Sperg about comic books here -

[LORD IMPERATOR]

I mean, yeah, Batman has been ready to kill a character tons of times in stories. Heck, if we're going with animated Batman examples to prove that, I'd probably go with the speech he gives from Under the Red Hood, because it shows that he does have that side, but also why he doesn't give into it.

I get that you want Batman to kill. Believe me, you've made it abundantly clear. But, you gotta face reality, that's not in character for mainstream Batman. I 10000% agree it is not what would happen in the real world, because DC is pretty far removed from what actually happens in reality. Batman especially has been moving pretty far from reality lately, for better or worse (arguably worse IMO) with all the Batman Who Laughs stuff.

One of the reasons I personally don't want to see another "should Hero X kill" story is how often they've been overdone lately. To use another Batman example, it's like how people were disappointed with Joker War because it came out right around the same time as Three Jokers, which itself came out somewhat close to another Joker centric plot. If I remember right, it was even touched on again in Tom King's run. At least it was with Bane instead of the Joker, so I guess that's kind of new. I'm sure this is an exaggeration, but it feels like every 3 writers or so, someone gets the "original" idea of really exploring Batman's psyche, only for it to end up hitting the exact same notes as the slew of other stories that did the exact same thing.

To use a non-Batman example, look what happened when they tried to drastically alter Superman in the new 52. It was so badly received, they did multiple retcons to bring the "mainstream" version of Superman back. But, they found a way to evolve the character by making him a dad. It worked better than fundamentally altering the character because, well, that character wasn't Superman. This is still the Superman we know, but we're seeing him in a different light and watching him naturally grow and respond to new challenges instead of just throwing him into a plotline where he's dating Wonder Woman.

Now, if we're talking what if stories, an "Injustice but with Batman" story could be neat. Although, I'd parrot my previous argument about why it would be bad to do it now since we've had an onslaught of "Batman but evil" characters with all the Dark Multiverse stuff. And if the new Batman movie wants to go the killer Batman route, more power to it. But, that doesn't make it the main/canon version of Batman.

I would just go with a Batman that has morals and limits, just like your average Joe. He has a no-kill code, but if push comes to shove and he's dealing with a mass-murdering shit who has killed tons of people before and shows no signs of repentance, then yes, he will occasionally kill, but 99% of the thugs he encounters, he gives them a slight love-tap beating before sending them to the GCPD. Eventually, he runs out of real criminals to fight, so he hires a troop of actors to take colorful names and stage fake crimes so he can fight them in public and have an excuse for the cops still having jobs, while most crimes in Gotham revert to white-collar corporate crimes since Bruce and the GCPD have made violent crimes un-profitable.

He's not evil, he's not a complete saint, he's just another man who was wounded by his past, but he just seeks to do what's best for everyone. Like the DCAU Batman, he tries his best not to kill anyone, but even he has limits, because he's just human.

 

[Cyber Bowling]

I would just go with a Batman that has morals and limits, just like your average Joe. He has a no-kill code, but if push comes to shove and he's dealing with a mass-murdering shit who has killed tons of people before and shows no signs of repentance, then yes, he will occasionally kill, but 99% of the thugs he encounters, he gives them a slight love-tap beating before sending them to the GCPD. Eventually, he runs out of real criminals to fight, so he hires a troop of actors to take colorful names and stage fake crimes so he can fight them in public and have an excuse for the cops still having jobs, while most crimes in Gotham revert to white-collar corporate crimes since Bruce and the GCPD have made violent crimes un-profitable.

He's not evil, he's not a complete saint, he's just another man who was wounded by his past, but he just seeks to do what's best for everyone. Like the DCAU Batman, he tries his best not to kill anyone, but even he has limits, because he's just human.

I feel like saying Batman is an "average joe" and "just human" is missing the point of Batman and actually makes him kinda bland. Batman is as popular as he is because he's such a larger than life figure, to the point where criminals used to question if he was actually human. There have been plenty of stories where someone with powers has underestimated him, writing him off as a normal human, only for him to pull a Batman and defeat the big bad. Granted, sometimes this is taken to ridiculous lengths.

