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

[Allyn Gibson]

^We're saying that those stories don't depict the same character that Batman has become over the decades since. [SNIP] They're early experiments that fell by the wayside, obsolete notions that are no longer appropriate for the character in question.

Which I think says why the Morrison-era isn't sitting well with you -- and will probably never sit well with you. Because for Morrison, as he's said in interviews, everything since 1939 is valid. Certain elements of Batman's history have been downplayed over the years, true, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. Morrison treats the batshit science-fiction adventures of the 1950s as being as valid as Mike W. Barr's work in the 1980s. Batman doesn't use a gun today, guns are anathema to Batman today, but that doesn't mean that Morrison's Batman has never used a gun. Or Denny O'Neill said that Batman: Son of the Demon didn't happen, but as far as Morrison is concerned it did. Morrison has a Grand Unified Theory of Batman, and his vision of Batman is far more expansive than most others, because he doesn't reject anything. All the stories are true, even when they've been banished from continuity deliberately or by neglect, and especially when they contradict themselves.

 

[Admiral_Young]

Allyn Gibson has stated pretty much what I've been trying to say. I think I'm done attempting to get my point through though. I'm not going to convince you Christopher one way or another. You've stated you have no desire to read the issues in question so fine that's your loss.

 

[Mr Light]

This "using old Bat stories" stuff always confused me. I thought Crisis on Infinite Earths rebooted the continuity, so that everything that happened before 1985 doesn't exist anymore, and that modern DC continuity begins with the 85/6 reboots.

I mean it's one thing to mine the stories for ideas and homages but are they saying the characters actually remember those events as happening? That I don't get.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

The thing is, Mr. Light, there was very little of Batman that was rebooted after Crisis. The specifically Earth-2 elements, of course, were gone, but they had always been separate. Jason Todd's past was rewritten. But for Batman himself? There wasn't anything you could point to, post-Crisis, and say "That's different."

The giant penny, the dinosaur in the Batcave, both of which stretch back to the Golden Age, are still there in the Batcave today.

For all we know, Bruce Wayne still smoke a pipe.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

^We're saying that those stories don't depict the same character that Batman has become over the decades since. [SNIP] They're early experiments that fell by the wayside, obsolete notions that are no longer appropriate for the character in question.

Which I think says why the Morrison-era isn't sitting well with you -- and will probably never sit well with you. Because for Morrison, as he's said in interviews, everything since 1939 is valid. Certain elements of Batman's history have been downplayed over the years, true, but that doesn't mean they didn't happen. [SNIP] All the stories are true, even when they've been banished from continuity deliberately or by neglect, and especially when they contradict themselves.

So did Martha Wayne get shot or die from the shock of seeing her husband shot dead before her eyes? Is Jason Todd a circus kid or is he a kid from Crime Alley whose father was a henchman for Two-Face? Is Jim Gordon from Chicago or was he a patrolman in Gotham City? Did Dick Grayson quit being Robin of his own volition or was he fired by Batman?

Morrison's "every story is valid" line may sound good in interviews, but I'll be damned if it makes a lick of practical sense.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The thing is, Mr. Light, there was very little of Batman that was rebooted after Crisis. The specifically Earth-2 elements, of course, were gone, but they had always been separate. Jason Todd's past was rewritten. But for Batman himself? There wasn't anything you could point to, post-Crisis, and say "That's different."

Let's see, post-Crisis, Alfred was now the Wayne's butler from Bruce's childhood on instead being introduced after Bruce became Batman, Jim Gordon was now from Chicago instead of Gotham, he was a Lieutenant and not Commissioner when Batman debuted, he had a son with his wife and Barbara is now his adopted niece instead of his daughter (or maybe she's not), and Bruce did a LOT more world travelling while he was preparing to become Batman.

That's just from Batman: Year One. Should I go on?

 

[Christopher]

Not to mention that those earlier stories were explicitly set in the '40s, '50s, '60s, etc....

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Stories that contradict themselves? Oh my, that's unheard of. You people should really start reading a little Borges.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Trek TOS contradicts itself over and over...so does Doctor Who. Why should anything be banished from Batman "canon" just because it's inconsistent?

 

[Christopher]

Consistency is always the ideal. Just because it's impossible to achieve it absolutely doesn't mean you should just be lazy and not even try. Character consistency is especially important. You can tweak the backstory and the technobabble and the geography if it serves the needs of the tale, but you don't play fast and loose with characterization if you have any standards at all.

 

[Admiral_Young]

So Morrison has broken with consistency by having Bruce shoot Darkseid...is that what you're saying?

 

[Christopher]

I'm done saying anything. I've made my points.

 

[Admiral_Young]

As I have and others.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I'll say this, sometimes when a character does something that SEEMS inconsistent, that can be very interesting. Especially WHY they did what they did and the repercussions of that.

 

[Myasishchev]

What about all those times Batman uses missiles? Dude can use a missile but not a gun? Leaving aside the no-blunt-trauma-deaths rule of fiction in general, since Batman beans people in the head pretty often...

