The Dark Knight Rises Nolan...add Robin!!!!!!

[Mr. Earle]

I think every character has its importance, especially to the mythos. However some I choose to ignore, as I do not care for their contribution or their character in general. I will cite The Killing Joke, Batman Year One, The Long Halloween all did not have Robin and did not NEED Robin to be good. The same with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, it is not necessary to include Robin to have a great Batman story. The same with Catwoman, Penguin, Riddler, Rahs, and so on and so forth.

What you re saying is obvious. You dont need a specific character to make the story good.
But if you look the mythos as a whole, then you'll see that Batman has to go through some events in his life and Robin is one of the major ones.

Not to mention that after a few movies, all these themes about how batman affects gotham, the mob, the villains and how they affect him will be explored to death. So you have to bring in new characters to give him something other than villains to beat down. That's why he's had so many sidekicks over the years. He's had 4-5 Robins, 3 Batgirls, Nightwing, Oracle, and god knows who else. And that's because unlike Superman, his story is ongoing whereas Superman's has come to a standstill so they keep retconning things out to tell them again in a new way.

 

[CaptainClown]

What you re saying is obvious. You dont need a specific character to make the story good.
But if you look the mythos as a whole, then you'll see that Batman has to go through some events in his life and Robin is one of the major ones.

Not to mention that after a few movies, all these themes about how batman affects gotham, the mob, the villains and how they affect him will be explored to death. So you have to bring in new characters to give him something other than villains to beat down. That's why he's had so many sidekicks over the years. He's had 4-5 Robins, 3 Batgirls, Nightwing, Oracle, and god knows who else. And that's because unlike Superman, his story is ongoing whereas Superman's has come to a standstill so they keep retconning things out to tell them again in a new way.

All stories are the same, just repackaged. Batman HAS NOT changed. Writers include side-kicks because they want to, just as some don't include them.

As for these events in his life, there are many with Robin as there are ones without Robin. I do not care for the ones with Robin so I tend to avoid them. You don't have to bring new characters to make an old character shine. They just need to progress Batman through a natural course of psychological development. However Batman changing what his procedure is would "damage" sales as Batman becoming a tyrannical dick would be "betraying" the character. So they bring these new characters to have the same old batman fight the same old villains with a new voice to "liven" things up.

If I got a Batman character I wanted I would want to see him go through the stages of grief and find him paralleling with the villains he is putting away, there he would question his own actions and his motives for better or worse. I want to see Batman not trust anyone. I don't need or want a side-kick to point it out through dialogue, I would rather him learn on his own through his actions.

 

[Mr. Earle]

All stories are the same, just repackaged. Batman HAS NOT changed. Writers include side-kicks because they want to, just as some don't include them.

As for these events in his life, there are many with Robin as there are ones without Robin. I do not care for the ones with Robin so I tend to avoid them. You don't have to bring new characters to make an old character shine. They just need to progress Batman through a natural course of psychological development. However Batman changing what his procedure is would "damage" sales as Batman becoming a tyrannical dick would be "betraying" the character. So they bring these new characters to have the same old batman fight the same old villains with a new voice to "liven" things up.

If I got a Batman character I wanted I would want to see him go through the stages of grief and find him paralleling with the villains he is putting away, there he would question his own actions and his motives for better or worse. I want to see Batman not trust anyone. I don't need or want a side-kick to point it out through dialogue, I would rather him learn on his own through his actions.

Why would he do that?
And besides, how many times can batman catch the bad guy before it gets boring?

 

[Two-Face]

Yeah getting a 12 year old boy to catch a bad guy is better Batman catching a bad guy is never boring.

 

[CaptainClown]

Why would he do that?
And besides, how many times can batman catch the bad guy before it gets boring?

Including a boy into the equation doesn't make it better.


The side-kick is used so that the heroes thoughts are expressed to the reader and not thought bubbles. However i think that hinders great storytelling by having to go through that channel. Rather, Batman should be shown through action and supporting characters like Gordon, Alfred etc. They interact with him from a distance like the reader, it adds mystery and continues intrigue with the development of a character.

Also he would do that because the story deems it necessary. I can't write a scenario because it isn't a story. It is an idea, an idea that can be implemented into a story. Maybe Scarecrow kills a bus full of kids and it was because Bruce was busy at a fundraiser, it was because of that he blames himself and refuses to be apart of Wayne Enterprises. His recluse attitude begins to affect Wayne Enterprises and through that affects the city. With the city revolving around his company many find themselves starved and turning to crime. It is in that guilt that Batman learns he must be both Bruce and Batman. The city needs both him and his alter-ego in order to survive. While he cannot be everywhere he will do his part in saving the city and the people of it.

