Final Crisis #6 spoilers

[theMan-Bat]

And this does not preclude them from dying and being replaced.

They tried replacing him in '94 and it didn't last because fans like myself have no interest in anyone other than Bruce Wayne as Batman.

So Grant is... he's what? Pretending?

No. He had fun with the idea of geting to kill Batman. I believe him.

Nor did I say it was. But until you have data demonstrating that a portion of the fanbase unaccepting of an alternative Batman would be so sizable that his rise to iconic status would be halted (you also require data demonstrating that it is impossible for the minds of these fans to ever change in the future), then you do not have an argument. If you want to tell me that another person can't become the money making icon that Bruce Wayne is under the mask, show me the data.

"NightQuest/NightsEnd" in 1994 is the proof. They tried making others become the money making icons that Bruce Wayne is under the mask in '94. It didn't last because a sizable portion of the Batman fanbase are unacceptable of anyone other than Bruce Wayne as Batman.

Show you the data? Most sites we use today were not even around then, but here's a link for you of Chuck Well's posting about it on his blog: http://comicbookcatacombs.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-bendis-writing-batman.html

Then, clearly, you have misunderstood.

By killing and replacing Bruce Wayne Morrison is tearing down the established and loved Batman mythology.

You've proven my point: Joker's Five Way Revenge was notable because it revamped the character following his years as a harmless figure of mischief. Yes, the revamp did primarily recall the early Joker stories, but even moving backwards can qualify as progression if you do it right.

In any case, you should know that my argument was not that exceptional Batman stories cannot exist within the standard realm of deviation, but rather that it is those that move outside that box that more readily achieve greatness, and often to a greater degree.

We agree that The Joker's Five Way Revenge is great. At least we agree on something.

Fortunately, that you cannot conceive of the concept being viable does not mean it is inviable.

If it's viable to you, fine. To each his own.

This is not an argument.

It's a statement.

You don't care whether the idea is good or bad--you have made it clear that you will hear no ideas on the death of Batman.

The very idea of killing Batman is a bad idea.

You have made it clear that you will hear no ideas on the end of his story that are not named "The Dark Knight Returns." You have made it clear that you will hear no ideas on the Batman mythology that do not involve Bruce Wayne. It seems one must walk a very narrow path in order to satisfy your vision of the Batman mythology--a path wrought with landmines, at that. Fortunately, the territory open for exploration in the Batman myth is much larger than your path, and occasionally we see suitable explorers to map it.

Or, let me put it this way: doesn't it seem ridiculous to say "There is no possible ending for Batman that is better than The Dark Knight Returns"? Doesn't it seem ridiculous to say "There is no possible death of Bruce Wayne that can benefit the mythology"? Since both statements discount an infinite number of possibilities, the probability of either statement being true approaches zero.

There hasn't been a better ending than Dark Knight Returns and I doubt there will ever be. Final Crisis #6 definitely isn't better.

You can't possibly be serious. I can't conceive of you being serious.

Serious.

 

[saska83]

Bruce Wayne is Batman as Batman is Bruce Wayne, and there is no other person who could replace him... neither Dick nor Tim, or others member of Batman family.

It's strange that Batman's "final death" happened in Final Crisis, not in Detective Comics or in Batman (excluding the RIP).

The rumor that Bruce could return as The Spectre... honestly I'm not fond of that idea.

 

[GlasgowBat]

my god, i don't think it's a rumor. Guard simply suggested it as an alternative route for bruce wayne. There is a lot of interesting ideas that could develop from that, but i think i would be perhaps more interested with the new bat family stories being intercut with bruce wayne inside this "death that is life". I think morrison could do a lot of interesting stuff with that.

problem there is that bruce won't feel gone. Considering the fact that i want bruce back eventually, i really feel that he needs to be missed not only by the characters but by the reader.

 

[GlasgowBat]

About 15,000 more.

Fair enough. I'll bare that in mind.

