Batman R.I.P.

[C. W. Saturn]

I'm not sure what this is based on, other than personal preference. We all love Bruce Wayne as a character, but to say that he simply CANNOT be succeeded in the context of the mythology? The Batman mythology, in its most classic form, has been building to this eventuality for years and years.

What exactly did they build to?

 

[Saint]

I'm not sure what this is based on, other than personal preference. We all love Bruce Wayne as a character, but to say that he simply CANNOT be succeeded in the context of the mythology? The Batman mythology, in its most classic form, has been building to this eventuality for years and years.

Agreed.It's been the next logical step for a long, long time. I'm somewhat surprised by the resistance, actually--though I suppose I shouldn't be. I always thought Bruce being succeeded (by Dick, specifically) was inevitable. Just a question of when.

 

[The Guard]

Not only have they built to it, it's been done. This is just the latest incarnation of the concept. You had Jean Paul Valley, and then Dick take over as Batman for a brief time after the events of KNIGHTFALL, etc. And heck, Tim even had a brief stint as Batman during SINS OF YOUTH. And we all know about BATMAN BEYOND.

They've been building to this concept, to the idea of someone taking over the mantle from Bruce because they value his mission, for at least a decade, with hints about it long before that. It's just that no one has had the courage to make it happen on any permanent level. Dick Grayson has been developed as a reluctant heir to Bruce since circa 1993, and Tim Drake has almost always looked to Bruce's crusade with an eye to honor his mentor and father figure, especially in recent years. The idea that if Bruce Wayne fell, someone would carry on, has been prevalant for some time in the Batman mythology. And let's face it, we saw it happen in various stories in the Golden and Silver Ages as well, and it usually worked on some level. The problem I have with this arc is the sheer randomness of it. It feels forced. Really forced, albeit involving a somewhat interesting a turn of events.

When you think about it...Jason Todd is back, Batwoman was reintroduced, and they've even hinted Spoiler may be alive somehow. I think they're bringing back the concept of the Batman Family and the Silver Age ideas of such a group in more ways than one.

 

[maninthechair]

Ok. I'm going to try to say this much more nicely than my last post. I apologize the last one was a combination of frustration and alchohol. I'm not gonna mock Morrison. He's a great writer that is above writing a purely shock and awe story like RIP. I've made my feelings that Bruce is Batman very clear so I'm not gonna rehash them but rather call out other points.
Dick Grayson the original Robin over shadowed by Batman. Over the years writers have developed his character and his own villains. He has always been a presumed heir to the mantle but a big problem is he has still not surpassed Bruce. So instead of having Nightwing rise to the challenge and have Bruce hand him the mantle as an accomplishment for being deserving, they instead drive Bruce crazy so a less qualified person can take up the mantle. Seems like its giving the shaft to people how have spent years of developping Nightwing into his own.
Tim could give you the young hip Batman but he's even less qualified than Dick at this point. I think he's a great character with so much potential but once he takes the mantle you miss out on stories of him coming into his own person. He'll just become a zerox of Batman.
Damien, I really liked the introduction of this character although I didn't read the arc. Just the idea of Bruce having a son lends itself to tons of stories in the future. Those won't be told if Bruce is killed and wouldn't it bother anyone for a character with a history of about 70 years to be replaced with someone that has been around for a couple of months?
I just think that by doing this they are taking away from many potential stories for other characters in addition to ruining Batman's in my opinion. I also don't like the fact they are taking someone that people haved loved for 70 years and giving him such an undignified end. I think Morrison is a much better writer and could have done something just as stunning without having to rely on the whole shock and awe of RIP. I'm sure that everyone that loves Batman can imagine a really cool way to end his story but it doesn't mean in should be done. Just my opinion though

 

[kguillou]