I also have mixed feelings about a Batman who wins. I think one of the more interesting aspects, at least in the hands of a good writer, is the exploration of what his war on crime actually means. That's where I think an Injustice version of Batman would potentially work, with him basically resorting to extreme, totalitarian measures to stop crime. He could pull a No Mans Land and separate Gotham again, then use Brother Eye or some other device to run a scaled down version of Minority Report. Heck, maybe this Batman doesn't even kill and uses that as a twisted justification to explain his actions. Instead, he uses Starro or some martian tech or whatever to pacify all the Arkham inmates and make anyone he deems troublesome obedient.

Actually, as I type that, I realize that story was basically done in a scaled down version with the Justice Lords in the DCAU. Well, minus Gotham being separated. At the very least, I'd argue it's better than Batman Who Laughs, which felt more like "What if Batman was the Joker" which in turn was basically "What if Joker was allowed to win"

In general, I don't think DC excels at "average" heroes. That's more of a Marvel thing. DC plays more into the larger than life angle. I feel like there's also a fair amount of indie stories/smaller publishers that do more "realistic" versions of Batman already in a much better way than DC ever could.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

I feel like saying Batman is an "average joe" and "just human" is missing the point of Batman and actually makes him kinda bland. Batman is as popular as he is because he's such a larger than life figure, to the point where criminals used to question if he was actually human. There have been plenty of stories where someone with powers has underestimated him, writing him off as a normal human, only for him to pull a Batman and defeat the big bad. Granted, sometimes this is taken to ridiculous lengths.

I also have mixed feelings about a Batman who wins. I think one of the more interesting aspects, at least in the hands of a good writer, is the exploration of what his war on crime actually means. That's where I think an Injustice version of Batman would potentially work, with him basically resorting to extreme, totalitarian measures to stop crime. He could pull a No Mans Land and separate Gotham again, then use Brother Eye or some other device to run a scaled down version of Minority Report. Heck, maybe this Batman doesn't even kill and uses that as a twisted justification to explain his actions. Instead, he uses Starro or some martian tech or whatever to pacify all the Arkham inmates and make anyone he deems troublesome obedient.

Actually, as I type that, I realize that story was basically done in a scaled down version with the Justice Lords in the DCAU. Well, minus Gotham being separated. At the very least, I'd argue it's better than Batman Who Laughs, which felt more like "What if Batman was the Joker" which in turn was basically "What if Joker was allowed to win"

In general, I don't think DC excels at "average" heroes. That's more of a Marvel thing. DC plays more into the larger than life angle. I feel like there's also a fair amount of indie stories/smaller publishers that do more "realistic" versions of Batman already in a much better way than DC ever could.

In the end, unlike other super-heroes who are aliens, (Clark Kent) superpowered beings, (Hal Jordan) or literal gods, (Diana) Batman is just a regular Joe with martial arts training, a mask, and a fat bank account. So yes, I would relate him to the average Joe, since unlike the rest of the DC lineup of superheroes, his story is that of an average Joe who's trying to fit in with all the literal aliens and gods in the Justice League.

The reason why I wanted Batman to "win" in Gotham is because I wanted his crusading to matter. The problem is, with the current system, you have a larger-than-life hero who failed at his task. By having Gotham continue on as a crime-ridden shithole, that basically shows that Batman would have been better off creating his own mob and making puppets out of the other mobs to keep crime under control instead of what he's doing. Sure, he knocked off the crime families, but the crime families wouldn't have tolerated nutcases like the Joker, Firefly, Pyg, Victor Zsasz, and that whole batch of crazy that appeared on Gotham once Bruce dealt with the traditional criminal structure, and with Bruce unwilling to kill them, they just get bolder and kill more people every time. Turns out, the Red Hood truly was right.

Fucking Lex Luthor in the DCAU was more successful than most incarnations of Bruce, since Lex managed to get 2/3rds of the people in Metropolis to work for him whether they know it or not, meaning that he can easily control any criminal activity and put down any would-be Jokers in town. Hence why Supes just has to worry about the supernatural or world-ending threats, since the local criminal threats are barely even present in Metropolis and barely worth his time.

You basically have the equivalent of a Greek god whose actions caused more harm than good, and that kind of makes his larger-than-life status a joke when everything he did just ends up with more people in the cemetery rather than prospering after he took out the initial wave of criminals.

