Batman Returns The Official Batman Returns Thread - Part 4

The Batman is a perfectly fine batman show on its own, the problem is people kept comparing it to BTAS and that's where you see the divide.

Unfortunately that seems to be an issue with all post-BTAS Batman animated shows.

As much as I liked BTAS it's not like it can't be topped or matched. Then again I don't have the same unyielding nostalgia for that show as others do despite seeing it during it's original airings. For my money personally I'd take The Brave & The Bold over it but that's because it appeals more to my sensibilities especially as a greater (beyond Gotham) DC fan.
 
I thought THE BATMAN was pretty fun all things concerned. The design of Batman in particular, with that long flowing cape, was stunning and they knew how to create brilliant atmosphere.

I won't say it's underrated, but it definitely had some outstanding moments. Sadly, it's been almost completely forgotten.

2lxa60z.jpg


wqtso8.jpg
 
Dat theme by The Edge.
 
Since we're off topic anyway, I would really like a Batman cartoon drawn in the classic 1960's-1970's comic book style, with the same flat, primary colours. If anyone happens to remember the video for U2's theme song to Batman Forever, they'll know what I mean.
 
Since we're off topic anyway, I would really like a Batman cartoon drawn in the classic 1960's-1970's comic book style, with the same flat, primary colours. If anyone happens to remember the video for U2's theme song to Batman Forever, they'll know what I mean.

The closest thing to that would be Batman The Brave and the Bold (which is fantastic).

[YT]Mu_yazDpHWc[/YT]
 
Unfortunately that seems to be an issue with all post-BTAS Batman animated shows.

As much as I liked BTAS it's not like it can't be topped or matched. Then again I don't have the same unyielding nostalgia for that show as others do despite seeing it during it's original airings. For my money personally I'd take The Brave & The Bold over it but that's because it appeals more to my sensibilities especially as a greater (beyond Gotham) DC fan.

Well for some fans BTAS set the bar high. Even all the live action bat-movies get measured to it.
 
No prob. Pengy is my second fav Batman villain. He's been underrated for years, ironically it happened just after Returns, which should have boosted his popularity after being in a movie.

But he was absent for pretty much the next three years in the comics, even leaving him out of the whole Knightfall storyline, and then when they eventually brought him back it was as a boring casino owner.

Thankfully in the last few years he's been getting back on top again, with the comics (Penguin Pain and Prejudice in particular. Read it if you haven't already. Penguin is so scary in it), the Arkham games, and the Gotham TV show.

I don't ever recall him saying anything like that. It was obvious they were just trying to make Penguin look presentable as a candidate because his regular clothing was horrendous.

"Research tells us that voters like fingers" lol. I still want to know how she expect to get five fingered gloves on his flipper hands.

Oh The Batman cartoon. Sorry when people say the Batman animated show it usually means BTAS.

I can't stand that show, so if they tried to make Bruce and Penguin mirror images of each other, then I'll take your word for it. I couldn't watch more than a few episodes. Their ape looking barefoot straightjacket Joker was the last straw for me.

I'm back haha, sorry for the delayed answer.

So about the batman, I totally get you. It took me a little time to really appreciate this show, because of how ugly it looks. After a while, it didn't bother me that much. To this day, there are still some artistic choices that I'm not too fond of (reggae Joker or kung fu master penguin come to mind for instance), but I have a fondness for this show. It's really different from TAS, and it doesn't try to be the same thing. The first episode is a clear departure, with batman arresting Rupert Thorne in the first scene. What I like about it, is that even though it's not as serialized as beware the batman for instance, there is a real sense of growth. In the first season, bruce is not a rookie, but he's also not really a seasoned batman. But in the end, he's really really good at what he does, and you can totally believe he's part of the justice league. There is also all the sidekicks stuff, with barbare showing him he doesn't have to do everything alone, and later, Dick becoming his ward. There are some real character arcs, and they are well written, like their take on clayface, which is basically an adaptation of the killing joke (and like in the dark knight, the joker wins, because he has the good guy becoming a monster of sort). But my point was: in that show, they are also playing with the idea that the cobblepot family used to be wealthy. And it's not anymore. And oswald hates Bruce because of this. You can see how he wants to be an aristocrat, but he's really a dork, with no sense of what someone wealthy could do for others. He's the dude who wants to be rich and would do anything for that, including hurt people, when bruce is the dude who is rich, and would do anything with his wealth to protect people. One would give all his money to get his family back, and the other would give his famlily to be rich. The same thing can be said of oswald in Layman's tec run. He wanst to have his mother name on a plaque, not to honor her and what she represented for gotham, but because it's his name. And he would rather cheat and have Bruce killed to achieve this goal, than do everything in his power to honor her by decent means. So in that regards, I do think Oswald being from a wealthy family can make him a twisted mirror of bruce. But that's just me.