 

[Saint]

They tried replacing him in '94 and it didn't last because fans like myself have no interest in anyone other than Bruce Wayne as Batman.

They didn't try replacing him in '94; that was always meant to be temporary. His return had nothing to do with it "not working." So, again: if you want to argue that no one else can become an icon under the cowl, show me the data.

No. He had fun with the idea of geting to kill Batman. I believe him.

Of course he had fun with it--the same way he'd have fun writing anything else he thought was interesting or compelling. This doesn't preclude him from taking it seriously, and this doesn't mean he's twirling his moustache as he ties Batman to the tracks.

"NightQuest/NightsEnd" in 1994 is the proof. They tried making others become the money making icons that Bruce Wayne is under the mask in '94. It didn't last because a sizable portion of the Batman fanbase are unacceptable of anyone other than Bruce Wayne as Batman.

It didn't last because it was always meant to be temporary.

Show you the data? Most sites we use today were not even around then, but here's a link for you of Chuck Well's posting about it on his blog: http://comicbookcatacombs.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-bendis-writing-batman.html

That's not data, that's one guy making a claim without data. Furthermore, even if--in some alternate universe--Knightfall and Prodigal were failed attempts to replace Batman permanently, this would not indicate that all such attempts would fail. It only means that those attempts were not satisfactory. But, since neither was ever meant to be permanent, the point is moot.

The very idea of killing Batman is a bad idea.

Fortunately, your inability to imagine a way in which it might be good does not make it bad.

There hasn't been a better ending than Dark Knight Returns and I doubt there will ever be.

So you admittedly discount an infinite number of possibilities and believe a statement with a probability of truth that approaches zero?

Final Crisis #6 definitely isn't better.

Then I guess you should be really happy that Morrison said "This is not the end." Or did you opt to ignore that?

Serious.

Then I thank the gods that you are not a writer.

 

[The Guard]

Come on, Saint, quit arguing with him and address my awesome Spectre concepts!

"NightQuest/NightsEnd" in 1994 is the proof. They tried making others become the money making icons that Bruce Wayne is under the mask in '94. It didn't last because a sizable portion of the Batman fanbase are unacceptable of anyone other than Bruce Wayne as Batman.

KNIGHTFALL, KNIGHTSQUEST, AND KNIGHTSEND, were some of the best selling comics of all time, I believe. People loved the Azrael/Batman storyline. It didn't last because it was never meant to last. And Azrael was so popular he got his own book and remained a key component of the mythology for several years.

Fair enough. I'll bare that in mind.

I assume you know I'm kidding. 15,000 posts took me about five years.

Most of the time, people will not say anything in response to your posts unless you make a really unique point or they disagree with you.

problem there is that bruce won't feel gone. Considering the fact that i want bruce back eventually, i really feel that he needs to be missed not only by the characters but by the reader.

Ah. Now see...this is a good point that darn near no one has raised recently. That's a key reason that THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN worked. Superman was missed. Greatly.

 

[GlasgowBat]

I assume you know I'm kidding. 15,000 posts took me about five years.

Most of the time, people will not say anything in response to your posts unless you make a really unique point or they disagree with you.



Ah. Now see...this is a good point that darn near no one has raised recently. That's a key reason that THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN worked. Superman was missed. Greatly.

yeah, i knew you were kidding.

that's the point, if batman is gone, we need to make it mean something. characters need to feel it, but so does the audience. If they can do that well, we are in for some excellent stories. If not, it's going to be a waste of time.

it will be interesting to see how gotham is affected by batman's absence. There is the idea in the comics of batman's presence bringing all the lunatics, so what affect does his absence have? does gotham become worse? or better?

 

[saska83]

my god, i don't think it's a rumor. Guard simply suggested it as an alternative route for bruce wayne. There is a lot of interesting ideas that could develop from that, but i think i would be perhaps more interested with the new bat family stories being intercut with bruce wayne inside this "death that is life". I think morrison could do a lot of interesting stuff with that.