How about constant exposure to chemicals via scarecrow and joker over time has made him a bit paranoid. It is in that paranoia that Batman begins seeing patterns that aren't there, combined with his intellect that has made him overly-confident. He chases a villain he can't outsmart because its all in his mind, putting into question his stability towards Gordon, as well as the rest of Gotham PD. He eventually would learn that he might not always be right and to put trust in Gordon and the people defending the city and not be a one man army.

there I find that to be way more interesting then Batman dies, but he isn't really dead he is in some dead zone and robin is batman and so is the other robin who is his son, and then azreal is there.. oh and jason todd isn't dead....

 

[Mr. Earle]

The side-kick is used so that the heroes thoughts are expressed to the reader and not thought bubbles. However i think that hinders great storytelling by having to go through that channel. Rather, Batman should be shown through action and supporting characters like Gordon, Alfred etc. They interact with him from a distance like the reader, it adds mystery and continues intrigue with the development of a character.

If you think that sidekicks are there just for the hero to talk to somebody then forgive me if i disagree. Dick and any other sidekick arent there just for that, but they serve a major role in the life of the heroes.

With Dick its about Bruce trying to raise him right, to instill the same morals to him, arguing because they re different characters, etc, etc. Robin is Batman's son and successor. The only son he could ever have they way he leads his life. Robin isnt just there for Batman to discuss how he's going to stop the joker.

Maybe Scarecrow kills a bus full of kids and it was because Bruce was busy at a fundraiser, it was because of that he blames himself and refuses to be apart of Wayne Enterprises. His recluse attitude begins

God i hate stories like that.
"Somebody in gotham died, i wasnt everywhere at the same time, i must seclude myself further, i must cut down on eating, sleeping, peeing."
Batman is obsessed but he isnt stupid.

Anyway, the point is that you can create many great stories with loner Batman but at some point, you have to introduce the people that have had a major effect in his life. Robin, Catwoman, and yeah, even Clark.

there I find that to be way more interesting then Batman dies, but he isn't really dead he is in some dead zone and robin is batman and so is the other robin who is his son, and then azreal is there.. oh and jason todd isn't dead....

Batman has been around for 60 years (with countless issues each year) and all these realistic plots and themes you refer to have mostly been covered. There is nowhere else to take the character besides the unrealistic.
And yes, i find the current events very interesting since after 60 years of stories with Batman catching the bad guy, i get to see something new. In fact i get a glimpse of what would happen if Batman ever died, which they will never do, so that's a nice alternative.

 

[Bruce Malone]

In the comics I prefer the more solo batman I dont mind if at times you have batman working with tim drake robin or nightwing but not in the joined at the hip every where batman goes robins there way.

 

[Jahu-Momus]

Dick Grayson is the leader of the DC Universe! He has been the leader of the Teen Titans, he's going to be on the Justice League, been on the Outsiders so he pretty much knows the entire superhero community. Plus, when you consider his growth, he is more than a character to talk to. I think its time for him to be given his due when it comes to live action films

 

[Mr. Earle]

The fact that he's been part of many of the teams doesnt mean anything. Its a pretty shallow arguement.
And he is a member of the Justice League right now.

 

[Jahu-Momus]

The fact that he's been part of many of the teams doesnt mean anything. Its a pretty shallow arguement.

How is it shallow? Because he's been a part of so many teams, he knows personally knows alot of the hero community. Such an important character just can't be written off just because he started off in green under roos.

 

[Mr. Earle]

MASSIVE SPOILERS

Prepare for your mind to be blown:

Spoiler

Dick is the goddamn Batman now. Bruce is lost somewhere in the past and Dick took his place because Gotham needs a Batman. Damian is his Robin while Tim has become Red Robin and left the batfamily in search for Bruce as he is the only one who thinks that Bruce is still alive. Basically Bruce is in the past, living one life after another as a punishment from Darkseid. In March they'll reveal exactly what Bruce is doing. Prepare for Pirate Batman, Hoplite Batman, Legionnaire Batman, etc. Its going to be awesome.

Discussing with other batfans, they informed of the following:
Before Final Crisis, Darkseid fell back through time from where he planned his attack, killed Orion and orchestrated the Final Crisis. Darkseid is also tied with the Black Glove, the organisation that messed with Bruce's mind before destroying him. Its implied that at some point he reached to the current time and created the Black Glove. He might have inhabited Dr Hurt. Also, by living throughout time, Darkseid has seeded humanity with evil, and rooted out any symbols of hope and good.

