The Official Batman Comic Thread

[Nightwing]

Like the "Detective Comics thread" I created one for just the "Batman" book. That way both are seperate and evade confusion. This is also the thread to discuss Morrison's new arc "Batman and Son".

What are your thoughts on it thus far?

[The Spirit]

Thankyou, for making this thread Batman!

This was a great start to Morrison's run. It had everything. Even Bono (any one else catch that?). And if this truely is the end of The Joker, I've always thought he should die at the hands of a cop who has had enough. With this and Dini's wonderful first issue of Detective Comics, this may be the best time to be a Batman fan in a long time.

Great ish.

[The Batman]

Jokers Not Dead. I doubt they'd kill him like that.

[Mister J]

The Joker will be back and sooner than later, methinks. No way he goes out like that.

I caught the Bono thing on a second read. Funny, especially with the all the monitors ala ZooTV.

The ninja Man-Bats at the end were kinda creepy, but I think this arc is gonna be really good. I like the duality in the title, as 'son' is applicable to both Tim and (who appears to be) Ibn.

[Joker]

seeing as they clearly said Joker was alive in the issue, I really doubt he's dead...nothing much really happened this issue, but it was very well written, and I'm betting it really picks up next issue

[The Batman]

Morrison described the next issue as 22 pages of batman fighting ninja man bats.

[Nightwing]

Death is rarely forever in comics anyway, and I really doubt that the Joker will be killed off forever. Assuming that is even what Morrison is doing. The real deal is that they always comes back.

I think it would be pretty hard to forever kill the Joker off. Post-COIE he became much more than just another one of Batman's kooky villians. He went from being a zany prankster to a truly frightening, completely insane and unpredictable stone cold killer - even more lethal than when he was first written back in the day.

The upshot of this, as I see it, is that he became Batman's true nemesis. Ra's and Bane might appear to be Batman's opposite numbers in that they are very much LIKE Batman but on the opposite side of the fence. But the Joker, in his modern incarnation, he is everything Batman is not. Bane and especially Ra's operate with a kind of sense of honor, as twisted as it might be. They function within a set of rules they define for themselves and ulimately (like Batman) appear to have lines they will not or cannot cross.

The Joker, however, has none of these things. Batman has precious few lines he won't cross, but he has them. The Joker has no lines, appears to have no motive, no reasons for doing what he does. To taunt Batman? Why? Because he enjoys killing? Perhaps, but why dress it up in the garish clown scenario? The only person who understands why the Joker does what he does, is the Joker himself. And he might not even know. Never forget that line in the Killing Joke: "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another. If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be a multiple choice."

If Batman is a respresentation of the struggle of order against chaos, the Joker is like the Norse god Loki. Chaos personified. He might sometimes actually BE funny. He says a couple of good ones in the Killing Joke. Or he is just terrifying like in DKR, but at the end of the day he isn't like Riddler, leaving clues for Batman to follow. Some will argue that the silver age Joker was testing Batman's intellect by giving him clues, but that verison of the Joker wasn't dangerous. Testing Batman's mind didn't make the Joker Batman's real rival. It's the utter, lethal and complete mahem that he inflicts.

Once you add the personal grief the Joker has unleashed on Batman - murdering Gordon's wife, murdering Jason Todd, shooting Barbara, etc, you have a character that is linked forever, perhaps in a sick way, to Batman. And their relationship appears to be the most fatal kind. It is often implied they are fated, at some point, to destroy each other. Like Holmes and Moriarty they are doomed to go over the falls together. (That is why I always thought Miller got the Joker bang on in DKR..without his "other half" the Joker falls into a near catatonic state, only to come back to life on the heels of Batman's return).

Any "new" Joker will simply not be this sort of fundamental opposite to Batman. If, and lets face it at this point it is a big IF, Morrison is creating some kind of new Joker, the challenge will be to create a different kind of Joker. Whatever form this character takes, it won't take the same kind of toll out of Batman that the "classic" Joker does. He might be interesting to read, if Morrison is doing it then you know it will at least be unique, but it won't tap into the same kind of twisted and fatal Rota Fortuna that the "real" Joker and Batman are locked in. If it did, it wouldn't be a "new" Joker.