 

[TenMilesWide]

The reason why I wanted Batman to "win" in Gotham is because I wanted his crusading to matter. The problem is, with the current system, you have a larger-than-life hero who failed at his task. By having Gotham continue on as a crime-ridden shithole, that basically shows that Batman would have been better off creating his own mob and making puppets out of the other mobs to keep crime under control instead of what he's doing.

Due to the endless nature of the medium, all comic book heroes are reduced to Sisyphus. The only metric for whether they're succeeding or not is whether they've quit. Batman is succeeding, and he's holding onto his moral code while doing it, that's what makes him a larger-than-life hero.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Due to the endless nature of the medium, all comic book heroes are reduced to Sisyphus. The only metric for whether they're succeeding or not is whether they've quit. Batman is succeeding, and he's holding onto his moral code while doing it, that's what makes him a larger-than-life hero.

Sisyphus isn't a larger-than-life hero. He's a victim stuck doing the same thing for eternity. That makes Batman a tragic victim, not a larger-than-life hero to look up to. Through the classical influence on modern culture, tasks that are both laborious and futile are therefore described as Sisyphean. It basically makes everything Batman does futile, sucking the fun out of all the battles he fights, knowing that it all amounts to a wet fart in the wind.

 

[TenMilesWide]

Sisyphus isn't a larger than life hero. He's a victim stuck doing the same thing for eternity. That makes Batman a tragic victim, not a larger-than-life hero. Through the classical influence on modern culture, tasks that are both laborious and futile are therefore described as Sisyphean. It basically makes everything Batman does futile, sucking the fun out of all the battles he fights, knowing that it all amounts to a wet fart in the wind.

Life itself is a Sisyphean undertaking. All acts are futile, in a few short years we'll all be dead and forgotten with our loose ends left untied, none of this having mattered at all.

It's very easy to give up in that situation, but if we all did then nothing would get done, nothing would improve. So we feed our kids escapist fantasy filled with the ideals of facing down and overcoming any challenge through sheer stubbornness and force of will, to trick the little bastards into not giving up.

Batman's no-kill code is an extension of that ideal. Any other method would indeed be easier, he could clean Gotham up by killin' niggas or running them out of business with his own criminal organization, but he's chosen the path of non-lethal vigilantism - partially because it's harder than the alternatives; the hero is made all the more impressive by the impossibility of their struggle, it makes the story more interesting and makes the ideal easier to impress on kids - and he's stuck with it for the better part of a century.

To ask Batman to start killing is to ask the writers to abandon what have been his core goals and defining conflict for literally longer than anybody can remember. You want the shadow, go read the shadow.

 

[Owlman3]

Again, a sexy-ass issue. Emerald Knight’s origin was awesome, Luthor was cool, and Owlman is still badass.
I liked Sinestro appearing, but I’d prefer if they changed his design. Maybe give him long hair and a beard? Make him less evil looking.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

View attachment 2221483
Again, a sexy-ass issue. Emerald Knight’s origin was awesome, Luthor was cool, and Owlman is still badass.
I liked Sinestro appearing, but I’d prefer if they changed his design. Maybe give him long hair and a beard? Make him less evil looking.

Damn, that looks cool.

Life itself is a Sisyphean undertaking. All acts are futile, in a few short years we'll all be dead and forgotten with our loose ends left untied, none of this having mattered at all.

And making our entertainment and escape mirror this bleak truth does what, now? Aside from making it as depressing and pointless as real life, it defeats the purpose of having fictional stories and heroes to look up to in the first place. The comic version of Batman isn't someone to look up to, he's an insane nut who should be locked up in Arkham with the rest of the monsters he helped create.

It's very easy to give up in that situation, but if we all did then nothing would get done, nothing would improve. So we feed our kids escapist fantasy filled with the ideals of facing down and overcoming any challenge through sheer stubbornness and force of will, to trick the little bastards into not giving up.

Giving up seems to be the smarter idea. That, or trying something new. As I said, Batman could have done a lot better for Gotham if he took a page from Jason Todd's book and controlled crime syndicates instead of eradicating them and allowing nutcases like the Joker to replace them. Shit, that's how Japan dealt with crime. The Yakuza, also known as the Japanese Mafia, has an "understanding" with the government to make sure not to let crime go out of control in exchange for a measure of tolerance. Their society as a whole is doing pretty well so far.