So Bruce who is living multiple lives in the past is trying to seed hope back into humanity by giving them symbols and heroes. He is carving symbols in caves, he does heroic deeds, etc. Basically the goddamn Batman is outdoing Jesus Christ!

Finally, the symbol of the Black Lanterns that just appeared in the DCU is implied to be a stylized version of the symbol of the Black Glove, so Darkseid is probably also responsible for the Black Lanterns as well.
Turns out, you dont **** with Darkseid. He ****s with you!

I'll have to catch up to all that to see for myself.

Now kneel before Grant Morrison and Goeff Johns who planned this many years ago and it still hasnt played out completely.

 

[Majik1387]

So pretty much Quantum Leap?

 

[Mr. Earle]

I think he lives one life after the other, getting reincarnated or something. Living through infinite lives and infinite deaths. I really hope that when he comes back he doesnt remember all that because that could make a man crazy.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I knew most of that, I just haven't followed in a few months and I am new to comics. I didn't know if the JLA made Dick a member when he was Nightwing or only now since he's Batman.

One time he stood in for Bats when he was busy. As Nightwing i mean. And Supes and WW were impressed by him.
But as long as the daddy is around he wont be in the JL but in the secondary teams, along with the other sidekicks/second class heroes.

 

[CaptainClown]

If you think that sidekicks are there just for the hero to talk to somebody then forgive me if i disagree. Dick and any other sidekick arent there just for that, but they serve a major role in the life of the heroes.

You are certainly entitled to disagree, these are our opinions on the subject. Nothing we say are facts just points we use to support our stance on the subject.

They serve a role if its important to the author. However I feel that Batmans progression was best realized without someone pointing it out. The character has become stagnet by making it a soap opera with unreasonable amounts of back up that take away from his insanity. For me the draw to Batman was that he was a hero that could easily be a super-villain. His motives, his actions all border on the insane. The side-kick I see it as just a vent. I believe one comic book writer wrote that. It was along the lines "Robin helped it so all the Batman's comics were just thought bubbles".

I do believe sometimes they serve a purpose to push the character into normal human progression, such as Jason Todd. However they ultimately are bothersome and take away from Batman.

With Dick its about Bruce trying to raise him right, to instill the same morals to him, arguing because they re different characters, etc, etc. Robin is Batman's son and successor. The only son he could ever have they way he leads his life. Robin isnt just there for Batman to discuss how he's going to stop the joker.

Because they argue, doesn't make them different. Robin as I have seen him is stale and contributes nothing. Also he does have a son now, thanks to the ridiculous stories that are being told (which are addressed later). What was wrong with Batman arguing with other heroes? Why does a side-kick help him?
The problem I see, is that Robin isn't a son and it is never addressed. He is just another vigilante. Why are there no stories of how Dick Grayson gave up the mantle and tried to be a lawyer? The character is stagnate being a batman wannabe.

God i hate stories like that.
"Somebody in gotham died, i wasnt everywhere at the same time, i must seclude myself further, i must cut down on eating, sleeping, peeing."
Batman is obsessed but he isnt stupid.

This is to each his own, I like the stories which are about the character as a human rather then what is expected of him. I like Ed Brubaker's and Bendis's Daredevil. I have more intrigue with a character who is flawed and coping with emotions that i can relate with. and not having to stop the universes from tearing itself asunder.

Sure there are stories like that, but non have been good. The allure of Batman to me has always been that he is human. Taking that away just makes him Iron man. Fighting magicians and traveling in time. This is how we differ on Batman though and what we feel makes a better batman. Ultimately it is not what we like, because it is both valid. It is up to the story and if it calls for it. As for the Nolan series, the reason why I would say there would be no Robin is because after Rachel I imagine him being quite reluctant to include people he loves.

Anyway, the point is that you can create many great stories with loner Batman but at some point, you have to introduce the people that have had a major effect in his life. Robin, Catwoman, and yeah, even Clark.

Batman has been around for 60 years (with countless issues each year) and all these realistic plots and themes you refer to have mostly been covered. There is nowhere else to take the character besides the unrealistic.
And yes, i find the current events very interesting since after 60 years of stories with Batman catching the bad guy, i get to see something new. In fact i get a glimpse of what would happen if Batman ever died, which they will never do, so that's a nice alternative.