Ultimately, I think it will be very hard for a "new" Joker to be anywhere near as compelling. In one of the Batman documentaries on the Tim Burton Batman DVDs Kevin Smith put it best, IMO. He said that like Batman, the Joker begins with some kind of devastating tragedy. But where Batman dedicates himself to trying to impose order so no one else has to suffer like he did, the Joker has decided to impose chaos so that EVERYONE suffers like he has.

It's going to be pretty hard to top that, and that is why even if the Joker is "killed", he'll be back.

[Joker]

there's also the fact that ever time they've killed Joker off, he's came back. Hell, they killed him at the end of his first appearance even, and he came back 4 or 5 issues later. He always finds a way to cheat death, some way or another. But like I said, they stated clearly in the issue as they were taking him away that he was still alive.

[SpideyInATree]

This thread was in much need of creation.

My favorite part of Morrison and Kubert's run so far has been Bruce Wayne getting back into his millionaire playboy routine. And, basically, how he kind of forgot how to do it since he's been focused on being Batman the bad ass for quite a while. It was awesome how Alfred had to help him out, heh.

And the end of the issue leaves a lot of question marks. Morrison has set it up, now its time to start knocking them down.

[Darthphere]

It was an alright issue, average set-up for the rest of the arc. Morrison has a lot of ideas out there, some really out there but I hope he does a good job. Kubert (I dont care which one) art was good.

[Orko Is King]

Not too much action, but this was a nice set-up issue. I haven't read much GM, but what I have read, I really enjoyed. AK's art was really nice as well. It seems a bit smoother and tighter than his stuff on Ult. X-Men. Overall, this is a great time to be reading Batman comics.

[CConn]

I absolutely loved the first issue - which, honestly, surprised me slightly as I didn't think a story involving Batman with a son would feel as...classic as that issue felt - but it really did.

And that's what made me enjoy it so much - it really felt like a classic, sorta definitive Batman story. Something I'd see in TAS as much as I would in a comic. The interaction between Batman and Alfred, the re-integration of Bruce Wayne into the story. It really seemed like the set-up to a really good story to come.

[The Batman]

+It felt like the 70's batman....especially with batman not being in gotham. the old stories where batman would be in different countries were always great.

[Bullseye]

As much as I dislike Grant Morrison writing superheroes, however, I do enjoy his writing when he writes Batman. Batman is the only superhero I can imagine Morrison writing.

Originally Posted by Batman

Death is rarely forever in comics anyway, and I really doubt that the Joker will be killed off forever. Assuming that is even what Morrison is doing. The real deal is that they always comes back.

I think it would be pretty hard to forever kill the Joker off. Post-COIE he became much more than just another one of Batman's kooky villians. He went from being a zany prankster to a truly frightening, completely insane and unpredictable stone cold killer - even more lethal than when he was first written back in the day.

The upshot of this, as I see it, is that he became Batman's true nemesis. Ra's and Bane might appear to be Batman's opposite numbers in that they are very much LIKE Batman but on the opposite side of the fence. But the Joker, in his modern incarnation, he is everything Batman is not. Bane and especially Ra's operate with a kind of sense of honor, as twisted as it might be. They function within a set of rules they define for themselves and ulimately (like Batman) appear to have lines they will not or cannot cross.

The Joker, however, has none of these things. Batman has precious few lines he won't cross, but he has them. The Joker has no lines, appears to have no motive, no reasons for doing what he does. To taunt Batman? Why? Because he enjoys killing? Perhaps, but why dress it up in the garish clown scenario? The only person who understands why the Joker does what he does, is the Joker himself. And he might not even know. Never forget that line in the Killing Joke: "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another. If I have to have a past, I prefer it to be a multiple choice."

If Batman is a respresentation of the struggle of order against chaos, the Joker is like the Norse god Loki. Chaos personified. He might sometimes actually BE funny. He says a couple of good ones in the Killing Joke. Or he is just terrifying like in DKR, but at the end of the day he isn't like Riddler, leaving clues for Batman to follow. Some will argue that the silver age Joker was testing Batman's intellect by giving him clues, but that verison of the Joker wasn't dangerous. Testing Batman's mind didn't make the Joker Batman's real rival. It's the utter, lethal and complete mahem that he inflicts.