No, please... Morrisson made a mistake killing Superman in 1992... now we have a deja vu, with Batman.

problem there is that bruce won't feel gone. Considering the fact that i want bruce back eventually, i really feel that he needs to be missed not only by the characters but by the reader.

He will be back, but in what form, that's the question...

 

[GlasgowBat]

morrison did not kill superman. he was not involved in that at all.

Also, most people recognise that, whilst not being much to write home about in execution, the death of superman has provided a lot of good stuff for writer's to explore since then. I certainly would not call it a mistake..........

 

[The Guard]

THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN provided a lot for writers to explore at the time. It became a massive focal point of the Superman mythology, and while the execution wasn't perfect (It was 1992, after all), it was a good storyline.

 

[maninthechair]

Ok. I have been flamed before for expressing this opinion, but what the hell. My opinion is Batman is Batman for the fact he is so obsessed. It is essentially all who is and his alter ego is merely a facade. He is the best at what he does (pardon the phrase Logan), because of that obsession. Given that statement, Bruce Wayne is the only Batman. That is the character of Batman.... Before the attacks come in, no, I am not opposed to new storylines or progression of character. Changing the person under the cowl is not a case of either in my opinion. It's switching out one character and calling it another. Do I think in theory that Dick Grayson is the heir to Batman? Absolutely, but it should remain only as a theory. I would rather retain the same character that has existed for 70+ years with new stories and continue to explore the development of Nightwing (again a character that has existed for 70 +years.). I'm sorry but I can't think of this whole story line as nothing more than a cheap headline to sell books at the expense of the fans. It seems the editors would rather promote a couple of one issue purchases from people for shock and awe than to contiue to tell good solid stories with a great character.

 

[theMan-Bat]

morrison did not kill superman. he was not involved in that at all.

That's right. That was Mike Carlin, Roger Stern and Dan Jurgens.

Also, most people recognise that, whilst not being much to write home about in execution, the death of superman has provided a lot of good stuff for writer's to explore since then. I certainly would not call it a mistake..........

I would. As Mike Carlin admitted in Wizard magazine, "I don't think the "Death of Superman" storyline is even a story. It is just a fistfight." And the "Reign of the Supermen" storyline about the "darker and grittier" Superman replacements wasn't any better. As Roger Stern said, "For those who have been calling for Superman to be darker and grittier, here you go! Aren't you sorry?" And then when Superman finally returned they gave him that out of character long hair in an attempt to make him look "cool." And then they had him get married which eliminated a vital element, sexual tension, from the Superman myth. And then they gave him that silly electric suit. One bad idea after the next, because, as Walter Simonson said, "After "The Death of Superman" the company then expected us to produce that constantly. They wanted one huge event after another. We'd usually do smaller stories. After "The Death of Superman" they just wanted giant story arcs. It got a little boring because you couldn't vary it. We were a little tired of it." Jon Bogdanove said, "Superman in that silly electric suit or Superman Red/Superman Blue, that was a product of an atmosphere of expectation. "What are you going to do to top the death of Superman? What's the next event going to be?" And of course, they weren't natural. They came from the pressure to create the next big event and it got to be less fun for everybody."

 

[theMan-Bat]

They didn't try replacing him in '94;

They replaced him in '94, that's a fact.

that was always meant to be temporary.

Just as replacing him now is temporary.

His return had nothing to do with it "not working."

It wasn't working. Fan reactions to the replacements was negative and we wanted Bruce Wayne back as Batman.

So, again: if you want to argue that no one else can become an icon under the cowl, show me the data.

Again, "NightQuest/NightsEnd" in 1994 is the proof. No one else became an icon under the cowl and Bruce Wayne returned as Batman. You honestly believe someone else will become an icon under the cowl this time and Bruce Wayne will not be returning as Batman?

Of course he had fun with it--the same way he'd have fun writing anything else he thought was interesting or compelling. This doesn't preclude him from taking it seriously, and this doesn't mean he's twirling his moustache as he ties Batman to the tracks.

