Kyle features in Green Lantern Corps. Guy stars in the new Green Lantern: Emerald Warrior.
Everything you know is wrong! (but actually isn't)
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
I'm not "failing to accept" anything, because nothing I've been told about what happens in the story changes my distaste for the underlying premise. On the contrary, the more details you give me, the more unpleasant the whole thing seems to me. Knowing more about a story doesn't automatically mean liking it more.
Even aside from my gun issues, the whole thing is just a cheap marketing gimmick anyway, since of course Batman's never really going to be killed. I find the whole exercise rather dishonest. There are too many Big Worldshaking Events driving comics these days, and I prefer more straightforward storytelling. The good work JMS and Paul Jenkins were doing on Spider-Man fell apart when they were forced to conform to one huge annual Event after another, and since a year's worth of issues translated to only a few weeks of story time if even that, we were constantly getting big changes that barely got touched on before the next big change rendered them irrelevant. Whereas in the Brand New Day/"Spidey brain trust" era, we've just gotten good old basic storytelling, one issue after another, the narrative evolving according to its own dynamics and needs rather than being constantly yanked around to serve cheap marketing gimmicks. And that's enjoyable stuff. The only Batman comics I've read in recent years that I've enjoyed much have been the Paul Dini stories, which tend to be fairly straightforward and self-contained, good old basic comic-book storytelling. Well, those and the comics based on The Brave and the Bold.
Even aside from my gun issues, the whole thing is just a cheap marketing gimmick anyway, since of course Batman's never really going to be killed. I find the whole exercise rather dishonest. There are too many Big Worldshaking Events driving comics these days, and I prefer more straightforward storytelling. The good work JMS and Paul Jenkins were doing on Spider-Man fell apart when they were forced to conform to one huge annual Event after another, and since a year's worth of issues translated to only a few weeks of story time if even that, we were constantly getting big changes that barely got touched on before the next big change rendered them irrelevant. Whereas in the Brand New Day/"Spidey brain trust" era, we've just gotten good old basic storytelling, one issue after another, the narrative evolving according to its own dynamics and needs rather than being constantly yanked around to serve cheap marketing gimmicks. And that's enjoyable stuff. The only Batman comics I've read in recent years that I've enjoyed much have been the Paul Dini stories, which tend to be fairly straightforward and self-contained, good old basic comic-book storytelling. Well, those and the comics based on The Brave and the Bold.
Christopher, I totally agree with you. Anyone who thinks Batman would or should use a gun has absolutely no business writing the character.
kkozoriz1
Fleet Captain
Which is funny since that's what I feel is happening in Trek Lit these days. Big splashy crossovers interrupting the individual series. Skipping over five years to being DS9 up to date with the other series. Destiny which is a huge game changing crossover that leaves dead worlds and a death toll in the billions. A book or two dealing with the fallout of the crossover and then here's the next big event.
It seems that Trek is just following in the footsteps of the comics. Why would they do that if TPTB didn't think it was a worthwhile model?
It might be interesting to explore Batman as a failure. Now that he has compromised his ideals, how does he come back from that.
Failure can be an interesting story as well.
But then he's not Batman anymore. He's just Bruce Wayne.
Yes. But then there's something to explore. After being Batman, how can he just be Bruce Wayne anymore? What would he do? What is that life like? Does it lead to Batman Beyond? (perhaps that's explained in the cartoon, didn't watch it enough.) But you see where I'm going.
I'm surprised as a writer, you don't see the dramatic possibilities.
A hero who failed can be just as interesting as a hero who succeeds.
Not that DC would be all that excited by a story of a Batman who compromised his ideals to defeat the enemy and so surrenders his identity.
But, personally, I think there is something really interesting to explore.
Yeah, Kyle is the co-star of Green Lantern Corps along with Guy and a bunch of other characters like Arisia, Sodam Yat, Kilowag, etc, etc, etc. I actually like GLC more than GL because it has more characters and more alien action than the GL book. Plus, Patrick Gleason's artwork (he was on the title from #1 through the end of Blackest Night) is absolutely gorgeous!
Good call. In the prologue scenes of the Batman Beyond pilot, an aging Batman is incapacitated during a fight and, in desperation, picks up a fallen gun to defend himself. He doesn't fire it, but he's so horrified at what he almost did that he hangs up the Batsuit that very night.
I do see the possibilities. My point is that, yes, there is a story there, but it's the last Batman story. It's the story of the end of Bruce Wayne's career as Batman, because it's something he can't come back from. I'd be fine seeing it as an Elseworlds tale, or if it had really been Bruce Wayne's death and Dick were going to be Batman from now on (though I wouldn't be happy seeing Bruce/Batman's career end in disgrace like that).
We'll have to agree to disagree whether or not it would be the last Batman story.
So I guess that when Bruce comes back and starts launching his new plan for Batman in "Batman, Inc" you won't be reading at all Christopher. I understand not liking a story, hell I hate what Joe Q has been doing to Spider-Man especially after OMIT but have continued to read the books out of my love for the character. I'm not going to say that Batman shooting Darkseid is different from him shooting say Joe Chill because he has still compromised himself...and that is still a facet of the story that Grant chose to explore. It doesn't make it right I agree, far from it, this is something that Bruce will now have to live with. I don't get though how this corrupts Bruce...he has made far worse decisions like this, the stuff with JLA and his files on them, Brother Eye which had fatal consequences, there are several other issues over the last few years that you could argue that have been just as damning as him shooting a New God who wanted to rule all of reality!!