Let's get back to batman returns now. We have a Bruce Wayne who is basically a recluse. Granted, he sometimes go out for business, but it's obvious he's not comfortable with people, and he feels more like a weirdo than a society playboy. Also, most of the time, he's alone in his manor, waiting to go into action. On the other hand, you have oswald, who lives in the sewer, but has a family who lives with him. He may act like a freak once he's in society, but he does seem to appreciate being with other people, and in a sense, he's comfortable with others, and he has no trouble being himself, even though he's supposed to play the gentleman act. He's more than happy to play a role, when you can see Bruce would be more than happy not to have to play the bruce persona in public. Also, Bruce is playing the vigilante because he was traumatized when he was a child, and he wants to fight crime, in order to avoid other persons (and that includes specifically children) to suffer the same loss. On the other hand, Oswald was traumatized as a child, and as a result, he wants to get revenge on gotham's families, by taking their children. Also, like oswald said, it does seem, in this movie, that batman whishes he could be a freak, when Oswald has dreams of grandeur. and because of those dreams of grandeur (which he has in parts because his parents were wealthy) it allows Max to manipulate him into his scheme, which he does by playing with the aristocrat imagery, that includes the top hat and all.

What I like is also how fragile oswald really is, and how Max is the true monster in this story, even though he doesn't "wear a mask" and he's not a freak.

Also, I'm sorry, but english not being my language, it's not really easy to convey mi ideas in a convincing way.
 
The closest thing to that would be Batman The Brave and the Bold (which is fantastic).

[YT]Mu_yazDpHWc[/YT]

I can see why you draw that comparison, but it doesn't really correspond to what I am trying to articulate. BATB still has a very computerized look, and the designs have the same blocky, faintly Nintendo-ish look. The old U2 video captured the use of flat black ink, grainy bright colours, and scratchy penciled details very effectively.

I would love an animation that captured this kind of intensity:

norm_breyfogle_Batman_Gallery_pg02.jpg


I suspect it would put far too many demands on the animators, however.
 
speaking of which, Dc released a norm breyfogle legends of the dark knight collection.
 
Ooh, I have to get that! I came into Batman with the final issue of the Mudpack storyline. I think I was closer to seven than five, so it must have been second hand or a reprint. I recall that issue showed Batman having a really trippy psychological breakdown, featuring The Joker's murder of Robin. It left quite an impression.
 
:up: I currently have a small wall of unread books by my desk, not all of which are in English, so I can probably wait for a while to see if the price drops.
 
:up: I currently have a small wall of unread books by my desk, not all of which are in English, so I can probably wait for a while to see if the price drops.

I can state from my experience that those books price never drops. quite te contrary. That said, I'm planning to wait a few months before buying it myself, since I have other books to buy first. I will probably buy in february.
 
The Batman is a perfectly fine batman show on its own, the problem is people kept comparing it to BTAS and that's where you see the divide.

No, it's because people actually found it to be a poor show. If it was just because it didn't live up to BTAS standards, and no Batman animated show has, then the likes of Beware the Batman, and Batman Brave and the Bold would be as disliked as The Batman is, and as far as I know they're not.

I'm back haha, sorry for the delayed answer.