I think that the Spiderman Clone Saga of the 90's was pretty much a wake up call to both Marvel and DC. The disaster of the clone saga proved that people get furious whenever the main character is taken out of the book and replaced by someone else, even if that someone is just like the original. Even though Ben Reilly has a HUGE fanbase, nobody wanted him to replace Peter Parker because he IS Spider-man. The same with Batman. I know many many fans are rooting for Dick (myself included), but at the end of the day i dont think many people actually want to see Dick permanently replace Bruce Wayne because he IS Batman. We have to face facts, Marvel and DC will never take that next step into passing down the mantle or legacy or whatever. They figure "if it aint broke dont fix it"

 

[maninthechair]

I hope they do have that common sense but regardless of how I feel about this story in general, I have to say I agree that if its anyone, it should be Dick.

 

[Dark Victory]

I hope they do have that common sense but regardless of how I feel about this story in general, I have to say I agree that if its anyone, it should be Dick.

I agree with you, even though Batman should not be killed off or even the thought of him being killed off and satying dead. My problem with Dick is that he still seems too young.

 

[CaptainClown]

i have no problem with the batman mantle being passed on, just so far there doesn't seem to be an appropriate character to become Batman.

Well terry mcguiness heh

 

[Dark Victory]

I don't know, guess I'm like Marvel, have a fear of change(lulz), but since the beginning of Morrison's run, I've felt like a Halo fanboy and Grant took a **** on one of the discs. Out of his whole run I've only liked one issue.

 

[CaptainClown]

I dunno, I didn't want there to be a new Captain America but they way they did it at Marvel was awesome and I really like Bucky as the new CA.

 

[Saint]

I think that the Spiderman Clone Saga of the 90's was pretty much a wake up call to both Marvel and DC. The disaster of the clone saga proved that people get furious whenever the main character is taken out of the book and replaced by someone else, even if that someone is just like the original.

Except it did not prove that at all. One occurrence doesn't prove anything. There have been plenty of successful instances of character replacement. Wally West carried the Flash for twenty years with complaints only from the smallest minority--and even though Barry is coming back, it's not because people suddenly "got furious." Kyle Rayner survived a very vocal minority of Rayner-haters and carried Green Lantern for a decade. It's too early to say definitively, but thus far Bucky as Captain America has been a success.

The reason people were resistant to Ben Reilly wasn't because he replaced Peter Parker--it's because the story was stupid. People will resisted it because it was handled poorly, and, more importantly, because the replacement of Peter parker came from nowhere and was not a logical or warranted progression. The Spider-Man mythos did not support the replacement of Peter Parker at that time.

By contrast, the reason Captain America's death and replacement has succeeded (thus far) is because 1) it was handled well, but more importantly, 2) it made sense. It was supported by the conditions within the book. We know Brubaker didn't intend to kill Captain America until Civil War was conceived--so when the idea came up, Brubaker had already brought Bucky back. That's why the idea came up. Because there now existed a viable replacement for Captain America. If Bucky had not been brought back, the idea would have been shot down at the creative summit where it originated. What's more, the thematic concern had been addressed in Captain America for years: Rogers had always said that Captain America wasn't about Steve Rogers; that it was bigger than one man. There had been other Cap replacements, and everybody knew that Steve would want Captain America to continue without him. Unlike Spider-Man, the Captain America mythos supported the replacement of Captain America, so it worked.

The same is true of Batman. There has been a viable successor for fifteen years or more: Dick. The Nightwing identity always seemed transitional to me; something that was meant to grow him into Batman, not something he would be forever. Now, there is a second viable successor in Jason and perhaps even a third in Tim. The question of succession has been addressed time and time again. All the groundwork has been laid for this to happen, and everything in the story supports it happening.

 

[The Sage]

Except it did not prove that at all. One occurrence doesn't prove anything. There have been plenty of successful instances of character replacement. Wally West carried the Flash for twenty years with complaints only from the smallest minority--and even though Barry is coming back, it's not because people suddenly "got furious." Kyle Rayner survived a very vocal minority of Rayner-haters and carried Green Lantern for a decade. It's too early to say definitively, but thus far Bucky as Captain America has been a success.