Batman's no-kill code is an extension of this philosophy. Any other method would indeed be easier, he could clean Gotham up by killin' niggas or running them out of business with his own criminal organization, but he's chosen the path of non-lethal vigilantism (partially because it's harder than the alternatives; the hero is made all the more impressive by the impossibility of their struggle) and stayed true to that for the better part of a century now, that's his boulder and he's going to keep pushing it.

Non-lethal vigilantism is a joke. All it does is replace controllable criminals like mafias and drug cartels with nutcases who make terrorists look like schoolyard bullies, and instead of criminals who commit crime for the sake of wealth, power, or simple pleasures, you have crooks who commit mass murder just to piss off one caped crusader, which is worse.

Fucking Rudy Giuliani did better than Bruce. Why? Because, aside from the fact that he put the mafias to pasture, any violent nutball that rises up got shot by the NYPD. Bruce could have done more good for Gotham by running for mayor and using that power and his wealth to arm the cops and clean up the streets. He can do Batman shit on some occasional nights, bust up major crime rings, then in daylight, use his legal power to clean up and make sure that no other criminal elements rise to power in the aftermath.

To ask Batman to start killing is to ask the writers to abandon what have been his core goals and defining conflict for literally longer than anybody can remember. You want the shadow, go read the shadow.

Batman's been killing people from 1939 to 1968. Killing has been a part of his character for decades.

 

[GranDuke]

Batman's been killing people from 1939 to 1968. Killing has been a part of his character for decades.

Why the fuck you keep writing shit that has been pointed out multiple times to be false?

 

[TenMilesWide]

And making our entertainment and escape mirror this bleak truth does what, now? Aside from making it as depressing and pointless as real life, it defeats the purpose of having fictional stories and heroes to look up to in the first place. The comic version of Batman isn't someone to look up to, he's an insane nut who should be locked up in Arkham with the rest of the monsters he helped create.

You're the one saying that he should kill people because not doing so is unrealistic and irresponsible, I want escapist fiction to stay as fantastical stories where the hero saves the day, values intact.

Giving up seems to be the smarter idea. That, or trying something new. As I said, Batman could have done a lot better for Gotham if he took a page from Jason Todd's book and controlled crime syndicates instead of eradicating them and allowing nutcases like the Joker to replace them. Shit, that's how Japan dealt with crime. The Yakuza, also known as the Japanese Mafia, has an "understanding" with the government to make sure not to let crime go out of control in exchange for a measure of tolerance. Their society as a whole is doing pretty well so far.

Nihilism is unproductive and gay, giving up is in no way the smarter idea. Also you've just complained that I'm trying to make our entertainment mirror bleak reality and then you turn around and look to moral compromises made in real life because the world isn't ideal and say "yes, Batman should do that"

Non-lethal vigilantism is a joke. All it does is replace controllable criminals like mafias and drug cartels with nutcases who make terrorists look like schoolyard bullies, and instead of criminals who commit crime for the sake of wealth, power, or simple pleasures, you have crooks who commit mass murder just to piss off one caped crusader, which is worse.

You only get those because the company wants to keep selling comics. If Batman solved crime, the book would be over. Run out of generic mafia guys? Just make up some goofy cartoon villain, don't think about it too much..
Since you're having trouble with your suspension of disbelief for comic book storylines, I would start with the fact that superheroes and supercriminals don't exist in real life, rather than focusing in on the heroes' moral code or apparent incompetence brought on by needing to recycle the same 5 characters for so many decades.

Fucking Rudy Giuliani did better than Bruce. Why?

The writers didn't throw another supercriminal at Rudy every month for 80 years because, as mentioned before, they don't exist. He's a real person, not a fictional character.

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

Why the fuck you keep writing shit that has been pointed out multiple times to be false?

The last time Batman killed people in comics was in issue 84 of "The Brave and the Bold", where he destroyed a plane shooting at him, and detonated explosives on a bridge, killing people. The issue came out in 1968. False my ass.