Realistic plots have natural progressions, such as character abandoning hope. I want to see a Batman who gave up on Gotham. I want to see a Batman who kills. I want to see the Batman where "the ends justifies the means" I feel all this sci-fi stuff is jumping the shark. It is all a spectacle and a result of fan-fiction

MASSIVE SPOILERS

Prepare for your mind to be blown:

Spoiler

Dick is the goddamn Batman now. Bruce is lost somewhere in the past and Dick took his place because Gotham needs a Batman. Damian is his Robin while Tim has become Red Robin and left the batfamily in search for Bruce as he is the only one who thinks that Bruce is still alive. Basically Bruce is in the past, living one life after another as a punishment from Darkseid. In March they'll reveal exactly what Bruce is doing. Prepare for Pirate Batman, Hoplite Batman, Legionnaire Batman, etc. Its going to be awesome.

Discussing with other batfans, they informed of the following:
Before Final Crisis, Darkseid fell back through time from where he planned his attack, killed Orion and orchestrated the Final Crisis. Darkseid is also tied with the Black Glove, the organisation that messed with Bruce's mind before destroying him. Its implied that at some point he reached to the current time and created the Black Glove. He might have inhabited Dr Hurt. Also, by living throughout time, Darkseid has seeded humanity with evil, and rooted out any symbols of hope and good.

So Bruce who is living multiple lives in the past is trying to seed hope back into humanity by giving them symbols and heroes. He is carving symbols in caves, he does heroic deeds, etc. Basically the goddamn Batman is outdoing Jesus Christ!

Finally, the symbol of the Black Lanterns that just appeared in the DCU is implied to be a stylized version of the symbol of the Black Glove, so Darkseid is probably also responsible for the Black Lanterns as well.
Turns out, you dont **** with Darkseid. He ****s with you!

I'll have to catch up to all that to see for myself.

Now kneel before Grant Morrison and Goeff Johns who planned this many years ago and it still hasnt played out completely.

Not jumping the shark?

 

[Mr. Earle]

They serve a role if its important to the author. However I feel that Batmans progression was best realized without someone pointing it out. The character has become stagnet by making it a soap opera with unreasonable amounts of back up that take away from his insanity. For me the draw to Batman was that he was a hero that could easily be a super-villain. His motives, his actions all border on the insane. The side-kick I see it as just a vent. I believe one comic book writer wrote that. It was along the lines "Robin helped it so all the Batman's comics were just thought bubbles".

But Batman is still human in the comics. And no, batman is definitely no borderline villain. Maybe that's how you choose to view him, but it doesnt make it correct. In fact he is the one rubbing other people's mistakes in their faces as if he is infallible. He uses violence and extreme methods but he is no borderline villain, ergo he is no Rorschach.

Because they argue, doesn't make them different.

Bruce: Dark, sully, brooding, miserable, extremely focused, obsessive. Expert martial artist, detective and scientist. The goddamn Batman.
Dick: Lighter, focused on the mission but also having fun, enjoying life, being optimistic. Ladiesman. Expert acrobat and martial artist.
Jason: Angry, miserable, obnoxious, uncontrollable. Expert at nothing besides coming back from the dead after having his head bludgeoned with a crowbar.
Tim: Focused, a character that has dark and light in balance. He is darker than Dick but lighter than Bruce. Expert detective with Bruce himself stating that one day he would outdo him.
Damian: Son of a *****. Literally and metaphorically. Characterised by great anger, lack of manners and morality. Skilled fighter.

So, how are they same?

Robin as I have seen him is stale and contributes nothing.

Judging by this quote and by the previous one, i have to assume that you havent read enough Robin stories. How does he not contribute when Dick helped Bruce lighten up and find his balance? When recently Bruce looked back at his early years and was very fond of the fun adventures he had with Robin. He also took a new role, that of a father and mentor. Then when Dick left him his loneliness made him take in Jason, even though he later admits that Jason wasnt ready.
Also, after Jason's death Bruce has sworn never to take another kid in, but Tim forced him to do it because he felt that Batman needs a Robin in order to keep his balance. I suppose that those issues elaborated more on why he does need a Robin.
So how do the Robins not contribute anything?

Also he does have a son now, thanks to the ridiculous stories that are being told (which are addressed later).

Damian is his biological son, but he hardly knows him. Dick is his true son (and later so is Tim) who he has adopted and considers his heirs and children.

The problem I see, is that Robin isn't a son and it is never addressed. He is just another vigilante.