The reason people were resistant to Ben Reilly wasn't because he replaced Peter Parker--it's because the story was stupid. People will resisted it because it was handled poorly, and, more importantly, because the replacement of Peter parker came from nowhere and was not a logical or warranted progression. The Spider-Man mythos did not support the replacement of Peter Parker at that time.

By contrast, the reason Captain America's death and replacement has succeeded (thus far) is because 1) it was handled well, but more importantly, 2) it made sense. It was supported by the conditions within the book. We know Brubaker didn't intend to kill Captain America until Civil War was conceived--so when the idea came up, Brubaker had already brought Bucky back. That's why the idea came up. Because there now existed a viable replacement for Captain America. If Bucky had not been brought back, the idea would have been shot down at the creative summit where it originated. What's more, the thematic concern had been addressed in Captain America for years: Rogers had always said that Captain America wasn't about Steve Rogers; that it was bigger than one man. There had been other Cap replacements, and everybody knew that Steve would want Captain America to continue without him. Unlike Spider-Man, the Captain America mythos supported the replacement of Captain America, so it worked.

The same is true of Batman. There has been a viable successor for fifteen years or more: Dick. The Nightwing identity always seemed transitional to me; something that was meant to grow him into Batman, not something he would be forever. Now, there is a second viable successor in Jason and perhaps even a third in Tim. The question of succession has been addressed time and time again. All the groundwork has been laid for this to happen, and everything in the story supports it happening.

Well said. Isn't one of the reasons Batman has Robin as a partner is to train him as a potential replacement anyway?

 

[CaptainClown]

Man, I think I want to read Captain America again. I love Bucky as CA. WINTER SOLDIER FTW!

 

[Saint]

The problem I have with this arc is the sheer randomness of it. It feels forced. Really forced, albeit involving a somewhat interesting a turn of events.

Yes, I agree. This may change before the story is done, but it seems to be sudden. I would imagine Batman's "final run" to be something approached slowly. Unfortunately, the ideal window in recent history was Infinite Crisis. The time between Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis set it up nicely: Batman breaking down, his paranoia eating him alive and ripping apart his friends, Nightwing's home destroyed--and the man himself having so recently faced the his role in Blockbuster's death--the return of Jason, and the list goes on. The stars were aligned. Nudge a few things here or there, a couple of adjustments, and if ever there was a time for lightning to strike, that was it.

Thus far, this situation is not quite so appropriate. My other concern is that Morrison's, uh, storytelling quirks might not make for the ideal "end" to Bruce Wayne's story. Weirdness is great, but is it what we want for this story? Will the important stuff be buried in the weird ideas and weird storytelling? Maybe I need to re-read New X-men to restore my faith.

 

[Saint]

Well said. Isn't one of the reasons Batman has Robin as a partner is to train him as a potential replacement anyway?

Even if that wasn't the case, it still supports the possibility. I mean, you can guarantee that Wally West wasn't created with the idea of him ever replacing Barry Allen. But Barry's death and replacement worked because Wally was there. If he hadn't been, it would have meant introducing a new Flash out of nowhere, causing the chances for success to plummet, and possibly even killing the idea of having Barry die in the first place.

Conversely, there's a reason Kyle Rayner's debut was so rocky--and continued to be rocky for years. He came from nowhere. The only reason it worked at all was because there was a precedent for replacing Green Lanterns with otherwise unknown people; it at least made sense that somebody we had never met could be selected as a Green Lantern. The fact that the character himself was just pulled out of a hat, though, tremendously damaged his chances of survival. Fortunately (for me, a big Rayner fan), he managed to survive the turbulence. That said, there would have been a lot less if he had been introduced in the book a year before, and had been developed into a viable replacement.

 

[Saint]

Man, I think I want to read Captain America again. I love Bucky as CA. WINTER SOLDIER FTW!

Agreed: he makes for an excellent Captain America. I hope they keep it that way.