Better late than never :cwink:

So about the batman, I totally get you. It took me a little time to really appreciate this show, because of how ugly it looks. After a while, it didn't bother me that much. To this day, there are still some artistic choices that I'm not too fond of (reggae Joker or kung fu master penguin come to mind for instance), but I have a fondness for this show. It's really different from TAS, and it doesn't try to be the same thing. The first episode is a clear departure, with batman arresting Rupert Thorne in the first scene. What I like about it, is that even though it's not as serialized as beware the batman for instance, there is a real sense of growth. In the first season, bruce is not a rookie, but he's also not really a seasoned batman. But in the end, he's really really good at what he does, and you can totally believe he's part of the justice league. There is also all the sidekicks stuff, with barbare showing him he doesn't have to do everything alone, and later, Dick becoming his ward. There are some real character arcs, and they are well written, like their take on clayface, which is basically an adaptation of the killing joke (and like in the dark knight, the joker wins, because he has the good guy becoming a monster of sort). But my point was: in that show, they are also playing with the idea that the cobblepot family used to be wealthy. And it's not anymore. And oswald hates Bruce because of this. You can see how he wants to be an aristocrat, but he's really a dork, with no sense of what someone wealthy could do for others. He's the dude who wants to be rich and would do anything for that, including hurt people, when bruce is the dude who is rich, and would do anything with his wealth to protect people. One would give all his money to get his family back, and the other would give his famlily to be rich. The same thing can be said of oswald in Layman's tec run. He wanst to have his mother name on a plaque, not to honor her and what she represented for gotham, but because it's his name. And he would rather cheat and have Bruce killed to achieve this goal, than do everything in his power to honor her by decent means. So in that regards, I do think Oswald being from a wealthy family can make him a twisted mirror of bruce. But that's just me.

You can apply that kind of comparison to any villain with wealth. Batman has several wealthy villains, including the aforementioned Rupert Thorne, and they don't use their money for good, they just use it for crime. No different to this version of Oswald, or indeed the casino owner version of Oswald they came up with in the mid 90's in the comics. He's a wealthy man now, but he doesn't use it for good any more than this Batman cartoon version did, and the comics are not attempting to make him a mirror of Bruce Wayne.

I'm not telling you that you're wrong to view it that way. It's your choice. But I don't believe that is the intention of the writers for the character because the analogy is just too vague that any wealthy bad guy could be compared similarly.

Let's get back to batman returns now. We have a Bruce Wayne who is basically a recluse. Granted, he sometimes go out for business, but it's obvious he's not comfortable with people, and he feels more like a weirdo than a society playboy. Also, most of the time, he's alone in his manor, waiting to go into action. On the other hand, you have oswald, who lives in the sewer, but has a family who lives with him. He may act like a freak once he's in society, but he does seem to appreciate being with other people, and in a sense, he's comfortable with others, and he has no trouble being himself, even though he's supposed to play the gentleman act. He's more than happy to play a role, when you can see Bruce would be more than happy not to have to play the bruce persona in public. Also, Bruce is playing the vigilante because he was traumatized when he was a child, and he wants to fight crime, in order to avoid other persons (and that includes specifically children) to suffer the same loss. On the other hand, Oswald was traumatized as a child, and as a result, he wants to get revenge on gotham's families, by taking their children. Also, like oswald said, it does seem, in this movie, that batman whishes he could be a freak, when Oswald has dreams of grandeur. and because of those dreams of grandeur (which he has in parts because his parents were wealthy) it allows Max to manipulate him into his scheme, which he does by playing with the aristocrat imagery, that includes the top hat and all.

Oswald's public persona, acting like he likes being with Gotham's people in the movie is just an act. He's just conning people. "You gotta admit I played this stinking city like a harp from hell". That doesn't tell me he enjoys being with people, or even likes Gotham. So I don't agree with that aspect.

However I totally agree that their is an analogy/mirror image between him and Bruce in that they are both products of their parents. One is scarred by what happened to his parents, the other is scarred by his parents. That's why that great subtle line by Bruce "His parents....I hope he finds them" is Bruce empathizing with Oswald on a personal level because of the parents.

The two villains in this movie is like some twisted reflection of Batman's persona in some way. Penguin is the mentally scarred orphan, Catwoman is the angry masked vigilante. Again that's why Batman says to her they're the same at the end. He has a moment with both villains where he personally empathizes with them.

What I like is also how fragile oswald really is, and how Max is the true monster in this story, even though he doesn't "wear a mask" and he's not a freak.

I wouldn't call Oswald fragile. He's as cold and calculating as Schreck is. He just has a sad back story for what made him into a monster. But when all is said and done, he's still as evil as you can get. He doesn't care about finding his parents, it was just an act to get into the hall of records and get the first born sons names so he could murder them. He doesn't care about Gotham, that was just an act so he could get in power as Mayor. He wants to kill dozens of children, and then when that fails he tries to kill the whole city. He's a monster through and through.

