The Dark Knight Returns

[silentflute]

I think that was more an editorial decision than a creative one. The editors wanted to attract a younger audience so they dropped the gun and added Robin. Batman "not killing" never has been a moral decision, it's always been an editorial one. You can't have Batman killing off some of the most popular villians in comic books, that's bad for buisness.

Amen.

 

[silentflute]

Year One is in both the New Earth continuity and Frank Miller's continuity. I was using Year One as proof that Batman doesn't kill. Even Miller's Batman in Year One respects life.

This si absolutley the last time I'm going to acknowledge your statements.Learn to read and UNDERSTAND what I have written:I have never said he didn't respect life, what I said was that he is not beyond taking a life if it is absolutley necessary.Period.





Ask most people who read Batman extensively on what their favorite stories are. They are most likely going to say The Long Halloween, Dark Victory, The Killing Joke, The Dark Knight Returns, etc. Hell, The Long Halloween is getting an Absolute Edition just like The Dark Knight Returns because it is so respected. Absolute Editions are often given to what are considered to be great stories like The Dark Knight Returns, Crisis on Infinite Earths, the Watchment, New Frontier, and Kingdom Come.

Absolute Editions are more based on sales then on creative milestones.Not everything that gets a "treatment' is actually worth it.


The Crisis of Infinite Earths did not completely restart the continuity of the DC Universe. It made it more streamlined and revamped it into a combination of the continuities of Earth-1, Earth-2, Earth-4, Earth-S, and Earth-X. Wonder Woman's, Superman's, Power Girl's, Donna Troy's, and others histories were basically restarted. Batman's, the Flash's, Green Arrow's histories from Earth-1 were pretty much the same. Year One was a mere update and revamp of Batman's origin.

Tomato, Tomaato.DC and Marvel have to do this to create new audiences and try to negate anytrhing that was done prior if they feel it won't fit in.Now they do it by saying"it's elseworlds story".I can gaurantee you SON OF THE DEMON wasn't considered elsworlds at the time it came out.It's all bull**** at the end of the day.And the fanboys that try to keep up with it and live by it are idiots.Plain and simple.


You give Frank Miller way too much credit.

If I do, it's cuz he deserves it.He and Alan Moore didn't just update and revolutionize characters, they changed the face of an entitre INDUSTRY.


No you're acting like a jackass little kid who's crying because he's losing an arguement.

If you're too dumb to realize when you're the one that's losing and using continuity as you're bible, then so be it.


Nightwing is not a crap character. He is a sign of character progression of someone who can move beyond Batman.

Uhm yeah.And who cares exactly?He's not in the least bit interesting.


And just how am I acting like a fanboy? For having knowledge in DC continuity. That is not fanboyism, that's being a comic book nerd.

No, for being a slave to DC continuity.

 

[silentflute]

Not to defend him.[silentflute]

Perish forbid.



Now dont get me wrong I'm sure if Miller hadent done it some one else would have brought Batman back to life...

Not likely.It's easy to look back now and say "some woulda". That's like saying if Brando had not become an actor, someone woulda... Bottom line is that Miller was cutting edge and had the custo to give the character back his balls.

 

[hippie_hunter]

According to the Earth1-2 bull****.However, I'm not discussing these continuity symantics.We're talking about the character.Since he was born.He's a multi faceted jewel that can be interpreted in many different ways.Yes, within a particular framework(ie wayne manor, the batmobile , the batcave etc), but there is leeway there.Again, I'm not saying he's out to kill lia la the Punisher, but if given a choice between saving a child by killing a punk and not saving the child by not killing the punk, then the answer is obvious.And the whole "he could have done it without killing cuz he's Batman " argument doesn't hold up.

But continuity is an important part of Batman. Batman hasn't killed since 1940 for crying out loud!

Continuity controls your life doesn't it?

No, it's part of Batman's character. Batman is dead set against killing!