He's giggling and comparing himself to John Wilkes Booth.

It didn't last because it was always meant to be temporary.

And replacing him now is temporary.

That's not data, that's one guy making a claim without data. Furthermore, even if--in some alternate universe--Knightfall and Prodigal were failed attempts to replace Batman permanently, this would not indicate that all such attempts would fail. It only means that those attempts were not satisfactory. But, since neither was ever meant to be permanent, the point is moot.

They are not attempting to replace Bruce Wayne as Batman permanently today either.

Fortunately, your inability to imagine a way in which it might be good does not make it bad.

Killing Batman is utter nonsense.

So you admittedly discount an infinite number of possibilities and believe a statement with a probability of truth that approaches zero?

Again, there hasn't been a better ending than Dark Knight Returns and I doubt there will ever be. Final Crisis #6 definitely isn't better. Who wants to see Darkseid fry Batman with Omega Beams anyway? That's no fun.

Then I guess you should be really happy that Morrison said "This is not the end." Or did you opt to ignore that?

Have you? You seem to believe they are attempting to replace Bruce Wayne as Batman permanently.

 

[saska83]

I'm sorry but I can't think of this whole story line as nothing more than a cheap headline to sell books at the expense of the fans. It seems the editors would rather promote a couple of one issue purchases from people for shock and awe than to continue to tell good solid stories with a great character.

That's the point of this discussion - money and lack of good ideas.

 

[saska83]

I don't think that Dick, or Tim, or some other Batman's ally will take a cowl and continue in fighting the crime as a new Batman. That person will not have enough courage or spine to pursue such a thing and he or she (because we don't know who is the successor) will give up. The only person who can fight against all those criminals is Bruce Wayne, and only Bruce Wayne can be Batman.

 

[Saint]

They replaced him in '94, that's a fact.

Yes, but what they did is not the same as trying and failing to replace him permanently. You said they brought Bruce back because of fan reaction. This is blatantly false. Ergo, your argument is broken.

Just as replacing him now is temporary.

And? What argument is this statement supposed to relate to? You don't seem to be making a relevant point.

It wasn't working. Fan reactions to the replacements was negative and we wanted Bruce Wayne back as Batman.

Of course they wanted him back--the story was intentionally designed so that the fans would want him back. Jean Paul was played as an antagonist from day one. One of the first things he did as Batman was choke Tim for no reason. I guess you didn't notice, but there was basically a big flashing sign in every single panel of Knightquest that said "HOLY CRAP, BRUCE WAYNE IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND STOP THIS GUY."

So, no, it wasn't "not working." It was working in exactly the way it was intended to--and it's success was a testament to this.

Again, "NightQuest/NightsEnd" in 1994 is the proof. No one else became an icon under the cowl and Bruce Wayne returned as Batman.

Because no one else was ever meant to. We've been through this; perhaps you were not listening. Jean Paul didn't become an icon because he was designed as a temporary replacement. The same for Grayson. Accordingly, Knightfall does not prove anything about your argument.

You honestly believe someone else will become an icon under the cowl this time and Bruce Wayne will not be returning as Batman?

No, I don't believe that. I know that is not what's going to happen, because as much has been said. I believe that if they wanted to do that, they could make it work. Your contention that it could never work is what I have been refuting.

He's giggling and comparing himself to John Wilkes Booth.

Because he has a sense of humour. Humans tend to have that. This does not preclude him from taking this seriously, as the rest of the interview indicates.

And replacing him now is temporary.

And? What argument is this statement supposed to relate to? You don't seem to be making a relevant point.

They are not attempting to replace Bruce Wayne as Batman permanently today either.

And? What argument is this statement supposed to relate to? You don't seem to be making a relevant point.

Killing Batman is utter nonsense.

As I said: your inability to conceive of (or perhaps recognize) a scenario in which Batman's death is not "utter nonsense" is really your issue, and says nothing about the actual workability of the concept.