Also, I'm sorry, but english not being my language, it's not really easy to convey mi ideas in a convincing way.

Honestly I'd never know English wasn't your first language. I've never had any trouble understanding your posts.
 
No, it's because people actually found it to be a poor show. If it was just because it didn't live up to BTAS standards, and no Batman animated show has, then the likes of Beware the Batman, and Batman Brave and the Bold would be as disliked as The Batman is, and as far as I know they're not.



Better late than never :cwink:



You can apply that kind of comparison to any villain with wealth. Batman has several wealthy villains, including the aforementioned Rupert Thorne, and they don't use their money for good, they just use it for crime. No different to this version of Oswald, or indeed the casino owner version of Oswald they came up with in the mid 90's in the comics. He's a wealthy man now, but he doesn't use it for good any more than this Batman cartoon version did, and the comics are not attempting to make him a mirror of Bruce Wayne.

I'm not telling you that you're wrong to view it that way. It's your choice. But I don't believe that is the intention of the writers for the character because the analogy is just too vague that any wealthy bad guy could be compared similarly.



Oswald's public persona, acting like he likes being with Gotham's people in the movie is just an act. He's just conning people. "You gotta admit I played this stinking city like a harp from hell". That doesn't tell me he enjoys being with people, or even likes Gotham. So I don't agree with that aspect.

However I totally agree that their is an analogy/mirror image between him and Bruce in that they are both products of their parents. One is scarred by what happened to his parents, the other is scarred by his parents. That's why that great subtle line by Bruce "His parents....I hope he finds them" is Bruce empathizing with Oswald on a personal level because of the parents.

The two villains in this movie is like some twisted reflection of Batman's persona in some way. Penguin is the mentally scarred orphan, Catwoman is the angry masked vigilante. Again that's why Batman says to her they're the same at the end. He has a moment with both villains where he personally empathizes with them.



I wouldn't call Oswald fragile. He's as cold and calculating as Schreck is. He just has a sad back story for what made him into a monster. But when all is said and done, he's still as evil as you can get. He doesn't care about finding his parents, it was just an act to get into the hall of records and get the first born sons names so he could murder them. He doesn't care about Gotham, that was just an act so he could get in power as Mayor. He wants to kill dozens of children, and then when that fails he tries to kill the whole city. He's a monster through and through.



Honestly I'd never know English wasn't your first language. I've never had any trouble understanding your posts.

haha, thank you, that's nice of you.

I think a lot of people were turned off by the batman designs, which I totally understand. Because of that,I think some people couldn't get into it at all. Had it look less ugly, I think some of them would like it better.

I don't think this analogy works with any rich man. What sets this oswald apart to me, is that while he does come from a wealthy family, he's very much a plebeian, and he suffers because of that. I do think he has fun when he fools the people of Gotham, because he thinks of himself as the most intelligent man in the room (when clearly he isn't, he is much more of a tool for Max). Basically, I think his anger, his rage, come not only from the fact that he's living in the sewer and is treated like a freak, but also from the fact that he thinks he deserves better, coming from a wealthy family. Him thinking he deserves all of this because of his family name sets him apart from other rich men imo. (I will admit You could argue Tommy Elliot became Hush because he thinks the waynes prevented him from getting what he deserves).

Bruce, on the other hand, doesn't act like he does because he thinks he deserves things, or because his family was wealthy. He acts like he does because he thinks people deserve not to suffer the same loss he encountered as a young boy. His wealth is just a mean in his war.

So one of them is being a crook because he thinks he deserves better things because of his lineage, while the other uses what he inherited from his lineage to help others, because he thinks they deserve better.

Like you said, I may be wrong to think this was the creative team intent, but I do see some parallels.

About Oswald being fragile: I think he's someone who suffers, and who acts out of pain (like bruce in a way), and that makes him a monster indeed. But he's really a pathetic freak who wants to be loved, because his parents never cared for him and abandoned him.
 
haha, thank you, that's nice of you.

Thanks, but I'm just being honest :)

I don't think this analogy works with any rich man. What sets this oswald apart to me, is that while he does come from a wealthy family, he's very much a plebeian, and he suffers because of that. I do think he has fun when he fools the people of Gotham, because he thinks of himself as the most intelligent man in the room (when clearly he isn't, he is much more of a tool for Max). Basically, I think his anger, his rage, come not only from the fact that he's living in the sewer and is treated like a freak, but also from the fact that he thinks he deserves better, coming from a wealthy family. Him thinking he deserves all of this because of his family name sets him apart from other rich men imo. (I will admit You could argue Tommy Elliot became Hush because he thinks the waynes prevented him from getting what he deserves).