Exactly my point.Many different interpretations.So how do you justify the Batman in HUSH having once worn a rainbow colored suit?Oh yeah, earth 1-2 . My point is, it happened once it'll happen again.Trying to keep track of continuity will end up making you nuts.Better to follow interpretations by a writer than a whole history.

The Batman of Earth-1 was the one that had rainbow colored Batman suits. The modern Batman is Batman of New Earth. The Batman in Hush is the same as the Batman in New Earth.

Characters change based on WRITERS points of view.And if it sells, the n companies decide to keep it "in continuity".The Artists WILL ALWAYS BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CORPORATION.

Writers can't just simply do whatever the hell they want. Character bastardization is the worst thing you can do to a character. You can't just have the writer do whatever the hell he wants. That's the problem Marvel is having with Bendis. Marvel is allowing Bendis to do whatever the hell he wants. Yes, he does write a great Luke Cage. But we are seeing him bastardize characters like Spider-Man, Iron Man, Wolverine, the Sentry, Captain America, and Iron Man.

Yes he did.That mutant was toast and you know it.Again, he did draw the line about killing, but sometimes you do what you have to.

No, I'm right.

Yesterday, today.Will you listen to yourself?You sound ridiculous.I'll say it for the last time: THE CHARACTER IS A MULTI FACETED JEWEL THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED MANY WAYS.PERIOD.

BATMAN DOESN'T KILL! THAT IS NOT UP FOR INTERPRETATION!!!

That would prove nothing except that the recent writers have not had him kill.Their word is not law.

Batman hasn't killed in over 60 years for crying out loud. You can't say that recent writers have not had him kill. He's been doing that forever.

 

[CConn]

If you're too dumb to realize when you're the one that's losing and using continuity as you're bible, then so be it.

No, you're the one who's losing, actually.

And it amuses the hell out of me you still haven't been able to figure out how to use the quote feature. It's like watching a toddler try to shove a square peg into a round hole.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This si absolutley the last time I'm going to acknowledge your statements.Learn to read and UNDERSTAND what I have written:I have never said he didn't respect life, what I said was that he is not beyond taking a life if it is absolutley necessary.Period.

He doesn't kill god dammit

Absolute Editions are more based on sales then on creative milestones.Not everything that gets a "treatment' is actually worth it.

Kingdom Come, Crisis on Infinite Earths, the Watchmen, the Dark Knight Returns, the Authority, Sandman, and The Long Halloween are considered creative milestones. The only one that is based on sales is Hush.

Tomato, Tomaato.DC and Marvel have to do this to create new audiences and try to negate anytrhing that was done prior if they feel it won't fit in.Now they do it by saying"it's elseworlds story".I can gaurantee you SON OF THE DEMON wasn't considered elsworlds at the time it came out.It's all bull**** at the end of the day.And the fanboys that try to keep up with it and live by it are idiots.Plain and simple.

You're right that Son of the Demon was not considered an Elseworlds when it first came out, but DC took it out of continuity before it could make any impact.

Just because people like continuity, doesn't mean that they are a fanboy.

If I do, it's cuz he deserves it.He and Alan Moore didn't just update and revolutionize characters, they changed the face of an entitre INDUSTRY.

Yes, they did do that, but other people deserve credit also for influencing Batman's character.

If you're too dumb to realize when you're the one that's losing and using continuity as you're bible, then so be it.

I'm the one losing? You're the one who is resorting to insults that involve my parents for crying out loud. Your the one who goes off calling me a fanboy simply because I have knowledge in DC's continuity. You're the one who's using lame ass insults. Just tell me, how am I the one losing, when I am pointing everyone of your arguements wrong?

Uhm yeah.And who cares exactly?He's not in the least bit interesting.

Just because YOU don't like Nightwing, doesn't mean that the vast majority of comic book readers feel the same way. Most of us actually like character progression.

No, for being a slave to DC continuity.