 

[CaptainClown]

Agreed: he makes for an excellent Captain America. I hope they keep it that way.

I think the best thing about Bucky is that he acknowledges he isn't like Steve but still does his best.

 

[Venom 1988]

I agree with you, even though Batman should not be killed off or even the thought of him being killed off and satying dead. My problem with Dick is that he still seems too young.

Dick is in his early 20s. Thats pretty close to the age Bruce became Batman, which if I remember was mid-to-late 20s.

 

[Dark Victory]

I dunno, I didn't want there to be a new Captain America but they way they did it at Marvel was awesome and I really like Bucky as the new CA.

Yes, and after a year and a half, the book is still awesome. Even though I don't reccomend most of Brubaker's Batman stories, he's a god everywhere else(Daredevil, Criminal, Captain America, etc...).

 

[CaptainClown]

ya which bums me out. He wasn't that good with Batman as he is with Marvel. Well minus Gotham Central but still

 

[kguillou]

Originally Posted by Saint
Except it did not prove that at all. One occurrence doesn't prove anything. There have been plenty of successful instances of character replacement. Wally West carried the Flash for twenty years with complaints only from the smallest minority--and even though Barry is coming back, it's not because people suddenly "got furious." Kyle Rayner survived a very vocal minority of Rayner-haters and carried Green Lantern for a decade. It's too early to say definitively, but thus far Bucky as Captain America has been a success.

The reason people were resistant to Ben Reilly wasn't because he replaced Peter Parker--it's because the story was stupid. People will resisted it because it was handled poorly, and, more importantly, because the replacement of Peter parker came from nowhere and was not a logical or warranted progression. The Spider-Man mythos did not support the replacement of Peter Parker at that time.

By contrast, the reason Captain America's death and replacement has succeeded (thus far) is because 1) it was handled well, but more importantly, 2) it made sense. It was supported by the conditions within the book. We know Brubaker didn't intend to kill Captain America until Civil War was conceived--so when the idea came up, Brubaker had already brought Bucky back. That's why the idea came up. Because there now existed a viable replacement for Captain America. If Bucky had not been brought back, the idea would have been shot down at the creative summit where it originated. What's more, the thematic concern had been addressed in Captain America for years: Rogers had always said that Captain America wasn't about Steve Rogers; that it was bigger than one man. There had been other Cap replacements, and everybody knew that Steve would want Captain America to continue without him. Unlike Spider-Man, the Captain America mythos supported the replacement of Captain America, so it worked.

The same is true of Batman. There has been a viable successor for fifteen years or more: Dick. The Nightwing identity always seemed transitional to me; something that was meant to grow him into Batman, not something he would be forever. Now, there is a second viable successor in Jason and perhaps even a third in Tim. The question of succession has been addressed time and time again. All the groundwork has been laid for this to happen, and everything in the story supports it happening.

I agree with pretty much everything you said, cap, flash and green lantern have all had successful replacements. BUT, we're talking about Batman here. When it comes to the three biggest superheroes in the industry: Batman, Superman and Spider-man, i think replacing them is much much harder than replacing the Flash or even Captain America. I could guarantee that if Superman was replaced with anyone other than clark kent, there would be an immense outrage from the fans, why? Because Clark Kent is pretty much as iconic as superman is. The same with Bruce Wayne, and the same with Peter Parker. Their identities have become household names, everybody knows bruce wayne, peter parker and clark kent. If you ask the average joe who doesn't even read comcis, he'd still recognize those names. But not everybody necessarily knows Barry Allen or Steve Rogers, they just know the Flash and Captain America. All I'm saying is, when your trying to replace those characters, it becomes extremely difficult because of their huge fanbase and legacy. Characters like flash, green lantern and cap, while they are popular, they do not come close to the "big three" and therefore that makes it harder to make any kind of permanent change to the characters. Heck those three are still wearing the same costumes that they've always been wearing (well i guess batman's has deviated a little but its still pretty much the same design from the 30's.)