Again, there hasn't been a better ending than Dark Knight Returns and I doubt there will ever be.

Monotheism as applied to comics. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. What a painful philosophy.

Have you? You seem to believe they are attempting to replace Bruce Wayne as Batman permanently.

I believe no such thing--I am only arguing that they could do so successfully, if they were so inclined. I am fairly confident in the clarity of my language; at this point I can only assume that you simply aren't paying very close attention.

 

[Saint]

Come on, Saint, quit arguing with him and address my awesome Spectre concepts!

Wait, did I miss something? Did I forget to respond to one of your posts?

KNIGHTFALL, KNIGHTSQUEST, AND KNIGHTSEND, were some of the best selling comics of all time, I believe. People loved the Azrael/Batman storyline. It didn't last because it was never meant to last. And Azrael was so popular he got his own book and remained a key component of the mythology for several years.

Thank you. It's too bad they went and maybe-killed Jean Paul, and that the upcoming Azrael mini-series does not feature him. I always liked Jean Paul. I recently read all one hundred issues of Azrael's book, and unfortunately reading them in such a short period of time made it obvious that Jean Paul never really found his feet after Knightsaga. I think we're in a good place to bring him back and try and find a place where he fits.

I've talked about this before, but when Batman was rejected by that 2814 Sinestro ring, I immediately thought that the ring should go to the in-hiding Azrael, forcing him to come to Batman for help in overcoming and rejecting the ring. I thought it would be neat for him, as a way of doing this, to go through Thogal--confronting his nature and deciding, finally, what kind of man he wants to be. What's more, a deep meditation ritual for a man with the tendency to hallucinate, and a power ring? Confronting ring constructs of Dumas and Jean Paul's father, animated by Jean's subconscious? Awesome. I think it would make for a great vehicle to reintroduce Azrael.

Ah. Now see...this is a good point that darn near no one has raised recently. That's a key reason that THE DEATH OF SUPERMAN worked. Superman was missed. Greatly.

Agreed. Another reason that Batman has to stay gone for a while.

 

[The Guard]

Both Dick AND Tim have already been Batman before, Dick after KNIGHTFALL, and Tim during SINS OF YOUTH. They clearly do possess the courage and spine to do so.

It wasn't working. Fan reactions to the replacements was negative and we wanted Bruce Wayne back as Batman.

Fans wanting Bruce Wayne back was obvious. The entire story arc was designed to heighten the enthusiasm for Bruce Wayne's return as Batman. No character was ever meant to become an icon under the cowl, or a replacement for Bruce Wayne. In fact, writers made Dick Grayson Batman shortly before Bruce Wayne's rededication to his mission simply to say "No one but Bruce should be Batman".

And actually, it was working. Comic sales were very high. Most readers loved the character development Bruce Wayne received as he healed, they loved seeing Tim Drake take on more of a leadership role, they loved seeing Dick Grayson's relationship with Bruce fleshed out, the conflict Gordon and the cops went through, and they loved the whole "stunt" in general.

And there were lasting effects from this. Shortly after the KNIGHT saga:
ROBIN became it's own book
So did AZRAEL
So did NIGHTWING

And there were many more "events" that "tested" Batman. CONTAGION, CATACLYSM, and NO MAN'S LAND, to name a few.

Thank you. It's too bad they went and maybe-killed Jean Paul, and that the upcoming Azrael mini-series does not feature him. I always liked Jean Paul. I recently read all one hundred issues of Azrael's book, and unfortunately reading them in such a short period of time made it obvious that Jean Paul never really found his feet after Knightsaga. I think we're in a good place to bring him back and try and find a place where he fits.

I thought it was unknown who the new Azrael is. Jean Paul Valley was a fantastic character. Early AZRAEL issues were very good.

AZRAEL: AGENT OF THE GUARDIANS?

Interesting.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Yes, but what they did is not the same as trying and failing to replace him permanently.

I didn't say they tried to replace him permanently.

