Everything you know is wrong! (but actually isn't)

[barnaclelapse]

I had no idea about the Wolverine thing, but that strikes me as an awfully damn stupid idea.

And I didn't read the whole Batman thing, but wasn't it some kind of weird gun that Batman was still really torn about using? That's how it was described to me anyway.

 

[Christopher]

But he still used it. He failed to find a better way. Batman needed to fire a gun and kill another being with it in order to win. And that's a corruption of everything Batman is about. If he died as a result, he should've stayed dead, because he couldn't be Batman anymore after that.

 

[Silvercrest]

Heck, at one point in Cosmic Odyssey (I'm really picking on that one, aren't I?), Batman picks up an Apokolips alien's fallen blaster and shoots him with it when he can't defeat him hand-to-hand. We're not talking a generic "zap", either-- he blew a huge hole clean through the alien. Nor was he particularly broken up about it.

Why is Starlin so highly-regarded again?

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Batman needed to fire a gun and kill another being with it in order to win.

In order to save the universe, actually. Batman is not such a narcissist that he can't recognize a moral imperative.

 

[Christopher]

My point is, it's not like the writer was just documenting events that really happened somewhere, so that doesn't constitute a defense. The writer chose to invent a situation whose resolution depended on Batman killing someone with a gun. I just think that's a lousy thing to do to the character. It's like telling a Spider-Man story where, in order to save the universe, Spidey must murder some teenager's beloved uncle. It's just crossing a line.

 

[shivkala]

Speaking of Morrison and the Omega Sanction, I just finished re-reading Seven Soldiers, which I loved, but also seems to fit well into this thread. Some of the characters have had token appearances, but none of them have really been utilized outside of Morrison's own works (such as Final Crisis). Yes, I know Zatanna, but I don't think anything she experienced in SS has any bearing on her current appearances.

Anyway, in the Mister Miracle mini, Darkseid uses the Omega Sanction on Shilo Norman, which traps him in alternate life after alternate life, each one getting more and more terrible for him. He escapes, faces Dark Side (the human form of Darkseid) again, dies, and then comes back.


Also on topic is L.E.G.I.O.N. which was tied directly to the 5 year Gap Legion, which was retconned several times since. In the series, Vril Dox II is aided by his friend, the Durlan, who, in the early issues disappeared and was replaced by Phase. It was later revealed that the Durlan was transported to the 30th Century where he became R.J. Brande, the founder of the Legion. Phase appearing was a counter balancing act, where Tinya Wazzo, Phantom Girl, was sent back in time and had her memory erased.

Not sure how the Durlan's disappearance was handled after the Re-boot Legion in 1994, but Phase was retconned to still be Tinya, albeit one of three versions, as Tinya's father was a Carggite (a race who can triplicate).

Now, however, it's yet another Tinya in the Legion and I think they're happy enough just to ignore that Phase was in the L.E.G.I.O.N.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

The writer chose to invent a situation whose resolution depended on Batman killing someone with a gun. I just think that's a lousy thing to do to the character.

As far as I'm concerned, putting characters in situations that challenge them is a writer's job.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I'm torn on Morrison's work - there are elements of it I like but there are bits that leave me completely cold such as some of the more happy clap new age stuff. Moreover, he seems to be adding a lot of 'barnacles' to the character, what with the multiple batmen, a son etc. This stuff goes in cycles and you have to wonder how long it will be before we get a writer who comes along and strips it all back down to basics.

I suspect at least another two or three years. Dan Didio said recently that Dick was initially planned to be demoted back to Nightwing by now, but fan response to Dick as Batman has kept him in the cowl. And Morrison's story seems to keep growing; I know he has an endpoint in mind, but he keeps finding new alleyways to explore.

Also, Dick-as-Batman feels permanent this time in a way that Prodigal fifteen years ago didn't. I think we'll see Steve Rogers back as Captain America before we see Dick Grayson as Nightwing (or another identity) again. And I think the synchronicity in the two legacy hero stories from Marvel and DC has determined, to some extent, the apparent permanence of both promotions; both companies have been accused by fans of copying the other, and I think that editorially they're playing a game of chicken, to see who blinks first and takes their legacy hero out of the costume and restores the original. Yes, I realize that argument is entirely fuzzy, but it makes sense in my head.

Batman didn't engage in hand to hand combat....he shot him lol.

Which, to me, is the most offensive thing that could possibly be done to Batman's character.