Bruce, on the other hand, doesn't act like he does because he thinks he deserves things, or because his family was wealthy. He acts like he does because he thinks people deserve not to suffer the same loss he encountered as a young boy. His wealth is just a mean in his war.

So one of them is being a crook because he thinks he deserves better things because of his lineage, while the other uses what he inherited from his lineage to help others, because he thinks they deserve better.

Like you said, I may be wrong to think this was the creative team intent, but I do see some parallels.

About Oswald being fragile: I think he's someone who suffers, and who acts out of pain (like bruce in a way), and that makes him a monster indeed. But he's really a pathetic freak who wants to be loved, because his parents never cared for him and abandoned him

Oswald being a plebeian has nothing to do with him coming from a rich family. It's because he was thrown into the sewers as a child, and has pretty much grown up there, and as part of a freak show in a circus. That would have happened no matter what wealth, or lack thereof, his parents had. It's not something that is used to play into his character. He doesn't even know who his parents were until he gets into the hall of records, and he's already an evil s.o.b. by then who's turned the circus into his own personal crime gang. He also had a long history of killing children, as Bruce discovered with all the missing children that happened during the Red Triangle circus tenure in the past, and how Oswald vanished before the Cops could question him. The movie pretty much states he is what he is long before he knew about who is parents were.

The heritage of his family plays no significant part in his story. His anger comes from being rejected. Not because of his family wealth he was denied. He never acted like he deserved better because his folks had been wealthy. Even the whole running for Mayor thing wasn't his idea, it was Max who put that flea in his ear, and coaxed him into it by promising him things like unlimited poon tang lol.

Which brings me to your point about Oswald just wanting to be loved. I never got that impression off the character either. He makes no serious attempt to emotionally connect with anyone. He treats women like sexual objects. "I'd like to fill her void", "Just the ***** I've been looking for", "It's about touching people, groping people" etc. Bruce on the other hand doesn't have any of these issues or traits, or similar analogies to them. He and Oswald are apples and oranges in that regard. Their similarity is how they're both products of their parents in some way.

You mention Tommy Elliott, yeah they blatantly pushed him as an evil Bruce Wayne, even so far as to have him surgically change his face to look exactly like Bruce.
 
Last edited:
No, it's because people actually found it to be a poor show. If it was just because it didn't live up to BTAS standards, and no Batman animated show has, then the likes of Beware the Batman, and Batman Brave and the Bold would be as disliked as The Batman is, and as far as I know they're not.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. The show has a lot of great moments. People were expecting The Batman to be as good as BTAS because it was the next solo batman animated show. And to be fair people have trashed Brave and the Bold because it wasn't dark and serious and also Beware the Batman because it was CG and hallow.
 
Last edited:
We'll just have to agree to disagree. The show has a lot of great moments. People were expecting The Batman to be as good as BTAS because it was the next solo batman animated show. And to be fair people have trashed Brave and the Bold because it wasn't dark and serious and also Beware the Batman because it was CG and hallow.

People have trashed Nolan's movies for the Bat voice and being too "realistic", people have trashed Marvel's movies for too much humor and weak villains, people have trashed X-Men movies for focusing too much on Wolverine and having sloppy continuity issues etc. They're still all mega popular and much loved. Not that I'm calling Beware the Batman or Brave and the Bold mega popular, but they are not strongly disliked just because there was some criticisms about them. The Batman cartoon is like the Ultimate Spider-Man one. Followed in the footsteps of a fan favorite animated show based on a character, has sprinkles of good moments amongst a heap of rubbish, and is generally disliked by the fans not because it's not as good as the previous cartoon, but because it's just a bad show.

I'm sure there was/is people who put down The Batman cartoon because it wasn't as good as BTAS, but the bulk of the complaints I've seen for it are because of issues with the show itself, not because it wasn't BTAS v2.0.
 