You said they brought Bruce back because of fan reaction. This is blatantly false. Ergo, your argument is broken.

Of course they brought Bruce back as Batman because of fan reaction to the replacement was negative. Was that the only reason? No, bringing Bruce back as Batman had been planned, but reader reaction was part of it and mattered. Denny O'Neil said in an interview that they were starting to wonder if readers would prefer a Batman who was willing to kill his opponents; the subsequent response to Jean Paul Valley's Batman proved this not to be the case and fans wanted Bruce back as Batman. "We'd been wondering for a long, long time, with his stricture against killing and his Boy Scout morality, if our hero was outmoded," O'Neil continues. "So instead of continuing to avoid the question, we decided to confront it and put out there a Batman who was as genuinely nuts as our Batman was sometimes accused of being." Throughout that stunt, O'Neil's greatest fear was that readers would actually like the Azrael Batman. "I don't know what exactly we would have done," he admits.
http://www.mrmedia.com/2007/08/dennis-oneil-batman-comic-book.html

And? What argument is this statement supposed to relate to? You don't seem to be making a relevant point.

I'm pointing out a fact that is relevant to our conversation about Batman replacements. You seem to be arguing just to be argumentative.

Of course they wanted him back--the story was intentionally designed so that the fans would want him back. Jean Paul was played as an antagonist from day one. One of the first things he did as Batman was choke Tim for no reason. I guess you didn't notice, but there was basically a big flashing sign in every single panel of Knightquest that said "HOLY CRAP, BRUCE WAYNE IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND STOP THIS GUY."

So, no, it wasn't "not working." It was working in exactly the way it was intended to--and it's success was a testament to this.

I meant the replacement was not working for fans. By not working, I mean, not liked by fans. In other words, the replacement was not to readers liking.

Because no one else was ever meant to. We've been through this; perhaps you were not listening. Jean Paul didn't become an icon because he was designed as a temporary replacement. The same for Grayson. Accordingly, Knightfall does not prove anything about your argument.

I didn't say they tried to replace him permanently. I am not even arguing that. And all of those in "Battle For The Cowl" are all designed as temporary replacements now as well.

No, I don't believe that. I know that is not what's going to happen, because as much has been said. I believe that if they wanted to do that, they could make it work. Your contention that it could never work is what I have been refuting.

You believe that if they wanted to they could replace Bruce Wayne permanently as Batman, I do not. We agree to disagree.

Because he has a sense of humour. Humans tend to have that. This does not preclude him from taking this seriously, as the rest of the interview indicates.

I am disgusted with Morrison's gloating and giggling about killing Batman in that interview.

As I said: your inability to conceive of (or perhaps recognize) a scenario in which Batman's death is not "utter nonsense" is really your issue, and says nothing about the actual workability of the concept.

I disagree. And no amount of back and forth arguing on our part is going to change the others stance.

I believe no such thing--I am only arguing that they could do so successfully, if they were so inclined. I am fairly confident in the clarity of my language; at this point I can only assume that you simply aren't paying very close attention.

You think they could replace Bruce Wayne permanently as Batman if they wanted to, I do not. We agree to disagree.

 

[Majic Walrus]

Because that's suicide.

Batman does alot of things that seem suicidal. He had a plan to get out, I promise.

Whether he had a way of contacting Superman or all of the JLA at the time or not, Batman would have been patient and waited for help/back up to arrive. Soon enough, in a fit of desperate rage, Superman came along and attacked Darkseid's bunker.
And the moral of the story is - as Frank Miller's Batman was teaching Robin in Dark Knight Returns, "Patience, Robin. It'll keep you alive."

The world was running out of time and he had no way of knowing when Supes or even IF supes would show up. I don't think for one minute he would risk the earth to "play it safe".

 

[theMan-Bat]

Batman does alot of things that seem suicidal. He had a plan to get out, I promise.

Getting fried and "suffering a fate worse than death" in "the Omega Sanction" was his "plan"?