I'm not being a slave to DC continuity. There is no way a person can be a slave to it. I will admit that I am indeed a lover of tight continuity. DC is the ones that are ones that are creating it and their continuity is proving you wrong.

 

[silentflute]

No, you're the one who's losing, actually.



And it amuses the hell out of me you still haven't been able to figure out how to use the quote feature.

I've already stated that it's my signature move.If you're still amused -Simple things for simple minds.Knock yourself out.


It's like watching a toddler try to shove a square peg into a round hole.

Hey , that's right up your alley then.

 

[silentflute]

You're right that Son of the Demon was not considered an Elseworlds when it first came out, but DC took it out of continuity before it could make any impact.

Before it made impact???That thing sold faster than hotcakes!!Please.




I'm the one losing? You're the one who is resorting to insults that involve my parents for crying out loud.

I seem to remeber you starting the name calling.If you're going to act like a child, then i'll treat you like one.


Your the one who goes off calling me a fanboy simply because I have knowledge in DC's continuity. You're the one who's using lame ass insults. Just tell me, how am I the one losing, when I am pointing everyone of your arguements wrong?

You're not pointing out my arguments are wrong.You're trying to prov ethat Batman doesn't kill.I happen to know that he has.Both in Kane's stories as well as in DKR.Whether or not those are in continuity according to DC or you, doesn't negate the fact that Batman(as interpreted by some writers) has indeed killed.


Just because YOU don't like Nightwing, doesn't mean that the vast majority of comic book readers feel the same way. Most of us actually like character progression.

No, you just happen to like lame characters.


I'm not being a slave to DC continuity. There is no way a person can be a slave to it.

Yes there is. And you prove it every time you post.

I will admit that I am indeed a lover of tight continuity. DC is the ones that are ones that are creating it and their continuity is proving you wrong.

Yet, they'll let Miller allow Batman to mow over a cop car??Oh , I forgot,It's "elseworlds"

 

[hippie_hunter]

Before it made impact???That thing sold faster than hotcakes!!Please.

Yes, DC took the story out of continuity before it could make any impact whatsoever on Batman's continuity.

I seem to remeber you starting the name calling.If you're going to act like a child, then i'll treat you like one.

I've called you a jackass and a twit because you've been acting one. You've been saying things that are clearly wrong, yet you keep insisting that you're right. You think that you are winning this arguement when everyone tells you that you are not. You're the one acting childish by using my parents as insults. You want to insult me, then insult me. Don't use my parents.

You're not pointing out my arguments are wrong.You're trying to prov ethat Batman doesn't kill.I happen to know that he has.Both in Kane's stories as well as in DKR.Whether or not those are in continuity according to DC or you, doesn't negate the fact that Batman(as interpreted by some writers) has indeed killed.

I have been proving your points wrong. Yes in the history of the character Batman has killed that is not up for debate. But the stories that Kane has done and Miller's Batman stories where Batman has killed are not even in continuity anymore. Just because Batman at one point in history has killed doesn't mean that he is willing to kill. The New Earth Batman is not willing to kill.

No, you just happen to like lame characters.

Want to take me up on that. Let's see who else in this thread thinks that Nightwing is a lame character.

Yes there is. And you prove it every time you post.

I know DC's continuity. I'm not the one that makes it up. What is in continuity is not up for debate.

Yet, they'll let Miller allow Batman to mow over a cop car??Oh , I forgot,It's "elseworlds"

That's the point of All-Star DC. It's basically the book where they will let the creators like Miller and Morrison and Hughes and Johns do whatever the hell they want, without being bounded to continuity. It's not an Elseworlds, it's All-Star. And obviously we are not getting good results from this. All-Star Batman and Robin has a reputation of being massively late due to both Miller and Lee. It has a reputation of being poorly written (yes there are people like you who do like it, but we are talking about the reputation of the book and right now, it has a rather poor one).