It works in context of Batman #702. (I thought it also worked in the context of Final Crisis #6. But Batman #702 retells the incident from Batman's perspective, while he still understands it.) And it's not any bullet, and it's not any gun. It's an archetypal bullet and an archetypal gun, because it's a weapon to be used against a god that Batman, as a human being (albeit perhaps the most perfectly honed human being in existence, ever), cannot fully understand. Darkseid operates on an entirely different plane of reality. Batman is to Darkseid not unlike what an ant is to you or I. The point of the story, as I understood it, was that man must kill his gods, and Batman, as the most perfect example of humanity, is the only human being who can do that. And the bullet Batman shot Darkseid with, because it's the archetypal bullet, is the bullet that John Wilkes Booth used to kill Lincoln, the bullet that Joe Chill used to kill Thomas and Martha Wayne. It's every bullet at every time and it exists everywhere and everywhen and thus Batman creates himself.

It also helps if you understand that Morrison's initial plan for Final Crisis was for Batman to become the God of the Fifth World, since the Fourth World (Darkseid and the Gods of New Genesis) passed away into history. There are still outlines of that in The Return of Bruce Wayne, but they're somewhat... bent.

It's not classic Batman storytelling. But it is something new and different and unique with the character, and it coexists quite well with Paul Dini's far more conventional work in Batman: Streets of Gotham.

 

[Gojirob]

One that wasn't undone and worked out quite well for the remainder of the book's life was Peter David's retcon on New Universe's Justice, eliminating the other dimensions and aliens and making the hero an Earth cop who'd been mindscrewed by the paranormal drug dealer he'd been pursuing.

I'm pretty sure TV Tropes has a list for this, but here are some I recall :

1 - The Liefeld 'Cannonball is a Highlander' storyline, basically sued out of existence.

2 - The reset that occurs with the Human Torch's intelligence and relationship with Crystal each time a new writer takes over.

3 - Anytime a hero or group of heroes tries to take over the world, and it is only brought up in certain situations.

This one is just a mistake, but : During Heroes Return, She-Hulk boards the return flight to 616 with the others, even being joked at by 616-Spidey, who says they were lovers. Problem : She-Hulk was never among the Onslaught-sacrifices. So that Shulkie was the Reborn universe one! I thought they might use this in the recent 'She-Hulk didn't do that' multiversal doppleganger story, but I saw no mention.

 

[Christopher]

As far as I'm concerned, putting characters in situations that challenge them is a writer's job.

That's not challenging him, that's tearing down the very essence of who he is. Challenging Batman is something like what Mike Barr did in Year Two or Nolan did in Batman Begins -- Batman is tempted to use a gun on Joe Chill, but ends up not crossing that line because he's better than that. That's the essence of Batman triumphing over the evil he fights. That's facing a challenge and winning. Putting Batman in a situation contrived so that the only way he can win is by giving up everything he's ever stood for and become just one more weakling who needs a gun to solve his problems for him? That's Batman's ultimate defeat. It's the betrayal of his most fundamental essence as a character. If Batman has to sink to using Joe Chill's methods, then Batman becomes a failure.

I'm torn on Morrison's work - there are elements of it I like but there are bits that leave me completely cold such as some of the more happy clap new age stuff. Moreover, he seems to be adding a lot of 'barnacles' to the character, what with the multiple batmen, a son etc. This stuff goes in cycles and you have to wonder how long it will be before we get a writer who comes along and strips it all back down to basics.

That was JoeZhang who said that, not me.

Also, Dick-as-Batman feels permanent this time in a way that Prodigal fifteen years ago didn't.

I like the idea of Dick staying Batman permanently, Batman becoming a legacy hero. Honestly, I wouldn't have minded if they'd let Bruce stay dead forever, along with Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Bucky, and all the rest. There was a time when comics actually advanced and made permanent changes, but then the people who read comics as kids grew up and became comics writers and editors and forced a return to the status quo, so now every change ends up getting reversed and it's all just gimmicks.

Batman didn't engage in hand to hand combat....he shot him lol.

Which, to me, is the most offensive thing that could possibly be done to Batman's character.

It works in context of Batman #702. (I thought it also worked in the context of Final Crisis #6. But Batman #702 retells the incident from Batman's perspective, while he still understands it.) And it's not any bullet, and it's not any gun. It's an archetypal bullet and an archetypal gun, because it's a weapon to be used against a god that Batman, as a human being (albeit perhaps the most perfectly honed human being in existence, ever), cannot fully understand. Darkseid operates on an entirely different plane of reality. Batman is to Darkseid not unlike what an ant is to you or I. The point of the story, as I understood it, was that man must kill his gods, and Batman, as the most perfect example of humanity, is the only human being who can do that. And the bullet Batman shot Darkseid with, because it's the archetypal bullet, is the bullet that John Wilkes Booth used to kill Lincoln, the bullet that Joe Chill used to kill Thomas and Martha Wayne. It's every bullet at every time and it exists everywhere and everywhen and thus Batman creates himself.