Once you add the personal grief the Joker has unleashed on Batman - murdering Gordon's wife, murdering Jason Todd, shooting Barbara, etc, you have a character that is linked forever, perhaps in a sick way, to Batman. And their relationship appears to be the most fatal kind. It is often implied they are fated, at some point, to destroy each other. Like Holmes and Moriarty they are doomed to go over the falls together. (That is why I always thought Miller got the Joker bang on in DKR..without his "other half" the Joker falls into a near catatonic state, only to come back to life on the heels of Batman's return).

Any "new" Joker will simply not be this sort of fundamental opposite to Batman. If, and lets face it at this point it is a big IF, Morrison is creating some kind of new Joker, the challenge will be to create a different kind of Joker. Whatever form this character takes, it won't take the same kind of toll out of Batman that the "classic" Joker does. He might be interesting to read, if Morrison is doing it then you know it will at least be unique, but it won't tap into the same kind of twisted and fatal Rota Fortuna that the "real" Joker and Batman are locked in. If it did, it wouldn't be a "new" Joker.

Ultimately, I think it will be very hard for a "new" Joker to be anywhere near as compelling. In one of the Batman documentaries on the Tim Burton Batman DVDs Kevin Smith put it best, IMO. He said that like Batman, the Joker begins with some kind of devastating tragedy. But where Batman dedicates himself to trying to impose order so no one else has to suffer like he did, the Joker has decided to impose chaos so that EVERYONE suffers like he has.

It's going to be pretty hard to top that, and that is why even if the Joker is "killed", he'll be back.

That is one of the most brilliant post of seen written in the Batman comics forum.

[CConn]

Originally Posted by The Batman

It felt like the 70's batman....especially with batman not being in gotham. the old stories where batman would be in different countries were always great.

Yeah. I mean, Loeb's great, Miller's good, but whenever it feels like O'Neil or Englesham wrote it, that's when I'm really reminded why Batman's my favorite character.

Originally Posted by Bullseye

As much as I dislike Grant Morrison writing superheroes, however, I do enjoy his writing when he writes Batman. Batman is the only superhero I can imagine Morrison writing.

Have you read his Animal Man run?

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by CConn

I absolutely loved the first issue - which, honestly, surprised me slightly as I didn't think a story involving Batman with a son would feel as...classic as that issue felt - but it really did.

Except nothing involving his "son" has even happened yet.

[CConn]

Generally speaking, the tone of a story is set from the very beginning. Especially one that only spans four issues.

[SpideyInATree]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

Except nothing involving his "son" has even happened yet.

Well, there kind of was that little boy at the end of the issue watching Bruce Wayne on the camera, pointed right at him and said, "That's my father. What are we going to do now, mama?"

And then gigantic werebats dropped down behind the boy and his "mama".

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by SpideyInATree

Well, there kind of was that little boy at the end of the issue watching Bruce Wayne on the camera, pointed right at him and said, "That's my father. What are we going to do now, mama?"

And then gigantic werebats dropped down behind the boy and his "mama".

I would hardly call that an event.

[Nightwing]

We'll see much more most likely in part two of the arc. And especially in part three, when Ibn meets Tim for the first time.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by Batman

We'll see much more most likely in part two of the arc. And especially in part three, when Ibn meets Tim for the first time.

Yup, im not hating on the book but its way too early to call it a success considering the kid only showed up in like a page and 3 panels and hasnt interacted with Bruce.

[SpideyInATree]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

I would hardly call that an event.

I wouldn't either. But you originally said that "nothing happened involving his son". But that was definitely SOMETHING if you ask me.

[Fledermaus]

I'll be glad when we find out the little bastards name. That's the "event" I'm waiting for.

[Darthphere]

Originally Posted by SpideyInATree

I wouldn't either. But you originally said that "nothing happened involving his son". But that was definitely SOMETHING if you ask me.

It was hyperbole, but I still stand behind that statement. A couple of pices of dialogue and a splash page arent what id call happenings.

[SpideyInATree]

Originally Posted by Darthphere

It was hyperbole, but I still stand behind that statement. A couple of pices of dialogue and a splash page arent what id call happenings.

But it's not nothing.