You're the one saying that he should kill people because not doing so is unrealistic and irresponsible, I want escapist fiction to stay as fantastical stories where the hero saves the day, values intact.

Because any good story has enough realism to be believable, and enough fantastic elements to be amazing. How can you not know this? This is storytelling 101. It should be relatable and realistic enough that people don't dismiss it as a silly fairy tale, yet fantastical and amazing enough so that it's not as boring as taking a shit every morning.

Also, there's a version of Batman that does that. It's the DCAU Batman. He fights bad guys who at most, hold up banks and rough people up, and he just throws them in jail. Again, it makes more sense to spare criminals who aren't homicidal maniacs that rack up large body counts.

Nihilism is unproductive and gay, giving up is in no way the smarter idea. Also you've just complained that I'm trying to make our entertainment mirror bleak reality and then you turn around and look to moral compromises made in real life because the world isn't ideal and say "yes, Batman should do that"

But continuing to do the same thing again and again, expecting that it will change the world even though it doesn't, is the textbook definition of insanity. It doesn't make Batman an inspiring hero. It makes him more insane than the people in Arkham, because at least, when they cause a ruckus, they're just assholes having a blast.

You only get those because the company wants to keep selling comics. If Batman solved crime, the book would be over. Run out of generic mafia guys? Just make up some goofy cartoon villain, don't think about it too much..

And? They can do what the cartoons do and have different versions of Batman. Or have him move on to bigger things. Once one Batman accomplishes his goal of a clean and safe Gotham, you can tell a different story of Batman from a different angle, like Gotham by Gaslight. That, or he can assist heroes from other cities wipe out crime. Heck, you can do what the Justice League cartoon did and have him help other heroes wipe out bigger threats instead of picking on the same costumed punks for 40 years and accomplish nothing.

Since you're having trouble with your suspension of disbelief for comic book storylines, I would start with the fact that superheroes and supercriminals don't exist in real life, rather than focusing in on the heroes' moral code or apparent incompetence brought on by needing to recycle the same 5 characters for so many decades.

I don't have trouble suspending my disbelief for the DCAU Batman, for one, since he's not fighting mass-murdering psychopaths. He's just fighting randos who cause a mess now and then, so it makes sense for him to spare them. It makes sense to spare the Joker when said Joker's worst crimes are robberies, property damage, and aggravated assault. It doesn't make sense to spare a version of the Joker who has already filled entire graves with victims.

It's the comics' attempt to mix grimdark with Saturday morning cartoon morality that has me spinning. Pick a lane, don't try to mix both. If you're going to have a grimdark Joker who fills entire graveyards, then have a grimdark Batman who kills him or at least TRIES to kill him. If you want a Batman who spares people like a Saturday morning cartoon hero, then just have him fight villains from the same type of work, whose worst crimes barely reach up to murder and won't warrant a bat-neck-snapping.

The writers didn't throw another supercriminal at Rudy every month for 80 years because, as mentioned before, they don't exist. He's a real person, not a fictional character.

That, and if any supercriminals existed in NYC in real life, the NYPD would turn them into Swiss cheese.

 

[Giga_Nigga_28]

Damn, that looks cool.


And making our entertainment and escape mirror this bleak truth does what, now? Aside from making it as depressing and pointless as real life, it defeats the purpose of having fictional stories and heroes to look up to in the first place. The comic version of Batman isn't someone to look up to, he's an insane nut who should be locked up in Arkham with the rest of the monsters he helped create.


Giving up seems to be the smarter idea. That, or trying something new. As I said, Batman could have done a lot better for Gotham if he took a page from Jason Todd's book and controlled crime syndicates instead of eradicating them and allowing nutcases like the Joker to replace them. Shit, that's how Japan dealt with crime. The Yakuza, also known as the Japanese Mafia, has an "understanding" with the government to make sure not to let crime go out of control in exchange for a measure of tolerance. Their society as a whole is doing pretty well so far.


Non-lethal vigilantism is a joke. All it does is replace controllable criminals like mafias and drug cartels with nutcases who make terrorists look like schoolyard bullies, and instead of criminals who commit crime for the sake of wealth, power, or simple pleasures, you have crooks who commit mass murder just to piss off one caped crusader, which is worse.