Maybe this is fuel for you to write your own Batman novel which I would buy in an instant, I still love your books despite our vast difference in opinions lol.
@JonnyQuest037 I can't disagree with you more and I've cited examples of Bruce wielding a gun. Talk about a blanket statement.
Don't get me wrong here people, and if I knew you people were actually reading my posts I wouldn't have to repeat myself all the time, I'm against Batman using a gun but within the context of Final Crisis and how it was explained within the issues mentioned above I accepted and understood the reasoning. I guess we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Maybe this is fuel for you to write your own Batman novel which I would buy in an instant, I still love your books despite our vast difference in opinions lol.
@JonnyQuest037 I can't disagree with you more and I've cited examples of Bruce wielding a gun. Talk about a blanket statement.
Don't get me wrong here people, and if I knew you people were actually reading my posts I wouldn't have to repeat myself all the time, I'm against Batman using a gun but within the context of Final Crisis and how it was explained within the issues mentioned above I accepted and understood the reasoning. I guess we're all going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.
I wasn't reading it anyway. Like I said, the only Batman comics that have held my attention for the past few years have been Paul Dini's. And I can't afford to collect comics, so I mostly only read the TPBs I can find at the library, which aren't a comprehensive selection.
Yeah, he's out of character in those stories, too. Just because it's been published doesn't mean it's good.
Uh-huh...that's such a limited mindset to have. Obviously you have elevated Bruce Wayne to such a degree where you are unable or unwilling to accept that there are examples in his past that have him using a gun. Are you saying then that the original Batman as created by Bob Kane and Bill Finger didn't have good stories because he used a gun?
^We're saying that those stories don't depict the same character that Batman has become over the decades since. If I wrote a story in which the modern version of Superman could only jump rather than flying, worked for the Daily Star, could have his skin penetrated by an exploding shell, and was a lawless vigilante, would you defend that as a valid portrayal of the Superman character as he exists today, as he's been defined over the decades since those prototype stories? That's highly illogical. Any such portrayal would be rightly recognized as inconsistent and incompatible with the fully realized version of the character. The same as if Spock grins without explanation as he did in the original Star Trek pilot. Or if Captain Picard shows ignorance of an archaeological subject as he did in the fourth episode of ST:TNG. The earliest stories in a series often portray characters in ways that directly contradict what is later solidified about their personalities, and such things cannot validly be ascribed equal weight to the fully developed characterizations that emerged later. They're early experiments that fell by the wayside, obsolete notions that are no longer appropriate for the character in question.
^ To me you've been highly illogical throughout this entire conversation and no that isn't meant as an insult, it's simply an observation. To reply to your example...I would consider that story part of that character's past obviously not to the current incarnation of the character. The fact of the matter though remains that you refuse to accept a facet of Batman that has in fact existed in the character's past and was explored in an unique and interesting way (my opinion only here) and to which was explained and (again in my opinion) justified.
Anyways we are going to get trapped ourselves in an endless circle and we've already hijacked the thread...so let's get back on topic and agree to disagree.
Anyways we are going to get trapped ourselves in an endless circle and we've already hijacked the thread...so let's get back on topic and agree to disagree.
I'm not saying I agreed with the direction that story took (it bugged me a little, too) I just can't agree that it should be the last Batman story. I really do need to actually read those stories, but from what I do know about the whole thing it seems to me that it was an interesting way of forcing something on him, something he normally wouldn't do. Coming back from that can be an interesting story unto itself. It's just a very thin to walk in terms of making that story work. They (the writers) can't just ignore it. If they did then I would be in complete agreement with you. However if they can properly illustrate the struggle Batman has with having to do what he did then I think the whole thing can come together in such a way that it doesn't damage the character of Batman but rather add to it in a meaningful, serious way that still maintains the integrity of the character.
If that makes even a little sense.
If that makes even a little sense.
^ Makes perfect sense. Morrison hasn't ignored it since he went back and did two issues, dedicating one to explaining the gun and the shooting it's self and why Bruce justified it, both issues are framed with internal dialogue from Bruce in the form of a recording he leaves for Superman (Tim is shown listening to it as well) setting up the Time Vanishers mini-series. I think part of Morrison's plans for "Batman, Inc." is going to focus on Bruce and his mindset after he has returned from being stuck in time. I think my point throughout this has been...feel free to disagree with the action and chose to ignore the story if you want but don't make a judgment without reading the issues. I thought Christopher would actually appreciate that sentiment considering he has brought up using facts and logic in his posts before.
You're contradicting yourself. First you say you do accept that it's not part of the character as he's now defined, but then you say that it should be explored as if it were part of the character.
The disingenuous assertion you keep making is that Batman's antipathy toward guns is "modern" or "current." That is simply a falsehood. Batman's complete aversion to lethal weapons was unambiguously asserted as far back as 1950, if not earlier. It's been an explicitly established, consistent part of his personality for at least 85% of the character's existence, and that's just as far back as I can personally document ("The Birth of Batplane II," Batman #61, October 1950). Given that Batman was redefined as a more kid-friendly character as soon as Robin was introduced in 1940, it's more likely 98.5% of his entire history, 70 of his 71 years.
Similar threads