And now you are forcing me to assume that you ve read no robin issues.
1) Bruce adopted Dick. It was rough at first but they eventually developed a father-son relationship.
2) Tim's mother was still alive (IIRC) so he didnt need adopting, but at some point Bruce adopts him to show him his love (i assume that both his parents were dead at the time). Bruce said something like: "i would be honoured if you accepted" (to be adopted) and Tim said "i know, i love you too Bruce", while accepting.
3) Dick is treated by everyone in the DCU as Batman's son. When he is around Clark and Diana you always get the feeling that they are his uncle and ant.
4) Dick and Tim, now both adopted by Bruce are heirs to his fortune. Recently they were following a lead about a rich guy so they flew to Monaco acting as the little Waynes that they are to infiltrate the rich society there.
5) At some point, Bruce became too obsessive and was about to denounce his Wayne persona and become Batman full time. Dick (he wasnt even a kid, he was Nightwing at the time) burst into tears saying "You cant do that. Where is the man that raised me? He never existed?"

 

[terry78]

So basically, this will be the story that showcases why the Bat is indeed the most powerful character in DC Universe.

 

[Mr. Earle]

Why are there no stories of how Dick Grayson gave up the mantle and tried to be a lawyer? The character is stagnate being a batman wannabe.

Dick left Bruce at some point when he was getting too violent and dark (iirc that was the reason) and pursued his own fate as Nightwing in Bludhaven. Dick is his own man now, and while he feels he has the birthright to the mantle of the cowl, he didnt really want to become batman now that Bruce died. He eventually did so because Gotham needs a batman.

This is to each his own, I like the stories which are about the character as a human rather then what is expected of him. I like Ed Brubaker's and Bendis's Daredevil. I have more intrigue with a character who is flawed and coping with emotions that i can relate with. and not having to stop the universes from tearing itself asunder.

Sure there are stories like that, but non have been good. The allure of Batman to me has always been that he is human. Taking that away just makes him Iron man. Fighting magicians and traveling in time. This is how we differ on Batman though and what we feel makes a better batman. Ultimately it is not what we like, because it is both valid. It is up to the story and if it calls for it.

But Bruce is human in the comics, even in the most unrealistic stories. In fact he is the hero without superpowers proving that you can do anything if you set your mind to it.
And you obviously havent read Final Crisis (which i hate btw), where realising that he is about to die, he denounces his vow to his parents and uses a gun for the first and last time in his life, killing Darkseid. And before you rage (like all us fans did back then when we saw it), batman didnt shoot a man, he shot evil incarnate, the Satan of the DCU.

Then, all these grounded stories you refer to have been done to death over the 60 years of Batman's existence. How Batman affects the city, how each villain symbolizes something, how each villain affects Batman, how Batman deals with loss, with love, with friendship. So they could either take it to new grounds or reboot the mythos and start over. "Hey who is that guy dressed like a clown? Gee, i wonder how he will affect me and Gotham City".
During Morrison's Batman run, Dini was writing Detective Comics. Batman (the comicbook series) was full of Silver Age-ish plots, extravagant supervillains and gadgets, while Detective was more down to earth with (as the title states) detective stories. And reading these simultaneously you could see the difference. Morrison's Batman was a rainbow of exciting colours while Dini's Detective was one of the same Batman stuff: The villain terrorizes Gotham, i must solve the case to find him. AGAIN!
If you re new to Batman, or if you have touched only the movies and a few issues, its understandable if you only accept the realistic detective comics, but after reading a bit, you will love what Morrison has done.

As for the Nolan series, the reason why I would say there would be no Robin is because after Rachel I imagine him being quite reluctant to include people he loves.

You got a point there. Although the Joker approached Rachel because of Dent and not Bruce. And btw, i thought it was a stretch that he figured out Batman's feelings towards her only because he jumped out of the penthouse to save her since he would have done it for everyone. Isnt that how villains always escape? Throwing a citizen in harm's way so that the hero will get distracted?

 

[Mr. Earle]

Realistic plots have natural progressions, such as character abandoning hope. I want to see a Batman who gave up on Gotham. I want to see a Batman who kills. I want to see the Batman where "the ends justifies the means" I feel all this sci-fi stuff is jumping the shark. It is all a spectacle and a result of fan-fiction

Just because Batman isnt fighting the Joker and he is fighting Darkseid, it doesnt mean that his character development doesnt make sense (read above where i explain his character development during his last moments). Actually, during Morrison's run, which was clearly lighter in tone, the only outlandish villain he faced was Darkseid. So...