 

[Infinity9999x]

For one, he's not dismissing the continuity of the Golden age. We all know Batman killed in the Golden age, but you know what? That's not the same Batman that we have now. The Batman that killed ended up marrying Catwoman, had a daughter who became the Huntress, and ended up dying while protecting the city. So the Batman that did kill has been dead for a while.

According to the Earth1-2 bull****.However, I'm not discussing these continuity symantics.We're talking about the character.Since he was born.He's a multi faceted jewel that can be interpreted in many different ways.Yes, within a particular framework(ie wayne manor, the batmobile , the batcave etc), but there is leeway there.Again, I'm not saying he's out to kill lia la the Punisher, but if given a choice between saving a child by killing a punk and not saving the child by not killing the punk, then the answer is obvious.And the whole "he could have done it without killing cuz he's Batman " argument doesn't hold up.

The Batman we have now does not kill, that is unless of course you can find an example of where he did so. The best is the Son of the Deamon one, but that one's sketchy because no one knows how much of continuity it is.

Continuity controls your life doesn't it?

And, if you want to dismiss continuity, then not only has Batman killed, Batman has worn rainbow colored batsuits, was associated with the Bat-myte, and was tempted to go swimming with Robin and Superman in a spring full of young boys.

Exactly my point.Many different interpretations.So how do you justify the Batman in HUSH having once worn a rainbow colored suit?Oh yeah, earth 1-2 . My point is, it happened once it'll happen again.Trying to keep track of continuity will end up making you nuts.Better to follow interpretations by a writer than a whole history.

So yes, Batman has killed, in his past. Character's change, that's just how things work.

Characters change based on WRITERS points of view.And if it sells, the n companies decide to keep it "in continuity".The Artists WILL ALWAYS BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE CORPORATION.


Superman used to not be able to fly, but he flies now. Batman did kill, but he's been against it for a good many years now. Heck even in DKR, Batman says he drew a line against killing "thirty years ago." And at no point in DKR does it ever show Batman to clearly kill anybody.

Yes he did.That mutant was toast and you know it.Again, he did draw the line about killing, but sometimes you do what you have to.

You started out saying that Batman would kill, the fact is your wrong.

No, I'm right.

Today's Batman will not kill. If you said yesterday's Batman will kill, well then, that would be fine, because he did.

Yesterday, today.Will you listen to yourself?You sound ridiculous.I'll say it for the last time: THE CHARACTER IS A MULTI FACETED JEWEL THAT CAN BE INTERPRETED MANY WAYS.PERIOD.

And, like I stated in a post earlier, if you find an example of the recent Batman willing to kill someone, and actually do it, then I'll gracefully accept I was wrong.

That would prove nothing except that the recent writers have not had him kill.Their word is not law.

It's been more then simply recent. Batman hasn't killed in recent comics for THIRTY YEARS at the very least, and that's only if we're saying he wanted to kill that guy in Son of the Deamon.

And not really no, I do not sound ridiculous, because when a character hasn't killed in at least thiry years, then it would make sense to say he only killed in the past, because that's the last time he has.

The fact is, Batman is against killing. He's stated OPENLY that he's against killing in the comics. So I really can't understand how you continue this argument.

Better to follow interpretations by a writer than a whole history.

Well, if I'm using you're logic here, Batman killed in his comics for only about the first year of his introduction. After that he didn't kill, so that's roughly 67 years of not killing. Oh, unless we coun't Son of the Deamon, and I'll be generous and give that a year. So that's 67 years of not killing.

I think the interpretations of most of the writers say Batman DOESN'T kill. Like I said in the post above, even Miller had him state that he would not kill.

You're not pointing out my arguments are wrong.You're trying to prov ethat Batman doesn't kill.I happen to know that he has.Both in Kane's stories as well as in DKR.

Alright...listen, we don't know the other mutant was toast. It did not show him die so we don't know he died, plain and simple. We can say we think he lived, or he died, but the fact is, and there is no way you can argue with this, is WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM. He could have died, or he could have lived to be 75 and have 30 grandchildren. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. So you can't say that he killed in DKR for sure, because you don't know. You can say you think he did, but none of us can be sure if he did or didn't kill anyone in DKR.