Also, Darkseid doesn't count. Batman helped kill him once already in the alternate future (although he used the Atom instead of a bullet, and Green Arrow* instead of a gun, the plan was always presumably to kill Darkseid, because you don't negotiate with Darkseid). Is there a significant problem with "Rock of Ages"?

A Batman who would refuse to kill Darkseid is a Batman that has no value whatsoever as a hero. I mean, outside of his role as a tactical consulant for the Justice League, he's already pretty close. (Sort of. A lot of what can be blamed on Batman in-universe, is, metafictionally-speaking, rather the fault of editors, writers, and the nature of corporate-owned serial fiction.) This was probably the only part of Final Crisis that worked.

Also, whoever said it makes no "practical sense"--you're familiar with Morrison's work, right? Not that it isn't a valid complaint--it's why I quit Morrison after RIP and Final Crisis, because those were terrible, and if I want to see Morrison have a stroke, I'll read The Filth instead of something stupid**--but it's pretty much his calling card.

*The real Green Arrow. The one that has a soul and isn't a homunculus.
**And in the case of Batman, also not drawn well. Yuck.

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.

I can't wait for Geoff Johns' much-anticipated run on Stalin. I hear he's developed an amazing twist that will change the way we look at the main character.

Also, I have severe reservations for any comic whose idea of "love" is represented best by palette-swapped Vampirellas. Or whose idea of emotions, in general, is a color wheel, which doesn't work for a half-dozen reasons.

(His JSA run was sweet, though.)

 

[barnaclelapse]

Consistency is always the ideal. Just because it's impossible to achieve it absolutely doesn't mean you should just be lazy and not even try. Character consistency is especially important. You can tweak the backstory and the technobabble and the geography if it serves the needs of the tale, but you don't play fast and loose with characterization if you have any standards at all.

I'm really enjoying this conversation, by the way.

I just don't see this as playing fast and loose with the character. I see it as an attempt to expand the whole thing at a point when there may well be very little room left for real expansion.

It's a controversial idea, and from all indications its being handled with a serious tone befitting a controversial idea.

 

[Admiral_Young]

I was enjoying the conversation as well, but when one person is so one sided in the conversation there isn't much point in continuing it. Myself and others have told Christopher to check out the issues and he's refused based on a very strong emotional stance against guns. I've acknowledged that. My point was how could you make a judgment on something when you refuse to even read the issues that discusses and explains the subject in question. For a poster who has in the past reinforced his stance that he posts with facts and logic instead of speculation and judgment I find that highly suspect. But whatever. He's stated that he's done with this conversation. I guess he won't be reading Batman any more.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

My point was how could you make a judgment on something when you refuse to even read the issues that discusses and explains the subject in question. For a poster who has in the past reinforced his stance that he posts with facts and logic instead of speculation and judgment I find that highly suspect.

Have you ever watched a movie trailer & then said, "Wow, there is NO WAY I want to watch that movie"? Same principle applies here.

 

[Admiral_Young]

No that isn't the same principle here since Christopher has a morale stance against Bruce using a gun, he stated that several occasions and explained the more we were telling him about the justification the more he was repulsed. Not choosing to see a movie based on a trailer or reading it's concept is something entirely different. That isn't what we were debating.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Consistency is always the ideal.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Sorry, it had to be said.

I get where you're coming from, Christopher. I really do. Batman shouldn't use a gun. That's a line that Batman doesn't cross. I get that.

But I also get that there's a story in what would make Batman pick up a gun, craft the archetypal bullet, and murder a god. Take everything you know, challenge it, and see what's there. Isn't that where the best storytelling comes from?

Just because it's impossible to achieve it absolutely doesn't mean you should just be lazy and not even try.

You may be the first person in history to call Grant Morrison "lazy." Congrats.

Character consistency is especially important. You can tweak the backstory and the technobabble and the geography if it serves the needs of the tale, but you don't play fast and loose with characterization if you have any standards at all.

Who ever said that Grant Morrison was playing "fast and loose with characterizaton"? I've read Final Crisis. I've read the last four years worth of Batman and its ancillary titles. In my opinion, informed by two decades of reading Batman comics, Grant Morrison's characterizations are consistent with the past. In my informed opinion, Grant Morrison's Batman work has honored the past while still breaking new ground for the character. And if you read the issues in question yourself, I think you might not necessarily agree because yours is a narrower view of Batman than Morrison's, but you'd understand better where Grant Morrison is coming from with Batman.

As an aside, I also can't think of a time, since maybe the early 90s when Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle were on the title, where I said, month in and month out, "I can't wait to find out what happens next!"

I realize that for you, Christopher, Batman taking up a gun and shooting Darkseid crosses some sort of line. I and Admiral Young have tried valiantly to explain to you what happened and why it happened, and we've both said that the best thing for you isn't to judge the story blindly but to read it for yourself. And to be frank, that disappoints me, that in spite of your own standards of truth and logic, you've chosen to rail against the idea on hearsay (though accurate hearsay) rather than educate yourself.

I've said my piece. If you ever decide to have an informed conversation on the matter, Christopher, you know where to find me. Otherwise, I'm done here.