As for Batman killing people, i think that he would never do that. Alan Moore's Rorschach is what Batman would become in a realistic world, but in his franchise, this is the one law he wont break. The fact that he doesnt kill is the only reason the police tolerate his existence. Gordon himself stated in "Hush" that he would lead the manhunt if Batman ever killed. Then, it makes sense that he wouldnt kill because his whole crusade is about the preservation of life.
Not only that, but he isnt just a good fighter that took up crimefighting. His upbringing gave him a thick moral fibre and his years under various mentors gave him a strict moral code of justice.
When is about to beat the joker to death, its because he isnt thinking straight, and because his feelings have gotten the best of him. This is a line they would never cross because there is no going back from there. Batman's legacy would be tainted. The whole franchise would be tainted. You can kill Bruce and Batman will live on. But if Batman kills, its all over.

Not jumping the shark?

On the contrary, when Morrison got in charge of Batman and the wider DCU in general, both Batman and the other DC franchises have flourished. New and exciting tales, big events, unconventional stories and the reintroduction of old characters have freshened up the franchises.
Read the massive spoilers i posted some posts above, and you'll see how all these events have been carefully set up and prepared for years. Morrison took over batman 3 years ago and from the onset he started deconstructing him and preparing these major events that have yet to fully unfold now, after 3 whole years. Not just events in the bat books, but the wider DC universe. This is so grand, so brilliant, that you have to read for yourself to appreciate it.
Actually, you'll have to read a whole lot of Morrison's past work in the DCU to understand how he writes (his work is very complex) and what he writes about. For example Darkseid's Omega Sanction (which Bruce is subjected to) was explained in a Mister Miracle story.

 

[Mr. Earle]

So basically, this will be the story that showcases why the Bat is indeed the most powerful character in DC Universe.

You mean the events that are currently taking place in the bat comics and how he is sent to the past, etc?
He is not the most powerful character in the DCU. His feats are extraordinary but proportionate to his powers and abilities. Just like Lex is weaker than Brainiac but still a formidable foe, Batman is weaker than most of the heroes (since most of them have powers) but he is formidable due to his brain and his infinite resources.

 

[CaptainClown]

I'll respond to the rest of the posts later, but dear me I hate what Morrison has done with the DCU.

 

[CaptainClown]

I'll respond to the rest of the posts later, but dear me I hate what Morrison has done with the DCU.

 

[Mr. Earle]

I'll respond to the rest of the posts later, but dear me I hate what Morrison has done with the DCU.

I'm sorry, i wrote too much. t:
Dont judge Morrison's work without giving it a try.
Read the classic tales first. Stories like:
- Year One,
- Year Three (year two sucks)
- Killing Joke
- Man who laughs
- Batman and the Mad Monk
- Long Halloween
- Dark Victory
- Dark Knight Returns
- No man's land
- Knightfall
etc

Once you read the best of street level batman, you'll be fed up with grimdark. At that point you should be ready to give a read at Dini's Detective Comics and Morrison's Batman run (they were published simultaneously and have a few ties in story, especially involving Hush).
Also, give Morrison's JLA run a read. Its supposed to be one of the classics. I am about to start reading it. People say that its the ultimate series to convince you that Batman can work next to other heroes and fight alien threats convincingly. I already love Batman in the JL because of the animated show. t:

dear me I hate what Morrison has done with the DCU.

How can you hate on Batman taking on history itself? Its already confirmed that he'll be a caveman and a pirate. Who knows what else?
Take a look at the website in my signature. Its batman tweeting about his current place in time. Its hilarious!

 

[CaptainClown]

Oh I am well versed in Batman literature. However it is my preferences that have pushed me away from his convoluted mess they call a story. I have them all in my little shelf where i lend them out to people. However the black glove, rez of rahs, blah blha blha have all been AWFUL.

Also Knightfall was terrible and if you wanted to include some robin canon, How about Death in the Family?

I love alternate versions of Batman. My favorite is def terrorist Red Son Batman. I like them as separate stories, not intertwined "BATMAN STANDS FOR HOPE!" bull. I loved Whatever Happened to the Caped Crusader. If you are trying to say that I am unqualified to make statements you are surely mistaken, as posters in the bat forums could tell you.
You are arguing with my personal preference.

 

[terry78]

This Batman in time storyline is gonna be remembered as one of those weird ass comic stories that was viewed as weird even by comic standards.