 

[souloffire]

It's been more then simply recent. Batman hasn't killed in recent comics for THIRTY YEARS at the very least, and that's only if we're saying he wanted to kill that guy in Son of the Deamon.

And not really no, I do not sound ridiculous, because when a character hasn't killed in at least thiry years, then it would make sense to say he only killed in the past, because that's the last time he has.

The fact is, Batman is against killing. He's stated OPENLY that he's against killing in the comics. So I really can't understand how you continue this argument.

Batman is a comic character, the reason he's against killing is because DC said so. You can't debate the morals of characters that are prohibited from doing certain things by the publishers. I'm sure in Batman's 60 + years in comics a writer wanted Batman to kill and was told "no you can't do that" by DC.

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Yes, DC took the story out of continuity before it could make any impact whatsoever on Batman's continuity.

This is true...However the impact the DC was concerened about was that Batman might be veiwed as a Deadbeat-Dad and not a killer.For some reason the whole killing thing went un-noticed by the heads at DC.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Batman is a comic character, the reason he's against killing is because DC said so. You can't debate the morals of characters that are prohibited from doing certain things by the publishers. I'm sure in Batman's 60 + years in comics a writer wanted Batman to kill and was told "no you can't do that" by DC.

Originally, it was DC mandate that Batman does not kill. In those days, killing, drugs, vampirism, etc. were not allowed. But now we are in the days of comics where seeing mass murder, rape, drugs, swear words, politics, etc. are acceptable.

These days it's most likely not DC saying that Batman can't kill. It's probally the writers who both respect the character and fear the backlash of many fans if Batman did kill.

Batman is one of the few heroes that has not killed. He should remain "pure" like that.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Batman is a comic character, the reason he's against killing is because DC said so. You can't debate the morals of characters that are prohibited from doing certain things by the publishers. I'm sure in Batman's 60 + years in comics a writer wanted Batman to kill and was told "no you can't do that" by DC.

That may be, but the fact is, Batman has been against killing for years, and hasn't killed anybody for around 60. I'm not debating anything. If DC says Batman doesn't want to kill then he doesn't, because DC is what makes Batman.

 

[hippie_hunter]

This is true...However the impact the DC was concerened about was that Batman might be veiwed as a Deadbeat-Dad and not a killer.For some reason the whole killing thing went un-noticed by the heads at DC.

Yet they let Green Arrow be a deadbeat dad

 

[CConn]

I've already stated that it's my signature move.If you're still amused -Simple things for simple minds.Knock yourself out.

That's like having your signature move be a giant L on your forehead. Which - you guessed it - I find hilarious.

Hey , that's right up your alley then.

Yeah. I'm a baby enthusiast.

 

[souloffire]

There is only one reason Batman does not kill and this is it $$$$. Batman does not kill beause his rouges gallery is more popular than most superheroes. I happen to like most of his villians so I'm glad he doesn't kill them. Batman is a buisness plain and simple. If this was real life everybody would say "Every time Batman captures the Joker he escapes and kills a bunch of people, why doesn't he get it over with and throw a bat-a-rang through his ****ing head." But that would be a poor business decision so the editors came up with the moral code to explain this. Like I said I don't want Batman to start wacking his entire rouges gallery I just wanted to make clear that it's a business decision and not some "high moral code".

 

[sto_vo_kor_2000]

Yet they let Green Arrow be a deadbeat dad

Dont quote me because I'm not sure about this but Son of the demon came out in 1987 and the story's about Green Arrow being a deadbeat dad came out around 1992.See the think about comic story telling is that the publisher's somtime worry about polictcal back lash...and Regan was still in office and their wasnt as much trach tv talk show around back then.But by the early 90's we had Cliton in office and so much BABY MAMA DRAMA on tv that being a deadbeat dad was not so much of a big deal anymore.Also at the time Green Arrow wasjust coming back up in the world of comic's and the storys writen at the time were not intended to be part of the rest of DC universe continuity.Also you cant compair the posibale back lash of a charther like Batman being viewed as a deadbeat dad to Green Arrow being viewed the same way.For money reasons alone they had to safeguard Bat's rep more then GA's...remember Batman had a few movies on the way and GA was having troble keeping his book from being canceled.