Good grief, that's even more disgusting. It's glorifying guns to an obscene degree. I prefer the Batman of old: "You dare?! You dare to pull a gun on me?" Guns are the enemy. Guns are anathema to Batman. More, guns are beneath Batman. They're a crutch for the weak, a crude and unworthy implement, and a man of his caliber (pardon the expression) doesn't need to sink to using them -- and isn't even afraid of them, so that getting a gun pointed at him only makes him feel contempt. What you're describing, elevating guns to some supreme cosmic archetype -- it puts Batman beneath the gun. It makes the gun superior to him, some ultimate cosmic force that he has to subsume himself to. That's incredibly demeaning to the character. It makes a mockery of his whole history. (I.e. that of the character as he has been defined for my lifetime and most of his, discounting the early, prototypical gun-toting Batman of 1939 or so, before his origin story was defined.)

 

[kkozoriz1]

My point is, it's not like the writer was just documenting events that really happened somewhere, so that doesn't constitute a defense. The writer chose to invent a situation whose resolution depended on Batman killing someone with a gun. I just think that's a lousy thing to do to the character. It's like telling a Spider-Man story where, in order to save the universe, Spidey must murder some teenager's beloved uncle. It's just crossing a line.

Batman has already used guns to kill. Morrison is using elements from all versions of Batman. The editorial decision that Batman doesn't use guns, or indeed has a mental block so he can't use guns, came years after his first appearance.

Speaking as a life long Batman fan, I enjoy seeing how far writers can push the character while still remaining true. So far, Morrison is doing great in my books.

http://www.earthsmightiest.com/fansites/comics/news/?a=7099

 

[Allyn Gibson]

That was JoeZhang who said that, not me.

Fucking vBulletin. I hate when it misattributes quotes like that. :-/

I like the idea of Dick staying Batman permanently, Batman becoming a legacy hero.

Dick remaining Batman does seem to be an element of Morrison's masterplan. The Damian-Batman of the future worries that he won't be able to live up to the standards of Batman set by Bruce and Dick.

Honestly, I wouldn't have minded if they'd let Bruce stay dead forever, along with Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Bucky, and all the rest.

Unlike the three characters you named, Batman has never been dead.

Which, to me, is the most offensive thing that could possibly be done to Batman's character.

It works in context of Batman #702. (I thought it also worked in the context of Final Crisis #6. But Batman #702 retells the incident from Batman's perspective, while he still understands it.) And it's not any bullet, and it's not any gun. It's an archetypal bullet and an archetypal gun, because it's a weapon to be used against a god that Batman, as a human being (albeit perhaps the most perfectly honed human being in existence, ever), cannot fully understand. Darkseid operates on an entirely different plane of reality. Batman is to Darkseid not unlike what an ant is to you or I. The point of the story, as I understood it, was that man must kill his gods, and Batman, as the most perfect example of humanity, is the only human being who can do that. And the bullet Batman shot Darkseid with, because it's the archetypal bullet, is the bullet that John Wilkes Booth used to kill Lincoln, the bullet that Joe Chill used to kill Thomas and Martha Wayne. It's every bullet at every time and it exists everywhere and everywhen and thus Batman creates himself.

Good grief, that's even more disgusting.

Have you actually read Batman #702 and have an informed opinion on what the issue says, or are you criticizing the issue solely on hearsay? I ask because I know you and I can't imagine you running off with an uninformed opinion.

What you're describing, elevating guns to some supreme cosmic archetype -- it puts Batman beneath the gun. It makes the gun superior to him, some ultimate cosmic force that he has to subsume himself to. That's incredibly demeaning to the character. It makes a mockery of his whole history.

Have you actually read Batman #702?

Christopher, there has always been a great disconnect between the Batman of Gotham City, where's he's a street-level character who dispenses vigilante justice to petty thugs, and the Batman of the Justice League, where he deals with alien invaders on a nigh-regular basis and he's just a man surrounded by people who wield powers far beyond his own meagre abilities.

I would argue that Batman: RIP (the original six-issue story arc, Final Crisis #6, and the two epilogue storylines in Batman #687-8 and Batman #701-2) finds a unique intersection between the two approaches. It's the ultimate expression of the "Batman thinks of/plans for everything" ethos that Grant Morrison introduced to the character back in JLA, an element that has informed Batman's characterization both in Gotham City (such as War Games) and on the wider Justice League sphere (such as Mark Waid's Tower of Babel storyline, where Batman's contingency plans to take down the Justice League are used against him). If Batman equally has plans to take down The Riddler and Superman, why wouldn't this consummate planner have plans for taking down Darkseid? Going back to War Games, Batman's plans aren't offensive plans, Batman doesn't implement them proactively (which is why the War Games plan failed spectacularly when Stephanie implemented it). Batman doesn't shoot Darkseid with the archetypal bullet because he's run out of options and he's backed into the corner, Batman doesn't shoot Darkseid with the archetypal bullet because he can't think of anything else to do, Batman shoots Darkseid with the archetypal bullet because it's the coldly calculated plan he's formulated and he knows it will work. Batman's not a totalitarian fascist, he knows exactly what he's doing, and he even says that he doesn't use guns, but in this one instance he's willing to make an exception.