Last edited:
The Batman cartoon is like the Ultimate Spider-Man one. Followed in the footsteps of a fan favorite animated show based on a character, has sprinkles of good moments amongst a heap of rubbish, and is generally disliked by the fans not because it's not as good as the previous cartoon, but because it's just a bad show.

I'm sure there was/is people who put down The Batman cartoon because it wasn't as good as BTAS, but the bulk of the complaints I've seen for it are because of issues with the show itself, not because it wasn't BTAS v2.0.


I'm not sure where the perception comes from that The Batman is a show that was/is strongly or generally disliked by fans, or if there's any hard evidence of this. You said yourself that you didn't watch more than a few episodes of The Batman, so I'm also not sure how you could make such a bold judgment of the show having "sprinkles of good moments amongst a heap of rubbish".

I think that it's more accurate and fair to say that the show didn't have a very strong investment from the Batman fanbase (no post-BTAS show really has in the same way), for a number of reasons. It was unabashedly more "kiddie" and cartoonish, clearly skewed towards a younger audience than that which comprises much of the die-hard Batman fanbase. The show didn't closely follow or mirror the canon/continuity of the comics, nor was its tone based on a specific Batman era like The Brave and the Bold. It also missed and came after what seemed to be the golden age of superhero animated television in terms of fan investment, when we were all avidly watching Saturday morning cartoons like BTAS, X-Men, and Spider-man. Beyond that, it came at a time before it was as easily accessible for fans to watch episodes online.

When all was said and done, though, it was still an award-winning show (nominated for 12 Daytime Emmys and won 6) that lasted for 5 seasons and evolved over time, had a seemingly popular DTV movie, and also a spin-off comic book series aimed at younger DC readers that lasted 50 issues.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure where the perception comes from that The Batman is a show that was/is strongly or generally disliked by fans, or if there's any hard evidence of this. You said yourself that you didn't watch more than a few episodes of The Batman, so I'm also not sure how you could make such a bold judgment of the show having "sprinkles of good moments amongst a heap of rubbish".

From the negative feedback the show gets from fans. Same way as I know the Ultimate Spider-Man cartoon has not improved even though I only watched the first few episodes of that and couldn't stomach any more. The negative feedback and reviews.

I think that it's more accurate and fair to say that the show didn't have a very strong investment from the Batman fanbase (no post-BTAS show really has in the same way), for a number of reasons. It was unabashedly more "kiddie" and cartoonish, clearly skewed towards a younger audience than that which comprises much of the die-hard Batman fanbase. The show didn't closely follow or mirror the canon/continuity of the comics, nor was its tone based on a specific Batman era like The Brave and the Bold. It also missed and came after what seemed to be the golden age of superhero animated television in terms of fan investment, when we were all avidly watching Saturday morning cartoons like BTAS, X-Men, and Spider-man.

Why is this more accurate? Are these reasons you've actually seen people say, or is this just a speculative opinion? For example The Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon came in the same era as The Batman cartoon, and is widely considered to be the best Spider-Man cartoon, and a stiff competitor to BTAS for best superhero based cartoon. That only lasted 2 seasons, and didn't get a bunch of technical Emmy noms. So I don't buy that era reasoning. If a show is good it will be liked. Doesn't matter when it comes out, or what continuity it follows. Making it more juvenile and kiddie can certainly hurt the quality of it.

When all was said and done, though, it was still an award-winning show (nominated for 12 Daytime Emmys and won 6) that lasted for 5 seasons and evolved over time, had a seemingly popular DTV movie, and also a spin-off comic book series aimed at younger DC readers that lasted 50 issues.

The Emmys it won were technical ones for sound editing and mixing. Compare that to BTAS (yeah I know that's funny considering the nature of this debate but it's strictly for analogy purposes), which won emmys for things like outstanding animated program, and outstanding writing in an animated program, which I think is much more impressive and speaks more about the quality of the show than ones for sound editing. I mean the crappiest of shows, and movies, too, can win tech awards like that.

Some of the poorest shows on TV have lasted for 5 seasons and more. And as for getting a spin off comic book, they make comic books out of just about anything nowadays. Especially if it's based on a popular superhero. It's called milking the brand. It will sell because it's Batman.
 
Last edited:
I think that the Penguin did want to find out who were his parents. It makes for a more complex character.
 
I think that the Penguin did want to find out who were his parents. It makes for a more complex character.

That's your only reason for believing it, because if it were true he'd be more complex?
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"