P.S.I dont know how many of you guys remember how the media reacted to Ketons BM getting laid in the first movie.Where I lived parent groups tryed to start boycots against the movie being played early in the day.crazy stuff

 

[CConn]

There is only one reason Batman does not kill and this is it $$$$. Batman does not kill beause his rouges gallery is more popular than most superheroes. I happen to like most of his villians so I'm glad he doesn't kill them. Batman is a buisness plain and simple. If this was real life everybody would say "Every time Batman captures the Joker he escapes and kills a bunch of people, why doesn't he get it over with and throw a bat-a-rang through his ****ing head." But that would be a poor business decision so the editors came up with the moral code to explain this. Like I said I don't want Batman to start wacking his entire rouges gallery I just wanted to make clear that it's a business decision and not some "high moral code".

Well, there's also the fact that 99% of superheroes (from both DC and Marvel) don't kill, and if Batman went Punisher, he'd have to, well, go Punisher; no other heroes like him, he'd be pretty much completely and totally alone...like the Punisher is.

 

[Cobblepot]

I would really mind that. It would make Batman a real loner.
I don't want him to be a ruthless killer like Frank, just one who kills if there's no other way.

 

[silentflute]

just one who kills if there's no other way.

Cobblepot, that is in fact the way Miller writes him.He certaiinly doesn't portray him as a ruthless killer.

 

[silentflute]

That's like having your signature move be a giant L on your forehead.

Uhm no.I wouldn't steal your thunder by aping your trademark.




Which - you guessed it - I find hilarious.

Gald to see you don't take yourself seriously.


Yeah. I'm a baby enthusiast.

No, you're just a baby that ocassionally needs his diapers changed.

 

[Cobblepot]

Cobblepot, that is in fact the way Miller writes him.He certaiinly doesn't portray him as a ruthless killer.

I know, that's how I like Batman best.
All this non killing makes him look weak...

 

[silentflute]

The fact is, Batman is against killing. He's stated OPENLY that he's against killing in the comics. So I really can't understand how you continue this argument.

I'm not debating that he is against killing, I'm debating that he's not beyond killing.How is it that you are not understanding this???

Well, if I'm using you're logic here, Batman killed in his comics for only about the first year of his introduction. After that he didn't kill, so that's roughly 67 years of not killing. Oh, unless we coun't Son of the Deamon, and I'll be generous and give that a year. So that's 67 years of not killing.

Again, see above answer.


I think the interpretations of most of the writers say Batman DOESN'T kill. Like I said in the post above, even Miller had him state that he would not kill.

Like I have said REPEATEDLY:HE PREFERS NOT TO KILL.If push comes to shove and he has to ( ie to save an innocent person) then I'm sure he would.



Alright...listen, we don't know the other mutant was toast. It did not show him die so we don't know he died, plain and simple.

Hmmm.Are you in denial?The man was shot point blank with a machine gun and went through a window that was at least 3 stories up.And you need proof?


We can say we think he lived, or he died, but the fact is, and there is no way you can argue with this, is WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM.
He could have died, or he could have lived to be 75 and have 30 grandchildren. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. So you can't say that he killed in DKR for sure, because you don't know. You can say you think he did, but none of us can be sure if he did or didn't kill anyone in DKR.

Ok

 

[silentflute]

I know, that's how I like Batman best.
All this non killing makes him look weak...

These guys have this idea that I'm saying he loves to kill.In fact, I've said the exact opposite.This is what happens when folks don't actually comprehend what they are reading.