The world was running out of time and he had no way of knowing when Supes or even IF supes would show up. I don't think for one minute he would risk the earth to "play it safe".

Batman needed help and Superman would have saved the day. They could have defeated Darkseid together. That would have been a fun cheer moment! But I guess that's not grim and gritty enough for Crisis fans. Wasn't the original Crisis on Infinite Earths enough? We needed Identity Crisis, Infinite Crisis and Final Crisis to brutalize the rest of the DC Universe. Every time people buy it, they're going to do another one. That's common sense. If the biggest book of the year features brutal rape (Identity Crisis), you're going to have to top it next time. You're going to have to come up with, what's worse than that? What's worse than raping and killing a character's pregnant wife and mutilating her body (Elongated Man's wife in Identity Crisis)? Their going to have to top that. Maybe they can cut Lois Lane's head off and shove it up her ass. Their going to have to figure out how to brutalize the rest of the DC Universe. The trend is depressing, and dumb. I don't find it entertaining at all and don't buy it, I just see the scans online and I am disgusted. I'd like to see them try a fun light positive crossover event book with a touch of nostalgia like Legends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legends_(comics)
Legends is the only crossover event book I ever enjoyed. I'd like to see an event book featuring superheroes actually saving innocent people from bad things. It's amazing how infrequently that seems to happen in superhero comics these days. Anyway...How is Batman supposed to know that Superman is on his way to save him and help defeat Darkseid? It's happened many times before. It's to be expected at this point so he would assume Superman is coming, which he was. Every time Batman has faced Darkseid Superman has been involved. Batman is wise. The world's greatest detective. A master strategist, not a reckless trigger happy amateur getting himself fried.

 

[GlasgowBat]

killing the god of evil doesn't strike me as being within the capabilities of an "amateur".

 

[The Guard]

Of course they brought Bruce back as Batman because of fan reaction to the replacement was negative.

No, they brought Bruce back as Batman because they were ALWAYS going to bring Bruce back as Batman. That's why Bruce's back was just broken and he didn't actually die. That's why Shondra Kinsolving was created as a character, to heal Bruce Wayne mentally and physically. That's why all the stories about Bruce "relearning how to be Batman" were conceived. The Knight saga was planned, and had been planned, for quite some time. Or do you think BATMAN: SWORD OF AZRAEL was just a random miniseries that introduced a new character that was not going to figure into the mythos in a key way? It was about accidental as HUSH.

Was that the only reason? No, bringing Bruce back as Batman had been planned, but reader reaction was part of it and mattered.

Reader reaction to AzBats and the themes and characterization his use allowed to be explored was generally positive. Fan reaction to what Azrael had DONE in Batman's stead was negative, in the context of "This is a story, I am supposed to react negatively to what has happened". It was supposed to be this way, just as fan reaction is usually negative any time something awful happens to Batman and Gotham. The Batman fans have usually bought into and invested into the universe DC has created, and KNIGHTFALL was no exception. They got into the storyline, and they felt its impact on Batman's world. Fans, in general, in particular long time fans, LOVED the angle of a Batman imposter who had no boundaries. And they liked Jean Paul Valley's struggle. Azrael even got his own book not long after KNIGHTSEND. That's not a coincidence.

 

[theMan-Bat]

No, they brought Bruce back as Batman because they were ALWAYS going to bring Bruce back as Batman.

As I said, bringing Bruce back as Batman had been planned.

Reader reaction to AzBats and the themes and characterization his use allowed to be explored was generally positive. Fan reaction to what Azrael had DONE in Batman's stead was negative

As I said, the replacement was not to readers liking. O'Neil's greatest fear was that readers would actually like the Azrael Batman. "I don't know what exactly we would have done," he admits.
http://www.mrmedia.com/2007/08/dennis-oneil-batman-comic-book.html

 

[The Guard]

What you said, and have said several times now, is that DC brought Bruce back because of negative fan reaction to Azrael. That is not the case at all.