civilians. And that does not sound like Jason at all. But since you are basing your whole argumentation on the UTH comic the anti-hero/villain stuff only seems to be semantics. So again: What do you want to tell me? Yes, Deathstroke has a praised run. But so has Jason since the start of Rebirth. And since the start of Rebirth - and even before that - he is "running around doing his own thing". And if you have read that run you'll know that Jason and Bruce where never lovey-dovey in RHatO like the whole Joker stuff and Co. didn't happen. And even by sticking to Bruce' one rule not to kill, Jason was never shackled to him. There are other means than killing as the first Rebirth arc has shown. And it's a shame that the comic didn't delve more deeply into that topic.
The only thing that would shackle Jason to Bruce would be to make him a "reverse Batman" because than Jason isn't more than a "negative image" of Bruce that is defined by doing the opposite of the original image. (And by the way, there is already a villain with that property.)