Fucking Rudy Giuliani did better than Bruce. Why? Because, aside from the fact that he put the mafias to pasture, any violent nutball that rises up got shot by the NYPD. Bruce could have done more good for Gotham by running for mayor and using that power and his wealth to arm the cops and clean up the streets. He can do Batman shit on some occasional nights, bust up major crime rings, then in daylight, use his legal power to clean up and make sure that no other criminal elements rise to power in the aftermath.


Batman's been killing people from 1939 to 1968. Killing has been a part of his character for decades.

I think you need to understand a fundamental aspect of Batman: He's not real. The reason Joker and Bane and all the other loonies keep reappearing isn't because Batman sucks or that Arkham has shit security it's because Batman is a comic book superhero and as such he needs to fight villains so DC can keep selling issues. Batman will keep fighting bad guys because that's what readers want to see, simple as that. If you want Batman to kill read the Punisher or one of the many elseword/alternate universe where he does.
Random aside but for all the killing he does Punisher has little impact on crime and has literally never killed anyone halfway important.

Batman's been killing people from 1939 to 1968. Killing has been a part of his character for decades.

This is blatantly untrue and even if it was 1968 was 50 years ago so by your logic Batman shouldn't kill at all as he's had the 'no-kill rule' for half a century.

 

[JimiHendrix]

Why the fuck you keep writing shit that has been pointed out multiple times to be false?

autism

 

[LORD IMPERATOR]

I think you need to understand a fundamental aspect of Batman: He's not real. The reason Joker and Bane and all the other loonies keep reappearing isn't because Batman sucks or that Arkham has shit security it's because Batman is a comic book superhero and as such he needs to fight villains so DC can keep selling issues. Batman will keep fighting bad guys because that's what readers want to see, simple as that. If you want Batman to kill read the Punisher or one of the many elseword/alternate universe where he does.

And if comics and their fans continue going that way, western comics will continue bleeding readers and support until the last of the old comic fans dies and everyone else goes to manga or anime, because Batman's comic story makes less sense than the average filler episode of Naruto.

Meanwhile, the Batman who does kill, be it the Michael Keaton Batman or the Ben Affleck Batman, will be remembered as an icon and someone for kids to buy action figures of. The former revitalized interest in the franchise and was the forerunner to the much-beloved DCAU Batman, the latter was one of the few good spots in the much-maligned Zack Snyder DCEU. And of course, once DC smells the potential windfall involved, the no-kill code will go the way of the dodo.

Random aside but for all the killing he does Punisher has little impact on crime and has literally never killed anyone halfway important.

And? As Jason Todd reminded Bats, if Bruce Wayne killed all the important nutcases, a lot of problems would be solved.

This is blatantly untrue and even if it was 1968 was 50 years ago so by your logic Batman shouldn't kill at all as he's had the 'no-kill rule' for half a century.

If he's not real, then forcing him to stick to such rules is stupid. People should be able to have whatever kind of Batman they want, be it one who kills, or one who doesn't kill, because HE'S NOT REAL. Being anal about Batman not killing while calling others autistic and reminding them that Batman isn't real is the height of hypocrisy. Especially since the comics had both forms of Batman already, so even the source material has it.

What is it with the idea of Batman killing that so RELIGIOUSLY offends comic fans? I shudder to think how the writers of the comics where Batman was killing people would react to the modern-day Batman comic audience. They'd probably be confused as all hell, since these fans want Batman to adhere to a Saturday morning cartoon view of morality while dealing with edgelord criminals who fill whole graveyards with innocent victims.

 

[Truthboi]

Why the fuck you keep writing shit that has been pointed out multiple times to be false?

Because he's a retard looking for validation to justify how Batman should basically be a judge, jury, and executioner because it's "good writing" which apparently is something he wants for all stories about superheroes..

 

[Giga_Nigga_28]

And if comics and their fans continue going that way, western comics will continue bleeding readers and support until the last of the old comic fans dies and everyone else goes to manga or anime, because Batman's comic story makes less sense than the average filler episode of Naruto.

Meanwhile, the Batman who does kill, be it the Michael Keaton Batman or the Ben Affleck Batman, will be remembered as an icon and someone for kids to buy action figures of. The former revitalized interest in the franchise and was the forerunner to the much-beloved DCAU Batman, the latter was one of the few good spots in the much-maligned Zack Snyder DCEU. And of course, once DC smells the potential windfall involved, the no-kill code will go the way of the dodo.