 

[Saint]

I agree with pretty much everything you said, cap, flash and green lantern have all had successful replacements. BUT, we're talking about Batman here. When it comes to the three biggest superheroes in the industry: Batman, Superman and Spider-man, i think replacing them is much much harder than replacing the Flash or even Captain America. I could guarantee that if Superman was replaced with anyone other than clark kent, there would be an immense outrage from the fans, why?

So? There's outrage over every significant event in every comic. Outrage fades. Personally, I would have loved to see Kon-El become Superman some day. Too bad they killed him. The reason you can't replace Superman now is because 1) there's nobody to replace him (most of the time), and 2) replacing him probably won't make sense in the context of the story; Superman isn't going to get old and retire, and if even if he dies, nobody is going to say "I should be Superman now." The only other living Kryptonian isn't a man. With Kon-El, there was a rare situation where replacing Clark would have been possible and sensible--Kon-El was kryptonian (mostly), and Kon-El was genetically related and emotionally family to Clark. Moreover, being a product of Clark's DNA, he aspired to Clark's ideals. Clark was his role model; he wanted to be Superman someday. Without him, there's nobody to be Superman and nobody who would aspire to be Superman, so replacing Superman isn't viable.

Because Clark Kent is pretty much as iconic as superman is.

And there's no rule that says the stories of inconic characters can't end. The ending is a critical part of any story. Then, we can begin a new Superman story with a new Superman.

That said, there are arguments not to replace Superman. His potential for extremely long life, enduring into the future as a persistent beacon of hope and Christ-figure comes to mind--one constant in a changing universe. I haven't decided whether it's preferable to replace him or not yet. He has the option, anyway. Batman, on the other hand, is a symbol for the reality of human struggles--and that means he must pass, as humans do. Moreover, his legacy must endure beyond his passing because that is the impetus of the human race. Batman's story cannot be whole without a successor.

The same with Bruce Wayne, and the same with Peter Parker. Their identities have become household names, everybody knows bruce wayne, peter parker and clark kent.

Again, I don't see why this is an issue. They'd eventually become familiar with the new names. We don't halt the story because Joe Blow won't immediately know about the change. We don't care about Joe Blow. Joe Blow doesn't buy comics, and therefore doesn't matter. Joe Blow just goes and sees the movies, which will feature Bruce Wayne anyway. And if the replacement is a success and in twenty years there's a movie with Dick Grayson as Batman, Joe Blow will see that too. He won't throw a fit that it's not Bruce Wayne because it's just another movie to him. He'll say "Well, that's new" and move on.

Comic book fans are the only ones who care about this stuff, and the reality is that sometimes they have to do things that scare the fans, lest we be reading the same stories over and over again for all our lives.

 

[The Sage]

Yes, I agree. This may change before the story is done, but it seems to be sudden. I would imagine Batman's "final run" to be something approached slowly. Unfortunately, the ideal window in recent history was Infinite Crisis. The time between Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis set it up nicely: Batman breaking down, his paranoia eating him alive and ripping apart his friends, Nightwing's home destroyed--and the man himself having so recently faced the his role in Blockbuster's death--the return of Jason, and the list goes on. The stars were aligned. Nudge a few things here or there, a couple of adjustments, and if ever there was a time for lightning to strike, that was it.

Is it official that this is the complete end of Bruce Wayne as Batman, or will he take the mantle again in the future?

 

[Saint]

Is it official that this is the complete end of Bruce Wayne as Batman, or will he take the mantle again in the future?

Who knows? Morrison has said it's 'the end of Bruce Wayne as batman." As for permanence, well, that's always up in the air.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Who knows? Morrison has said it's 'the end of Bruce Wayne as batman." As for permanence, well, that's always up in the air.

Yeah, they used to say the only people who stay dead in comics are Uncle Ben, Jason Todd and Barry Allen..

So yeah, even if Batman dies, you know he'll be back.