Batman #702 shows us why he makes that exception. It's because, by putting himself on the archetypal plane of the gods, Batman can see the whole of time, space, and creation, and he understands that he has to do this, that the very existence of the universe -- and his whole identity as Batman -- rests upon it.

It's all there in Batman #702.

 

[Christopher]

Morrison could've done all that about Batman being the ultimate calculating badass without making it revolve around forcing Batman to USE A GUN. For very strongly personal reasons, I cannot get past the fact that it's a gun, particularly some Platonic apotheosis of a gun. When I say that disgusts me, that's not casual Internet exaggeration. I literally feel nauseated just thinking about the idea of a gun elevated to divine status.

 

[Silvercrest]

3 - Anytime a hero or group of heroes tries to take over the world, and it is only brought up in certain situations.

Now that you mention it, there's the Emperor Doom Graphic Novel, wherein Doom finally succeeds in taking over the world using the Purple Man's powers. Since it was reversed by the story's end, you could assume it was a dream, a hoax, or an imaginary story -- but it ended with the death of the Purple Man. I've never seen any reference to Doom's successful takeover anywhere else. That should have been pretty major. (Strangely, the Purple Man's death was referenced in-universe as a real event. Although I'm not sure if he's still dead.)

Oh, and there's also the never-seen-again white armor that Walt Simonson gave Doom near the end of his run.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Christopher read the issues...can't stress that enough, you talk about facts, well read the issue and the narrative that Bruce gives. The issue isn't glorifying guns or violence at all in fact does the opposite, Bruce is extremely hesitate and as disgusted as you are by the notion that he has to do this but he understands that this is just part of the trap Darkseid laid for him. Darkseid to a degree would have been aware of the utter gall that Bruce has towards gun...and I never really have understood the fan mentality of Bruce's policy of not using a gun, this has been a modern retcon, the original Batman used to carry a holster and a pistol for crying out loud. Neal Adams recent Batman:Odessy has touched on this aspect of Bruce's past in the first issue of his mini-sereis. As I stated and another post reinforce, Morrison has taken different aspects of Batman's past and used them. I understand your stance against guns, I share them myself, but until you actually read the story and understand what happened don't judge. You yourself always harp on facts...unless you've actually read the story you are *gasp* indulging in speculation!! I am also a big fan of that quote from one of my favorite all time Batman panels as well and like most fans was put off by Bruce using a gun, any type of gun, but explained within the context of Final Crisis it works. Again, Bruce explains that this was all part of Darkseid's trap for him.

 

[Christopher]

Sorry, even aside from that, what I've seen of Morrison's work on Batman -- both what I've heard and what I have actually read -- just strikes me as ridiculous and not to my tastes. I tried reading RIP but I lost interest before long. I don't think it's an unfair judgment to read part of a writer's work and decide you're not interested in continuing.

I never really have understood the fan mentality of Bruce's policy of not using a gun, this has been a modern retcon, the original Batman used to carry a holster and a pistol for crying out loud.

Only if by "modern" you mean "starting in the early 1940s." Batman's use of guns was phased out around the same time Robin was introduced, as part of making him a more kid-friendly hero. As I already said, the use of guns was a brief aberration seen only in the earliest beginnings of the character, in the same way that Superman was originally portrayed as a vigilante outlaw who worked for the Daily Star and jumped instead of flying. It was gone before the character was two years old. It's not part of the character of Batman as he was solidified and has been portrayed for most of his existence. That line I quoted -- "You dare?" -- is from a 1976 story by Denny O'Neill.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Yes it is...which was drawn by Neal Adams if I'm correct. I'm not talking about his past work, I'm talking about the two issues that pertain to the subject that we are discussing. How are you able to reconcile your obvious strong and passionate stance against guns without understanding the nuances of what Grant is attempting to write about? It doesn't matter if you discontinue reading the book but I fail to understand how you can get what we're talking about without actually reading the books in question.

 

[Christopher]

^Actually Dick Giordano did the art on "There Is No Hope in Crime Alley!"

And I don't want to "get" it. I lost interest based on what I have read, and what I've heard since makes me less interested. I'm not claiming that my distaste is a measure of objective quality. I'm not saying he's a bad writer. I'm saying I don't like what I've heard and so I'm not interested in reading it.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Okay my mistake on the artist...and as for not wanting to get it and you aren't interested in reading the story to understand the "facts" that we're discussing then why are you even bothering to comment on this subject? You've stated your stance, we've told you what happens in the story. Yet you seem to fail to accept this.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Thank god Geoff Johns came around and straightened out the pathetic mess that DC had made of Green Lantern. Probably made the current movie possible.

Is that Rayner guy still in the comics? I know that Guy Gardener is.