Wtf are you basing this off of? Most popular shounen manga have protagonits who explicitly avoid killing, Demon Slayer and AoT may be exceptions but the antagonist are also literal unfeeling monsters. Seinen is a different category but Golden Kamui sells well and the main protagonist despises killing and most other best selling manga are Sol and romances.

The Dcau Batman never killed anyone and even without his og rouges gallery Gotham is still a shithole as seen in Batman Beyond plus he still fought his rouges while in the Justice League. And did you actually watch Batman'89 or Batflecks films? BvS' main conflict is caused by Batman branding people and Superman thinking that that led to them dying. Batfleck steamrolling through the mooks is completely ignored AND his Joker is Still Alive even after killing Robin so you're wrong on pretty much all counts.

Tangentially related butTynions Batman kinda sucks outside of the art and it has the pacing of fucking molasses. I'd forgive the pacing if it was bi weekly but this shit is monthly and nothing is happening. Williamsons Robin has been pretty fun so far though I like Damian so I'm biased the whole Mortal Komabat-esque tournament is cool and the art is great even if the fight scenes are kinda static.

 

[JimiHendrix]

Tangentially related butTynions Batman kinda sucks outside of the art and it has the pacing of fucking molasses. I'd forgive the pacing if it was bi weekly but this shit is monthly and nothing is happening.

i like tynions writing usually and i like the art, but yeah, shit really ain't going anywhere. i also really don't care for the weird build up to the future slate shit. future slate was shown as a "possible future" so, we're either building up to batman beating up simon saint and stopping it, or we're building up to something we've already read.

 

[albert chan]

American Splendor had some great comic strips when it came to Harvey Pekar wanting to be introspective. I can see why him and Robert Crumb used to admire one another. Fritz The Cat and Mr. Natural seem to be inspirations behind this classic comic.

 

[Giga_Nigga_28]

i like tynions writing usually and i like the art, but yeah, shit really ain't going anywhere. i also really don't care for the weird build up to the future slate shit. future slate was shown as a "possible future" so, we're either building up to batman beating up simon saint and stopping it, or we're building up to something we've already read.

The art is goated but The Cowardly Lot has so far been a nothing burger. The flashfoward is a basic ass 'Crane has Bruce all tied up and feartoxined' scenario that always happens during a Scarecrow story. The ocs also suck balls Ghostmaker is literally Nobody/Red hood but Batman is cool with him, Clownhunter has disappeared and the Gardener is just...ugh. The 'never mentioned bestest rival' is already a tired trope but there's also no effort to make Ghostmaker and Batman relationship make sense and comic suffers for it. Also Batman is pretty useless Miracle Molly runs circles around him because somehow in the few months that Gotham has been all Cybepunk Bruce has become completely disconnected from Gotham. Fucking how? Did everyone decide we cyberpunk now overnight? Did the unsanity collective just appear from thin air? Muh Bane/Joker War ect aren't excuses because Batman was in the thick of those events the entire time he literally cannot be disconnected from Gotham. And why is Barbara Oracle again? Did she get crippled off screen? Can't be Batgirl and tech support simultaneously?

 

[JimiHendrix]

And why is Barbara Oracle again? Did she get crippled off screen? Can't be Batgirl and tech support simultaneously?

that was explained, she is Batgirl and Oracle simultaneously but she currently has more to offer as Oracle. Right now Cassandra and Stephanie are acting as Batgirl with Barbara as Oracle, however if there is a very serious situation that requires more feet on the ground she will come in as Batgirl as well. It's just for now with Batman, Ghostmaker, two batgirls and the occasional Robin there isn't really a need for a third batgirl as much as there is for tech support.

as for Ghostmaker, I don't mind him as a character, my only issue with him is the bizarre

"I've come to Gotham to kill you and take over because you don't kill criminals and I want to make the city a better place"

"ya but can we be friends instead?"

"ok"

and yeah the sudden cyberpunk shit with mobility mary is weird too. the Gardener I didn't even know was a new character, I just thought she was some poison ivy shit.